• Noble Dust
    7.9k


    So there is the user of the camera, the camera, and the image. Correct?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    But "the user" is irrelevant, or unnecessay. It could just as well be an automated security camera.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this.Noble Dust

    It's not a metaphor if you acknowledge this, it's just the matter under discussion. that's the point @khaled and @Pfhorrest are trying to make.

    Wayfarer's sole argument we were given was the fact that...

    the very thing which weaves all that together into a world is mind, which is not amongst those objects.Wayfarer

    This is also true of a camera taking film.

    It's just an extension of the same old posts we've read a thousand times before. "Things are as I present them and if you don't see it there's no point in discussing the matter further."

    I have no objection to the position, but why keep posting it on a discussion forum?
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    There's no camera filming without some use for it, and therefore no camera without a user. Even the footage of a surveillance camera is watched by some human being once in a while.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    There is also the actual stuff represented in the picture, e.g. the grand canyon.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    The point is an automated camera doesn't have to be "used" – photos viewed by a person – in order to function, or affect / be affected.
  • Noble Dust
    7.9k
    This is also true of a camera taking film.Isaac

    The problem is that you're still using the metaphor. The metaphor gets you from A to B, but you have to cast it off once you reach B. This is the classical mistake of analytic thought.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    It has to be fabricated by someone and then set up by someone. Cameras don't crop up in the landscape haphazardly. They are artificial eyes that humans make and use.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    The metaphor gets you from A to B, but you have to cast it off once you reach B. This is the classical mistake of analytic thought.Noble Dust

    No metaphor. a camera taking film is not included in the world it films. It's a statement of fact, not a metaphor. It shows that not being included among the objects a device represents does not necessarily render that device of a different substance to the objects it represents.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    I thought you said transcendence was a straw man?Pfhorrest

    Nope, supernaturalism was what I objected to. Dualism, at least my garden variety, is a natural, common sensical philosophy. It's not really about demons and fairies.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    It has to be fabricated by someone and then set up by someone. Cameras don't crop up in the landscape haphazardly.Olivier5

    Yes they do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Overview

    Again, you're begging the question by already assuming the two types of camera are of different stuff.
  • Noble Dust
    7.9k
    No metaphor.Isaac

    No, the camera is a metaphor in this discussion. Read back if you need to.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    A literal map of a geographic territory and the literal territory itself are both made of the same kind of stuff, and yet there is a difference between them.Pfhorrest

    Indeed, this difference is not about the map being magical or supernatural. So what is this difference about?
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    No, the camera is a metaphor in this discussion. Read back if you need to.Noble Dust

    I'm responding to this...

    the very thing which weaves all that together into a world is mind, which is not amongst those objects.Wayfarer

    A camera does not film itself; you can't see the camera on film.Pfhorrest

    No metaphors involved. Just statements about the way the world is and the ontological consequences.
  • Noble Dust
    7.9k


    According to my research, when you respond to me, you're responding to this:

    No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this. -Noble Dust
  • khaled
    3.5k
    So what if the camera is part of a bot whose job it is to wander around and take pictures of ducks? Or is an automated security camera? In that case does the camera become ontologically different from the thing being photographed since it is the author of the photos (there are no users)?

    and your entire argument breaks downNoble Dust

    And what is my argument that breaks down exactly?

    I'm not making an argument, I'm saying Isaac's argument is fallacious. It goes something like:

    1- The mind is the source of our concepts of "matter", "physical" and all other concepts
    2- Therefore the mind is ontologically different from matter, and is not physical

    2 doesn't follow.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    No, the mind of the camera-user is what puts the photo together. They do this first and then take the photo. It's a poor metaphor until you acknowledge this.Noble Dust

    That's right. I was pointing out that your objection is misguided because the argument you're objecting to never included a metaphor in the first place.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Sure, the camera is an artifact, but that fact does not equate with its functioning.

    Dualism, at least my garden variety, is a natural, common sensical ...Olivier5
    Yes, folk philosophy (like folk psychology) and naive at best.
  • Noble Dust
    7.9k
    So what if the camera is part of a bot whose job it is to wander around and take pictures of ducks?khaled

    Who said the user was a bot or an automated security camera? Those are programs programmed by human beings.

    And what is my argument that breaks down exactly?khaled

    I have no idea, it just breaks down if you consider the camera to be the final viewpoint in the stupid metaphor.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    And what is my argument that breaks down exactly?
    — khaled

    I have no idea, it just breaks down
    Noble Dust

    Right. Good talk.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    What exact point are you trying to make?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    As I've already stated:
    ↪Olivier5 The point is an automated camera doesn't have to be "used" – photos viewed by a person – in order to function, or affect / be affected.180 Proof
  • Wayfarer
    22.4k
    In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful.Juan Marin, Quantum Mysticism - Gone but not Forgotten
  • Noble Dust
    7.9k


    Actually, fuck you for your misappropriation of what I said.
  • Isaac
    10.3k


    So now you've resorted to simply pointing out that other people thought something to be the case and if we don't agree then there's no point in discussing it.

    It's a change I suppose...
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.