are we not tricked by our senses? are we really seeing thing the way it is, or are we perceived to believe that we are seeing? it's always a very confusing contradiction for me, and leads to the never-ending argument of what comes first; empiricism, or rationalism?

it is inarguable that our lives are extremely dependent on this vital feature of our human system: the brain. it controls, it holds the power. truth is, what's a thing we can do with it not knowing?

however, it's just a series of cells, trapped firmly and safely inside our skull. it could not see, it could not hear, therefore it relies to its underlings; the senses. the senses tell it what they see, what they hear, what they taste and what they feel. 

so, the brain will be shut without them giving the information it needed; therefore with lack of senses it can easily be tricked.

'cogito ego sum, i think therefore i am' said the rationalists. 'but how do you know?' is always the counterpart of the empirists.

that's right, the mojo question of the empirists against the proud logic-worshipper; how do you know. that again reminds people how dependent they brains are to the information gained by the sense.

but then, what can the senses do alone? for without brain they will not work; for we never know what we really see, we just know what our brain thinks we see, right?

questioning which is more important is as useless as trying to figure out which comes first; the egg or the chicken. the never-ending paradoxes.

"Body am I, and soul"- so says the child. And why should one not speak like children? But the awakened one, the knowing one, says: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body." The body is a great wisdom, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd. An instrument of your body is also your small wisdom, my brother, which you call "mind"- a little instrument and toy of your great wisdom.