>>14371710>does it make any statistical sense to suggest we fit snuggly intothe middle of a really narrow band of experience where all things are located?No, but again, we can and do work with data from a much broader range than anything we can directly perceive, and none of it hints at anything /x/-tier. Here's the thing: we can and do detect phenomena that would seem magical and incomprehensible to a caveman, or even someone from centuries ago. It IS incredibly unlikely that the tiny slice of reality we can directly experience would be all there is; not only is it unlikely, but we already know for sure that it's not remotely the case. Still, we don't find anything /x/-tier, and that's because, ironically, /x/-tier stuff is itself very anthropocentric and rooted in the narrow conceptions of reality that the primitive parts of our mind are geared towards; it tries to create pumped-up parallels to the mundane, somewhere just out of view, spicing it up with vague magicality that is a comprehensible version of the incomprehensible, but ultimately revolving around analogies to what we can grasp. Could there be something out there that defies human perception, reason and explanation? Probably. Is this an interesting idea? No -- it's vague and nonspecific, as it must be, by its very nature. This is possible, but it will never be /x/.
>inventing categories is just classifying things differently, I am talking about what may exist that is not perceivableMy point was that you can conceive of infinitely many possible senses pertaining just to the phenomena that we DO perceive. Bats can use echolocation to detect solid objects in their surroundings -- that's a different sense from vision, but it mostly just reveals the same stuff.
