All this clever optics and neuro-science is an explanation of reality, not a substitute for it. Photons and wavelengths and neurones explain how we see the world, not how we don't see it. — unenlightened
countering the mooted argument that we only ever see the apple through the mediations of optics and neurons, and hence we never actually see the apple.
But no one would ever say that, would they, Olivier5? — Banno
Seeing the apple means precisely to apprehend it through our senses, to construct a meaningful representation of it based on sense data. It's a relationship. It takes some work. — Olivier5
Seems then that we agree that there is an apple ot be seen.
Thought it worth checking. I wouldn't want the apple to just be in my mind. — Banno
we have direct access via perceptual sensations? — Marchesk
seeing color is what makes us visually aware of objects? — Marchesk
Somehow I doubt that Banno's going to agree with that. — jamalrob
I think that this is as confused as saying that solid things are not actually solid. — jamalrob
Following unenlightened, I think that our scientific investigations, rather than being a substitute for seeing, explain it, i.e., explain how we see red apples. — jamalrob
One of the challenges to direct perception is that if the object appears differently in some ways to us than it is, then we're directly aware of a mental object, and only indirectly the physical cause. — Marchesk
You think that our scientific investigations have revealed that apples are not actually red.
I think that this is as confused as saying that solid things are not actually solid. Following unenlightened, I think that our scientific investigations, rather than being a substitute for seeing, explain it, i.e., explain how we see red apples. — jamalrob
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.