First time through, i read that as "medicated".

First time through, i read that as "medicated". — Banno

I'm not sure medication would do any good. There's nothing real in that mental world to begin with, apparently.

Notice the air traffic controller sits looking at his screen.

But do you sit, looking at your perceptions? No. You have your perceptions. The alternative is the homunculus fallacy, the little man inside your head looking out.

You've mislead yourself with the analogy. — Banno

This again.

Alright, where is the metaphoric computer screen properly positioned for my analogy to be correct? Is it at the watery surface of my twinkling eye or is it on the front surface of my closed eyelid? It seems you wish to eliminate the homunculus by saying the person begins at some molecular point and instantly perceives when the light of the flower hits my body, even if it means denying the science, which says that hairs and eyelids don't perceive. It's odd to me that I perceive a flower when my eyes are closed, but I suppose I do because bodies perceive, not parts of bodies. That's what I'm told at least.

We have all seen the cartoon picture of a homunculus sitting inside the middle of the brain looking at what's delivered to him, with yet another man inside that man's head ad infinitum. That is not what I envision. What I envision is a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs. I envision that because that's exactly what happens. Sever the optic nerve, you'll stop the input of data. And that's not to say the only way to elicit the perception is through sensory input. You can stick electrodes in the brain, drug me up, let me sleep, do all sorts of things to make flowers appear to me.

But back to the other part of my analogy that has gotten lost in this discussion. I'm referring to the blip. If I should see a blip when you see an airplane as we know airplanes to look, then properly understood, as you've presented it, that blip is the airplane. It's not a representation, correct? To say otherwise leaves us asking the age old question of what is the airplane in and of itself, wings and jet engines, or blips? As long as our perception enables successful navigation in the world, then we have truth. Do I have this right?

What I envision is a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs. I envision that because that's exactly what happens. — Hanover

If we don't see things as they are; if things in themselves are unknowable, then how do you know "that's exactly what happens". I posed this question earlier and you failed to respond—too difficult?

where is the metaphoric computer screen properly positioned for my analogy to be correct? — Hanover

So I, and others here, explicitly reject the distinction between internal and external worlds.

But you are asking me where the line is to be drawn between these mooted internal and external worlds.

See the problem?

To say otherwise leaves us asking the age old question of what is the airplane in and of itself, wings and jet engines, or blips? — Hanover

It's both, or either. There's no essence-of-plane, just ways of talking about planes. Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrong.

But you are asking me where the line is to be drawn between these mooted internal and external worlds. — Banno

They aren't worlds. They are objects in the world. You deny objects?

both, or either. There's no essence-of-plane, just ways of talking about planes. Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrong — Banno

You think they mean it's the plane or they mean it's a representation of a plane?

Again, is a "plane" a plane? I'm just not seeing a difference between a symbol and a thing the way you're describing it.

we don't see things as they are; if things in themselves are unknowable, then how do you know "that's exactly what happens". I posed this question earlier and you failed to respond—too difficult? — Janus

I can only describe the phenomenal.

Again, is a "plane" a plane? I'm just not seeing a difference between a symbol and a thing the way you're describing it. — Hanover

I do not understand why you are confused here.

The dot on the screen is the plane, much as the word "plane" in "the plane is airborne" is the plane - it's a way of using the dot, and a way of using the word.

I can only describe the phenomenal. — Hanover

Rubbish. As if you could only talk about the dot, and not the plane.

Sure, we can all only describe things as they appear to us. But, if studying, describing and analyzing those appearances do not provide any basis for knowing anything about things, then you have no justification for claiming that there is "a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs", or saying "I envision that because that's exactly what happens".

You realize that argument only works for realists. Skeptics and idealists will remain unconvinced by it. They will just reply that we can't make justified claims about a mind-independent real world. — Marchesk

From that position it seems to follow that we cannot make any justified claims at all.

I understand the indirect argument to mean there is something mental mediating perception of the real thing, as a result of all that neural activity. Thus why we have illusions, hallucinations and secondary qualities. Also why it's possible to have internal visual and auditory experiences, like with dreams and imagination. — Marchesk

Sure, but internal visual and auditory experiences, hallucinations, dreams and imaginings are not shareable except by report.

How many worlds do you live in? — Ciceronianus

One world, with many different aspects which can be colloquially referred to as "worlds". You are being lawyerly, I guess.

