Not only that, the conclusion undermines the premises. How does he know that robins see differently if no one, including him, sees the world? To know that would entail seeing the world in the reaching of that premise.So, your argument is that other folk, including robins, see things differently to you, and hence... no-one sees the world as it is.
Why hasn't anyone pointed out that this conclusion does not follow from the premiss? — Banno
I mean, even color blind men can often run through a field with holes, grass lumps, and cow poop and thistles and reach the other side, even after running at great speed, with no injuries and still shiny nikes. It sure seems like to some degree they are seeing the world. And to that degree or in those ways also incredibly well. — Coben
The sparrows dancing from one bit of snow to another are real. Being able to observe that is real.
I am not sure what is being asked for beyond that. — Valentinus
These I call original or primary qualities of bodies . . . solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number.
Secondly, such qualities which in truth are nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities, i.e., by the bulk, figure, texture, and motion of their insensible parts
http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/lockquo1.htm — John Locke
Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/ — David Hume
People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually “colored” in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colors we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as colored, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colors we perceive. (Palmer 1999: 95)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/ — Stephen Palmer
That contradicts itself. I mean, how would this completely blind person know what others see. I suppose if he was a Rationalist who could make the claim in any case. But an empiricist is on thin ice and what would the Rationalist be talking about. What do any of his or her words refer to)I conclude that nobody can see the world as it is. — Daemon
But I still think the statement that we don't see reality doesn't hold. — Coben
will be based on what you think are accurate observations of reality. — Coben
If sensations of perception are generated by our biology, then the world we perceive is not the way the world is, but rather the way we humans interact with the world based on the kind of sensory organs and nervous systems our ancestors evovled. — Marchesk
If sensations of perception are generated by our biology, then the world we perceive is not the way the world is, but rather the way we humans interact with the world based on the kind of sensory organs and nervous systems our ancestors evovled. — Marchesk
Well, the guy who runs through the field, in the first post you responded to, is to some SERIOUS degree seeing that field as it is. Or he would not make it across. It's not binary.Don't see reality as it is. The bolded part is the key part. We do perceive reality. But we do so from a certain perspective. — Marchesk
Not for running across a field. For running across a field I need to go on what I have learned by seeing the world, to a very useful degree, as it is. My experience and bodily intuition. Bringing science into that run would probably just distract me. And we were seeing the world, in part as it is, long before science.The best we can do is rely on what science reveals about the world. — Marchesk
Sure, it is also a perspective, based on observations. So, it can't be binary. Whatever evidence there is that my seeing is limited, filtered, interpreted, comes from other sensory experiences that one must take as correct or significantly correct or they would not be of use in determining how reality is. Science is an empiricist process. So, it relies on seeing (or at least the senses, I don't want to excluse blind scientists, but even those will be sensing somehow or relying the observations of assistants.That's an abstracted view, but it gets at the properties and processes of things as they are, if imperfectly. — Marchesk
'The world'? You might narrow it down a bit. I can make true statements about all kinds of things, but statements about 'the world' are by their nature going to be very broad, aren't they? — Wayfarer
Cartesian anxiety refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other".
You acknowledge that there are true statements about the world but insist that we cannot see the world as it is. How is this not a contradiction? — Banno
— Marchesk
Sure, it is also a perspective, based on observations. So, it can't be binary. Whatever evidence there is that my seeing is limited, filtered, interpreted, — Coben
Add to that the science of how perception works, and how often science has overturned our intuitions about the world, and it’s clear that the world appears different than it is. — Marchesk
Yes, I've noticed that also. I've acknowledged that in different words. Notice, for example, the word hallucination only makes sense when contrasted with something that is not a hallucination. In order to determine it was a hallucination, one needs to trust other perceptions.There’s a SEP entry on the problem of perception. It’s as old as philosophy. The short of it is people noticed that we’re subject to illusions, hallucinations and perceptual relativity. — Marchesk
Science has not overturned all our intuitions about the world. One one they are not is that we can use our senses to draw correct conclusions about the world. Like the guy running through the field.Add to that the science of how perception works, and how often science has overturned our intuitions about the world, and it’s clear that the world appears different than it is. — Marchesk
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.