Sure it can. We all belong to the same species, and for that matter culture and language group. So the collective nature of mind can be explained in those terms, from a naturalistic perspective. — Wayfarer

Culture and language can explain how we talk about things we see in similar ways, or how we see some things and don't see others, but it can't explain (without the additional metaphysical notion of a truly collective, in the sense of interconnected in some unknown way, mind) how we see the same things. For example say I put a plate of food in front of you and ask you to describe what is on the plate. You say three boiled potatoes. two asparagus, two pieces of broccoli, and three lamb loin chops. I would be very surprised indeed if i saw something different on the plate. Culture and language cannot explain what we see, but only what we might not notice, or might not have the words for.

You seem to have interpreted the question as being about explaining the collective mind. I was not concerned with explaining that, naturalistically or otherwise, but with arguing that such a more than merely culturally "collective" mind is needed to explain the commonality of what is experienced, if we don't want to accept that there are physical existents which are totally independent of our perceptions of them.

So what about disease and microbes? If our body is just an experience, why should be getting sick from invisible microbes or cancers, that we've only learned to see in past couple centuries? — Marchesk

But the same argument applies - previously, we thought that diseases were caused by humours and phlegm, and then Louis Pasteur comes along and proves the germ theory. But all of this still takes place within the 'theatre of human experience', as it were.

Idealist philosophers aren't saying that anything you think is correct, just because you think it. If they were as naive as you depict them to be, then there would be nothing to discuss!

Sure, we're all different individuals, but no man is an island. When I'm talking about mind, I'm not talking about your mind or my mind. We as individuals are different, but we also live in a domain of shared meanings. Science relies totally on that, if you brought an individual up in isolation from any education, then s/he could never fathom or participate in scientific work, as s/he wouldn't posses the concepts and skills which have been painstakingly imparted to graduates through their first 18 years of education.

Idealist philosophers aren't saying that anything you think is correct, just because you think it. If they were as naive as you depict them to be, then there would be nothing to discuss! — Wayfarer

Right, but it's a question of why we need to have certain experiences. It's like saying that if we're inside a simulation, what's the point of all the suffering? Why didn't the machines make a Utopia?

Oh wait, they did and the humans kept waking themselves up, because they couldn't accept a pleasant world.

It's like saying that if we're inside a simulation, what's the point of all the suffering? Why didn't the machines make a Utopia — Marchesk

The only parallel or image you can think in terms of is 'simulation' or 'artificial intelligence'. That kind of limits the ability to discuss it in terms of actual philosophy, in my opinion.

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. But I was asking a different question. If there are no mind-independent existents then how do you explain why we both see, referring to the earlier example, three boiled potatoes, not four or not turnips, unless you posit a collective mind (in the metaphysical and not the merely cultural sense)?

The sentence before the one you quoted gives the grounds for the argument. Perhaps you can point out to me how it fails to do that. — Wayfarer

So:

Instead, your consciousness is an active agent which constructs reality your lived experience partially on the basis of sensory input, but also on the basis of an enormous number of unconscious processes, memories, intentions, and so on. — Wayfarer

I don't see anything here that is incompatible with realism.

It's the 'constructs' part; mind as 'active agent'. Locke, for example, thought that everything was 'received' by the mind which is a 'blank slate', tabula rasa. So the mind is not the passive recipient of Locke's philosophy. This is one of the grounds of Kant's criticism of empiricism.

Sure; and yet these questions remain.

Your response didn't make a lot of sense to me, unfortunately.

Also, you seem to be writing as if you think that I'm a representationalist or idealist? I'm not. I'm a direct (aka "naive") realist.

But I don't understand your answer to this: we see a tree. One option re views about perception is that we're simply seeing the tree--we're seeing something that's external to us. Another view is that we're seeing something that's actually created by our minds (presumably unconsciously) and then what we're consciously aware of is that unconscious mental creation, not the tree itself. You suggested that you had a third view that wasn't either of those alternatives. But it wasn't at all clear to me that you were suggesting a third view.

