Re: Do you agree...
The extra sense is a sense that invests a sense in us to think about senseless, does it make any sense?. There must be some core to your belief of having more than the five senses as source of our knowledge. Are you suggesting that power of “reasoning” is one of them?
I guess I am suggesting that one's power of rationality is one of the tools to acquire knowledge, yes.
Re: Do you agree...
I guess I am suggesting that one's power of rationality is one of the tools to acquire knowledge, yes.
My rationale is that we can not think about anything that we can not perceive with our senses. The power of rationality is nothing but the inference among old references.
Re: Do you agree...
intellect has very little to do with the senses.
The accumulated, refined and filtered knowledge that we acquire from our basic senses help to develop and furnish intellect
Re: Do you agree...
My rationale is that we can not think about anything that we can not perceive with our senses. The power of rationality is nothing but the inference among old references.
I completely agree with you. But there are certain innate traits within humans that have nothing to do with senses. Like our basic instinct of survival. I'm also quite certain that you already aware of the Socratein proof of rationalism that proved the knowledge of geometry (the Pythagorean theorem to be exact) that a completely uneducated boy possessed. You have to concede that there is more to knowledge than just the senses. The primary reason being that if you are an absolute empiricist, there is no where you can go with it. Heck, even David Hume had to concede that there are certain things that the senses cannot account for. In addition, Hume was also a huge skeptic where as I prefer to think that there is indeed a world out there that exists outside of my perception.
Re: Do you agree...
no, intelliphant,
this has to do with your innner purity of conscience.
and that is the key to feeling anything.
no one, even the most insensitive person, cannoyt run away from her/his conscience.
senses only help store long term memory as its cues are codified in the senses. yet, the whole episodic memory event is able to lit the particular brain parts, where memory affect the most and which are thought to hold memory related functions.
that is what enables one to try in her/his best to undo what wrongs s/he did... or not attempt to correct them.
best,
Dushwari
In other words we can imagine about a thing which we can not conceive with our five senses . Does it mean that idea of time travel could still have been thought about if human beings had no perception of the time, past or future? Whenever I think about most beautiful thing, my power to infer suggests me to compare the thing being thought about to one that I have already perceived as most beautiful. Its true that human beings in today’s civilization are much more intelligent than their ancestors in the stone age, is it due to the reason that we have started imagining things that we could not imagine at that time, or is it due to existence of a better system to retain experiences?
Re: Do you agree...
My rationale is that we can not think about anything that we can not perceive with our senses. The power of rationality is nothing but the inference among old references.
Peace IntelliPhant
Which sense do we use when we think about 7 + 4 = 11 ??
You are right that we need sense, but intelligence is not limited to sense it is based on it ... Let me explain ..
Sense object A and sense object B ...
Flower - colour and scent
Flower colour = object A
Flower scent = object B
Intelligent object C is the object that associates Sense object A with Sense object B.
In another scenario we have acquired Intelligent object D which enables the analysis of various instances of object C.
What I am getting at is that intelligence is built on sense but not limited to it.
Where did Intelligent object C or object D come from? They would need to be there in the first place for us to be able to arrive at the answers above. If they are there what enables them to be used correctly?
Intelligence and the ability of it has to be linked to the source of provision. i.e. God ... we are inspired all the time to think ...
Adam (AS) was taught the Names of things by God ... this is essential for programming we need to declare our functions, variables and constants. It is our ability to name and assoiciate that makes us special before angels according to the Islamic faith. Just a few thoughts!
Re: Do you agree...
The accumulated, refined and filtered knowledge that we acquire from our basic senses help to develop and furnish intellect
yes - but they are inputs but not the only inputs to an intellect.
two people receiving exact same sensory perceptions can conclude very differently
By the way, what did you have in mind as the sixth sense? may be that is the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying. For example there is a concept that the sixth sense is the sense of discrimination (between good and bad presumably) - if this is what you meant then I am with yoy most;y but I still think there are a few other things that bound intelligence (- at least the perceivable part of intelligence!)
Re: Do you agree...
yes - but they are inputs but not the only inputs to an intellect.
two people receiving exact same sensory perceptions can conclude very differently
By the way, what did you have in mind as the sixth sense? may be that is the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying. For example there is a concept that the sixth sense is the sense of discrimination (between good and bad presumably) - if this is what you meant then I am with yoy most;y but I still think there are a few other things that bound intelligence (- at least the perceivable part of intelligence!)
