Obviously our senses will limit the information we receive, and thus limit our knowledge; I cannot directly perceive heat emissions from another animal as can a snake, so I will not know--without the use of instruments designed to register heat signatures--that endothermic animals give off heat. My dog perceives colors, but not to the extent I do, so he may not sense a color difference between two objects. On the other hand, he can perceive scents that I will never perceive.

Yes, that means that our understanding of the universe is limited by what we can, or cannot, perceive, but that is not the most important limitation. Suppose there is another creature with twenty senses, who could obviously directly perceive things we cannot. This creature could also have a totally hard-wired brain, rendering him incapable of learning. He can use the data but not understand it.

Besides, knowing that our knowledge is limited, that it is tentative, and always incomplete is a good thing, I think. It helps keep us seeking.

To say that human knowledge is limited by things other than senses is NOT to say that senses do not limit our knowledge as well.

Very simple--suppose we had evolved, as felines did, without the ability to perceive the red spectrum. We would be totally unaware of this color, but it would also mean that we would not have been able conclude that we can estimate the speed of an object moving away from use by calculating the red shift.

Two salient points here:

1. When we limit what we can know, we are limiting how much we can know, particularly if you place the data on a continuum from 100% to 0%. Any limitation that places some of that data off-limits, such as the example I used, would prevent us from reaching the totality.

2. The "10% of our brains" thing is a myth, and the fact that Einstein may have repeated it means nothing. An expert in physics he may have been, but he was not a neurologist. Take a look at this article from Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-of-brain

The title only asks, Is Knowledge limited by the Human Senses, and it is clear that the answer is yes, it is. That also does not mean that it is the only limitation. Your statement, "Exepting my own assertion that it is only our relatively short life spans that limits the totality of what we can know," is itself a dogmatic assertion that needs affirmative justification.

"Spectrum wrote:Human senses are limited but they do not limit human knowledge. Human knowledge is obtainable from other sources, e.g. reason, instincts, intuition, reflections, technology, etc."

Actually, ALL knowledge proceeds, originally, from sense perception. From this data, we can then draw conclusions, which are more or less reliable depending upon the reliability of the original information. All the other sources mentioned are contingent upon reliable data in the first place.

Something without an intellect, Kess, cannot be spoken of as acting "in a way which is beneficial to itself" in any but a poetic sense of the word.

I don't think I misunderstand; I see it all as biological accident. Eyes evolved because the perception they permit is beneficial to the organism as a whole. The eye takes in light, and it is transmitted to the brain, but the knowledge does not appear until the sensation is interpreted by the brain.

I agree we are ages apart, but I have no desire to see the world through bronze age superstition.

The mysticism is dripping from your posts.

If you want to impute a meaning to events, to affirm that there is purpose to existence, it is necessary to justify the claim, not merely affirm it. Faith affirmations are the province of religion, not philosophy. The path of Aristotle led to science and open inquiry; the path of Plato led to mysticism, magic and fraud.