[Mr. Blonde]

Just seeing your edited post now.

Not insulting you with ad-hominems, calling it exactly how I see it, whether or not you are conscious of your own behavior. Calling you "not fun to talk to" is not an insult, mate. It's my opinion of our interaction based on how much is produced from it --- squat. You are a very smart person but your complete lack of a motive other than seemingly pushing other people's buttons is, categorically, an unfriendly personality trait, one I myself have been trying to overcome for years. I suggest you do the same.

Originally Posted by Dent

A sense is a physiological capacity of organisms that provides data for perception.
Physiology...a sub discipline of biology

Correct. As far as a material scientist like yourself goes, the statement that "senses only exist in biology where biological beings capable of sensing things exist" would seem like a statement you would agree with.

people without eyeballs can experience phenomenal redness, the presence of an eyeball is neither necessary nor sufficient. [If you think this is happening "through your senses" please explain why, otherwise there's my refutation]

How are they describing the color red in the first place? I would be very interested in knowing this. I assume they previously had eyeballs and now no longer do? Would not this fact of previous eyeball ownership taint the whole experiment, given that they could simply be experiencing a memory of the color red through another stimuli?

The point is, the case is hardly closed in regards this one example, and it is weak supporting evidence for the point you're trying to argue which is, and correct me if I'm wrong:

"We do not perceive everything from our senses."

I can agree with this statement in terms of thought, or a priori knowledge. How do you believe they are perceiving this redness, if not through some form of sensory data? What implications does that have for your worldview?

I would love to know why you believe this

"From this point of view the universe in general and playing in particular are, in a special sense, "meaningless": that is, they do not ---like words and symbols --- signify or point to something beyond themselves, just as a Mozart sonata conveys no moral or social message and does not try to suggest the natural sounds of wind, thunder, or birdsong.

When I make the sound "water", you know what I mean. But what does this whole situation mean ---- I making the sound and your understanding it? What is the meaning of a pelican, a sunflower, a sea urchin, a mottled stone, or a galaxy? Or of a+ b = b + a? They are all patterns, dancing patterns of light and sound, water and fire, rhythm and vibration, electricity and spacetime, going like

Thrummular, thrummular thrilp,
Hum lipsible, lipsible lilp;
Dim thricken mithrummy,
Lumgumptulous hummy,
Stormgurgle umbumdular bilp.

Or, in the famous words of Sir Arthur Eddington about the nature of electrons:

We see the atoms with their girdles of circulating electrons darting hither and thither, colliding and rebounding. Free electrons torn from the girdles hurry away a hundred times faster, curving sharply round the atoms with side-slips and hairbreadth escapes...The spectacle is so fascinating that we have perhaps forgotten that there was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. . . . Something unknown is doing we don't know what---that is what our theory amounts to.

It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read something like it elsewhere:

The slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

There is the same suggestion of activity. There is the same indefiniteness as to the nature of the activity and what it is that is acting.

Words and language are just symbols. They themselves are not real, in the tangible sense. And the world of the living, breathing senses of your daily experience are much more real and tangible than the mental realms we are conditioned to accept as reality.

Nothing means anything, really, but in that void of meaninglessness there is still beauty. Yes there is beauty in science. And it often gets ruined with white coats, sterility, and otherwise extremely boring and dead environments.