The way you're using the word "perception" looks different from how I use it. Anyway, the brain and eyeballs both have important roles to play in perception. What's your point?

Perception doesn’t occur on the forum. And we don’t have to rely on individual definitions as this isn’t a new topic.

I didn't say "perception occurs on the forum" (I don't know what that means). I was responding to Olivier's apparent surprise that unenlightened lives in the world and not in his mind.

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

Nice.

Incidentally, one could argue that he doesn't live in the world either. He lives in, perhaps, a house, and in England, and near Wales, and in the Milky Way, and in the lap of luxury, but to say he lives in the world is to unjustifiably posit a great big container object, or else is to say no more than that he lives.

But that's a topic for another discussion: "Where do you live?"

I liked that too. Sums it up nicely.

We could ask where the colors live instead.

It's a nice version of Stove's Gem, of course; 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?

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.

Sense data themselves are already meaningful, don't get me wrong. The apple is red for a reason, it's a biological signal of its maturity, as I explained. Our senses work with this material, cut down on some details, fill in others, heighten some contrasts, adjust to lighting conditions, draw lines and objects, etc. We notice it once in a while when we see an optical illusion. Our senses shape the message so as to make it more effective. They "go after" meaning; sometimes they invent it. But by and large they helps us detect the biological sense of the situation. Red apple-->yummy apple.

But there are many other meaningful things about how an apple looks, which nobody notices except the specialists: the artists, the cooks or the farmers. Did you ever notice that no apple is radially symmetrical? The "axis" is always markedly off center, one side smaller than the other. It's something you need to know when you draw apples (if you want to draw them realistically enough). It seems like nothing but once you notice it, you can see it in any apple, even though before you didn't see it in any apple. At best you noticed that some apples were very asymmetrical. That is likely because our sense of vision gives a premium to symmetry: it tries to find it everywhere, and it tends to neglect or hide minor asymmetries.

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.

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

If there were no apple, there would be no point in seeing an apple. Our senses have developed through evolution, because they work. Yes they do help us locate true, existing and desirable things, such as apples.

indeed, indeed. All of that.

We could ask where the colors live instead. — Marchesk

I thought you were on the way to recovery after our last debate, but it looks like you've had a relapse. :wink:

Seems then that we agree that there is mind seeing the apple

Thought it worth checking, given how people here are easily spooked by their own psychological shadows.

If I recall correctly, those of us involved came to an agreement on Kantian terms, not Dennett's. But if we're talking in terms of the modern consciousness debate, I'm more inclined to side with Chalmers.

I may have used Kantian terms, but that wasn't the substance. Also, I haven't mentioned Dennett here and I'm not talking about qualia.

there is mind seeing the apple — Olivier5

:rofl: Somehow I doubt that Banno's going to agree with that.

I may have used Kantian terms, but that wasn't the substance. — jamalrob

I'm got to two current threads confused. Was the substance that we have direct access via perceptual sensations? That seeing color is what makes us visually aware of objects?

we have direct access via perceptual sensations? — Marchesk

I think that's true.

seeing color is what makes us visually aware of objects? — Marchesk

Well, seeing things normally involves seeing their colour, of course, but one can see (be visually aware of) things without seeing their colour.

I don't know what we're talking about here.

don't know what we're talking about here. — 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.

I think our disagreement, as ever, comes down to this:

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.

Somehow I doubt that Banno's going to agree with that. — jamalrob

The apple is red in order to be noticed by an animal. Banno may think that he is no mind, but he is most probably an animal, with some capacity to perceive, remember and desire things for himself. What the ancients called 'anima'.

He can even get pissed, and since I doubt that computers, automatons and zombies can get pissed, I conclude he must be an animal.

As any animal of the Homo sapiens species, he can reflect upon himself, and maybe he is afraid of himself. Lot's of people are. That's why 'mind talk' spooks them. They fear their own mental shadows.

I think they're only spooked when people claim that minds, rather than people or animals, see apples--and other such confusions. But I'll leave it to Banno to respond.

direct perception — Marchesk

Direct perception is a contradiction in terms. It cannot logically exist.

I think they're only spooked when people claim that minds, rather than people or animals, see apples — jamalrob

Right, because they are out of their mind.

I think that this is as confused as saying that solid things are not actually solid. — jamalrob

They're not solid in the way old-fashioned materialists thought they were. It being mostly empty space held together by electromagnetic bonds would have blown their minds.

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

It doesn't explain how there's a red experience, only that there is a strong correlation with our biology of vision.

And anyway, the world is different than how it appears to us, at the very least because we don't have the sensory capabilities to perceive most of it. Our vision, as useful as it is, doesn't capture most of the light, which would make the world look colored in quite different ways, assuming that's how we saw all those radio and microwaves and what not. Which would be a function of our biology that we don't understand.

It being mostly empty space held together by electromagnetic bonds would have blown their minds. — Marchesk

It would have blown their minds that this is what solidity is, yes. Turns out, for a neutrino, the table doesn't feel anything like the same as it does for us.

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

So...when I'm looking at the the moon I can cover it with my hand, but the moon is too big to be covered by my hand, therefore I'm not seeing the moon, but just a mental object. Is that about right?

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

Right, so if all our terms, all our language, just means what it means to us a lay people, then what language is left to the scientist in which to render his answer?

Seems then that we agree that there is mind seeing the apple — Olivier5

Oh, that was not in doubt. I was checking that you agreed there was an apple.

:rofl: Somehow I doubt that Banno's going to agree with that. — jamalrob

Why not? It's an odd way of talking, but...?