You responded to a post of mine where I mentioned observing things with:

"Of course we observe all those things."

That response continued in a manner that suggested you didn't actually understand the comment of mine that you were responding to. That included that you didnt understand the comments about observations. But you insisted that you did understand it. So I began with this quiz question, to test your understanding:

"Of course we observe what things?"

You didn't answer that beyond an insult.

Science enables us to ‘observe’ or measure aspects of the rock from the surface of the rock or from inside it - to gain a perspective of what the rock looks like from the inside - because we have the capacity to perceive this evaluative aspect of the world. — Possibility

No it doesn't. Imagining things from different points of reference isn't the same thing as being at that point of reference.

But I'm not talking science. — Wayfarer

That's fine, but you'd simply have to give how you're arriving at the view you're arriving at instead, without appealing to any standard scientific notions, etc.

Try this: what exactly does it mean to say that an object exists mind-independently, apart from the obvious "It's there when no one is around". We know what it means to say an object we perceive is there; we can see it. touch it and so on. We don't know what it means for an unperceived object to be there: the best we can say is that if we were there we would be able to see it, touch and so on. But that really amounts to saying nothing at all outside of the context of perception. — Janus

So what is your brain like when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Ive asked you this question several times now.

Also what does it mean to observe something? If you are saying that we cant get at the "external" object, then we're not observing in the first place, so you can't say we're observing something without getting at something about that thing. We would be imagining, not observing, so you are making a category error.

if we can never get at the object as it is independent of the Mind and what you're saying is there is no such thing as observations. There are only imaginations. But then how do we communicate our imaginations without using objects in the external world like computer screens? Ive also asked this question several times now.

So what is your brain like when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Ive asked you this question several times now.

Also what does it mean to observe something? If you are saying that we cant get at the "external" object, then we're not observing in the first place, so you can't say we're observing something without getting at something about that thing. We would be imagining, not observing, so you are making a category error.

if we can never get at the object as it is independent of the Mind and what you're saying is there is no such thing as observations. There are only imaginations. But then how do we communicate our imaginations without using objects in the external world like computer screens? Ive also asked this question several times now. — Harry Hindu

I'm okay with him calling it an "observation," but basically I agree with you. He's really just imagining something. Re communication, I don't know why he'd need it in the first place--doesn't his view necessitate that all other people are something that his own mind creates (or at least that's all he can know of other people).

Your response didn't make a lot of sense to me, unfortunately. — Terrapin Station

That's ok! Thanks for trying.

Also, you seem to be writing as if you think that I'm a representationalist or idealist? I'm not. I'm a direct (aka "naive") realist. — Terrapin Station

No, I get that!

I'm one too, I think... as long as I'm allowed to see plenty of the knowledge we get about the things out there as got via inference? You're not against that? It isn't about some notion of direct acquaintance that rules out intermediate steps?

Anyway, I was assuming that that (agreement on that point) was the case. But I wasn't joining battle. I thought I was invited to explain my skepticism about mental pictures? And the alternative. Which is where I might have implied a "third way": only in the arrogant claim that both sides should put their phones down and listen to my more important business!

Perhaps it was off topic anyway. No worries.

Are you a philosophical zombie? Because you argue as if you have no conscious experiences. If I ask whether you experience pain, are you going to give me some functional/physiological response? — Marchesk

Ha ha, I have wondered if I am transitioning into a consciousness-denier! I don't think so. I think I'm learning to recognise some wrong descriptions.

Is it the skepticism about mental pictures / symbols in the brain? Do you need them in your intuition of consciousness or perception? You can have pictures and other symbols in a camera or a computer, obviously. Presumably they aren't sufficient for consciousness or perception. Are they necessary?

Is it the skepticism about mental pictures / symbols in the brain? Do you need them in your intuition of consciousness or perception? — bongo fury

I just have them along with pains, sounds, tastes, thoughts, etc.

