reply to post by TarzanBeta
What you have described is your senses interacting with each other. Sure taste and smell go hand in hand, but that is only most of the time. What
about when you have a cold and your nose is all clogged up? You can still taste things when you eat them. Sure the taste is diluted, but it is there
none the less.
Again you mention balance and sight. If what you said was completely true then blind people wouldn't be able to walk around without becoming dizzy
all the time.
I understand that different senses have to work together to make an experience work many times you are unaware of the senses even functioning, you are
just reacting. However that doesn't mean you have one sense. Think of it like a computer. There are many different types of input devices and
monitoring processes that go into a computer. When navigating a webpage, you may use a combination of your keyboard and mouse to get from place to
place, but even though the navigation is utilizing two input devices, you don't call it one input. In fact if you look at the programming level,
you'd see that there are two input streams being ran there. The same is true for a person. This is why the human brain is compared to a computer a
Your brain doesn't interact with itself. Information is interpreted as it is run through the brain's filters. But it's all in the mind; one
Blind people do have a hard time developing balance. But when they do, that simply means they have mastered an aspect of that form of interpretation.
But those that became blind and were not born blind, they -do- have a hard time learning to balance. Sound can be a very tricky creature until you
become extremely familiar with how echo works and how the doppler effect works, and the like. And if one is blind and deaf, then further still, they
may still have physically feeling. And if they have that, then they become an even greater master of that method of interpretation.
These days, computers are certainly a little more intuitive than they used to be. And these days, I plug my mouse and my keyboard both into the same
Two inputs, two interpretive devices (for accomplishing the exact same tasks mind you; the mouse was not a requirement, but a luxury add on that made
things more efficient) - and yet the signals are processed in the exact same way. As for the analogy of the keyboard and mouse, I think that it
proves my point further. But I think our interpretive devices are even more segregated than the keyboard and the mouse, and yet I still understand
that they all report to the same authority. That authority is the decider. That is the sense. For without an authority, whether it be by leadership
or whether it be by the understanding of one's own nature (knowing one's own limits; as it is written, behold, the locusts have no leader, and yet
they move together from place to place...), there is certainly no sense.
The human brain is compared to a computer, and in some ways, this is okay... but mostly it is not.
The human functions are so incredibly complex. There is an aspect that computers, as long as they are inorganic, will never possess; and that is
intuition. Though I also think that organic does not necessarily have to be natural or even physical. I refer to the conscience whose seat cannot be
found by the likes of men, but has been sought, debated, and stipulated by all the great minds -- to absolutely no avail. For it if were to be found,
then men would have died long ago, having knowledge of how to move it by force.
But a computer is just a tool. And the body is a tool. But that which animates the body is not a tool, but is the very essence of life and
Now that very essence of life and understanding does not interpret as the body does; for it discerns all things from one stimulus factor. And that
stimulus factor is the mind, seemingly contained within processes of the brain. And all energy that passes through the brain is the same energy.
Just like all energy that passes through your computer is the same energy; it comes out of the wall, or so it seems. It is all the same.
And it is that energy that keeps us alive, and yet also, provides understanding and insight into all of the things which the brain interprets from its
sense of the body's reports of various data, acquired by its various methods.
The data and the methods are various. They are interpretive. There can only be one sense.
There is a right answer and there is a wrong answer.
If I hand you an apple, and I say, "What did I just put into your hand?" And you say, "An orange." Then you are wrong.
If you say, "An apple." Then you are right. That is the bottom line. That is one sense. You are unified. You have understanding. That is what
is called "common sense".
Some say we should have been built like birds, or like beasts, or like ants, or like grasshoppers, or like many other things; dogs, cats, and the
like. But the fact is that each of these creatures do not have balanced communication. Some see greater, hear greater, and see less and hear less.
Their method of smell isn't even always the same; whereas in some it seems almost intuitive because of the minuteness of the particles required to
create the smell - but in some, they are so small, that they examine the textures -by a completely different method- for example, Praying mantis',
and ants, and much smaller creatures at that. And yet we say, "That is our equivalent of smell."
But that is just another way of saying that the method by which they interpret textures in various dimensions (because smell is based on microtextures
and taste is based upon macrotextures, or textures that relate more to our dimension of "size", so to speak) is completely different from our own,
but it processes the same kind of information.
Technically, according to your understanding, that would just mean they have a completely different sense that we do not have.
Which makes no sense.
And therefore, that's not sense.
We cannot be right about something and at the same time be wrong about something. We are either right or wrong. This is one sense. You cannot say,
"It smells like fresh cut grass, so it must be fresh cut grass." And then find out that it is burning paper. You did not use your sense. You made
an assumption based upon limited information. And that's okay, but that does not make you any less wrong.
So therefore, your sense was betrayed. Communication was broken down because one stimulus said one thing, and another said a different thing. This
is not sense. This is what we call a lack of sense.
That's the point.
It shouldn't take so many words to express what I am able to discern in a matter of a few seconds, if not less. But I see so many various angles by
which one might justify this faulty understanding that I believe is part of a growing problem to cause people to dive deep into an ocean with silly
assumptions. Ideas are very good. But it is almost always a bad idea to make something more complex than to understand it for what it is.
Those that work logic speak well when they say that the point of mathematics is to bring an equation down to its simplest form, so that it may be
understood. To create problems, we re-complicate things.
That's how they make tests.