So, our perception of things is always an interpretation, we perceive an always already interpreted world, in other words, and all our judgements are judgements of and about an interpreted world. — Janus

Are you also saying that because of language a la Banno (who was agreeing with Wittgenstein, wasn't he?) or are you saying it for some other reason? (I couldn't say why Heidegger thinks it, by the way.)

The language comment is extremely confused in my view. If there's another reason you're saying this, though, what's the reason, and what would be the support of it?

It seems a bit odd to me to use the word "interpretation" in a sense that isn't connected to meaning, but I can't imagine that you have a view that perception can't obtain without assigning meaning to what's perceived.

Try this: what exactly does it mean to say that an object exists mind-independently, apart from the obvious "It's there when no one is around". We know what it means to say an object we perceive is there; we can see it. touch it and so on. We don't know what it means for an unperceived object to be there: the best we can say is that if we were there we would be able to see it, touch and so on. But that really amounts to saying nothing at all outside of the context of perception. — Janus

What do mean "what is your brain like or where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep"?

Can you explain what you think the relevance of this question (these questions?) is to what you have quoted me as saying above?

I'll hazard an answer in any case: for me my brain is not like anything, because I am not directly aware of its existence; I believe it exists via secondhand accounts that tell me that if my skull were opened there wold be brain to be found there. — Janus

If you're questioning an object's existence independent of some perception of it, then I ask you what your mind is like when no one is perceiving it. How is it that your mind can cease to exist and then come back retaining its memories and sense of self? Notice that I haven't used the word, "brain". Your mind is an object in the world that others can perceive. If we couldn't then how did it ever come to pass that someone made the claim that other minds exist? You might say that I don't know that other minds exist, but unfortunately solipsism brings its own baggage that make it untenable.

Why can I still see your body when you are asleep and dreaming, that seems to behave as if you are having a dream? If dreaming were a different reality, then why is your body still here in this one and why would I see you acting out your dream in this world (talking in your sleep, moving your arms and legs, sleep walking, etc.)? Your brain in this world still has a hold of your consciousness in some way even when you mind is off in another. By looking at your brain, I can get a clue of whether or not you are using sensory data supplied by the senses or the brain itself.

I haven't said we can't observe things; we do it all the time. I haven't said we cannot "get at" (if by that you mean 'perceive') objects, either, so I don't know where this is coming from. — Janus

Well then, what do you mean by "observe" and "perceive"? Where is the perception relative to the perciever?

Sadly it seems that you misinterpreted a lot of what I said. — leo

It 'seems' or I did ? It is not so very sad, is it?

I don't think you are expressing your personal situation and frustration as honestly or succinctly as you might. It's perhaps easier to generalise about people or the many. Or to block or detach by intellectualisation as per OP.

The words I say do not convey what's in my mind, they convey your idea of what's in my mind based on what the words mean to you. — leo

Say again ?

What's the difference between imagination and reality? You classify some experiences as 'real' and some experiences as 'imaginary', what criteria do you use to make that distinction? — leo

There can be a difference between what I think or imagine is the case and what is actually the case or state of affairs. The gap can be filled with facts and knowledge about the world.

Many people dismiss spiritual experiences as hallucination or imagination, in other words as something that doesn't really exist, because they haven't had them. — leo

Yes. That can be the case. It still doesn't stop people telling their stories or others listening to them.
Sometimes to understand, other times to scoff. We can't directly experience such, only indirectly.
Sometimes we are helped by imagination or empathy.

If your idea of what's 'real' doesn't match the social consensus on what's 'real', then you are deemed to be delusional. People get locked up and forcefully drugged because they are 'delusional' — leo

Has that been your experience ?

Many people believe they have access to the one 'reality' that applies to everyone, to "the way things are" that applies to everyone, and use that as a justification to impose things onto others, to tell others what to believe in and what not to believe in, to ridicule those who believe differently or to label them as mentally ill, to force them to agree with "the way things are" because that's the way things are, no matter what they might say, if they protest and refuse to submit then that's because they're really sick or really stupid, and if they don't agree that they are objectively inferior beings then that's all the more reason to force them into submission, because how can they not see the one reality in front of them? — leo

Is this your experience ? Have you been so labelled ?