I just have them along with pains, sounds, tastes, thoughts, etc. — Marchesk

I meant literally?

Try this: what exactly does it mean to say that an object exists mind-independently, apart from the obvious "It's there when no one is around". We know what it means to say an object we perceive is there; we can see it. touch it and so on. We don't know what it means for an unperceived object to be there: the best we can say is that if we were there we would be able to see it, touch and so on. But that really amounts to saying nothing at all outside of the context of perception. — Janus


So what is your brain like when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Ive asked you this question several times now. — Harry Hindu

What do mean "what is your brain like or where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep"?

Can you explain what you think the relevance of this question (these questions?) is to what you have quoted me as saying above?

I'll hazard an answer in any case: for me my brain is not like anything, because I am not directly aware of its existence; I believe it exists via secondhand accounts that tell me that if my skull were opened there wold be brain to be found there.

Also what does it mean to observe something? If you are saying that we cant get at the "external" object, then we're not observing in the first place, so you can't say we're observing something without getting at something about that thing. We would be imagining, not observing, so you are making a category error. — Harry Hindu

I haven't said we can't observe things; we do it all the time. I haven't said we cannot "get at" (if by that you mean 'perceive') objects, either, so I don't know where this is coming from.

@Banno has suggested that I don't write clearly enough, and yet is apparently unable to point to anything unclear that I have written.

So, just to clarify what I have been arguing: Heidegger and quite a few other notable philosophers say the world is always already interpreted, and I agree with that assessment, and so even does @Banno:

The world is always interpreted; that is, understood in terms of language. In this sense language and the world are one and the same. — Banno

.

So, our perception of things is always an interpretation, we perceive an always already interpreted world, in other words, and all our judgements are judgements of and about an interpreted world.

But when we think about it as naive realists, it seems commonsensically obvious that the external world is not, in itself, an interpreted world; and we can recognize this as being thought to be a corollary of any 'normal' physicalist or materialist standpoint. So the problem is that all our judgements are made of an interpreted world, and none of our judgements have anything to say about a purported world that is not interpreted (except for the judgement that it is not an interpreted world).

For an idealist (like Hegel for example) this problem disappears because he says that the interpreted world just is the real world, in other words there is no mind-independent physical uninterpreted world. But the corollary of this objective idealist view would seem to be that the world is constituted by mind, or something other than "brute" matter at least, something that allows it to be "in conceptual shape" to nod towards the contemporary philosophers Robert Brandom and John McDowell).

So, as I have been arguing with @Wayfarer, the thing that demands explanation is that we all experience the same things. A mind-independent "physical' reality can explain this, but such a reality cannot be determinate (because it is prior to any interpretation, or determination). I write ""physical" reality" because our notion of what "physical" means is evolved within the always already interpreted context, and we attempt to apply it outside that context (to a world purportedly prior to any interpretation) at our peril.

Where I depart from @Wayfarer, though, is that I don't think all this provides any definitive justification for concluding that the world is fundamentally mental. So, as I said before I sit on the fence, looking both ways (towards both idealism and realism) without committing to either.

I hope this clears it up for all parties concerned.

I have no idea what you think you are trying to say here.

There's no difference there. "A particular location at a particular time" is always some location, some thing which is the point of reference. A brain is as good as anything there. — Terrapin Station

But I think there is something you're not taking into account.

If each brain has its own perspective, that not only depends on where it is but also on what brain it is, then you can't know what it's like to be another brain. Even if you somehow self-measured your brain activity and matched it with what you are experiencing, you wouldn't know whether your measure of another brain's activity would match what that brain self-measures, and so you wouldn't know whether the idea you have of what that brain experiences is really what it experiences.

And so even if you see a rock, another brain might see something else at that location, and then why say that the rock you see exists independently of you and of other brains if other brains might not even see it?

