They don't differ so much that we call them different names. Dogs, horses, sharks, and lizards all have noses and eyes and nervous systems. They differ only in complexity.There is a division because human beings are not the world. You're not a horse, or a rock or the sun. And you're not another person. But you do experience the world via a body of certain kind of animal. This was also something noted by the ancient skeptics. Animal senses differ from our own. — Marchesk
What would be the difference in "experiencing" something exactly as it is and "experiencing" the aboutness of how something is?But notice that the skeptics have to admit to knowing that animal senses differ, and that there is perceptual relativity among humans to an extent. This implies that there is a world we do know something about. And so a division is made between the experience of the individual, and the world, of which the individual is part, but can not experience exactly as it is. — Marchesk
Just as I can point to the thermometer and say it is cold, I can point to your shivering body and say that you are cold. Your "subjective" notions are part of the world itself, and something you can get at directly, and then communicate to others using the objects as the medium of communication that you say we can't "experience" as they truly are. Then how is it that I'm able even understand any of the scribbles you put up on my computer screen?This is why the subjective-objective divide exists, whatever conclusions we draw from such a division. I feel cold, you feel warm, but the thermometer says it's the same temperature. This eventually leads to a scientific understanding of temperature as the amount of energy the particles in a volume of space have. Cold and hot are only relative to absolute zero and minimum entropy, which is far beyond the range at which we can experience temperature. — Marchesk
Saying anything is a type of behavior. Saying, "the wine is good." is the same as seeing someone enjoy the wine. If the horse laps up the wine and begs for more, then that is the horse saying, "the wine is good". Body language is a type of language, or communication.And the horse has nothing to say about the taste of the wine. — Marchesk
They don't differ so much that we call them different names. Dogs, horses, sharks, and lizards all have noses and eyes and nervous systems. They differ only in complexity. — Harry Hindu
What would be the difference in "experiencing" something exactly as it is and "experiencing" the aboutness of how something is? — Harry Hindu
Just as I can point to the thermometer and say it is cold, I can point to your shivering body and say that you are cold. — Harry Hindu
Then how is it that I'm able even understand any of the scribbles you put up on my computer screen? — Harry Hindu
Saying anything is a type of behavior. Saying, "the wine is good." is the same as seeing someone enjoy the wine. — Harry Hindu
If the horse laps up the wine and begs for more, — Harry Hindu
Sometimes we say that we're cold, meaning we feel cold. Other times we say it's cold, meaning that something feels cold. This can vary from individual to individual. Three people are in the same room. One says it's hot, another that it feels cold, and a third that it's just fine. And this can vary for an individual. You got outside into the hot sun and then come back into the room, and now it feels cool when it was warm before.
This sort of perceptual relativity was one of the things that motivated the ancient skeptics. — Marchesk
Instead, one could adopt the language of I'm cold, and say I'm sweetened upon eating a ripe orange, or I'm reddened upon seeing a red apple. — Marchesk
'm not sweet, the orange is. I don't feel sweet, I taste something sweet. I'm not red, the apple is. I don't feel red, I see something red. I guess I don't get the point you're trying to get across. — T Clark
s this really the source of any confusion? If I say "I'm cold." You generally know I mean "I feel cold." If I pick up a beer or if I'm outside and say "It's cold, I generally mean the temperature of the beer or the air is below about 40 degrees F. Just because there's a lot of play about whether to use 40 degrees F or 32 degrees F, doesn't mean there's really any confusion. — T Clark
If we experienced things exactly as they are, there would be no skepticism, and we wouldn't need science. We would just know things as they are. This is the naive view people have before they're exposed to science or philosophy, or start questioning appearances. — Marchesk
Skepticism would still exist even if we experienced things as they are, for how would we know if we experience things as they are? What would it mean to experience you, or the apple, as you are? — Harry Hindu
Again, are you not experiencing your mind as it truly is? — Harry Hindu
f you can experience things as they are indirectly, — Harry Hindu
This is why the subjective-objective divide exists, whatever conclusions we draw from such a division. I feel cold, you feel warm, but the thermometer says it's the same temperature. This eventually leads to a scientific understanding of temperature as the amount of energy the particles in a volume of space have. Cold and hot are only relative to absolute zero and minimum entropy, which is far beyond the range at which we can experience temperature. — Marchesk
In one case we call those qualities which we use an instrument that reads the same for ourselves the object-dependent qualities, and in the other case we just state how we feel to designate the perceiver-dependent qualities. — Moliere
I'd just say that it's a way of talking with one another, rather than something which exists. — Moliere
So we can only be skeptical if we actually had access to both how they appear and how they are? But you keep saying that we never have access to how they are - only how they appear - so then why are we skeptical?Skepticism only becomes an option when we notice a discrepancy between how things appear and how they are. Or when we can't tell the difference between an appearance and reality, such as during a dream. — Marchesk
I have no idea what you mean here. Do you question the existence of your mind - or that something exists at all?No, our first person access is imperfect and error prone. — Marchesk
If we don't experience things directly or indirectly, then how do we experience things at all - even imperfectly? Do you experience your mind directly? Is your mind part of the world? What do you mean by "experience"?We don't experience things as they are, directly or indirectly. We experience them in a limited fashion, imperfectly based on the kind of senses and brains we have. — Marchesk
In one case we call those qualities which we use an instrument that reads the same for ourselves the object-dependent qualities, and in the other case we just state how we feel to designate the perceiver-dependent qualities. — Moliere
Yes, the feeling of cold/heat cannot be the temperature the thermometer measures because the feeling varies between individuals and even the same individual when the thermometer does not. — Marchesk
the thermometer gives us the same value — Marchesk
the thermometer says it's the same temperature — Marchesk
Actually I would even doubt that. What if I'm blind — leo
or I can't understand how to read a thermometer? — leo
But then why can't I just say that if you don't feel cold when I feel cold it's because you're disabled or stupid? — leo
Why do we have to agree that feeling cold is relative and not that what the thermometer says to us is relative? — leo
I would argue that even what a thermometer says or what we call a horse is relative. And then we don't need to force a subjective-objective divide. — leo
So we can only be skeptical if we actually had access to both how they appear and how they are? But you keep saying that we never have access to how they are - only how they appear - so then why are we skeptical? — Harry Hindu
have no idea what you mean here. Do you question the existence of your mind - or that something exists at all? — Harry Hindu
If we don't experience things directly or indirectly, then how do we experience things at all - even imperfectly? — Harry Hindu
Do you experience your mind directly? — Harry Hindu
What do you mean by "experience"? — Harry Hindu
So your feeling of coldness or warmness isn't JUST about the outside temperature, or JUST your temperature. It is about the relationship between the two. — Harry Hindu
Someone can tell you the temperature. — Marchesk
When you learn to read it, you will get the same value as the rest of us. — Marchesk
Because all humans can feel cold or hot at different times. — Marchesk
Because we can agree on the thermometer. It gives us an objective standard. — Marchesk
Sure you can do that, if you don't mind everything being relative, and there being no facts anyone agrees on. — Marchesk
Meanwhile, the rest of us will be disagreeing with you. — Marchesk
Consider the implications for engineering or even meeting people at a certain time and location if we can't agree on facts.