Discriminating right from wrong is merely a process of reaching a conviction within the closed loops of your own bias and has a very little to do with the sixth sense, unless the process includes intuition or divinity. The fact of two people reaching at different conclusion of the same sensory perception is only inference
Re: Do you agree...
inference based on what?
senses or ilhaam?
intuition or instincts?
you can rid feelings and the tactile from thoughtful rational or abstract.
best,
Dushwari
Re: Do you agree...
inference based on what? senses or ilhaam? intuition or instincts?
you can rid feelings and the tactile from thoughtful rational or abstract.
best,
Dushwari
Inference based on acquired knowledge which may include all or any that you have mentioned. I will intentionally exclude divinity.
Re: Do you agree...
Peace All
Intelligence can also be described as an ability to find patterns in and from things.
Some 'things' are real and apparent which are thus acquired by our senses
Some 'things' are real and hidden which are what we do that is unknown to us. Instincts may fall into this category.
How does extrapolation differ from interpolation? When we think 'outside' the box does that not infer that we have intelligently surpassed the confines of our known senses?
How about making a decision on faith is that not an ability of intelligence beyond our senses?
Re: Do you agree...
Peace IntelliPhant
Which sense do we use when we think about 7 + 4 = 11 ??
You are right that we need sense, but intelligence is not limited to sense it is based on it ... Let me explain ..
Sense object A and sense object B ...
Flower - colour and scent
Flower colour = object A Flower scent = object B
Intelligent object C is the object that associates Sense object A with Sense object B.
In another scenario we have acquired Intelligent object D which enables the analysis of various instances of object C.
What I am getting at is that intelligence is built on sense but not limited to it.
Where did Intelligent object C or object D come from? They would need to be there in the first place for us to be able to arrive at the answers above. If they are there what enables them to be used correctly?
Intelligence and the ability of it has to be linked to the source of provision. i.e. God ... we are inspired all the time to think ...
Adam (AS) was taught the Names of things by God ... this is essential for programming we need to declare our functions, variables and constants. It is our ability to name and assoiciate that makes us special before angels according to the Islamic faith. Just a few thoughts!
Thank you very for your thoughts, your point of view is interesting and fortunately is complementing my argument rather than negating it. Think about numbers, they represent an advanced form of an early sensory perception of things in quantity. In post stone age when human being started raising cattle, they used to compare number of cattle heads with number of stones, a need was realized to somehow “invent” something to be representative of quantity. Your second example is yet another ostensible proof that human being can not think of an unthinkable unless the unthinkable has already been perceived as a physical or a logical entity. Object A, in your second example, inherited the knowledge of color, and object B inherited the information about scent, you did nothing but induced acquired knowledge of two objects into a third one. Let’s do some reverse engineering, let’s define object A , and B as null values, and let’s not compare “null” to be true for anything, would object C be still intelligent?. Variables, constants, and function make sense to the perception of a compiler, and are stored as pieces of “information” to infer around.
Re: Do you agree...
Thank you very for your thoughts, your point of view is interesting and fortunately is complementing my argument rather than negating it. Think about numbers, they represent an advanced form of an early sensory perception of things in quantity. In post stone age when human being started raising cattle, they used to compare number of cattle heads with number of stones, a need was realized to somehow “invent” something to be representative of quantity. Your second example is yet another ostensible proof that human being can not think of an unthinkable unless the unthinkable has already been perceived as a physical or a logical entity. Object A, in your second example, inherited the knowledge of color, and object B inherited the information about scent, you did nothing but induced acquired knowledge of two objects into a third one. Let’s do some reverse engineering, let’s define object A , and B as null values, and let’s not compare “null” to be true for anything, would object C be still intelligent?. Variables, constants, and function make sense to the perception of a compiler, and are stored as pieces of “information” to infer around.
Peace IntelliPhant
The ability would be there but its effect will not be manifest until the sense objects are not null. As i said you right that sense is required for intelligence to proliferate, but I don't think the correct phrase is 'earmarks the limits of' rather 'provide the basis of' is more accurate, because other things come in to play that are not acquired through sense when senses are first used.
Re: Do you agree...
Thank you , I agree with most of the text that you have put up with an admirable logical dexterity, however I beg to differ on a couple of things. Our basic instinct of survival comes from a basic cognitive process of getting realization and appreciation of the fact that we are alive, the first lesson for human intelligence towards a long ride to the intellect starts from a very basic perception of “living”. Once the perception about being alive has been written into the memory, the mechanism to guard the life gets initiated with a condition to appreciate a threat .The noesis of threat comes mostly from sensory perceptions, unless one is delusional
Here is the point and I agree with you, the world that is out there is out of our reach, because we can not think of a world that we can not comprehend by sensory or intellectual perception.