There are things that could exist for some people and not for others. And if you agree with this, then saying "we see things as they are from our perspective" reduces to saying "we see what we see", but that doesn't tell us whether others see what we see or even whether what we see exists independently of us. We see what we see, but not what it's like independently of us.

As a matter of interest, what have you experienced or read on the subject that gives rise to your issues ?
I haven't read much. However, you have piqued my curiosity. — Amity

They aren't really my issues anymore since I have stopped assuming we see things as they are independently of us, but I think there are issues in believing we see things as they are.

As to how I came to this view, it happened progressively. I think it started when I noticed that we interpret words differently, we don't assign the same meaning to the same word, a given word gives rise to different pictures in different people. For instance what I said to someone would be totally misinterpreted (even though my words were heard correctly), or sometimes we would disagree on something and later on realize that the only reason we were disagreeing is that we interpreted words differently, while deep down we were in agreement. Or sometimes it's the other way around, we believe we agree while under the hood we don't.

I started thinking that if we all used the same definition for each word then there wouldn't be a problem. But then I realized the problem: each word in the dictionary is defined in terms of other words, which themselves are defined in terms of other words and so on and so forth, so fundamentally each word is defined in terms of itself, and using the same definitions doesn't suffice if we don't already have the same picture in mind for the words that make up the definition of a word.

So language cannot tell us what others perceive and think, it only generates an idea in us of what they perceive and think. And there is plenty of evidence that we perceive differently, be it colors, sounds, tastes, smells, but also what we see in a scenery, what we see happen, how it makes us feel, what we focus on. So the more natural assumption would be that we all have our own reality, rather than us all experiencing the same reality.

And then I realized, if someone has an experience that I've never had, how could they communicate it to me? They could try to explain it in terms of experiences I've had, but if it is too different from them all then I wouldn't know what they are talking about. In a similar way that a blind person doesn't know what colors are. And then I thought, if we were all blind except for a few people, and these people tried to communicate to us what they see, wouldn't we label them as crazies, as delusional, as hallucinating?

We're quick to label what we don't understand as hallucination, or delusion, or imagination, and I think there's some danger in that. I think we'd be better off assuming that others have their own reality, that there is not one single reality out there that we're all seeing. And then we would listen more to each other, attempt to understand what others see and think, instead of imposing our own reality onto them, which gives rise to all kinds of conflicts.

No it doesn't. Imagining things from different points of reference isn't the same thing as being at that point of reference. — Terrapin Station

Haha - no, having a point of reference isn’t the same thing as being at that point of reference. We can’t fully experience (in a human way) what it looks like from inside the rock - neither can the rock, mind you. I recognise that we are creating a perspective based on information we’ve already integrated from other experiences/sources, but isn’t this what we do whenever we perceive a ‘rock’?

This ‘point of reference’ you refer to forms only a part of perception. The mechanisms of perception - receiving sensory data via light or sound or touch, etc where nerve signals are sent to your brain, etc - do not constitute perception of a rock. They do, however, constitute sensory data, which is integrated with existing information within the system, and together these form a human perspective, from which a ‘rock’ is perceived.

What I’m trying to say is that, while I agree that something exists outside of our minds, and it is not ‘unknowable’ as such, it is not a rock, either. From as broad a perspective as I can imagine, it is closer to a subset of interacting events than it is to a rock. I’m not saying we shouldn’t call it a rock, but I think we should at least acknowledge that we’re not ‘seeing things as they are’: that ‘rock’ is a human perceptual concept of the world that both informs and limits our understanding of what we are seeing.

I meant literally? — bongo fury

What other way would it be? Figurative pain? Metaphorical pleasure? Abstract taste? Well, maybe that one for some people. Non-literal feelings?

I dream of platonic reds and functional sounds.

Thanks for reply. Interesting to read of how you see the world of people, their awareness and understanding - or lack thereof.

So, if there is a possibility of not understanding your perspective, we need to listen and ask pertinent questions.