Everything is relative to the individual is insanity. We wouldn't even be able to communicate. — Marchesk
You have noticed that not everyone agrees on some things. You can go a step further and notice that there is seemingly nothing everyone agrees on, including that statement. — leo
Nobody seriously disagrees over a thermometer. — Marchesk
Facts aren't opinions, so yes. You haven't really thought out the implications of the radical relativism you're advocating, and how it would make life impossible. — Marchesk
And who says what the facts are? You? — leo
but that it isn't fine to coerce others to agree with us, — leo
nd I don't like to see people having their views dismissed or ridiculed simply because they don't agree with the consensus. — leo
So I don't see that view as inconsistent nor how living by that view makes life impossible, on the contrary. — leo
No, only questioning that I have perfect knowledge of my experiences or thoughts. — Marchesk
How would you even know this? You would have to know that there are things about some object that we aren't getting at with our senses to say that our experience is "limited". What is it that we are missing of the apple as it is when we look at the apple?We don't experience things directly or indirectly as they are. We only experience them in a limited fashion as human beings. — Marchesk
What is the difference between getting at an object as it is and getting the perception of an object as it is? What information would you be missing? How do you know that you are missing information, instead of you just misinterpreting the information?Actually, I said we do have some access to how things are because "I'm horsed" doesn't make any sense. So we can conclude that perceiving a horse has some objective properties not dependent on use perceiving it. — Marchesk
So, are you saying that you have access to your mind, it's just that you don't have a good explanation of what your mind is for? — Harry Hindu
You would have to know that there are things about some object that we aren't getting at with our senses to say that our experience is "limited". What is it that we are missing of the apple as it is when we look at the apple? — Harry Hindu
What is the difference between getting at an object as it is and getting the perception of an object as it is? — Harry Hindu
How do you know that you are missing information, instead of you just misinterpreting the information? — Harry Hindu
People agree on what the standards are for facts, such as using a thermostat to measure temperature. — Marchesk
I'm wondering why coercion is a topic in this discussion for you. Are you feeling coerced by participating in a discussion? — Marchesk
As the saying goes, you're free to have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Meaning that people are going to call you out if you disagree on facts. — Marchesk
Some views are ridiculous, such as the Earth is flat. It contradicts everything we know. People are free to think that way, but they're going to be criticized for holding an ignorant view. — Marchesk
Individually, you can get away with it to a point, but society needs to agree on facts so bridges can be built and meetings can take place, and that sort of thing. And if you're doing anything with other people and you decide to not agree on something as basic as temperature, you're going to have problems. — Marchesk
I'm just saying that introspection is limited. — Marchesk
You would have to know that there are things about some object that we aren't getting at with our senses to say that our experience is "limited". What is it that we are missing of the apple as it is when we look at the apple? — Harry Hindu
Then how did humans come to know chemical composition of an apple? Did our senses change? Why do we now get at the chemical composition of an apple, whereas before we could not? And if we know the apple's chemical composition, then what is missing from our perception of the apple?Humans didn't know this at first. Chemical composition would be one thing. — Marchesk
:roll: You are now talking about the light not the apple. I asked what we were missing about the apple.The rest of the EM spectrum we don't see reflecting off or passing through the apple would be another. — Marchesk
What is the difference between getting at an object as it is and getting the perception of an object as it is? — Harry Hindu
How do you know that's not how perception works, unless you had access to what perception really is?It would mean experiencing everything about the object, but that's not how perception works. — Marchesk
How do you know that you are missing information, instead of you just misinterpreting the information? — Harry Hindu
How does observation lead us to realize that we don't know everything about objects, if observing is what leaves out information? In order to know that information is missing, we'd have to know what information is missing, and how would we know that if not by using the very same senses that you say are flawed, or miss information?Science. Or careful observation before then leading to a realization that we don't know everything about objects by just seeing or tasting them. — Marchesk
"The Earth is flat" cannot be falsified. Just like "The Earth is round" cannot be falsified. If you think scientific theories can be falsified, check the thread "What is a scientific attitude?". Thinking that falsification is what defines science is again an ignorant view. — leo
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.