I think it's easier to listen when we don't pretend to know what others experience and what they don't, what's real and what isn't. — leo

I think listening comes first. I am not sure that people pretend to know. They are trying to see things from another perspective and that isn't easy. Sometimes it can frustrate when others in an attempt to offer sympathy say ' I know how you feel ' or ' I've been there'. They don't and haven't.

However, they might have experienced something similar. And are only trying to make some kind of a connection. It might be 'sad' or unfortunate if the connection fails...either the sender, the message or the receiver crackles white noise and gets lost in translation...
We can only do our best.

Anyway, I have just experienced deja vu. You know what that's like ? A similar conversation, another time, another place.
I will end it here.

Best wishes.

What other way would it be? Figurative pain? Metaphorical pleasure? Abstract taste? Well, maybe that one for some people. Non-literal feelings?

I dream of platonic reds and functional sounds. — Marchesk

Ok... I mean, SUPPOSING all that were ok... how do you answer the inevitable, literal-minded question, "where are they, then?"

Are they in a brain?

It seems a bit odd to me to use the word "interpretation" in a sense that isn't connected to meaning, but I can't imagine that you have a view that perception can't obtain without assigning meaning to what's perceived. — Terrapin Station

Perception is always already meaningful; it is not a matter of "assigning anything". You remain unable to think outside the dualistic box, it seems.

Notice that I haven't used the word, "brain". Your mind is an object in the world that others can perceive. — Harry Hindu

I disagree with this. Stick with the brain; that is what we have been talking about. We can, not normally, but via either surgery or various sensory augmentations, perceive other's brains, but not other's minds.

I haven't said we can't observe things; we do it all the time. I haven't said we cannot "get at" (if by that you mean 'perceive') objects, either, so I don't know where this is coming from. — Janus

Well then, what do you mean by "observe" and "perceive"? Where is the perception relative to the perciever? — Harry Hindu

What do you mean what do I mean by "observe" and "perceive"? I mean why the question? To observe is to see and to perceive is to sense and recognize. We all know that. As to your question. I don't think it makes any sense to ask it, so to attempt to answer it would be even more senseless.

Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps we can stop agreeing so vehemently.

I would just draw attention to one aspect: "our perception of things is always an interpretation".

Notice that it is a perception of things. Denying this is the error made by @Wayfarer and others, in claiming that there are only perceptions, not perceptions of things.

I have added to your list of problems for such idealism:

— Banno

• To be mistaken requires that what you have in mind is distinct from what is out there. If the external world is not independent of your mind, how is it that you can be mistaken as to what is the case?
• You on occasions come upon a novelty. If the external world is not independent of your mind, where is it that something previously unknown comes from?
• There are some things you are prevented from doing. If the external world is not independent of your mind, why can't you do as you choose?
• If the external world is not independent of your mind, what place is there for other minds? How will you avoid solipsism?

Otherwise, perhaps we agree.

It seems a bit odd to me to use the word "interpretation" in a sense that isn't connected to meaning... — Terrapin Station

So don't. Treat meaning as use. The world is always already interpreted in terms of the things we can do in it.

I would just draw attention to one aspect: "our perception of things is always an interpretation".

Notice that it is a perception of things. Denying this is the error made by Wayfarer and others, in claiming that there are only perceptions, not perceptions of things. — Banno

Yes, I agree that "it is a perception of things"; it could even be said that things just are interpretations. And yet they are not just interpretations, because we don't create thingsex nihilo, so there is something that is being interpreted. That's why I say that logic tells us that there is a world prior to interpretation. My main point is that we cannot get at the uninterpreted nature of the world, because all our 'getting ats; are interpretations.