I completely agree with you. But there are certain innate traits within humans that have nothing to do with senses. Like our basic instinct of survival. I'm also quite certain that you already aware of the Socratein proof of rationalism that proved the knowledge of geometry (the Pythagorean theorem to be exact) that a completely uneducated boy possessed. You have to concede that there is more to knowledge than just the senses. The primary reason being that if you are an absolute empiricist, there is no where you can go with it. Heck, even David Hume had to concede that there are certain things that the senses cannot account for. In addition, Hume was also a huge skeptic where as I prefer to think that there is indeed a world out there that exists outside of my perception.
Re: Do you agree...
That the boundary of human intellect is earmarked within the limits of our six senses.
To draw a boundary one has to know the extent of the territory to encompass. But do we know haw far can human intellect push our sense's limits?
We had eyes, but now we have telescopes to explore the galaxy, and accelerators to explore nanoworld. Same goes with 4 other senses (btw I don't define a 6th sense): hence science has stretched human possibility to "sense" the world far beyond its 5 senses, and thus human knowledge has come far beyond the limits of our initial 5 senses (beyond ape intellect!).
As knowledge bits are the stones of thoughts castles, we (scienctifically knowledgeable humans) have already overcome our senses.
But Einstein is just proving our intellect is not limited to 5 senses, human has this fantastic abiliity to think creatively!
Quantic physics is not intuitive because it's far beyond our 5 senses experiences abilities. Yet it is possible to go further into this field. Rmember well that there no more difficult limits to overcome than those we believe in!
Re: Do you agree...
The essence, marrow and nitty-gritty of my argument is not contravening yours. what you have presented as your take is a response to a subsection that , seemingly, was conspicuous to you.
Indeed we had eyes, think about a world without eyes, and come up with an example whereby telescope, or anything like that was boosted as one evidence for the race, being talked about and presuming blind, went beyond the sense of sight. Of course science and technology are serving the human appetite to “know” more, but come to think of it, its just thriving development and addition to what we have accumulated as “knowledge base”. We all like to wear perfumes, which we would have not, if not blessed with the sense of smell otherwise.
We , sure, can think creatively if we can think of what we intend to be thinking about, our sight sets the limits to what we can pursue in this universe.
To draw a boundary one has to know the extent of the territory to encompass. But do we know haw far can human intellect push our sense's limits?
We had eyes, but now we have telescopes to explore the galaxy, and accelerators to explore nanoworld. Same goes with 4 other senses (btw I don't define a 6th sense): hence science has stretched human possibility to "sense" the world far beyond its 5 senses, and thus human knowledge has come far beyond the limits of our initial 5 senses (beyond ape intellect!). As knowledge bits are the stones of thoughts castles, we (scienctifically knowledgeable humans) have already overcome our senses.
But Einstein is just proving our intellect is not limited to 5 senses, human has this fantastic abiliity to think creatively! Quantic physics is not intuitive because it's far beyond our 5 senses experiences abilities. Yet it is possible to go further into this field. Rmember well that there no more difficult limits to overcome than those we believe in!
Re: Do you agree...
The essence, marrow and nitty-gritty of my argument is not contravening yours. what you have presented as your take is a response to a subsection that , seemingly, was conspicuous to you.
Peace IntelliPhant
I still think there is room for intelligence to flourish beyond sense. The telescope example is interpolation of the eye, but how about the formation of the periodic table?
Okay let's take the argument of the perfume we would not appreciate it if not blessed with the sense of smell, though I believe this to be an over generalisation because we can use the positive reaction of others who can smell our perfume as a basis for wearing perfume even if we cannot smell it, but anyway, let's assume that this is generally true. What is to say that we WILL appreciate the benefit of perfume if we can smell it? Then after that what is there to say that we will continue to wear perfume based on our past experience of it? Then what is there to say that we will assume others like it just like we do, and do we assume that they smell as we do? These are intelligent processes beyond sense but very much based on sense.
Then lets assume that one cannot sense anything, does that mean he cannot be happy or sad and how can that be proven?
What I am saying is best explained by a developmental psychologist Bloom whose theory states that exposure to knowledge is required (this expsoure is the combined effects of sense), after which understanding develops and a level higher is application, then analysis and synthesis and eventually evaluation. Some people swap the last two around.
Intelligence is the act of building on sense information it is not bound by sense information. Though we cannot see quarks for example we can deduce their existence by the effects particle collisions make with one another. If you still say otherwise then I must concede that I do not understand what you are saying at all and this is pointless.
Re: Do you agree...
intelliphant, you intentionally exclude divinity in this thread and in another blame mere psychology. interesting.
thanks,
Dushwari
quote=IntelliPhant;5499794]Inference based on acquired knowledge which may include all or any that you have mentioned. I will intentionally exclude divinity.
[/quote]