So the question to you, because you seem to think you know the answer, is how, exactly, you see the tree, and what, exactly, you see. — tim wood
So why are you getting so easily confused when it comes to perception? — Terrapin Station
How do you see the tree? What do you see? Might not light occur to you as a possible answer, and without light you do not, cannot, see the tree? And if you follow so far you might begin to "see" that you don't see the tree. Of course, of the light you see, how does it become the image of a tree? And so forth. And this just the start. — tim wood
You can't seriously be mystified at how that's supposed to work. — Terrapin Station
Kant provides a pretty good answer. — tim wood
Seeing involves light, obviously. So how in the world would you take that fact to be against notion of seeing a tree? — Terrapin Station
No light, no see. If you could see without light then you would see the tree without light. But the fact is that it is light you see, not the tree. The light reflects off the tree. — tim wood
The only way that this would suggest that you don't see the tree to you is that you don't at all understand the notion of "seeing" in common language. — Terrapin Station
Are you thinking of "seeing" as referring to something literally touching your eye, akin to tactile contact?
(If so, follow-up questions would be why would you be thinking of sight that way? What usage are you familiar with that suggested this definition to you? And you'd be aware, then, that you'd be confusing sight for another sense, namely touch, right?)
If that's how you're thinking of sight, you could "see" a tree by rubbing your eyeball on the bark. I wouldn't want to see a tree in that case. — Terrapin Station
Of course common language - but common language isn't the way it really works, is it. — tim wood
Would you like to recraft your definition of subject/object? — tim wood
Seeing is just an easy example — tim wood
if perception is all in your mind, then how do you know anything of reality? — tim wood
Tell me something, anything at all, that you can say of the cookie, or the tree, or anything else, that is not conditioned by perception.If taking is all in your arm/hand, then how do you take something like a cookie? — Terrapin Station
Why not focus on resolving your confusion instead? — Terrapin Station
"The way." I shall take that to mean how. Pace, neurobiologists: my brain, processing a lot of perceptions and internal states, orders my muscles to move in certain ways the result of which language easily describes as taking, yes?"The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is — Terrapin Station
Sure, but the issue is that taking something is a function of your arm/hand. Given this, how can you take something that's not your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station
The way you take something, such as a cookie, is with your arm/hand. But how do you actually do this if taking is something your arm and hand do? Doesn't that imply that really all you can take is your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station
The objective world is the nonmental world. You observe it via your senses. — Terrapin Station
There are some who contend that we have no knowing access to Objective Reality (that which is), and that the world we observe with our senses is not necessarily O.R. — Pattern-chaser
in my opinion there's no plausible way to support it — Terrapin Station
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.