Sense perception a changing variable?

Below is a discussion with me and my friend to some of the question that were posed to us during TOK. We seeked to identify how reliable our senses can be and how being who you are can affect what you see or feel. We exploited the fact that sense perception is always right and brought about a few new ideas. 

 1.    What might some of the problems be if we rely primarily on Sense Perception?

Sana –

Well for starters our senses are not reliable, they can be influenced by various factors and damaged in many ways. By relying primarily on them we are hindering our own ability to gain knowledge. Furthermore, not everyone literally sees something the same way, so there will be a variety of information and no one will know what is correct. For example a person can argue that the color of the bag is blue but his friend can say that no, it is the color turquoise. How do we know who is right and who is wrong? Is there a right or wrong? Sense perception does not provide you with concrete data.

Akhil-     

      Sense perception is the gateway to which one perceives the world however sense perception can be unreliable. What we see is always influenced by things we know and our senses have limitations or focus which limits what we can do without sense perception. Like seen in the video sense perception can be a limiting factor when a person is recollection information to and can be exploited with the idea of a directing the senses. Researches have shows that our brain changes the time when perceiving things such as sound. In the experiment conducted the result was concluded that people when hit a button they heard a positive sound they knew they pressed the button but apparently when the button was pressed and there was a negative sound, the brain extended the time it took for them to comprehend the sound making them feel that the sound wasn't by them pressing the button(a video of the research is below). Hence the argument can be made that sense perception is not entirely reliable but it is the only means by which man can comprehend the world and make sense of it.

2.    Take one of the below situations and describe how it might be seen differently by each of the following people (be sure to include what affects their differing views):

·     A child lying dying in poverty as seen by a doctor, an economist, a social worker, the child’s father.

Person	Effect
Doctor	Sana- A doctor would see a child suffering from numerous diseases such as malnutrition and would think about the effects on the child’s health due to living in unhygienic conditions. He’d take all of these factors in consideration and figure out a way to save the child’s life with the resources that are available in the situation. The reason a doctor would take this perspective is because they are taught to focus on making a patient feel better, even if their methods are initially unwelcomed. They are meant to have good bedside manner but at the same time they are meant to focus on the problem not be overwhelmed by emotions such as pain, love, disgust and fear. Thus the doctor would take a more clinical approach to seeing a boy lying dying in poverty. Akhil- The primary goals for doctors are to save or improve the lives of people. That being said not all doctors act following this principle. Money eventually becomes an incentive for doctors and therefore there are two possible reactions to such a situation. A good doctor who does his job of saving a persons life would try all his efforts to save the child who is sick and is dying. This goal of saving a persons life is an incentive that makes doctors want to help people regardless of the money. However doctors who look at money as an incentive to work would not much want to help as they wouldn't have much money to offer to save the kids life.
Economist	Sana- An economist would think about the money involved and relate it to a bigger picture. They’d see this child dying as insignificant because it does not have much of an impact on the economy of the country. They’d lose someone that would  grow up and contribute to the economy but since it was a poor child he is more likely to be illiterate thus his contributions to the economy would be far less than an important businessman. Furthermore, this kid dying means there is one less person health care must be provided for. It may seem quite cold and calculating but this is the way when it’s related to money and it has to be this shrewd to allow countries to develop into more economically developed countries (MEDCs). While the perspective of the doctor’s was specific and focused on the child’s health condition, the economist takes more broader and general point of view. Akhil- The economy is a money driven ball game. An economist would consider the fact that a single child is dying to poverty quite less significant as a child dying due to poverty does not have real significance in the market or in the economy of the country. A kid dying due to poverty is not really a bad thing cause if the kid dies then the state no longer has to provide any state provided medical facilities in order to keep the kid alive. This is a more contradictory thinking in comparison to a doctor's point of view, however it is the most likely situation an economist would think. Probably a country full of middle age educated men suffering from a killer disease would worry the economist more as middle age educated men are beneficial for a working economy. But one person on his own makes a less significant impact on the economy and a child dying from poverty is hardly something to worry about.
Social Worker	Sana- The social worker would think about the child’s parents and how irresponsible they were. They’d wonder if the parents forced the child into working, abused him or did not provide for him being too lazy to work. They’d think about the child having a parent with some sort of addiction at home (alcoholic dad, mother ran away.) They’d also wonder if whether or not the child was living alone and where are the rest of his family members as he dies alone. The reason they’d go through this thought process is because their job is to make sure children are happy and living in a stable home with parents who are doing their duties thus as providing for the child in their care. Akhil- A social worker would likely be concerned about the fact that a kid is dying from poverty. It is likely they will try and ensure a better future for the kid if he does not die and they will try to make sure the same does not happen again and will ensure that people live a certain standard of life. A social worker will be concerned on how well the child is doing and will seek to improve the quality of life of the kid.
Child’s Father	Sana- The perspective of the father would contain the most emotion and focus specifically on the child. He’d first be hit by a lot of emotion, as he’d see his child lying there in pain. He’d want to find a way to reverse the situation, to stop the pain and to help his child. But this is from the perspective of a usual parent, not one with issues and one who didn’t care much for his child. A father who genuinely cared a great deal for his child would be desperate to find a solution for his child in this condition and would go great lengths to do so. He’d also think about the effect this would have on the rest of his family, how his wife would take the news and if they have any other children, how would they react to the news of their sibling dying. Losing a child is one of the greatest fears of a parent and in this condition the father would be devastated. Akhil- The father’s point of view can be one of the most varying. A father who told his kid to get out of the house or a father who didn’t have the money to pay for his education or even a irresponsible father all though they are still the father of the kid may act differently to the death of his son due to poverty. But i feel given a bottom line every father would have some about of sorrow for the death of the son or for the suffering of a his son. As human beings we are all made to inherently help, love and understand each other and a father would even though he might have hated his son to the bone would feel sympathy for the passing away of his son or his son being in a tragic situation. A father would try to help his son out and save him from the claws of death by doing everything he can possible .

