Lets look at another example typically given to say that we are only sure or our sense data but not the thing-in-itself. Take a table in the middle of the room, we look at it and say the color is brown. However, it we get real close to it it seems to be grayish brown, and the time a day changes and lighting of the rooms changes the table looks reddish. Is it reasonable to then conclude, “see, this proves that we can never know the actual/the real color of the table, the thing-in-itself.” — Richard B
the phenomenal character of experience is not a property of mind-independent objects. — Michael
I think that our modern understanding of science shows that both a) and b) are true. — Michael
1. Difficult to understand how a scientist would observe a subject’s phenomenal character of experience since it is private to the subject.
2. Assuming that 1. Is achievable, how can a scientist compare it if mind independent objects are not directly accessible according to phenomenology — Richard B
Why wouldn't I? — Michael
the properties of mind-independent objects are not present in the experience — Michael
I mean, if this is true, then how do you know about mind independent objects? — Tate
Unless you want to argue that the mind-independent object was in some sort of superposition of being both white and gold and black and blue, with each group having direct access to one "version"? But that seems like quite the reach. — Michael
I think we would both agree that the sense data is exactly the same whether you call it a image of a duck or an image of a rabbit. — Richard B
In means no intermediary. I take it I have direct access to what my eyes see, my mind thinks, etc.Please explain what direct access means. — Richard B
Yes.We do, in fact, not experience reality past our senses — Christoffer
And yes, again.We don't have to accept the illogical conclusion of reality only existing because of our perception of reality in order to accept the importance of differentiating perception versus actual reality. — Christoffer
It's reasonable to believe the table has no color independent of us.Is it reasonable to then conclude, “see, this proves that we can never know the actual/the real color of the table, the thing-in-itself.” — Richard B
Does the image show the table's "true" color? No, because the table has no true color independent of the perceiving being. — Art48
In means no intermediary. I take it I have direct access to what my eyes see, my mind thinks, etc. — Art48
We have indirect access to physical objects.Ok, but this does prove there is anything we don't have access to — Richard B
My eyes only see light. If free-standing 3D holograms existed indistinguishable from real trees, my eyes would see exactly the same thing.Ok, your eyes don't see sense data of trees, they see trees. — Richard B
My eyes only see light. If free-standing 3D holograms existed indistinguishable from real trees, my eyes would see exactly the same thing. — Art48
Isn't the scientific data about things that are past your senses? — Tate
Our perception of an apple doesn't explain how outside objects can scan and analyze the apple arriving at repeatable conclusions. — Christoffer
A fairly obvious point when you think of it, but then few people do think of it. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.