I think that if what we sensuously perceive does not fit into our concepts, we tend to ignore it because there is no place for it in our imagination.

Have you considered that a dog's "conceptual" system may be geared towards scent. I note that they tend to sniff and sniff around until they find just the right spot and I have read that wolves and other animals urinate to establish their territory.

Do they systematize their experiences differently than us? — Cavacava

That may well be. But, I don't think they "smell" a mental construct in that case, nor do I think the fact that we may systematize our experiences differently means we have mental constructs while they do not.

If a group of painters gathered around and painted the same tree, their various rendition would ordinarily be wildly divergent in feeling and style. This is analogous to human perception in that our predictive minds anticipate and color (with emotion, significantly) our perceptions before we’re consciously aware of them, so it’s more like we’re perceiving a stylized rendition than the real thing.

There's a distinction between the intentionality and the composition of perception (or a painting). — Michael

I don’t follow but am curious about what you mean here.

Animals organize their experiences differently from us, we seem to agree on that. I also think they are conscious and have some limited capacity to learn, to be able construct learned reactions based on certain stimuli.

I think that if what we sensuously perceive does not fit into our concepts, we tend to ignore it because there is no place for it in our imagination. — Cavacava

I think we ignore things not because they don't fit into our concepts, but because they don't fit into the current goal we have.
Again, what governs how we form concepts?

Animals organize their experiences differently from us, we seem to agree on that. — Cavacava

Then why does my dog swim when in water? I swim when I'm in water, too. It seems to me that not only did we organize our experiences the same way (we're in water), but we even respond in the stimuli the same way.

Did you have to learn how to swim? Did your dog have to learn how to swim. No I think the correlation breaks down.

Animals organize their experiences differently from us, we seem to agree on that. — Cavacava

Also, how did you come to agree on anything if we all have different concepts and different means of constructing our world? What is it that you are agreeing on - some concept or some real state of reality? Do animals really organize their experiences differently from us, or is that just another concept?

I don't see your point. Maybe you should try being a little more detailed in your explanation.

We don't invent concepts, they are given to us, and we assume them. No one grows up in isolation from others.

You might try answering my doggy swim question.

If concepts were given to humans then that means they must have existed prior to humans. So, who, or what, gave them to us, and in so doing, is that just another concept, or are you saying something truthful and real, without your conceptual structures getting in the way?

I don’t follow but am curious about what you mean here. — praxis

A painting of a tree is made of paint, but of a tree. And so the experience of a tree might be "made of" mental stuff, but be of a tree.

Answering my question with another question isn't helpful. Maybe you should make an attempt at answering my questions that were posed prior to yours.

I answered your question. We learn how to swim, not the dog.

There were many more before that.

Let me help you:
What governs how we form concepts?

How did you come to agree on anything if we all have different concepts and different means of constructing our world? What is it that you are agreeing on - some concept or some real state of reality? Do animals really organize their experiences differently from us, or is that just another concept?

If concepts were given to humans then that means they must have existed prior to humans. So, who, or what, gave them to us, and in so doing, is that just another concept, or are you saying something truthful and real, without your conceptual structures getting in the way?

I think we ignore things not because they don't fit into our concepts, but because they don't fit into the current goal we have. It seems to me that things we don't understand,

Again, what governs how we form concepts?

How did you bring goals into this....how are they related to our sensuous perceptions, you seem to be agreeing with me here.

Ok, but isn't that just another concept, and not a real state-of-affairs. When you write a post, is your post just another of your concepts, or is it about a real state-of-affairs that exists independent of your mind and it's concepts?

I don't know what you are reply to.

Cavacava, when I read your post, is your post just another one of my concepts, and your post doesn't really exist except as my concept? In other words, your post, and your idea that generated it, doesn't exist until I read it and add it to my conceptual structure, right? Does that make sense to you?

We perceive sensuously, biologically, and classify these perceptions according to concepts that we have learned or that we have construed from our own experiences. If what we perceive does not fit into our thought structure then it can't be thought, it is not in our imagination.

This doesn't answer my question. You also keep avoiding questions.

This is what you said:

I stated that without the concept or idea of what a tree is, there is/may be no tree. — Cavacava

So, without the concept of what a post is, then there is no post. In other words, when a two year-old, or someone that hasn't learned what an internet post is, looks at this screen and doesn't have the slightest idea of what they are looking at, then your post doesn't exist. Without the idea of what a post is, then there is/may be no post.

Now, does your post exist prior to it being conceived by another? Yes, or no? If no, then you are being consistent, however you are saying your posts don't exist prior to someone understanding that they are an internet post. If yes, then you've disqualified your previous statement and you need to re-word it.

