The central question concerns the relation between the subjective conscious perceptual field and the objective perceptual field. Everything in the objective field is either perceived or can be perceived. Nothing in the subjective field is perceived nor can be perceived precisely because the events in the subjective field consist of the perceivings , whether veridical or not, of the events in the objective field
Nothing in the subjective field is perceived nor can be perceived precisely because the events in the subjective field consist of the perceivings , whether veridical or not, of the events in the objective field
The problem is that by asking what something looks like independent of looking at it is an incoherent question. Its like asking if you can get the same result (how something looks) with different causes (the object doesnt refect light that interacts with your visual system). How does the object look when the lights are out, or when it partially submerged in a clear glass of water?I see issues with the idea that we see external objects as they exist independently of us, that we see things as they are outside of us, yet it seems many people still assume it as if it was self-evident. — leo
1. If we see things as they are, why don't we see the perceptions and thoughts of others? Is it that they don't exist? — leo
If mind stems from the brain, why is our mind not a brain in a vat, — leo
. If our concepts stem from our mind, such as the very concept of things, why say we see things as they are outside mind? — leo
4. If we see things as they are, why do some people not see things as they are (hallucinations, delusions)? — leo
The correct way to phrase the question would be "what is the object like independent of looking at it?"
Doesn't science explain what something is like independent of looking at it - as if from a view from no where? — Harry Hindu
You can't explain what an object is like independent of looking at it — Hanover
All we know is what sense, and what we sense is subject to interpretation by our sense organs and brain — Hanover
Sure you can, because it's not different independent of looking at it, at least from the point of reference in question, and there are always points of reference. — Terrapin Station
The only way you could know that what we sense is different than the object in itself is to know what the object is like in itself AND know what we sense, where you then note the differences. Otherwise, you'd have no basis at all to say that what we sense is any different than the object in itself. — Terrapin Station
I've not said the perception is different from the object. I've said the object is entirely unknowable. — Hanover
The object is entirely unknowable based on what? What is the support for that claim? — Terrapin Station
Yes, but what does it mean for something to look and feel like anything? Isn't there an aboutness to how they look and how they feel? Are you not informed of something?You can't explain what an object is like independent of looking at it because what it is like cannot be described in any terminology other than sensation based language. That is, it smells like A, tastes like B, sounds like C, feels like D, and looks like E. Even such things as length and width cannot be described except in terms of how long it looks or feels. — Hanover
As Locke attempted some time ago to draw a distinction between primary and secondary traits, with the former being of the object itself (like length and width) and the latter being those imposed by the person (like color or flavor), it became clear upon analysis that there really isn't any such distinction. All we know is what sense, and what we sense is subject to interpretation by our sense organs and brain. We have no reasonable basis to conclude that the apple we see in any way reflects some absolute reality.
As Kant noted, all we can reference is the phenomena, that which we perceive. We cannot even coherently discuss the noumena or the things in themselves. It makes no sense to ask what something really looks like without referencing what I subjectively see it to look like. — Hanover
The bold part is you saying something about absolute reality. What is survival?We should expect that our perceptions are geared toward our survival, but not in exposing us to absolute reality, whatever that even means. That is, the apple appears bright red and tastes sweet to us because that makes it noticeable and delicious to those who have eaten them and outsurvived those who did not. — Hanover
All I perceive is a phenomenal state. — Hanover
To use the arboreal example that's so popular, let's say you see a tree. Possibilities include that you're perceiving a phenomenal state (which presumably you're saying amounts to "perceiving" mental content qua mental content), and that you're perceiving something external to you--namely, a tree. — Terrapin Station
Assuming you're a realist, there is a tree "out there" that somehow is perceived by you. That leaves two things (1) the tree and (2) the perception of the tree. The tree is located in the woods and the perception is located in your head. Your knowledge of the tree is due to the light reflecting off the tree, the lens in your eye bending that light, that light affecting your neurons, and thorough some magic of consciousness, you perceive it. What else could you be perceiving other than some processed physical event in the world? — Hanover
That, however, is not your view. Your view is that you're "perceiving" mental content qua mental content. I'm asking you how you're arriving at that option. And the answer as to how you're arriving at it, why you're picking that option is? — Terrapin Station
Is consciousness divided into a perceiver and an object of perception, ie the Cartesian theatre, or is consciousness and perception one and the same? Isn't "awareness" a synonym for "consciousness"?
Where is the "you" that perceives? — Harry Hindu
My view is that I'm perceiving whatever has been transmitted from the tree to the eye to the brain to my consciousness. The light as it travels is not a perception the instant it hits my lens, and the tree itself never moves from the woods. — Hanover
Is consciousness divided into a perceiver and an object of perception, ie the Cartesian theatre, or is consciousness and perception one and the same? Isn't "awareness" a synonym for "consciousness"?
Where is the "you" that perceives? — Harry Hindu
As Kant noted, all we can reference is the phenomena, that which we perceive. We cannot even coherently discuss the noumena or the things in themselves. It makes no sense to ask what something really looks like without referencing what I subjectively see it to look like. — Hanover
What I think is going on is that you perceive the tree. Obviously that doesn't mean that the tree is in your brain, which is an inane misunderstanding/straw man that some people think is worth arguing against, as if anyone is claiming that. Perceiving the tree is seeing the tree as it is, from a particular point of reference, via the mechanisms of perception--receiving sensory data via light or sound or touch, etc. where nerve signals are sent to your brain, etc. — Terrapin Station
Again, this is why I don't like to do more than one thing at a time. What happened to the question I asked prior to what you're quoting? — Terrapin Station
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.