Diary: The Best Available

[degringolade]

So: We have five senses (some people would argue that we have more, but let's not go there for the sake of this argument). These senses aren't particularly good at taking in the inputs and thus generate a pretty impressive error rate.

Somewhere in the multitasking hunk of meat that we carry about, we take the data being generated by these senses into some kind of processing unit somewhere in the hunk o' meat and process the suspect incoming data using a system that is notoriously opaque and appears to be quite variable between individuals. The processing unit (wherever) then takes this suspect data and through some unknown (and probably again quite variable) process generates a very suspect mental model that we take to be the truth of the matter at a particular moment. Right now I am looking out at a not-quite-bucolic scene of a little courtyard that constitutes the view out of my window. Oops that sense-impression is already obsolete.

But then I have to look at very concept of sense-impression. My "reality" is composed of innumerable "slices" of these sense-impressions (which, I cannot state strongly enough are suspect) which are tossed into a mosh-pit of an astonishingly flawed memory where they rub up against each other and a weird, almost nonsensical consensus is achieved through the good offices of a process that is poorly understood and is unusually variable between individuals.

All of these profoundly inconsistent processes occur at once and every once in a while we make the quite-uninformed decision to try and explain what the sense-impression was. Then we need to talk about language. Right now you are reading this using English. Which is a language that is particularly well suited to misdirection and misunderstanding (why do you think lawyers are needed? They are there because they are quite good at black=white).

So you are looking at a minimum of four processes that allow you to communicate your thoughts to others. Each of these processes have a absurdly high failure rate. That is why I tend to think that the idea of understanding other humans is so fraught with peril and goes wrong routinely.

I think that I am done philosophizing today. It is a pretty outside, the big oak tree's leaves are starting to change and it isn't raining. Time for shoes and socks and a walk.

Maybe later I will eat a gummi and drink a beer.

Comments

[f0rrest]

I used to be a member of the Flat Earth Society forums, which is basically a troll group but there are some seemingly serious users, and this sort of failible-senses idea was often used as an ontological cudgel to make "Round Earthers" question their established beliefs, and while I wouldn't consider myself a Flat Earther, I would consider myself relatively agnostic to most quote-unquote "facts" or knowledge statements, while recognizing that I have to place a level of trust in some baseline assumptions to even function properly in the world, one of those assumptions being that other people actually exist and are not some figment of my imagination or whatever, as I think taking your logic to its logical conclusion would lead to a certain level of, I will call, "insanity," or inability to function in the civilized world. This is obviously a much broader philosophical topic that could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, so I'll just stop here.

The title said it

[degringolade]

I suppose that if you needed to be "right" and there was a "correct" way to run a life, your comment might just well be true.

But, in my worldview, and using the sense-impressions I have available and the shards of others sense impressions that are throw into the pot, I suppose all I am saying is that I shouldn't expect all that much from my thoughts and the personal structure I have built to hold them.

This flawed system is the best we can do. High failure rate and all. Doesn't mean you stop trying, just recognize that when you get it right and things work out, enjoy it. Otherwise, get cracking on plan B and C and D when you are wrong.

Most folks out there are looking for "the truth" and "the facts". What I am trying to say is that those are merely conventions that derive from a very rough average of a lot of peoples truths.

Re: The title said it

[f0rrest]

I agree. I think, to a large extent, consensus dictates your immediate reality, like we can all agree that a "car" is a "car," but we could get pedantic about it if we wanted, and a lot of it is language games, too, as you called out. It is useful to agree that a car is a car, however. I think we need to be open to the idea that the reality we know is largely a construct of our flawed senses working together with others' flawed senses, but we should be open to questioning the general consensus and the even the very fabric of what we know as reality, but we also need to be able to identify what's worth being questioned, because if you take it too far your brain just falls out.

Re: The title said it

[degringolade]

Agreed: If you take anything too far, it just goes wrong. Ask me sometimes about the seventies and cocaine.

increasingly

[chefxh]

At some point the view from one's window becomes all that matters. The inward view narrows as well; it is a natural process of detachment, I think, as one learns to control what one can (and how quickly THAT dataset shrinks).

Re: increasingly

[degringolade]

A lot of my scribblings nowadays are fueled by having the leisure of retirement and nothing better to do. By not having to serve, I am allowed to explore the simplicity of deciding that I don't care.

When things get weird is for those folks who are looking forward to a couple of decades where their opinion matters (at least to them) and thus the need to get people to agree with you in order to advance your theories.

I lived in that cage for years. Now that I am out of the game, I can recognize the faults of and the selfishness involved in my decisions and life choices. As I tell my kids, I think that my life grade is a solid B. Now that I am not graded and just auditing courses, my life is much more pleasant.