"Does it feel reliable?" she asked. "Bees have very weak vision, but they can see infrared rays that we humans can't. The squid's vision is also very weak, but it can see infrared rays that we humans can't see. The bat could barely see anything, but it could hear the echo of its own ultrasonic waves reflected on objects, and use it to find food and avoid obstacles. What was the world like in the eyes of these animals?
Imagine what the world would be like in the eyes of a blind man who was born blind. Of course, there was no light or color in this world, and there were certainly no shaped objects. To him, the so-called shape could only be a few subtle sensations left on his hands. He judged the direction based on the sounds he heard and the obstacles he touched, so the space in his mind was only made up of some auditory and touch impressions. Those of us who have eyes, even if we close our eyes tightly and try to imagine the world in the mind of a blind person, find it extremely difficult to completely exclude visual impressions. It was hard for us to imagine a world without an image.
Perhaps you would say that the senses of animals are too low, and the senses of blind people are defective, so they can't perceive the true colors of the world. However, normal people like us who have complete senses can do this. Was that really the case? What right do you have to say that our senses are complete? For example, if our eyes could distinguish between infrared and infrared rays, we would see more colors. By this measure, we are all colorblind to a certain extent. If we had a sixth sense besides the ears, nose, mouth, tongue, and body, we would find that the world has more qualities. By this measure, we are all born disabled to a certain extent. Moreover, science had already proven that there was no such thing as color in the world. There were only light waves of different frequencies and frequencies. Color was the feeling produced by light waves acting on the visual organs. There was no such thing as sound in the world. There was only the vibration of the air. Sound was the feeling produced by the vibration of the air acting on the auditory organ. There was no such thing as temperature in the world. There was only the movement of molecules, and temperature was the feeling produced by the movement of molecules acting on the sensory organs. There was no such thing as smell or taste in the world. There were only different types of smells. Scent was a feeling produced by certain types of molecules acting on the olfactory and gustatory organs. In short, the world with color, sound, temperature, and smell is not the original appearance of the world. Its existence depends on our sensory organs. If human sensory organs have another structure, the world we perceive will be different.
Perhaps you would say that even so, the world we observe through scientific instruments should be the true face of the world. However, don't forget that instruments are just an extension of human sensory organs. The light waves, molecular structures, and so on measured by instruments still have to be seen with the eyes. Why should we believe that they won't be changed by our visual impression? In fact, the naming of the particles had already proved this point. Weren't the so-called " waves " and " particles " a description based on visual impressions?
In fact, almost since the birth of philosophy, there have been philosophers who have expressed doubts about the reliability of feelings. However, there was a difference in the degree of suspicion between them. Most of them admit that feelings are always caused by external causes, but we cannot know what these external causes look like, or whether our feelings correspond to them, because we cannot feel the relationship between the two and cannot compare them. The second group went the furthest. Since you can't feel the relationship between your feelings and the external cause, how can you know that the external cause exists? Therefore, this external reason does not exist. The only thing that exists is your feelings. This was the idea of the 18th century British philosopher, Clay. The third type of people found that this inference was flawed. They could not infer that there was no external cause without knowing whether it existed or not, so they took a step back and advocated not to discuss whether there was an external world outside of the feeling, because we had nothing but the feeling and would never have a basis to judge. This was Hume's opinion. This view was the most logical. However, Hume admitted that in real life, We must also assume the existence of the outside world, or we will not be able to move an inch.”"Perception?" " Being is perceived." This was a well-known proposition proposed by Clay. In order to understand the meaning of this proposition, let's assume that the philosopher is still alive and let him have a conversation with us.
There's an apple in front of you right now. You can see it, you can touch it. Does this apple exist?
Answer: Yes.
Beckley: What makes you think it exists?
A: Because I clearly saw it and touched it.
Beckley: That is to say, it is perceived by you. Now, close your eyes and put your hand in your pocket. You can't see or touch the apple anymore. Let me ask you again, does it exist now?
Answer: Yes.
Beckley: Now you don't see it, you don't touch it, why do you say it exists?
A: Because I have just seen it and touched it. I believe that if I open my eyes and stretch out my hand, I can still see it and touch it.
Beckley: That is to say, you believe that it still exists because it was perceived by you just now, which makes you believe that it can still be perceived by you if you want to. Now suppose that there is an apple far away from you. You will never see it or touch it. Does it exist?
A: It exists because people in that place can see it and touch it.
Beckley: What if it's a primeval forest with no people, and the apple is a wild apple, and no one sees it until it rots?
A. But we can imagine that if there were people there, they would definitely be able to see it.
Beckley: Well, now we can sum up. When we say that something exists, it means that we can sense it. Even when we imagine that there is something that we have never perceived, we are actually imagining that it is somehow perceived by us. We cannot separate existence from being perceived, nor can we imagine existence without being perceived. From this, it could be seen that existence and being perceived were the same thing. Existence was being perceived.
At this point in the conversation, inexperienced readers might be confused, but experienced readers might raise a retort: Although we cannot imagine our existence without being perceived, this does not prove that existence and being perceived are the same thing. Something must first exist before it could be perceived. For example, the existence of an apple was the cause, and its perception was the effect. The two could not be confused. However, in response to this refutation, Clay would ask you what you meant by "existence". When you talk about the "existence" of this apple, don't you see the shape, color, fragrance, and so on of this apple in your mind? The so-called "existence" is nothing more than the appearance of its perceivable properties in your mind, and thus refers to its perception? Then, wasn't its "existence" the same as being perceived? How could there be a difference between cause and effect?”(Author: I'm the commentator now, hehe)
This book comes from：m.funovel.com。