>yfw you realise truth is unobtainable
If your model corresponds to concrete reality more than any other then it's more true.
>>990814
truths reached by definition are
>He only just now came to know that we are never truely experiencing reality, because everything we experience is filtered through our imperfect senses and then displayed in the brain in a sort of simulation which does its best to approximate the outside world, but can never truely achieve a perfect representation of the outside world because of said imperfection of the senses.
>>990865
>tfw you learn it early, the hard way, and never get to have the existential realization in sophomore year college.
Thanks autism.
>>990865
>because everything we experience is filtered through our imperfect senses and then displayed in the brain in a sort of simulation which does its best to approximate the outside world, but can never truely achieve a perfect representation of the outside world because of said imperfection of the senses.
Prove it
The truth is over rated. Consistent results and a line of logic are good enough.
>>991056
disprove it.
Absolutes are unobtainable. Truth is a function
>>991086
That's not how it works fucboi
Xuanzi pls go
>>990865
Go back to /x/
>>991056
Have you ever mistaken anything for something else?
Why can't you see infared?
>>991056
Your senses are imperfect.
Your imperfect senses are interpreted by your brain to be understandable prior to real perception.
>>990814
The bigger realization is that truth and illusion are one and the same.
>>990844
Yeah, concrete reality, That's definitely a thing that exists
>>991150
"fucboi's" whole point is that nothing can be proved, so not being above to prove something is more evidence for his point
What kind of truth are you trying to attain? Why are you trying to attain it?
What if there is no "truth" and the mystery forever begs for more mysteries?
>>992222
What is schizophrenia
What is dementia
What are hallucinogenic substances
Face it anon, your interpretation of the world is not the entire situation.
the truth is simple
If truth is unobtainable how do you know truth is unobtainable?
>not just embracing the absurd
Is that a true statement?
>>990865
>he thinks our senses are imperfect and the real world looks different that the world we perceive, yet colors, tastes and sounds are actual "products" of the real world and humans use there senses to see the "real" world
>>992394
You cannot actually prove any of those are imperfect.
Truth is a spook.
>>990814
How would you know that?
>>992821
>implying anything's absurd
>>990814
So? You'd have to be pretty god-damned arrogant to have assumed truth would be something a hairless ape like yourself could grasp in the first place.
>>995381
you fool, the sensual perceptions are products of your imagination, not of the external world.
picture unrelated, please disregard it, i just wanted to attach a dank pepe to my post.
>>995936
>implying that nothing is absurd
>on 4chan, of all places
>>990814
Stop moping around about made up and inconsequential nonsense and get back to work you cog.
>>992222
>>991980
Alright then I will go into detail:
1. Senses:
1.1. Your sense of sight is limited to the spectrum of light your three varieties of cone cells and your rod cells can perceive. You also have a blind spot where your retina is pierced by your optic nerve I guess. Also colorblindness.
1.2. Your sense of hearing is limited to certain frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 KHz I think (Which decreases with age). As well as volume.
1.3. Your sense of taste and smell are limited by what those receptors are capable of perceiving.
1.4. Your sense of touch and temperature is limited in terms of sensitivity and maximum load.
1.5. Your sense of balance is limited by the mechanisms of your inner ear.
2. Filtering and interpretation
2.1. Sight is subject to active filtering and interpretation to make a full picture since your actual focused field of view is comparatively small and your blind spot must also be compensated for. Sight also is interpreted in certain categories to focus certain aspects such as facial recognition. Sight is also subject to sensory adaptation (Flipped vision can be adapted to be perceived as regular vision if practiced) and sensory malfunction (Synesthesia, hallucinogens etc which I will only be mentioning here).
2.2. Your sense of hearing is subject to active change by the outer sensory hair cells of your hearing because they can actively move with sound. As such they dampen loud sound and increase quiet sound.
2.3. Can't really think of anything here other than getting used to something over time.
2.4. Touch and temperature can be fooled I guess. Touching something pretty cold and pretty hot at the same time in a small area gives a disproportionate response in my experience. Wetness can be simulated with coldness and pressure I think.
2.5. Any time you've ever been motion sick.
this sentence is false
>>990814
> yfw you realise you can have knowledge but can't know if you have knowledge or not.
I've ironical forgotten the school of thought in epistemology that held this true but damn I remember it being compelling.
>MFW not only is the truth unobtainable, but it doesn't even matter if you can obtain it or not
>>995412
DELETE THIS
>>996168
Let's beg the question for a moment and assume you're correct in all this:
If your senses are limited and flawed, and our interpretational analysis of things are biased by the limits of the brain, then how do you have this knowledge about the senses and the brain?
>>996366
>then how do you have this knowledge about the senses and the brain?
Not that Anon, but you have knowledge about your own senses and brain because sense stimuli and thoughts are literally the only experiences you have.
They might be wrong in their interpretation of external things which cause those stimuli and thoughts, but the stimuli and thoughts themselves are what you have and know. Kant breaks this down in his distinction between "Phenoumenon" and "Noumenon".
>>996390
>but the stimuli and thoughts themselves are what you have and know
Yes, but if you don't have knowledge of outer-reality, then how do you know your senses are flawed relative to it?
>>996400
>how do you know your senses are flawed relative to outer-reality?
Well sometimes the stimuli from your senses don't line up either with each other or the things you know as best as you have confirmed it, and you can use thought to uncover the discord.
And sometimes... you don't know.
It's not as though you can't know *anything* about the "Noumenon", as Kant puts it. It's just that you can't know it literally or exactly, you're always at least one step removed from it.
>>996342
Hello?
>>990814
Truth is relative, it is impossible for a human created concept to be absolute
>>995405
Using logical fallacies instead of bringing genuine conversation to the table is a weak mind's game.
Besides that I doubt you even understand what perfection is at it's most essential, which is symmetry. If anything, you should be striving to understand your imperfections so you can refine them.
You don't want to be perfectly symmetrical. You want to be flawless. You can be, but you have to accept that perfection is not how you achieve flawlessness. Contemplate deeper. Ask yourself questions and refuse to see your knowledge as ever complete, because you will genuinely never know anything.
>>997264
>Besides that I doubt you even understand what perfection is at it's most essential, which is symmetry.
False, perfection is subjective and unattainable
>>997339
Perhaps to your limited subjective view of the world. You're seeing it as you are, not as the world is.
>>990814
Is that true?
>>997264
No, seriously. The tools you are using to determine whether or not their perception is flawed are themselves flawed, and your reading is in now way reliable. If we're playing the "let's deny empirical reality because fuck induction, noumena > phenomena" game we need to be consistent.
>>990814
Is that true OP?
>yfw you realise truth is obtainable
>>997479
You're projecting yourself onto my argument. Empirical evidence can't be denied, it merely cannot account for things that aren't replicatable. Of course my critical thinking is flawed. Logic cannot percieve the formlessness of art. One does not see how perfection is attainable until they are perfect, and at that point they no longer want to be perfect.
The reason my reading is reliable is because I can see the essence past the image. My words shall cut you deeper than any knife.