Here's the question you avoided:
If concepts were given to humans then that means they must have existed prior to humans. So, who, or what, gave them to us, and in so doing, is that just another concept, or are you saying something truthful and real, without your conceptual structures getting in the way? According to you, concepts can't be given to humans unless they have learned what a concept is.

So, without the concept of what a post is, then there is no post. In other words, when a two year-old, or someone that hasn't learned what an internet post is, looks at this screen and doesn't have the slightest idea of what they are looking at, then your post doesn't exist. Without the idea of what a post is, then there is/may be no post.

Thanks, that's right, the post does not exist as a 'post' to them, and they tend ignore it, they don't see the meaning in it because they have not learn't the concepts that would enable them to understand it.

Here's the question you avoided:
If concepts were given to humans then that means they must have existed prior to humans..

Our ability to convert our perceptions into complex concepts differentiates us from other animals in whom this ability is rudimentary.

To put this another way. Suppose you did not have the concept of a rabbit.



What would you see?

Ah, the infamous duck-rabbit. Banno would be proud. It's interesting, but the thing is if you had never heard of a rabbit before, and you saw one, you wouldn't confuse it for a duck. You would just think it was some cute, furry mammal with big ears that hops around, and then ask people what it was.

I recently made a thread along these lines:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2241/is-the-world-around-me-really-public#Item_4

Anyway, we definitely interact with trees as if they are really 'out there', as if our eyes are windows upon a public world that we happen to be located in a particular part of. It's really only when we do philosophy that we even consider that our interaction with the tree might be entirely relativized to ourselves. I mean it's extremely hard to get in conversation with someone, touch someone, kick a ball back and forwards, etc, and seriously consider that their body, and your entire experience of the interaction, the world around you, and your body are entirely relativized to just your own conscious experience. Other people sort of impose their otherness on you. Consider being in a room alone, and somebody bursts in. Suddenly there's a distinct sense that you (your body) is being seen and you can't rationalize this self-consciousness away in the moment, it just imposes itself upon you. Or when you are on a train, and you accidentally meet someone's gaze, then both of you quickly look away and pretend you didn't just basically stare into each others soul lol.

I think perhaps with these sorts of questions there's either something fundamentally wrong with them (as in, they don't make sense), or they're just too hard and there's no way to know the answer. Maybe it's just nonsensical to see a tree over there, and ask something like "am I seeing a tree over there because there really is a tree over there?" Because already with this sort of question you've relativized the perception of the tree to yourself, already the tree has become thought of as your particular visual perception of the tree, and what that may or may not correlate with. But in our everyday lives, and especially during our perceptions of other people, that we have sensory organs and perceive things is completely transparent to us. The greenness of the tree is just out there, my eyes just allow me to directly gaze at the colour as if my eyes were like windows.

These sorts of questions arise based on conceiving of oneself as being 'ones experience', as if you exist as a sort of 'experience orb', a little private world of sensation that may or may not correlate with other people's little worlds, both existing within an inaccessible external world. But outside of philosophy we perceive the world around us nothing like this, we experience ourselves as a body in an entirely public, given world that basically is just there imposing it's externality upon us.

So questions like this thread are either based on a misconception about how we exist, or we really do exist as a sort of 'experience-orb' (that just happens to be felt as if we inhabit a public external world) and therefore the question is just too hard. If you really do exist as a 'experience-orb' there's just no way of knowing if there really is a tree (or more importantly, other orbs) out there beyond your experience.

Animals organize their experiences differently from us, we seem to agree on that. I also think they are conscious and have some limited capacity to learn, to be able construct learned reactions based on certain stimuli.
— Cavacava

Well, I would say simply that animals differ in some ways. Living organisms aren't uniform; they have different characteristics. So, they may interact with the rest of the world differently as well, depending on what their characteristics may be. We're better equipped to interact with the rest of the world to suit our purposes, in some ways, than other creatures. That may be because we have different, or bigger, brains, are bipeds and have the kinds of hands and thumbs we do, or for other reasons. But we all exist in the same world.

So, when looking at a tree, are you aware of the tree or your mental representation of it. — Harry Hindu

I'm aware of the tree.

It's like asking, "Are you aware of the word, or what the word refers to?" They are both separate things that are linked together by representation. Because it is a representation, you could say that by being aware of one as a representation, then you are aware of what it represents. — Harry Hindu

But then what does a dream tree represent?

I stated that without the concept or idea of what a tree is, there is/may be no tree. — Cavacava

Okay, but then what happens when you decide to run through the unconceptualized blob of green & brown?