I'll try to do this by numbering specific points in turn.

1.

I think there are issues in believing we see things as they are. — leo

What are the implications of holding this view ?

2.

what I said to someone would be totally misinterpreted (even though my words were heard correctly), or sometimes we would disagree on something and later on realize that the only reason we were disagreeing is that we interpreted words differently, — leo

The problem of misinterpretation. Yes, there seems to be quite a bit of that, especially in philosophy forums. Not enough listening with some too eager to put their own message out. Of how they see the world. So, again - important to take time to read carefully and respond to key points, asking for clarification.

3.

the problem: each word in the dictionary is defined in terms of other words, which themselves are defined in terms of other words — leo

Yes. It can be frustratingly circular. However, not always and it is important to get a fix on which best describes your point. What does it mean 'to have a belief'.

4.

So language cannot tell us what others perceive and think, it only generates an idea in us of what they perceive and think. — leo

I think language is a necessary tool to progress best understanding of another person's perspective.
We don't need to keep a dictionary in our pocket to do this. Most words in common use are understood.
The difficulty lies in giving clear answers to some difficult questions. That can take time and patience.
Not knee-jerk responses.

5.

So the more natural assumption would be that we all have our own reality, rather than us all experiencing the same reality. — leo

Hmmm. So, what do you mean by 'reality' ?
My own view is that we are all part of the same world but we have different perspectives and beliefs.
Part of this is examining what exists (what is going on), or what we imagine is the case.

6.

if someone has an experience that I've never had, how could they communicate it to me? — leo

People attempt to do that all the time. Story telling. Just as you have done.

7.

if we were all blind except for a few people, and these people tried to communicate to us what they see, wouldn't we label them as crazies, as delusional, as hallucinating? — leo

Good use of speculative imagination.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favourite-philosophical-hypothetical-question-conundrum

8.

We're quick to label what we don't understand as hallucination, or delusion, or imagination, and I think there's some danger in that. — leo

Is that your experience ? It's not mine. Not everyone is so quick to stick labels on people.

9.

think we'd be better off assuming that others have their own reality, that there is not one single reality out there that we're all seeing. And then we would listen more to each other, attempt to understand what others see and think, instead of imposing our own reality onto them, which gives rise to all kinds of conflicts. — leo

Even if we agree that everyone has their own perspective, it doesn't follow that we would listen more to each other. Close listening and wish to better understand is an interpersonal skill important in effective communication. Not everyone is capable of putting their own views on backburner until this is established.

10. To improve communication. One example:

Be brief, yet specific

There’s actually a BRIEF acronym—Background, Reason, Information, End, Follow-up—to help you keep your emails short without leaving anything out. It’s a good policy for both written and verbal communication (I’ve always felt that my job as a writer was to clearly get the point across and then get off the page as soon as possible. Just two more items on this list!) Clear and concise are two of the 7 Cs of communication, along with concrete, correct, coherent, complete and courteous.
— Melanie Pinola

That's the best I can do for now...
Hopefully jargon- free and understandable. All the better to argue the toss :smile:

I write ""physical" reality" — Janus

As soon as you have to use quotes around “physical” then it’s game over for physicalism :grin:

I would do the same for "mental", in relation to an idealist claim that the "real as it is in itself" is mental. From an unbiased standpoint physicalism and idealism are on an equal, some might say equally incoherent, footing.

Now you are going to say that it's game over for the "real as it is in itself" I suppose?

And so even if you see a rock, another brain might see something else at that location, and then why say that the rock you see exists independently of you and of other brains if other brains might not even see it? — leo

When someone else doesn't see it, which is relatively rare, we'll be able to diagnose what's going on with them in terms of perceptual and cognitive problems. This isn't hypothetical, by the way.

Sadly it seems that you misinterpreted a lot of what I said.

1. What are the implications of holding this view ? — Amity

I mentioned several in my previous post, and I mention some in this post.