There's nothing real in that mental world to begin with, apparently. — Ciceronianus

Words are real, perceptions are real. Both are removed from the realities they refer to. We can look up from books, we cannot look up from our perceptions.

The dot on the screen is the plane, much as the word "plane" in "the plane is airborne" is the plane - it's a way of using the dot, and a way of using the word. — Banno

"The plane", the dot, and the thing you sit in are all the same plane, right?

How does location play into identity? Not at all?

As if you could only talk about the dot, and not the plane — Banno

If the dot disappears, I think I'd say "the dot disappeared" as opposed to the plane disappeared because typically planes don't do that. I'd then radio the pilot to confirm the plane still exists. I'd do that because the dot isn't the plane.

"The plane", the dot, and the thing you sit in are all the same plane, right? — Hanover

"The plane" is two words.
The plane is a plane.
The dot is ambiguous.

How does location play into identity? Not at all? — Hanover

Not at all. It might play into your deciding that two names refer to the same thing. But what has that to do with the topic?

If the dot disappears, I think I'd say "the dot disappeared" as opposed to the plane disappeared because typically planes don't do that. — Hanover

So what? If someone with more training in such things, looking at the screen, cries "the plane has disappeared!", are you going to quibble? "No, the dot has disappeared", says Hanover, "No need to call out search and rescue!"

Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrong. — Banno

If the dot moves north and the atc says the plane is moving north, this is because they have a justified belief in the correspondence between the dot's movement and the plane's. But if the dot started blinking and the atc said the plane has begun popping in and out of existence, they would either be joking or insane.

In the law, there is what is referred to as direct evidence and then there is indirect evidence. The latter is often referred to as circumstantial evidence. Me seeing you steal my car is direct evidence. Me seeing your fingerprint on my car is circumstantial. One is not considered more probative than the other. In fact, with DNA evidence, circumstantial evidence can be more powerful.

Do you deny a meaningful distinction between direct and indirect evidence? That is, the fingerprint is Banno as much as those two curious eyes that are your avatar are Banno as much as the old man in your mirror is Banno?

But if the dot started blinking and the atc said the plane has begun popping in and out of existence, they would either be joking or insane. — hypericin

Indeed. But the relevant point here is that they have made a claim about the plane.

Do you deny a meaningful distinction between direct and indirect evidence? — Hanover

No.

Indeed. But the relevant point here is that they have made a claim about the plane. — Banno

You are missing the point. The fact that they can make any claim about the plane at all is because of the correlation between dot and plane. Were the dot to start blinking (unless the blinking signifies something else about the plane), that correlation would obviously have broken down. Therefore to make a claim about the plane's cycling existence and non-existence on the basis of the blinking is crazy.

And they can make that claim because there is a correlation between the dot they can see and the plane they can't. But correlation does not imply identity. — hypericin

Ah, so you have adopted a descriptive theory of reference - the dot is the plane in virtue of some correlation with a description?

Here's why that doesn't work.

I much prefer the intentionalist model, with a broad communal notion of intent, after Searle.

But all that is irrelevant.

But all that is irrelevant. — Banno

True.

Do you deny a meaningful distinction between direct and indirect evidence?
— Hanover

No. — Banno

Very well, then let's work from here.

The blip on the radar screen is indirect evidence. If we were to challenge the accuracy of the statement "the plane has disappeared" based upon the radar screen feedback, we would look into the construction of the radar equipment and perhaps ask some experts in the field how could it be that there is an airplane in the sky, but not a blip on the radar. That is to say, the blip is not the airplane and we all know that, so before we start calling families and informing them that there will be one less plate to set at Christmas dinner, we check the accuracy of our indirect evidence. Before taking the radar apart, as I suggested, we radio the pilot. If the pilot responds, we now have indirect evidence of the airplane's continued existence, as generally pilots don't answer who are in disappeared airplanes.

If you claim to have seen the airplane in the sky, but it never lands and we can't find it, we might start to question what you saw, whether your interpretation of whatever you saw was actually the airplane. We might check your eyes, ask you how much you know about airplanes, whether you're schizophrenic, were drunk, or anything else that might have resulted in your misinterpreting the indirect evidence of the plane.

At some point, you might start denying the evidence is indirect, but that it is direct. For example, if you're sitting in the airplane and enjoying some of those really hard cookies, drinking from a small plastic cup. But, again, even then, calling that direct but the other examples indirect seems arbitrary. If it's not, then describe to me that bright line dividing the two, because your response to my question related to there being two different types of evidence was unequivocal. . You did previously claim the blip was direct evidence of the plane. That I don't follow.