As to your list of "problems" I think @Wayfarer may respond that he is not saying the world is created by or is "in" your mind or my mind, but that it is fundamentally mind, not matter. I have tried to get him to explicitly admit that his view is that all individual minds are, at some level beyond our ken, interconnected, and that that interconnection explains why we all see the same things 'out there" in the world. But he continually evades being pinned down to that, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps he sees himself as emulating, remaining true to, Gotama's kind of paraconsistent logic. You know: "It neither exists nor does not exist"; that kind of thing?

Perception is always already meaningful; it is not a matter of "assigning anything". You remain unable to think outside the dualistic box, it seems. — Janus

What would you say that meaning is if you view perception as always meaningful?

My main point is that we cannot get at the uninterpreted nature of the world, because all our 'getting ats; are interpretations. — Janus

Hmm. Better: there isn't an uninterpreted nature to the world. The distinction is senseless.

I think @Wayfarer's reply would come down to something very similar to what we seem to have agreed on here. He must in some way admit to error, limitations and novelty, and it would take a brave philosopher to move to panpsychism or solipsism.

it would take a brave philosopher to move to panpsychism or solipsism. — Banno

I think the best philosopher admits to a limited understanding of consciousness and its place in the universe.

I think the best philosopher admits to a limited understanding of consciousness and the its place in the universe. — frank

Do I?

:razz:

Do I? — Banno

Of course. :love:

Hmm. Better: there isn't an uninterpreted nature to the world. The distinction is senseless. — Banno

The problem is that to say this amounts to saying there was no nature of the world prior to human life. Or it is to say that there is no uninterpreted world, period. Does this mean that there is nothing if there are no humans, or if there is something, that it has no nature?

What would you say that meaning is if you view perception as always meaningful? — Terrapin Station

Meaning is of many kinds. Have you ever perceived anything utterly meaningless?

The problem is that to say this amounts to saying there was no nature of the world prior to human life. Or it is to say that there is no uninterpreted world, period. Does this mean that there is nothing if there are no humans, or if there is something, that it has no nature? — Janus

I don't see why. Can you set this out?

OK, so you said there is no uninterpreted nature to the world. Interpretation is an activity exclusive to humans, so prior to humans there was no interpretation, from which it seems to follow that there was no nature of the world prior to humans.

We can't interpret the world we see around us in order to understand what happened in the past?

There's a bit of a flick in the words you use. The world is always already interpreted became there is no uninterpreted nature to the world.

I'm not sure that works.

The world is always already interpreted amounts to the same thing as Wittgenstein's "The limits of our language are the limits of our world"

Perhaps then there is some difference in how we understand interpretation. For me it is plain that the past is part of our world, requiring no special ontology.

That is, there was no one around to talk about dinosaurs when there were dinosaurs; but we can talk about them now. Not a problem.

As to your list of "problems" I think Wayfarer may respond that he is not saying the world is created by or is "in" your mind or my mind, but that it is fundamentally mind, not matter. — Janus

I think the inextricable aspects of reality that mind contributes are scale, perspective and temporal duration. They are not 'given' but are part of the architecture of experience (as per Kant's 'primary intuitions'). So whilst it's true that objects are indeed 'mind-independent', they're nevertheless only comprehensible by virtue of being situated temporally and spatially; they exist somewhere and somewhen. And without such an organising principle, there can't be a 'somewhere' or 'somewhen'.

The problem is that this part of what the mind contributes is forgotten about, as it's not conscious, as it's part of what it takes to be conscious of anything. So again, it is what Kant and Husserl describe as 'transcendental' i.e. 'that which constitutes experience but is not itself given in experience. 1 ' (I'm wondering if it's correct to say we actually see through these concepts, which is why we can't look at them.) So this is why I argue that even picturing dinosaurs or the primeval earth contains an implicitly human perspective - it's impossible to picture anything or imagine anything from no viewpoint. The mind organises its cognitions that way, and what we say and think is organised around that as well. Whether there's something outside that, or other than that, is an exercise in futile speculation, for reasons that ought to be obvious (which I think is nearer to W's meaning above.)