3. Yes. It can be frustratingly circular. However, not always and it is important to get a fix on which best describes your point. — Amity

My point was precisely that it is always circular. If you look up the definition of a word (let's call it W), and that definition is made of words W1, W2, ..., Wn, and the definition of W1 is made of words W11, ..., W1n, and the definition of W2 is made of words W21, ..., W2n, and W11 is made of words W111, ..., W11n and so on and so forth, at some point one of these words will be W, and so W is always defined circularly.

What breaks the circularity is associating a word with a mental image, but the fundamental issue is we can't know whether the same word elicits the same mental image in different people. And that becomes obvious when we attempt to discuss what a given word means to us, people come up with all kinds of different stories.

4. I think language is a necessary tool to progress best understanding of another person's perspective.
We don't need to keep a dictionary in our pocket to do this. Most words in common use are understood.
The difficulty lies in giving clear answers to some difficult questions. That can take time and patience.
Not knee-jerk responses. — Amity

Again I feel you misinterpreted me, see my answer to 3. Using the same definition for a word doesn't solve the underlying problem. The same word can elicit different images, different feelings, different thoughts in different people, even if they're using the same definition. The words I say do not convey what's in my mind, they convey your idea of what's in my mind based on what the words mean to you.

5. Hmmm. So, what do you mean by 'reality' ?
My own view is that we are all part of the same world but we have different perspectives and beliefs.
Part of this is examining what exists (what is going on), or what we imagine is the case. — Amity

By one's reality I refer to everything that a given being experiences. Your reality is everything you experience, my reality is everything I experience.

What's the difference between imagination and reality? You classify some experiences as 'real' and some experiences as 'imaginary', what criteria do you use to make that distinction?

There are plenty of things that people used to see as 'real' that they now see as 'imaginary', and plenty of things that people used to see as 'imaginary' that they now see as 'real'. There is this idea that there is a separation between the two, but imagination influences reality and reality influences imagination, they influence one another, they are a whole rather than two separate things. People arbitrarily decide what they call reality and what they call imagination, experiences do not come with a label that says 'real' or 'imaginary', people apply that label themselves.

6. People attempt to do that all the time. Story telling. Just as you have done. — Amity

I was referring to experiences that are very different from others, for instance spiritual experiences. If you've never had them, you wouldn't understand them based on your own experiences, in a similar way that a blind person doesn't understand the experience of color. Many people dismiss spiritual experiences as hallucination or imagination, in other words as something that doesn't really exist, because they haven't had them.

8. Is that your experience ? It's not mine. Not everyone is so quick to stick labels on people. — Amity

It's not what I do, it's what many people do, it's what society does all the time. If your idea of what's 'real' doesn't match the social consensus on what's 'real', then you are deemed to be delusional. People get locked up and forcefully drugged because they are 'delusional'. People's experiences are dismissed as hallucination/imagination if they do not match the consensus 'reality'. Examples are everywhere.

9. Even if we agree that everyone has their own perspective, it doesn't follow that we would listen more to each other. Close listening and wish to better understand is an interpersonal skill important in effective communication. Not everyone is capable of putting their own views on backburner until this is established. — Amity

Again I feel that my point is missed, lost somewhere in the space between you and I.

Many people believe they have access to the one 'reality' that applies to everyone, to "the way things are" that applies to everyone, and use that as a justification to impose things onto others, to tell others what to believe in and what not to believe in, to ridicule those who believe differently or to label them as mentally ill, to force them to agree with "the way things are" because that's the way things are, no matter what they might say, if they protest and refuse to submit then that's because they're really sick or really stupid, and if they don't agree that they are objectively inferior beings then that's all the more reason to force them into submission, because how can they not see the one reality in front of them? Well, it's not that they don't see reality, it's that they don't see your reality.

Granted people could agree that others have a different reality and still not care about the reality of others, but I think it's easier to listen when we don't pretend to know what others experience and what they don't, what's real and what isn't.