I also don't understand the how the organism under your construct is a single holistic indivisible perceiver. Your objection to my claim that there are objects external to me is somehow an argument of multiverses or some such, isn't accurate. Admitting there are objects external to me is the only way to avoid solipsism . Humans possess parts that perceive and parts that don't, just as there are parts of us that digest food and other parts that don't. My point here is simply to say that should I perceive what I think to be a flower or airplane and there's some reason to dispute it, it makes perfect sense to check the health and accuracy of the perception equipment, whether that be running a diagnostic on the radar equipment or giving me an eye exam.

One world, with many different aspects which can be colloquially referred to as "worlds". You are being lawyerly, I guess. — hypericin

You seem to be fascinated by your perception of me as a lawyer, or perhaps of lawyers in general. I suggest this unhealthy, as you say you believe it isn't real.

we cannot look up from our perceptions. — hypericin

Then stop pretending to do so, for goodness sake.

. My point here is simply to say that should I perceive what I think to be a flower or airplane and there's some reason to dispute it, it makes perfect sense to check the health and accuracy of the perception equipment, whether that be running a diagnostic on the radar equipment or giving me an eye exam. — Hanover

But why? If you can't see what a flower really is in the first place, why bother checking to see if you have an eye problem?

If you can't see what a flower really is in the first place, why bother checking — Ciceronianus

That's not how it works. If you don't already know what that object really is then you can only see an unidentified object in its place. This is the case with UFO's. It isn't possible for any object to help you out by telling you what it is, whether that be the particular flower in your vase, some random rose on the bush, or all the rose bushes.

If you don't have the concept beforehand then you can't know. To have that concept you must have already learned the abstract dictionary idea of rose with its associated word rose correctly, then you can make an educated guess that your object is a rose flower.

The word is in one abstract world, roses are in another, only the rose in your vase is a material object in space. Which one exists? They all do and they are all external to you.

But why? If you can't see what a flower really is in the first place, why bother checking to see if you have an eye problem? — Ciceronianus

If my objective is to keep blips on the screen, then I'll do what is necessary to keep blips on the screen. That's a pragmatic pursuit.

If I want to know what the blips are and what the underlying structure of this whole enterprise is, I want to look behind the blip, find the airplane, look behind the airplane, find its structure. That's a metaphysical pursuit.

I'm saying all we have are representations. Blips are representations of airplanes and all you experience are blips. If we speak of representations, we must be admitting to a representation of something. That something is ultimately noumenal. That we cannot even speak of the composition of the noumenal is the definition of noumenal.

So you say why not just say that the phenomenal is all there is. I say because it's not. But I do agree, pragmatically, none of this matters, where "this" is 90% of what we talk about here. Of course, "this" is a referent; the antecedent is what actually is.

For me, there's no "external world." There's a world of which we're a part. There isn't one world for us and another world for everything else — Ciceronianus

Yet I think you probably understand the difference between subjective and objective data. You're quibbling over wording

Sure, but internal visual and auditory experiences, hallucinations, dreams and imaginings are not shareable except by report. — Janus

@Banno So I'll report a minor illusion I had yesterday after stepping outside a coffee shop, glancing at the clouds in the sky and then seeing the motorcycle parked in front of me. When I looked at the windshield, at first it seemed to be some kind of smoke or mist. I don't know why. I guess my brain wasn't expecting to see a windshield. Or maybe it was the way the light was reflected in the windshield. At any rate, I didn't perceive a windshield at first, but rather something that wasn't there.

Which brings up a point. If perception involves prediction, then are we seeing the object, or what our brains expect to be the object of perception?

Yet I think you probably understand the difference between subjective and objective data. You're quibbling over wording — frank

Well, words are important. For example, speaking of "sense data" or "qualia" or feelings or thoughts as if they're things, somewhere, in the mind, distinct from the world we interact with at every moment. If that's what "subjective data" are, I don't accept that view.

So you say why not just say that the phenomenal is all there is. I say because it's not. But I do agree, pragmatically, none of this matters, where "this" is 90% of what we talk about here. Of course, "this" is a referent; the antecedent is what actually is. — Hanover

The fact that "none of this matters" would seem, to me, to establish something regarding its acceptability as an assessment of the world and out place in it. That it's incredible.