Human experience is mediated by abstract thought. Consequently, we understand the world in dualistic terms. It is possible to let that whole machinery go, and you seemed to be claiming that if we did that we would experience nothing at all. So I asked you about whether you think animals experience nothing at all. — Janus
So I too can develop a giant ego like Leary and crew? No thank you.
— praxis
Your unexamined attitudes are a laugh! You don't know what you are missing. — Janus
Animals, I imagine, live in the eternal present, in a non-dual state of awareness. — Janus
I asked if you see things in your dreams, not if you see dreams.
You asked where a visual representation of a tree appears and I suggested that it appears where all visual representations appear. — praxis
think you are being too harsh on Descartes. He had an intense interest in the sciences, was not a sceptic but used scepticism as a means of philosophical enquiry. — RussellA
Searle wrote about Direct Realism and the problem with hallucinations — RussellA
True, most of my knowledge comes from the public realm, the Moon Landing, Disney Land, The Large Hadron Collider, Australia etc, ie, Russell's Knowledge by Description. — RussellA
Perhaps illusion would be a better word than hallucination, in that illusions are far more common than hallucinations. For example, I perceive someone 5m away as being taller than the same person 10m away. — RussellA
I am sure it is true hallucinations is a rare event, but perhaps a lot of philosophy is based on trying to solve inconsistencies in a theory, such as Frege's puzzles and Russell's paradox. — RussellA
I think we're merely capable of more abstract thought than animals, because of our relatively large cerebral cortex. You'll need to be clearer about what "machinery" it's possible to let go of. I've already agreed that people can have a hyperactive default mode network or 'monkey mind' and that deactivating it can reduce any anxiety produced by the hyperactivity. — praxis
I do wish that Leary and his contemporaries had more thoroughly examined their attitudes toward it. Perhaps without their deluded visions of grandeur, it may not have turned out to be classified as a Schedule I substance — praxis
We all live in the present, actually, though that present is often lost in thought, and all that thought may have a tendency to cause undo anxiety. Animals may suffer maladaptive anxiety nevertheless, though not caused by overthinking. The good news is that we can think our way out of it, unlike animals. — praxis
Do you think abstract thought is possible without language? — Janus
That only I can imagine the music in my head. It's not 'an appearance' for anyone, not even me.
'Phenomenon:1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. "glaciers are interesting natural phenomena".' — Wayfarer
So, indirect realism is "without foundation in reason" according to Hume. — Richard B
The use of the word "indirect" commits us to this idea that there is no resemblance between our "idea/sense data of a tree" and the "material object tree." — Richard B
The Indirect Realist is not saying that there is no resemblance between what they perceive in their sense data and the cause of that perception, they are saying that they cannot know whether there is or isn't a resemblance between what they perceive in their sense data and the cause of that perception. — RussellA
"I perceive the tree" does not commit anyone to the realist position, or for that matter any other metaphysical position. Also, neither does saying "I directly perceive the tree" commit us; so as long we understand "directly" is being used in contrasting circumstances where we perceive the tree "indirectly", say in a mirror. Neither indirect or direct realism is needed to metaphysically explain, "I perceive a tree". — Richard B
Neither indirect or direct realism is needed to metaphysically explain, "I perceive a tree" — Richard B
What I am attempting to argue is that it does not even make sense to say "that they cannot know whether there is or isn't a resemblance between...." because the position is incoherent — Richard B
. My philosophical position is utilizing Wittgenstein's concept of a grammatical fiction (see Philosophical Investigation section 304 to 307). — Richard B
We learn words like "perceive" and "resemblance" from our fellow human beings and looking at trees and tables aids in this endeavor, not by introspection of "sense data of trees" and "sense data of tables" — Richard B
When we asked scientist to study why tree leaves have the color green, they did not start by studying the brain because all we can perceive "directly" is our sense data of the green leaves — Richard B
Let me assure you the scientist perceives the the lab, instruments, and reagents they might use to determine how leaves are green; the lab, instruments, and reagents are not inferred experiences, internal representations, or replicas. — Richard B
. My philosophical position is utilizing Wittgenstein's concept of a grammatical fiction (see Philosophical Investigation section 304 to 307).
— @Richard B
Mine also. — RussellA
The tree has three branches" is very different from "I perceive the tree to have three branches". Idealism is the conflation of the two. — Banno
Folk hereabout can't even agree that Kant was or wasn't an idealist. I don't see how making use of such historical quibbling is helpful. Better to address the actual argument. — Banno
"The tree has three branches" is very different from "I perceive the tree to have three branches". — Banno
That is conflating various forms of Idealism. — schopenhauer1
Rather, I'm saying that arguing about accounts of historical sources is replacing thinking about the problem.if we are strictly saying Berekley's version of Idealism — schopenhauer1
And would be very close to what an indirect realist would say, perhaps, or a Kantian. — schopenhauer1
Or an arborist, or a child; the practical and the innocent. It takes doing philosophy to muddle such simple language games. — Banno
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.