Is it not possible to perceive, except in an object-oriented way? — NotAristotle
For example, two trees are green, but I recognize that, despite the similarity in their color tone, they are not the same tree. — NotAristotle
I am not looking for an argument, I am just saying, we can recognize objects as such, that's kind of strange is it not? — NotAristotle
But I can pick out lions, and other things. How do I do this? — NotAristotle
In other words, starting with a manifold of input such as shapes, colors, etc., it is unclear how the brain ultimately recognizes something as a distinct object. — NotAristotle
And the answer to your question is, you would not have grown into adulthood, or into childhood without object-perception. Unless you are blind, no nerve endings to feel objects, and no other sensory features, and no perception of time (memory) -- in which case you would not have survived infancy -- then you really do not have a choice but be conditioned to know these things. This is your realism at its best.This might cause me some alarm, but if I am unfamiliar, fundamentally, with what an object is, then there is no way for me to differentiate the lion from everything else in the environment perceived. In other words, I would have to pick out the lion first, before I have good reason to avoid it.
But I can pick out lions, and other things. How do I do this? — NotAristotle
Pattern recognition. Thats a huge part of what the brain does and it’s so dedicated to finding patterns that it will even see patterns that aren’t there, optical illusions etc. — DingoJones
(1) where do we get the criteria for what counts as an object? — NotAristotle
(2) I think the issue is a "how does our brain do that" mystery. Light enters the brain through the retina, it is parsed as images (lines, shapes, colors, and so on). At what point does that assemblage of lines shapes, colors, etc. become an object? If it's the brain that does that, how does it do so? — NotAristotle
One way to put this is that physical science can’t do the work of philosophy, can’t solve our concerns and confusions with our human condition. We want it to take us (our failings) out of the picture, but the process of working with objects is a human activity. — Antony Nickles
In other words, I would have to pick out the lion first, before I have good reason to avoid it. — NotAristotle
"Human"?
Dogs don't bury bones? Beavers don't build dams? Owls don't catch field mice? — Srap Tasmaner
activities, as: different and more than brain processes — Antony Nickles
our (human alone) relation to our understanding of our relation to objects — Antony Nickles
(1) where do we get the criteria for what counts as an object? — NotAristotle
Based on recent findings, some researchers (such as Elizabeth Spelke and Renee Baillargeon) have proposed that an understanding of object permanence is not learned at all, but rather comprises part of the innate cognitive capacities of our species. — wiki article on Developmental Psychology
(2) I think the issue is a "how does our brain do that" mystery. Light enters the brain through the retina, it is parsed as images (lines, shapes, colors, and so on). At what point does that assemblage of lines shapes, colors, etc. become an object? If it's the brain that does that, how does it do so? — NotAristotle
it does appear that objects are by and large constructed within the brain, without our awareness, — Srap Tasmaner
it does appear that objects are by and large constructed within the brain, without our awareness, — Srap Tasmaner
What we want with this picture is to understand seeing and identification of objects without our participation in the process. The chance of error previously led philosophy to create the idea of “appearances” (compared to something more “real” or certain). The current fascination with brain processes comes from the same desire. — Antony Nickles
Our usual “unawareness” of these acts are because we are so trained in them we handle everything effortlessly — Antony Nickles
For example: I point out an object you had no awareness of and you “construct” it into your world in learning to identify and differentiate it, learn where to find it, etc. In an actual sense, your unawareness of it as a separate distinct object means it does not exist (for you), as you have no reasons for it to matter, no criteria of our reasons to be interested in it. Basically, the brain’s activity during all this is not critical to, nor does it illuminate, the philosophical issues involved. — Antony Nickles
science is a dogma-free zone — Srap Tasmaner
There are well-known ways -- various optical illusions, in particular -- in which if you think that's what you're getting, what you actually get will be awfully confusing. — Srap Tasmaner
If by training you had in mind some kind of social convention, that's just not it. — Srap Tasmaner
And it looks like we are not aware of how some of the basic building blocks of the world are put together for us because we cannot be. The connections aren't there. It may present a bit like a habitual activity that you can perform "on automatic", without thinking, but there are things that you were never thinking, not consciously. — Srap Tasmaner
(1) Science is not the land of certainty. People talk this way sometimes, sure, even scientists, but when it comes down to it, science is a dogma-free zone. So if you're looking for certainty, it's religion you want, not science. — Srap Tasmaner
When I say certainty I only mean predictable, repeatable, knowable, etc., which are the criteria for the conclusions of the scientific method. EDIT: most importantly here is that it does not matter which (competent) person does the experiment to reach the same conclusion. — Antony Nickles
Science can never be a dogma-free zone. It can be a practice that is self-aware with regard to its reliance on guiding presuppositions — Joshs
And the exact point is that if we are talking about brain processes, we’re not talking about mistakes and excuses and responsibility because of the desire to make our interplay with objects pure instead of muddled with those considerations and our relation to others. — Antony Nickles
focusing on our biological relationship to objects is fine (it’s not wrong), but only, it’s trying to answer a question that philosophy has misconstrued out of fear and desire — Antony Nickles
Rather than denying our responsibility for what we do with these capabilities, it provides the ground we stand on when we have those discussions. — Srap Tasmaner
My version… just shows them why they were so puzzled… — Srap Tasmaner
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.