3.    Choose ONE of the following statements to agree or disagree with. Explain your thinking with reference to our class discussion(s)!

·     The human brain craves understanding. It cannot understand without simplifying; that is without reducing things to a common element. However, all simplifications are arbitrary and leads us to drift insensibly away from reality.” Lecomte du Nouy

Sana-

I agree with this statement, it is human nature to want to know. When we don’t know, we are afraid (ie. fear of darkness) therefore, we are always trying to figure out the unknown (however unnecessary it may seem in a some cases ie. tables dancing after we leave the room, do we really need to know that?) Anyway back to the point, when human’s want to figure out something they have to break it down, just like we break a math problem down to solve it. Doing this makes the question simpler to solve as small steps are often easier to work with. Now to address the second part of the question, referring back to the example in one of the Ted Talks video’s by the speaker John Lloyd, “the closer you look at anything the more it disappears”. So when you look closely at an object and break it down all the way to the atom and it’s sub structure, you realize there isn’t anything there besides some fuzz and energy. So what are we made up of then? Now some may say, “What if you look closely at a complex painting? The closer you look the more intricate it seems”. Well it depends, what type of closer is being thought of here? If you think about it literally you’d see the paint then you’d think of the elements forming the paint and then go back down to the atom and it’s sub structure.

Akhil-

It is within human instinct to want to know how something works and what functions what. Curiosity is an instinct that has made man know more about the world around us and also led us to question things and know more about something. To understand something humans break it more simpler, more understandable and more comprehensive terms and what Lecomte du Nouy suggests is that humans make these simpler facts more of random choice or personal whim. John Llyod discusses the similar fact with human DNA, it was initially thought that human genome contains about a 100,000 genes and every year since it has been revised to 20,000 whereas rice has 38,000 genes. The estimation of humans having about 100,000 genes was probably made on the bases of on how much more complicated humans are in comparison to rice but in actuality rice has more genes that humans. Lecomte du Nouy says that it is when we make things simpler the simpler facts tend to be arbitrary and therefore straying away from reality. This flaw in our understanding of everything around us is what creates opinions and factual errors. Is what you know what I know? How can we be certain?