Maybe, but doesn’t it follow from that that I can speak of extra-mental things?

As for what it is like......dangerous ground there. Step truly or the fanatical realists will get you.

Nothing that is spoken of is truly extra-mental. What you speak of is a mental representation of the matter that is imprinting on your senses. Of course it’s a “something” outside of your experience causing your mental representation, but what you are speaking of is sensory in nature, so talking about what the matter that is being “eaten” is extra-mentally is a confusion of how perception works.

Agreed. I give the name “burger” to the material presented to my senses, but the label is no more than a certain group of conceptions experience tells me belongs to that kind of sensory material, arranged in that certain way, and no other.

Still, I don’t think you’re going to get away with the notion that “...talking about what the matter that is being “eaten” is extra-mentally is a confusion of how perception works....”, without making some claim about the confusion.

We speak about perceptions, which requires a mind. We don’t speak about the extra-mental apart from perceiving.

Well, that would all depend on your epistemological views, right?

I think I can speak of things extra-mental, even though my experience of them is mental. I think that's confusing the experience itself with the thing being experienced, or what the experience is about. Just like the word "rock" is different from specifying a rock that one kicks.

But that does bring up a frequent issue that philosophical debates often involve terms like perception and mental that people don't agree on.

So can we think the extra-mental apart from perceiving?

That also requires a mind of course. What are you getting at?

I think I can speak of things extra-mental, even though my experience of them is mental. I think that's confusing the experience itself with the thing being experienced, or what the experience is about. Just like the word "rock" is different from specifying a rock that one kicks. — Marchesk

“The thing being experienced” presupposes a mind experiencing it.

“The thing being experienced” presupposes a mind experiencing it. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, but that doesn't mean the thing presupposes a mind experiencing it.

Nothing. Drilling down for a sense of how you think, is all. What it means to say “...As if you can even speak of something extra-mental....”

That “thing” isn’t what’s being spoken of.

That “thing” isn’t what’s being spoken of. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't see why not. If I tell you there's a busy highway there, and to look before crossing, you could reply that I'm not speaking of the extra-mental highway but a mental one. That doesn't change the fact that crossing without looking can get you killed, which would be an extra-mental state for you. Therefore, I must be referring to something extra-mental about the busy highway.

You’re presupposing other minds observing your death.

You’re presupposing other minds observing your death. — Noah Te Stroete

Would it matter if nobody observed your death? You'd still stop experiencing.

You would stop experiencing of course. There is “something” that caused your death, viz. matter. But that’s all we can say about it. “Highway”, “cars”, “traffic” are all mental representations of perception.

You would stop experiencing of course. There is “something” that caused your death, viz. matter. But that’s all we can say about it. “Highway”, “cars”, “traffic” are all mental representations of perception. — Noah Te Stroete

Problem with that is explaining how it is that I can predict your likely death if you cross without looking, if it's just something material that perception does not tell us about. More broadly, how is it that we can navigate the world, make technology and do science if our perception isn't somewhat accurate?

Unless you mean something else by that. I can agree that colors are not properties of things themselves, but our ability to experience color does give us information about those things.

I mean that idealism vs. materialism is a confused area of study. You can’t have one without the other.

but our ability to experience color does give us information about those things. — Marchesk

That information is also a conceptual framework which requires minds.

That information is also a conceptual framework which requires minds. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes and no. Information can also be thought of as physical. The lightwaves bouncing off objects into photoreceptors is a physical exchange.

Yes. Matter is real. I never denied that. “Light waves” and “photoreceptors” are also mental concepts informed by matter.

What is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking, in your opinion?

“To be is to be perceived” is true in a sense but not in the way Bishop Berkeley supposed.

You can’t have one without the other. — Noah Te Stroete

There ya go. Sorta what I was looking for.

...ok. So what is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking?

Sorta? I’m disappointed in myself. I meant to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt. :smile:

...ok. So what is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking? — DingoJones

Nothing. It’s just high-faluting philosophy. :lol:

Lol, alright then.

No need. I’d argue differently, but we’d arrive in the same place.

That’s right. We are on the same team. :grin:

I suppose when I say that you can’t have one without the other, I mean that physicality is needed to give a venue for the mental, while the mental is needed to give meaning to the physical.