2 Thought Experiments to Forever change the way you Look at the World + Philosophy Discussion

The average person using STEEM is far wiser and more sensible than the average person/zombie/sheep you meet on the streets. So I wouldn't be surprised if some of you have already thought of this. I developed this thought experiment while I was around 9th grade or something. Most elements in this thought experiment are adjustable. So you can customize your own version while I'm explaining i to you.

We need two children. They can be twin (even identical twins) if you want. They have to be really young or you could do this while the kid is still in the womb. The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390nm to 700nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430THz–770THz. You take one kid and do some mechanical or biological tampering to make 390nm waves be received as 700nm waves and 700nm waves to be received as 390nm waves. You could replace the eyes of one child or use a nano-machine to hijack the optic nerve or something else. The method doesn't matter. What matters is this:

In an environment where nobody is aware of such tampering, is there any way to notice a difference between the two kids? If you are feeling clever - What if you used some advance enough technology to make the tampering undetectable? (well, I fixed it for you) Both kids would point to a certain electromagnetic wavelength and call it "Blue" and call another wavelength "Red". But one kid's "Red" is the other one's "Blue". There is no way for anybody within this environment to know what these are cognizing. Both kids would live perfectly normal lives.

Animals see, hear and feel differently from humans. But what about humans themselves?

Let's get to the next though experiment to further illustrate my point. For this I'm going to ask you to simulate being a blind person. Just for few minutes, live like blind person. Some lazy people may only do this for a few seconds. It's not much of a problem. I want you to describe the difference between the two kinds of sensory perception. How does your senses feel while you are blind and while you are not blind?

You are bound to come to a statement like "everything is so black" or "everything is so dark". But you know "Black"ness or "Dark"ness only because you've seen other colors. You are making a relative statement. A person who has been born without functioning eyes would say everything is dark or black, but that's because of what the society of non-blind people have told this blind person. What if we hijack the optic nerve of a very young person (or just go straight for an unborn child in a womb) and feed the two optic nerves the signal of any random wavelength constantly. In this scenario the child would grow up to describe the "Dark"ness or the "Black"ness but he/she could be actually seeing any random color in the visible spectrum.

Now I'm going to quote few paragraphs from an interview with Thakurartha Devadithya Guardiyawasam Lindamulage Nalin Kumara de Silva (short name Nalin de Silva) introduced and developed the concept of "Constructive Relativism"

Q: What is the difference between classical physics and
quantum physics?
A:The question needs some explanation on western science. Knowledge is created within a certain culture which can be termed as Chintana to which there is no effective translation but which is inclusive of certain attitudes, philosophy and epistology. At the end of the 15th Century in Europe a new chintana was formulated with the pioneering activities of the artists of that era such as Micheal Angelo and Leornado da Vinci which can be termed as the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) chintana. There were a number of characteristics of this and the statue of David created by Micheal Angelo in Florence, Italy symbolizes this. Galileo and Martin Luther King were those who were born into this existing chintana of which one main characteristic was abstraction as compared to the more concrete sensory chintana of the Catholic Church.
For instance, Galileo said that it was the earth that was moving around the earth rather than the popular belief that it was the sun that moved around the earth. This is something that one cannot sense through one’s sensory perception as a person cannot actually feel the earth moving. It was the same with Newton who said that the apple falls to the ground due to gravitation and similarly we cannot feel gravitation. So these were all only stories with no proof. Later Einstein tried to prove Newton’s theory through his relativity theory. Generally all scientists, when they want to prove a point, first observe and then conduct experiments. Because they cannot experiment with the whole world they take only a sample from the population and then try to fit their findings from the sample to the whole world assuming that the world is represented in their sample which often is not. Then they do various tests to test the significance and then report their findings quoting probabilities which are not actual proof. Of course in classical physics a sample may represent the population very much more than in biological sciences, but still they are all stories which are very abstract. Even Adam Smith the scientist was very abstract in his work, which was very different to the catholic culture before the 15th Century.

Q: How would you explain western science?
A: In the West science uses induction and there are no deductions even though you have been told that we deduce answers after experimenting. For instance, if A = B = C, we would deduce that A = C. But how do we actually know that A = C and that in some part of the universe it would not be so? For instance take synergism that is being taught in universities. It says, Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. But how do we know that all men are mortal? When we say that all men are mortal we have already assumed that Socrates is mortal so it is really induction. Even Aristolean logic is induction and all classical physics is based on the GJC principle that I explained earlier.

Q: How does quantum physics differ?
A: Quantum physics deal with very very tiny particles or electrons that cannot be observed. In fact the electron is only a concept, which so far has not been observed and the only observation is of its tracts. Therefore we connect these paths and say that this is the path of the electron, even though no one has even observed its travel. This was actually based on Young’s experiment where he showed that when a ray of light moves through one slit and then another, the waves intercept each other which can either enhance or destruct the waves. In quantum physics if there are two slits we don’t know through which slit the particle travels. But now all scientists have been convinced that the particle or electron travel through both slits simultaneously.
This cannot be explained using the GJC chintananya, as according to the GJC, a particle at one point cannot be at another point at the very same time and this is the crux of the problem. Aristotle didn’t know anything about this and he inducted that one particle should be at one point at one time such as if A = B, A cannot be equal to B, on which GJC chintanaya is based. Quantum physics is something that cannot be inducted. Our experience is generally with day to day things, such as this chair which is here cannot be at another place at the very same time. I cannot walk through two doors at the same time, but a particle or an electron can, as it is everywhere at the same time.

So where am I going with all of this? Am I saying the reality is just an illusion etc etc??? That would be too cliche. I'm making a point on human communication and in an even broader sense, the knowledge of human kind itself. I won't you to think alongside these lines. Think about why we call certain tings by certain names. Think about how we communicate. Why do we have to always assume that the other person is seeing/experiencing the exact same thing? What if not just eyes but every sensory organ was stealthily tampered with?....... We'd be naming things with the exact same name while experiencing radically different things.


I'd also like to reccomend Jeremy Lent who seems to converge with Nalin de Silva at certain topics (according to Nalin de Silva himself) He has released a book named The Patterning Instinct and here is the website: https://www.jeremylent.com/table-of-contents.html

The Patterning Instinct provides a new answer to this question with a simple but compelling theme: Culture shapes values, and those values shape history. So even if Zheng had discovered America, the Chinese would never have conquered the New World because they were driven by a fundamentally different set of motivations from European explorers.

Hopefully I made you look at the world in a different light through my work here. Always seek the roots of all things. Always ask "why" at every chance you get. Simple questions and ideas can give you an entirely new perspective on the world. I can't make you realize things. My mind is mine and Your mind is Yours. But I can show Where to look.

Now my question is: What do you see?