That's why the questions about 'doubting the age of the Earth' are somewhat irrelevant. The point is, such questions are meaningful within the context of our agreed understanding. That's the sense in which nothing is really 'mind-independent' - but in saying that, I'm not referring to your mind or my mind, but the shared "lebenswelt" of meanings, references, and so on, that we all inhabit.

So when I say it's fundamentally 'mind', it's not as if 'mind' is an objective reality or even a substance (in the philosophical sense). It's simply that whatever we know or say is dependent on the mind, not that the mind is a constituent of objects. I hope that distinction makes sense, as many depictions of 'idealism' seem to be based on the misconception that it posits 'mind' as an objective substance, which I'm sure it never could be (in other words, 'epistemological idealism'). 'Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself', said Schopenhauer.

I don’t know so much about Husserl, but I’m pretty sure Kant wouldn’t go so far as to say the transcendent is necessary for experience.
————————————-

t + 8hrs: either you fixed it or I read it wrong initially. Either way....now I’m at peace with the world as It appears to me.

Meaning is of many kinds. Have you ever perceived anything utterly meaningless? — Janus

Yes. It's not possible to perceive meaning on my view. Meaning is something mental that we do. Namely, it's the mental process of associative thinking, of thinking about something so that it implies, refers to, connotes, denotes, suggests or "pushes" or "leans towards", etc. other things. It's not possible to perceive this. Even when you observe things like others literally pointing at something, or you read dictionary definitions, you need to think about those things in those associative ways. This is why the paper that a definition is written on, for example, can't do meaning. You can't perceive thinking about something in those associative ways. In fact, you can't literally perceive others thinking period. We rather abductively conclude that others are thnking.

We can't interpret the world we see around us in order to understand what happened in the past?

There's a bit of a flick in the words you use. The world is always already interpreted became there is no uninterpreted nature to the world.

I'm not sure that works. — Banno

Basically what he's asking you, although I don't know on what grounds as he's not a realist, is how the world was interpreted when the "timeline" is turned back to 3 billion years ago, for example.

There's a bit of a flick in the words you use. The world is always already interpreted became there is no uninterpreted nature to the world. — Banno

They were your words:

Hmm. Better: there isn't an uninterpreted nature to the world. The distinction is senseless. — Banno

Yes. It's not possible to perceive meaning on my view. — Terrapin Station

I wasn't speaking about "perceiving meaning" but perceiving meaningful things or perceiving things meaningfully. Have you ever perceived anything meaningless?

The world is always already interpreted amounts to the same thing as Wittgenstein's "The limits of our language are the limits of our world"

Perhaps then there is some difference in how we understand interpretation. For me it is plain that the past is part of our world, requiring no special ontology.

That is, there was no one around to talk about dinosaurs when there were dinosaurs; but we can talk about them now. Not a problem. — Banno

I agree there is no problem for our present talk about the age of dinosaurs insofar as we can say that if we had been there there we would have seen, that is there would have been, dinosaurs. But, if the world prior to humans was not an interpreted world, and there being dinosaurs is interpretative, then there would seem to be an inconsistency.

So I prefer to avoid the inconsistency and say that the uninterpreted, indeterminate conditions during what we call the Mesozoic were such that, if we had been there, we would have seen dinosaurs. I think all we could be arguing over here are two different ways of talking about the same thing.

I think the inextricable aspects of reality that mind contributes are scale, perspective and temporal duration. They are not 'given' but are part of the architecture of experience (as per Kant's 'primary intuitions'). — Wayfarer

Where I disagree with this is that I don't think it is right to say that the mind is not a part of what is given. It is part of the given insofar as it is something that, as Heidegger says, we find ourselves "thrown" into. Reality just is this givenness and there is no determinate reality beyond this givenness. It seems obvious that there is an indeterminate real, but that real could never be a reality for us.

So, the real is undecidable, and all religions and philosophies, whether idealist or realist, physicalist, anti-realist, or nominalist have their genesis in acts of deciding, and as such always miss the mark. There really is no mark to be hit or missed, but missing the mark consists in thinking that there is a mark to be hit or missed.

touché!