Is Human Knowledge Limited by the Human Senses?

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.

Hi Cato, you wrote "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.

Now the author obviously was writing about what an individual can know, so what is dogmatic about this thought? we recognize limits for almost anything except death perhaps. The author does not specify the limit, so is it not obvious there must be a limit for each particular person? This does not mean that the knowledge limit can not be increased in the future, but there will always be barriers to unlimited knowledge.

Regards, John.

Hi Cato, you wrote "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.

Now the author obviously was writing about what an individual can know, so what is dogmatic about this thought? we recognize limits for almost anything except death perhaps. The author does not specify the limit, so is it not obvious there must be a limit for each particular person? This does not mean that the knowledge limit can not be increased in the future, but there will always be barriers to unlimited knowledge.

Regards, John.

I could also say 'unlimited knowledge' is an unknown as long as living minds exist but I still can not imagine a limit to knowledge. As far as an individuals capacity to cognate, and store this knowledge that might be a post in itself. Here what i was getting at by the original question is whether the way we receive knowledge through the senses puts an arbitrary limit on the type of knowledge we can deal with - and are we limited by a hypothetical real world which may be much broader than we are aware? Of course one can bring scientific invention into the debate and mention that the microscope showed us microbes and the electron microscope viruses and therefor extended the reach of the human senses. And what I keep wondering could there be other heretofore unknown 'senses' that we are not even aware we {or other beings, say aliens} have that could show us another broader reality than is currently known?

Hi UA.

The Buddha recognized a sixth sense, the mind, and this is the part of us which has not been explored very much, especially in the western world. Perhaps there are other senses which might come along in time. But unless we get to be "godlike" I think we will always have limits. Even alien entities will have them regardless of how advanced they are compared to us. I am aware that our cumulative knowledge is expanding as never before to the point that no human can know all there is to know at present. However who knows, sometime in the future we will be able to connect directly with computers so that at a thought we will have access to all the knowledge existing.

Regards, John.

Hi UA.

The Buddha recognized a sixth sense, the mind, and this is the part of us which has not been explored very much, especially in the western world. Perhaps there are other senses which might come along in time. But unless we get to be "godlike" I think we will always have limits. Even alien entities will have them regardless of how advanced they are compared to us. I am aware that our cumulative knowledge is expanding as never before to the point that no human can know all there is to know at present. However who knows, sometime in the future we will be able to connect directly with computers so that at a thought we will have access to all the knowledge existing.

Regards, John.

".....However who knows, sometime in the future we will be able to connect directly with computers so that at a thought we will have access to all the knowledge existing." In a way aren't we already at that point with only the limitations of of the computer{s} the only limit to stored knowledge? And then I begin to wonder if AI {artificial intelligence/computers} might, accepting that they begin to think independently which I know some will debate but which I believe is feasible, begin to expand human knowledge in a way that we for now can only imagine - There would be a different cognitive process involved when AI begins to think for itself and human knowledge would indeed be expanded beyond the reach of the human senses {assuming that AI remains under human control and doesn't decide to take over for itself, already postulated by some computer scientists as real potential threat}.

Hi UA

AI is an interesting thought but it would also be limited by its inputs or sensing ability, perhaps greatly enhanced compared to humans. But would it be possible for it to have emotive ability as that would be important to keep it from being Mr Spock. Can you imagine a computer deciding on wether to allow someone to have an abortion or not? Something operating on pure logic and fact would be a danger to humanity. Knowledge is very good when tempered. Sometimes knowledge can be debilitating as in the case of knowing all that can go wrong stopping someone from trying. The existing knowledge many years ago said the earth was the centre of the universe until someone looked again and came to a startling new conclusion.

Regards, John.

Thanks for the support y'all! However, I do have to concede to the point that, in a manner of speaking, we are limited by our senses as to what we can learn and know. For example, we cannot learn to smell or distinguish smells like dogs do. And speaking of dogs; Robert A. Heinlen once wrote a short sci-fi book titled "If Dogs Could Talk", to go along with the postulation that the only real thing preventing dogs from communicating with us humans, is their lack of the appropriate vocal apparatus. And as for AI? At this time, at least to my knowledge, computers can only operate with logic. Which I agree could become a bad thing. And though I cannot provide you with the source, it has been proven that logic is not always, and at all times, the correct answer. That is why we still have human pilots in highly advanced aircraft. And I see no way that we could ever achieve a direct link with computers. As that would require the implantation in our brains, devices that would operate on the frequency and low power of the firing of our neurons, and then transmit/receive on the frequency and power of the computer. But with mans' imagination, who knows? As for the speculation that a computer(s) could someday 'take over', I see no problem with that. As the answer seems quite simple. Pull the plug! Even with the stretching of the imagination, that someday some centralised computer could somehow manage to provide itself with its' own source of power, and protect itself; it would be impossible for that centralised computer to likewise provide power to, and protect its' whole network. Therefore, it could not literally 'take 'over' the whole world. And someone would come up with a way to either shut it down, or destroy it. Back to the human accumulation of knowledge. Some people have gone insane over the accumulation of so much knowledge. However nowadays, we see so many senior citizens going back to school, and increasing their education and knowledge. So again, though we may be limited by our senses as to what we can learn and know, we are not limited to how much we can know. And though one single person cannot know everything there is to know, there is still much, much out there that each and everyone of us can learn and know. And through the internet, and inter-personal relationships, we have access to even much, much more.

Is Human Knowledge Limited by the Human Senses?

Human knowledge is unlimited in the confines of a limited universe.

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.

It is 'reason' (empirical to pure) that enable us to speculate 'what if', e.g. possibly a thousand senses, god and the likes.

However these speculations need to be verified empirically and rationally. How well we can justify the empirical and rational can be improved by increasing our cognitive powers internally (mentally) and externally (technologically). I think, now is the time for humanity to expedite more explorations and researches into the above improvements. There are already signs we are on the way with new findings in the neurosciences, genetics, etc.

Does this explain how science proceeds on a mixture of the empirical and the rational, the inductive and the deductive?

"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.

Sense are essential individual division of knowledge. Each sensory faculty takes knowledge and processes it in a way which is beneficial to itself, and by that they each posseses their own individual characteristics.

The limitation that the sense presents, is that because of their division. Division exist because of contention and in the midst of contention knowledge as the whole is being misrepresented.

So without such division of knowledge into individual senses, knowledge will remain as a whole full of itself and benificial unto itself.

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.

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.

Maybe because you have not understood....

I made that statement reffering to knowledge...

“Acting“ cannot be used to reference knowledge...

What is intellect to the intellect if intellect does know itself? It is good for something but not itself...

-- Updated June 13th, 2012, 1:03 pm to add the following --

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 think I get what you meant a little clearer....but still you have misunderstood..

For example, taking the eyes...the eyes need knowledge to see therefore it takes it as light...thus light is definitive of the eye... So the eyes uses knowledge for the benefit of itself... This knowledge is charaterised as light and with out which the eyes have no purpose... So the eyes uses knowledge to benefit itself...

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.

You see what you have seen, I cant deny that but you have not seen the things that I have seen. But you decieve yourself believing that you do....

The eye serve the purpose of the man and knowledge and should be summarily dismissed when it circumvents the purposes of either. For both can easily continue without the benefit of the eye.

And many are men who are ruled by their eyes...thus where there is purpose, they see accidents....and the purpose of the man remain unfulfilled....at least unto that man himself.

We are ages apart my friend and your disagreements are the testimony of such.