So there is the user of the camera, the camera, and the image. Correct?

But "the user" is irrelevant, or unnecessay. It could just as well be an automated security camera.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this. — Noble Dust

It's not a metaphor if you acknowledge this, it's just the matter under discussion. that's the point @khaled and @Pfhorrest are trying to make.

Wayfarer's sole argument we were given was the fact that...

the very thing which weaves all that together into a world is mind, which is not amongst those objects. — Wayfarer

This is also true of a camera taking film.

It's just an extension of the same old posts we've read a thousand times before. "Things are as I present them and if you don't see it there's no point in discussing the matter further."

I have no objection to the position, but why keep posting it on a discussion forum?

There's no camera filming without some use for it, and therefore no camera without a user. Even the footage of a surveillance camera is watched by some human being once in a while.

There is also the actual stuff represented in the picture, e.g. the grand canyon.

The point is an automated camera doesn't have to be "used" – photos viewed by a person – in order to function, or affect / be affected.

This is also true of a camera taking film. — Isaac

The problem is that you're still using the metaphor. The metaphor gets you from A to B, but you have to cast it off once you reach B. This is the classical mistake of analytic thought.

It has to be fabricated by someone and then set up by someone. Cameras don't crop up in the landscape haphazardly. They are artificial eyes that humans make and use.

Correct.

The metaphor gets you from A to B, but you have to cast it off once you reach B. This is the classical mistake of analytic thought. — Noble Dust

No metaphor. a camera taking film is not included in the world it films. It's a statement of fact, not a metaphor. It shows that not being included among the objects a device represents does not necessarily render that device of a different substance to the objects it represents.

I thought you said transcendence was a straw man? — Pfhorrest

Nope, supernaturalism was what I objected to. Dualism, at least my garden variety, is a natural, common sensical philosophy. It's not really about demons and fairies.

It has to be fabricated by someone and then set up by someone. Cameras don't crop up in the landscape haphazardly. — Olivier5

Yes they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Overview

Again, you're begging the question by already assuming the two types of camera are of different stuff.

No metaphor. — Isaac

No, the camera is a metaphor in this discussion. Read back if you need to.

A literal map of a geographic territory and the literal territory itself are both made of the same kind of stuff, and yet there is a difference between them. — Pfhorrest

Indeed, this difference is not about the map being magical or supernatural. So what is this difference about?

No, the camera is a metaphor in this discussion. Read back if you need to. — Noble Dust

I'm responding to this...

the very thing which weaves all that together into a world is mind, which is not amongst those objects. — Wayfarer

A camera does not film itself; you can't see the camera on film. — Pfhorrest

No metaphors involved. Just statements about the way the world is and the ontological consequences.

According to my research, when you respond to me, you're responding to this:

No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this. -Noble Dust

So what if the camera is part of a bot whose job it is to wander around and take pictures of ducks? Or is an automated security camera? In that case does the camera become ontologically different from the thing being photographed since it is the author of the photos (there are no users)?

and your entire argument breaks down — Noble Dust

And what is my argument that breaks down exactly?

I'm not making an argument, I'm saying Isaac's argument is fallacious. It goes something like:

1- The mind is the source of our concepts of "matter", "physical" and all other concepts
2- Therefore the mind is ontologically different from matter, and is not physical

2 doesn't follow.

No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this. — Noble Dust

That's right. I was pointing out that your objection is misguided because the argument you're objecting to never included a metaphor in the first place.

Sure, the camera is an artifact, but that fact does not equate with its functioning.

Dualism, at least my garden variety, is a natural, common sensical ... — Olivier5

Yes, folk philosophy (like folk psychology) and naive at best.

So what if the camera is part of a bot whose job it is to wander around and take pictures of ducks? — khaled

Who said the user was a bot or an automated security camera? Those are programs programmed by human beings.

And what is my argument that breaks down exactly? — khaled

I have no idea, it just breaks down if you consider the camera to be the final viewpoint in the stupid metaphor.

And what is my argument that breaks down exactly?
— khaled

I have no idea, it just breaks down — Noble Dust

Right. Good talk.

What exact point are you trying to make?

.

As I've already stated:

↪Olivier5 The point is an automated camera doesn't have to be "used" – photos viewed by a person – in order to function, or affect / be affected. — 180 Proof

In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful. — Juan Marin, Quantum Mysticism - Gone but not Forgotten

Actually, fuck you for your misappropriation of what I said.

So now you've resorted to simply pointing out that other people thought something to be the case and if we don't agree then there's no point in discussing it.

It's a change I suppose...