It seems to me phenomenalism is unarguably true. — Art48
It seems to me phenomenalism is unarguably true. — Art48
Is phenominalism different from phenomenology? — Gregory
How are maths and logic accomodated by this theory? — Wayfarer
It seems to me phenomenalism is unarguably true. We have five physical senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. We have no “tree-sensing” sense. So, how can we experience a tree? — Art48
We experience the tree via our senses, but it would be silly to conclude that therefore we do not experience the tree. — Banno
We directly experience the idea of a tree — Art48
The closest we could get to 'the idea of a tree' might be some of specialised neural clusters in the frontal cortex. — Isaac
you experience a reconstructed memory of neural events a few seconds ago. — Isaac
Why not? — Isaac
Putnam’s goal in introducing the vatted brain was to refute the skeptical argument. Most folk only get as far as "we might be brains vats" and stop thinking there, never realising that the argument is against one being a brain in a vat.Think "brain in a vat". Or the movie, The Matrix. Both make a similar point. — Art48
An analogous situation is watching a video on a computer. — Art48
The issue is direct vs indirect experience. Physically, we can directly experience only the five senses. We directly experience the idea of a tree and indirectly experience the tree as a physical object. (An analogous situation is seeing a tree on a computer monitor. All we can see on a computer monitor is light.)
Think "brain in a vat". Or the movie, The Matrix. Both make a similar point.
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.