In fairness, though, you have so far not directly answered the question I've posed:
If all awareness in the cosmos were to somehow miraculously vanish [...] what, if anything, would remain of the world as we in any way know it? — javra
First were these two.....
This is just another way of saying that to perceive a red flower in a vase entails that there is a red flower in a vase (i.e., the logic of perception).
— Andrew M
We're investigating what we perceive (i.e., can point at), and what we perceive is the object "as it is in itself", so to speak.
— Andrew M
....later was this.....
my position is that of Indirect Realism (...) rather than Direct Realism (our senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world, and the world derived from our sense perception should be taken at face value).
— RussellA
...which confuses me, because in our dialogue it seemed as if your position was just what you claimed it was not. Seems to me as if the first two statements support the direct realist doctrine. — Mww
I am not, then - and this is a point to be clear about from the beginning - going to maintain that we ought to be 'realist', to embrace, that is, the doctrine that we do perceive material things (or objects). This doctrine would be no less scholastic and erroneous than its antithesis. The question, do we perceive material things or sense-data, no doubt looks very simple - too simple - but is entirely misleading (cp. 'Thales' similarly vast and over-simple question, what the world is made of). One of the most important points to grasp is that these two terms, 'sense-data' and 'material things', live by taking in each other's washing - what is spurious is not one term of the pair, but the antithesis itself. — Sense and Sensibilia - J.L. Austin
If all awareness in the cosmos were to somehow miraculously vanish [...] what, if anything, would remain of the world as we in any way know it? — javra
I would say everything bar percipients and their perceptions. — Janus
Perhaps I'm thick, but I didn't understand what you were trying to convey in your first paragraph. — Janus
In other words, everything bar awareness and awareness-contingent givens. What would that be though? — javra
What can be posited to exist without any perceptions or conceptualizations (for perceptions and conceptualizations are awareness-contingent and would in no way occur in the absence of all awareness)? — javra
What can be posited to exist without any perceptions or conceptualizations (for perceptions and conceptualizations are awareness-contingent and would in no way occur in the absence of all awareness)? — javra
I would say that absent percipients only what would be perceived if there were percipients could be posited. So, stars planets, mountains, rivers and so on. A cry long list if you include plants. — Janus
My first thought is, could anyone accomplish this positing without the use of their awareness? Take away awareness in general and the very possibility of this supposition seems to me to existentially vanish. What then? — javra
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.