I was checking that you agreed there was an apple. — Banno
It's a system. It's made of interconnected pieces. Each piece does its own work, in synch with the other pieces. — Olivier5
By this token, eyes don't see, because eyes don't have eyes — Olivier5
We agreed already that it's red. What we still disagree about, I think, is what we mean when we say that it's red. I mean (among other things) that I can perceive and recognise the meaningful signal of an ripe, eatable apple, that this helps me locate the apple in relation to my own position, using as a proxy some 3D simulation of the world that I happen to constantly create and maintain, a 3D simulation which helps me grab the apple, peal it and cut it without cutting my own fingers, and eat it... — Olivier5
I don't really see the problem, at least as you've described it. Physicists have no problem using "solid", and it's consistent with one of the main ways we use it in everyday life. Tables and walls and rocks are solid, and the scientist explains what a solid is down at the atomic level etc. — jamalrob
I think that this is as confused as saying that solid things are not actually solid. — jamalrob
People, I suppose. Why do you ask? — jamalrob
If you say to me "this block of wood is solid", and i cut it open to find a hollow in the centre, I'd be liable to say "no, this is not solid". When the scientist 'cuts open' the wood even smaller and find no less of a hollow you want to deny him recourse to the same language to describe his findings. — Isaac
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? — jamalrob
Because of the menagerie of fantastic creatures that populates this site, and that must come from some old medieval treatise on exotic beasts with two heads and one leg or something... I mean, you could mean zombies, or automatons, or winged rabbits — Olivier5
But if you just mean that they should be allowed to say, speaking loosely, "tables are not really solid", and "we don't really see apples", then I guess it's a way of getting their point across. It seems far too misleading to me, and I've only seen it from bad popularizations. — jamalrob
Same for neuroscientists. — jamalrob
Not at all, you just need to keep tabs on the menagerie. Don't confuse the brains in vats with the brains in bats, for instance...or brains in vats, or rational animals, or vehicles for genes, or eternal souls...
Yeh, it makes you dizzy. — jamalrob
In the final analysis, we cannot understand perception by throwing away the perceived and/or the perceiver. So whether you call us people or brains or minds makes no significant difference to the problem. — Olivier5
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.