1. How do our interactions with the material world shape our knowledge?

The interaction between observers and observed are quite literally some of the most
important interactions that take place. The storage, and the collection of the information
present in the physical, material, tangible world is really what influences every aspect of
our brain’s storage and processing of data.

Material world analysis plays an

interesting role in linguistics. An
intersectional example of this would
be the phenomenon of Kiki Bouba.
Linguists asked participants to
categorize these 2 shapes into the
words kiki and bouba----

Do this in your head, pls…

The findings, from this experiment were much better than chance, with most people
across regional borders and cultural differences still being able to link these 2 words. The
most agreed upon hypothesis for why this happens is because the material world plays a
heavy role in our perception of the sound of any shape: Ki, Ta, - unvoiced plosives, sharp
shapes, and Bu, no- voiced plosives, and nasals are associated with rounder shapes. The
experiments try to prove that there is a link between a word and it’s implications in our
brain: ki, and sounds like it usually occur when something breaks (a cracking table), and
rounder sounds are much more likely to bounce of pebble like objects than geometric
defined ones. The implications for this were taken further by giving english speakers
words from Huambusia, and they sorted words for bird and fish correctly with no
knowledge of the culture, just the words with a 58% accuracy- that is 8% more than on
chance. The physical world, our knowledge of how it feels bends and shifts even the
language we use to communicate all knowledge.

Our interaction with the physical world shapes almost every interaction- the shapes we
see, the graphics used develop languages and shorthands, but we are still bound to our
physical world. The needs, and the interactions with the planet and the objects around us
influence every of our development into surviving organisms, who can procreate and give
birth to new surviving organisms.
2. Is the truth what the majority of people accept?

No, I believe that Truth is a pure white substance at the center of the universe and our job
is to look at that white thing and filter it with our own lenses, maybe even sometimes
touch the white. The truth is unchanging, our perception of it, however, is constantly
devolving, evolving, morphing, and just getting completely thrown out-- it’s a process.

My rejection of this statement is firstly due to the fact that I never think we will uncover
true truth. We don’t know why matter exists in the universe, forget understanding the
random pattern based behaviour of people… we are as a culture really arrogant, and quick
to assume that we ‘understand’ when we actually don’t understand much of anything.
And since cultures are protective of their structures we push dissent, usually, logically to
the side. Truth-seeking cultures should encourage dissent, and new ideas because that is
the only way that we get closer to that white shining light at the centre of the universe.

Even cultural truths and traditions wouldn’t be classified as truths. Because there is
nothing concrete about them, they are subject to change by the people who follow them:
that is almost the definition of a belief.

The third and the most important rejection criterion of this question is that people are
dumb, and I don’t hold any exception for myself. We are easily convinced and there are
thousands of really good liars who have the one thing that makes a person believe you:
charisma, and good logical flow. Debating as a concept is flawed in it’s execution because
it’s dependant not on the best point but the best argument of that point. An charismatic
liar could probably convince me and you that Oompa Loompa’s are real.

An extension of this point is that if we take truth to be majority voted- democratized. We

result in alienating minorities from the discussion of truth. Ridiculous, now, statements
seem completely normalized when you take them into a different context. Gold in Mayan
culture was abundant in their mines and so they used it as they would any shining metal,
by throwing into waterbodies to ‘honor their ruler.’ The only value, and the shock factor, of
this story is visible to us now because we know for a fact that 10g of Gold today will sell for
49,760. And if we truly think about it: what is the value of gold but just a perpetuated
belief spread to the masses.

Infact if this is truly what you believe then you lock yourself into a logical circle. If truth is
what majority believes, and the majority requires proof to believe anything, and the
offered proof is that the majority believes in it then where do you even start challenging
opinions.