I disagree that the perception is an act of interpretation. The perception comes before the judgement. Step 1: I perceive the stars twinkling. Step 2: I interpret that stars twinkle. Step 2 has the potential to be incorrect because, as you say, it is an act of interpretation. But step 1 cannot be incorrect. It is a simple fact. If I am incorrect about the interpretation, the fact remains that I perceive the stars twinkling.to perceive, by itself is essentially an act of interpretation, and like any other act of interpretation, it is possible that one could be wrong in such an act. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, you were not mistaken in the perception. Only in the interpretation, if you did such a thing afterwards.If I have bad eyes, and do not see the stars as twinkling, which does happen because my eye sight is bad, and then I put on my glasses, and see them twinkling, am I not correct to say that I was mistaken in my perception, before I put on my glasses? — Metaphysician Undercover
I see what you mean, but this is not what I am arguing, so we can drop this. Let's stay on the ground of "common sense".I admit that there is a mode of argument on this subject which claims that an interpretation is never right or wrong, it is always purely subjective, and the rightness or wrongness of an interpretation is something imposed by a further judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover
I disagree that the perception is an act of interpretation. The perception comes before the judgement. Step 1: I perceive the stars twinkling. Step 2: I interpret that stars twinkle. Step 2 has the potential to be incorrect because, as you say, it is an act of interpretation. But step 1 cannot be incorrect. It is a simple fact. If I am incorrect about the interpretation, the fact remains that I perceive the stars twinkling. — Samuel Lacrampe
Let's stay on the ground of "common sense". — Samuel Lacrampe
If I understand correctly, we at least agree that space is part of the physical. And we previously agreed that my syllogism works for things as colours and shapes. But how can we have colours and shapes without space? For us to perceive or even imagine colours and shapes, these must occupy an area (2D space). IE, shrink the area down to zero, and we can no longer perceive these colours and shapes. Thus space is an essential attribute of colours and shapes. Let's recap:
-Colours and shapes exist in the real world (as proven by the syllogism).
-Space is essential for the colours and shapes to exist, therefore space exists.
-Space is part of the physical world (if I understand your definition correctly), therefore the physical world exists, at least the portion of the physical that includes space.
Regarding Idealism: If we agreed that shapes and colours are things in themselves (as per the syllogism), then they exist independently of the activity of the mind. This does not refute the claim that some objects of knowledge are dependent on the mind, but it refutes the claim that all objects are. — Samuel Lacrampe
1. We cannot imagine things we have not experienced in the past.
2. We perceive colours.
3. Therefore colours exist. — Samuel Lacrampe
These three perceptions are different but are not wrong because, prior to making an interpretation, these are mere observations. It is at this point only a passive event, and these are neither right nor wrong (if you exclude dishonesty) because no active event (interpretation or judgment) has occurred yet. Best is to give a full example in which all three persons have different perceptions, yet all have the right interpretation:how do you account for these differences? — Metaphysician Undercover
These three perceptions are different but are not wrong because, prior to making an interpretation, these are mere observations. — Samuel Lacrampe
I differentiate the two as separate events. The interpretation is caused by the observation. And an effect is separate from its cause. i.e., nothing causes itself. Thus the observation comes prior to the interpretation. It is passive (step 1) and the effect of interpretation is active (step 2). Only interpretations are subject to be right or wrong.How is an observation itself not an interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I agree. And that is because the act of taking notes is active and fits in step 2. But the observation comes yet again prior to that.If a person improperly takes note of what is going on, don't you think that the person's observation is wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover
In other words, Heraclitus: You could not step twice into the same river. Is that what you mean?What is happening is that observations are changing and differing from other observations, which is impossible to avoid, as everything continuously evolves. — Rich
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.