What is the nature of non-existent fictional characters in a work of fiction? — bongo fury
Everyone recognizes that characters in books are fictional. Trying to convince us that other people are fictional is a different matter. — neonspectraltoast
What is the nature of non-existent fictional characters in a work of fiction?
— bongo fury
Certainly not the basis for all we can see, taste, hear, feel, and imagine. — schopenhauer1
But you only know of nerve firings thanks to your "inner film show". To even relate the mind to an "inner film show" means that there is something about the mind that is like an external film show. To talk about your mind, what are you talking about? How do you know that you have a mind? How do you know you have thoughts?But the nerve firings actually happen. Your inner film show doesn't. That's what I'm saying, anyway. — bongo fury
But you only know of nerve firings thanks to your "inner film show". — Harry Hindu
To even relate the mind to an "inner film show" means that — Harry Hindu
Then nerve firings are a kind of film show? I don't get it.I would have to disagree. I know of them thanks to sitting my actual self in an actual theatre and watching an actual film show. — bongo fury
Both of what?I'm questioning both, of course. — bongo fury
Why did you use the term "film show" to refer to something that supposedly doesn't happen?Your inner film show doesn't. — bongo fury
Then nerve firings are a kind of film show? I don't get it. — Harry Hindu
Both of what? — Harry Hindu
Why would you call it a "film show"? — Harry Hindu
I should clarify: "inner film show" I did identify with "mental images", but only to explain that I don't accept either of them as actual non-fictional things. Which is to say, again, there are no mental components to describe (appropriately or not) as a film show. — bongo fury
Then this is the result one would expect when a non-p-zombie attempts to communicate the concept of "mind" to a p-zombie. You are a p-zombie and I am not, hence your lack of understanding of what I am talking about.If the it refers to a thing you call "a mind", or some "mental images", then we have to deal with our disagreement about what we are talking about, because I don't accept the existence of such things. — bongo fury
Your argument is as faulty as saying "I am not writing these words right now". — schopenhauer1
The fact that we "think" we have illusions has to be explained. — schopenhauer1
It is a fact that there appears to be mind happening. — schopenhauer1
That is the illusion itself. — schopenhauer1
Then this is the result one would expect when a non-p-zombie attempts to communicate the concept of "mind" to a p-zombie. You are a p-zombie and I am not, hence your lack of understanding of what I am talking about. — Harry Hindu
that we think that, or entertain the illusion that, we have mental images does deserve explanation, yes. — bongo fury
The hypothesis about some internal illusion or film show? Or is "that" the disputed internal images themselves? — bongo fury
I was recently talking to a friend of mine, who was explaining the position of illusionism with regards the qualitative character of mental states, i.e. that we only believe we have such states, but actually this is an illusion. A way to gloss this position is that we are all actually philosophical zombies, only most of us don't know it, and even those who do can't shake the belief we aren't. — RolandTyme
It seems like we are saying the same thing - that you are un-afflicted and I am. What would I be afflicted with if you say that what I'm afflicted with isn't happening?I suppose that is a plausible sci-fi scenario. I think a more realistic one would restrict "p-zombie" to creatures un-afflicted, or un-gifted, with the symbolic, referential skills that create the illusion of an internal illusion. — bongo fury
Exactly, what is the relationship between the film show and the neurons if not a relationship of representation?Do I honestly need to point out that even if you're watching a film about neurons, it's still composed entirely of internal images? — neonspectraltoast
It seems like we are saying the same thing - that you are un-afflicted and I am. — Harry Hindu
Do I honestly need to point out that even if you're watching a film about neurons, it's still composed entirely of internal images? — neonspectraltoast
Exactly, what is the relationship between the film show and the neurons if not a relationship of representation? — Harry Hindu
If I asked you to draw a picture of neurons, then where would you be getting your image from to duplicate with paper and pencil? — Harry Hindu
There was never a standard model of brain function, at least not anything analogous to the standard model of particle physics. Consequently, there was never a "neural network revolution" to over throw it.as it was the standard model of brain function before the neural network revolution
What is this entertaining of the illusion.. You are just pushing the goal-post and playing with language by saying "entertain the illusion" rather than "illusion". — schopenhauer1
It doesn't matter because the "hypothesis" is not the "feeling of" of the images. — schopenhauer1
There was never a standard model of brain function, at least not anything analogous to the standard model of particle physics. — jkg20
So... it does matter. Fair enough, you are committed to the existence of mental images as such. — bongo fury
Fair enough, you are committed to the existence of mental images as such.
— bongo fury
This is not something I have to be committed to. — schopenhauer1
Then why are we even talking of pictures in the head?
— schopenhauer1
For my part, I thought they were included among your alleged "mental components"? — bongo fury
Do you need to commit to mental components? — bongo fury
One already has to buy into that general approach in order to be really bothered by what illusionism has to say. — jkg20
Do you need to commit to mental components?
— bongo fury
No, you just experience. — schopenhauer1
The hard question goes beyond this and asks "How are the physical components equivalent to mental components". How is what you are saying addressing that? — schopenhauer1
Why? Is it a stupid or difficult question?What are dreams?
— Harry Hindu
I hoped you wouldn't ask that one :confused: — bongo fury
Would you say that dreams have images? If so, where do the images come from? If you had a dream about a brain, could you draw a picture of it after you wake up?I don't store and retrieve images, though. (You're excused for assuming I do, as it was the standard model of brain function before the neural network revolution.) I train myself to select among and produce actual, external images to be appropriate representations of (actual) objects. — bongo fury
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.