What, exactly, is the difference between these two accounts? — Michael
What would it take for one to be true and the other to be false? — Michael
What, exactly, is the difference between these two accounts? What would it take for one to be true and the other to be false? — Michael
We see (to speak in the overused modality of sight) exactly what appears, insofar as appearance just is the result of a perceptual process. It could not even in principle be otherwise: there is nothing to 'compare' it to, there is no appearence-that-is-not-an-appearance, no perception which is not a result of a perceptual process. — StreetlightX
Perception is loop that runs from body to world and back again; when the loop is broken or interrupted, there is still alot that goes on, but it does so aberrantly, in fragments. Hence the weird phenomenology of dreams, the general tendency to 'float' (unconstrained by a fixed body!), the general fragmentary nature of dreams, etc. — StreetlightX
So the world around us is the result of a perceptual process, — antinatalautist
Hallucinations and dreams come into it as "objective" proof that we could be trapped inside a fantasy even though normal waking experience feels so undoubtedly real. They are the counterfactuals (the counterfactuals SX wrongly says aren't available) which fatally undermine simple realism. The question then becomes - in a rigorous philosophical sense - how do you apply the brakes before slithering all the way to the other extreme of idealism?
So some real work needs to be done here. It can't be glibly dismissed. — apokrisis
t would seem to me, also, that they don't provide much cause to reasonably doubt "normal waking experience." In fact, of course, we don't doubt it. — Ciceronianus the White
I think it primarily means there is a larger world humans are but a small part of. We are late on the evolutionary scene, we only occupy the land surfaces of this planet, for the most part, and there are tons of other stars and planets out there.
The real world is the far bigger and older world, where only a little tiny bit of it has human society. — Marchesk
Is there even such a thing as the meaning of the sentence? I doubt it. There is only what we do with the sentence. — Banno
Anyways, if you were taught all your life that "trees" were an ancient race of beings who judge the deeds of humans and that your ancestors must be buried before them and fed to them in order to ascend to some higher plane of existence, your whole concept of "tree" would be vastly different. — JWK5
There is "something that it is like" for you to read this... — t0m
Saying otherwise involves a separation of oneself from one's seeing. — Banno
like reification — Banno
it's uncontroversial that we experience seeing trees in our dreams, — Marchesk
Hallucinations have certain identifiable causes. They're abnormal — Ciceronianus the White
The objections to the OP posted by Ciceronianus and Street are quite right; — Banno
But you think access is direct, and Street, from what I understand, think that kind of talk makes no sense, since all we perceive are appearances. — Marchesk
But that is just naming - "A something". it tells us nothing about it, does nothing to it or about it... — Banno
Indeed, it looks to me like reification. Is it the same "something" the second, third or forth time I read it?
Then is it a something at all? — Banno
No, I think we neither see 'directly' nor 'indirectly'. We simply see the trees: which is not to say we see them 'directly' because it's not even in principle possible for 'seeing' to take place 'indirectly': the qualifier 'direct/indirect' is a defunct one that has no place in talking about perception, it's a distinction without an intelligible difference. — StreetlightX
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.