We cannot reduce down the current experience into it's component parts without accepting that the act of such reduction is itself mediated by the very biases and preconceptions we're trying to investigate. — Isaac
"The notion of optical illusions is incoherent if we don't know what's really there contra the illusion." — Terrapin Station
We don't need to know anything about what's 'really' there, we seem, just as a species, to be fundamentally interested in variance minimising. There appears to be a white square when the black circles are (what appears to be) behind it. As soon as the black (what now appears to be) pacmen are removed, there no longer appears to be a white square. We want to reduce this variance, we prefer a model which has either a white square or not. Not a model which has a white square one minute but none the next. So we choose one to be 'accepted' and label the other 'illusion'. Rather than doing so randomly, we do so by minimising variance with a whole host of other models too. The white square being the 'illusion' does this best. At no point in the whole process do we need access to reality nor even to care which is which. — Isaac
Specifically, it seems that you've taken that to include things like letters and such. — creativesoul
understanding is imperative to good, productive, and valid discourse. I'm assuming we both seek just that... — creativesoul
All experience consists entirely of the thoughts/beliefs of the creature having the experience. — creativesoul
I claim that we cannot even offer an adequate report if we do not know what all thought and belief consists of. — creativesoul
Correlations drawn between different things are the building blocks of everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered. — creativesoul
Never ceases to amaze me the lack of respect for scientists we read about here. Not science itself, the people conducting the experiments. Yes, everyone is biased, flawed to some extent, but this is just plain disrespectful. — Isaac
This seems to be all in the interpretation: alternatively, it could be down to a feeling of envy or a preference for grape over cucumber. — Janus
I don't think "can you imagine" is limited to "can you form a mental image of", and even if we did impose such artificial limits, how is our thus shackled investigation of any use to us now? — Isaac
There is the phenomenal character of me lying in the bath with the bubbles of my farts trickling between my thighs.
There was something it was like for me to be lying in the bath with the bubbles of my farts trickling between my thighs.
There is the quale of my lying in the bath with the bubbles of my farts trickling between my thighs. — bert1
We've already decided what a 'box' is prior to our investigation of its essential properties, otherwise we wouldn't know what the parameters are to our imagination. — Isaac
How would we be able to know this without knowing what the world is like sans modeling for comparison? — Terrapin Station
Everything is phenomenon
— I like sushi
If that's the case, then the notion itself can and ought be cast aside for it cannot be used to further discriminate between anything at all. It becomes superfluous, unhelpful, and offers nothing but unnecessarily overcomplicated language use. — creativesoul
understanding is imperative to good, productive, and valid discourse. I'm assuming we both seek just that...
— creativesoul
Absolutely. In keeping with that, please elucidate “report” for me, if you would, please. I realize you’ve probably done that already, sometime ago, but as I said......I’m very much nearer my expiration date than my born-on date, so my retention isn’t what it used to be. Humor me?
Here’s how it relates to the dialogue:
All experience consists entirely of the thoughts/beliefs of the creature having the experience.
— creativesoul
I claim that we cannot even offer an adequate report if we do not know what all thought and belief consists of.
— creativesoul
Correlations drawn between different things are the building blocks of everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered.
— creativesoul
Is it that the combination of all three of those has something to do with “report”? I grant that everything ever spoken, written and/or otherwise uttered is the superficial rendition of the concept “report”, but I hesitate whether everything ever thought and/or believed should be deemed a “report”. — Mww
understanding is imperative to good, productive, and valid discourse. I'm assuming we both seek just that...
— creativesoul
Absolutely. In keeping with that, please elucidate “report” for me, if you would, please. I realize you’ve probably done that already, sometime ago, but as I said......I’m very much nearer my expiration date than my born-on date, so my retention isn’t what it used to be. Humor me?
Here’s how it relates to the dialogue:
All experience consists entirely of the thoughts/beliefs of the creature having the experience.
— creativesoul
I claim that we cannot even offer an adequate report if we do not know what all thought and belief consists of.
— creativesoul
Correlations drawn between different things are the building blocks of everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered.
— creativesoul
Is it that the combination of all three of those has something to do with “report”? — Mww
There's absolutely no grounds on that for calling something an illusion, though. It's completely arbitrary — Terrapin Station
Rather than doing so randomly, we do so by minimising variance with a whole host of other models too. The white square being the 'illusion' does this best. — Isaac
we'd need to explain why you went with one model over the other. You didn't do that yet. — Terrapin Station
I don't think it's possible to answer such a question from outside of a model, the closest I can possibly get to an answer would be from a model of how models obtain. That's why I chose that one. — Isaac
This isn’t quite what phenomenology is about. It’s not merely a matter of words that gives an object. — I like sushi
Subjectivity isn’t a give or take. Without subjectivity there is no phenomenon to initially apply worded thought. — I like sushi
You're joking I hope! Otherwise you are massively overreacting. — Janus
A model is a full-blown conceptualization, and I can't see any way to coherently think that doesn't require symbolic language.
Now, I said at the start that I have read of studies which seem to contradict the idea that chimps have a "senses" of fairness; but I am not claiming that they don't. They may have a sense of fairness (as opposed to a "model" of fairness and justice) but I remain unconvinced that even this has been definitively shown.
See this for example.
If you can point to a study that does definitely show what you are claiming and explain just how it does show that, then I would be interested enough to take a look. — Janus
Gotta have both, surely? Can't collapse represented into representation or modelled into model or signified into signifier. — fdrake
Anyone can experience a box without sharing a common worded representation of box. It is the subjective of a box that matters. — I like sushi
My subjective experience of 'box' is inextricably tied up with the language community. — Isaac
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.