The author wrote, "When we look at a bird, we see the bird, not the activity in our brain." That is contrary to my understanding of how we see things. — Qwertyportne
If I am experiencing the bird, not the activity in my brain, why does my dog see a different image than the image I see? — Qwertyportne
Light reflected from the object enters my eyes, then travels through the optic nerve to my brain where the image is — Qwertyportne
bodies cant exist without minds — Miller
We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen — NOS4A2
So why should we insert this image into our discourse it those who assert it is there are unable to produce it or even point to it? — NOS4A2
Images are a type of information and is what is evoked to describe the difference.We do not need to evoke images to describe the difference between how the dog sees and how the human sees, is what I meant. — NOS4A2
So there is no image, no medium upon which it appears, and no little perceiver to look at it. None of that exists when we physically examine the biology. Upon further examination we find that the biology is in direct contact with its environment, the perceiver in direct contact with perceived, no gap between them. — NOS4A2
You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways. — Banno
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.