So, the brain is analogous to the mirror. In your understanding of this metaphor is consciousness analogous to the reflections or to the reflectance? — Janus
This is a great example of a "philosopher" who has let his imagination run away with him.Well that is a common way of understanding things, that I am questioning. I am saying that there is no inner world, no mind in which images appear. 'Seeing an image' - tree reflected in water is more or less identical to 'seeing a tree' and these seeings occur not in the mind but out there in the world where the tree and the water are; they are what brains do. The mind is a virtual 'behind the mirror' world where nothing happens because it does not exist, just as nothing happens in the mirror world, it merely reflects the happening of the real world. — unenlightened
I would say the image is not "in" the mirror, but on the surface of the mirror. If it were "in" the mirror, then it would be as unenlightened says, it would be a virtual image located behind the surface of the mirror. — Janus
We understand, most of us, that when we see a tree, and a reflection of a tree in the lake, we are not seeing a literal second tree in the lake, but rather seeing the same tree 'round a corner'. This becomes more obvious when one considers a periscope, or the wing mirror of a car. — unenlightened
I'm still a bit fuzzy on the specifics of what the mirror analogy is meant to explain though, — StreetlightX
One can readily demonstrate that the image is not on the surface of the mirror by moving one's point of view, and noticing that the image is not the same; this is parallax that I mentioned before. The image can be demonstrated to be exactly where the ray diagram shows it to be and where one sees it to be, despite that the rays do not come from there. We can arrange a mirror such that I can see you in it, and you can see me in it. If an image was on the surface, we should both be able to see it the same. In fact the blankness of the mirror is an essential feature, as soon as someone writes on the mirror with their lipstick, we can both see it, and it obscures both our images.I would say the image is not "in" the mirror, but on the surface of the mirror. — Janus
It's not meant to explain anything; it's intended to make a conceptual space in the mind (ha ha) for 'the virtual' which is not where it seems to be, and not what it seems to be, yet is not something else or somewhere else, and again yet is perfectly intelligible and real. — unenlightened
I'm having to work harder than I expected to do even this simple thing; people will insist that the mirror has an inside, or else that the image is on the surface like a painting (see below). — unenlightened
Well, some adjustment would be made if I knew what a poplar is :rofl:Now I tell you it was a poplar tree, and it took you a good 15 minutes to reach the tree. And again, as soon as you read the words, the adjustments or additions are made in your imagination. — unenlightened
So a brain is somewhat like the polished surface of a mirror, — unenlightened
if I knew what a poplar is — Agustino
Externalism is better: the key mistake is to think of consciousness as something (that "mirrors" a world "out there") locked inside the skull. Actually it's something out and abroad in the world, it's the name of a a process that threads between things and the brain, and takes in the actual physical objects as part of its process. — gurugeorge
Externalism tells only one half of the story. It is interesting that people feel compelled to choose one or other side of the internalism/ externalism dichotomy. It's as if there is a prejudice which dictates 'it can't be both'. — Janus
More nonsense. Brains, and what they think about, are part of the world. Imagined trees can be a causal influence on the rest of the world as much as a real tree can have on the mind. From my perspective the contents of your brain/mind are just as external to me as the tree in the forest.The imagined tree is, let's say for the moment, some compound of memory, language, concepts, stuff going on in the brain anyway, that does not directly relate to what's going on in the world, where I am sitting in my chair typing on the laptop. — unenlightened
From my perspective the contents of your brain/mind are just as external to me as the tree in the forest. — Harry Hindu
But the question is, where are you and your perspective? — unenlightened
Well the reason for that is probably an aversion to dualism, and the attendant spiritual woo. I more or less dismiss panpsychism, not on the grounds of woo, but on the grounds that it doesn't explain anything. — unenlightened
But I want to keep the internal in its place as a model on a par, at best, with the creations of a model railway enthusiast; wonderfully complex and ingenious, but no substitute for as decent public transport system. — unenlightened
'the model is not the world, the word is not the thing, I am not my post'. — unenlightened
But here's a problem; I am not present to you. Everything I present to you in the previous paragraph is not me, but the model of me that forms part of the model of the world I am offering for you to use as you wish or chuck in the bin. So I am inscribing on this model, 'the model is not the world, the word is not the thing, I am not my post'. Lest I be accused of nonsense. — unenlightened
Sure, but the dichotomous alternative to panpsychism is panzombieism or pandeadism. — Janus
I agree, although I would say that we first need the model in order to intelligently construct the living, working system. — Janus
So iff I say I don't think I fully understand your post; that's not accurate, because I'm not my post? — JJJJS
Well it can't be because we ourselves show that nature has its "psyche" bit. — apokrisis
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.