Searle disagrees. Can you tell me why in your own words?From John Searle’s “Seeing Things as They Are” — Richard B
The OP doesn't mention "subjective experiences".but directly perceive only our subjective experiences. — Richard B
Putnam’s goal in introducing the vatted brain was to refute the skeptical argument. — Banno
Lets say we both are standing in front of a tree. I look at you and see you directly looking at and experiencing a tree. I don’t see you directly experiencing sense data. Is this not being objective? Whatever is occurring “inside” is not in my purview. Whatever is occurring “outside” is shared by both of us and thus we gain an understanding of what we are talking about. — Richard B
The point is we see only light; our mind does the rest. — Art48
It says that an object basically is its properties. There's no extra "object" out there that has redness, or softness, or whatever.
"Light" and "mind" wouldn't be exceptions to that. See what I mean? — Tate
In particular, some forms of phenomenalism reduce all talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense data. — Art48
I'd be interested but I think it should be in another thread.I don't think that's what Hume was thinking. Would you want to explore his ideas more? By going through the logic of bundle theory? — Tate
I think this captures part of our disagreement. We have five physical senses and I'd say we experience the sense data from these sense directly. Question: do you believe we experience anything directly and, if so, what?I do not directly experience electrons/protons; but with my senses and some scientific theory, I can infer their existence indirectly. Similarly, I do not directly experience sense data — Richard B
If you, and everyone else, experiences sense data directly, why do you explain what you mean by examples of illusions and other representations of reality? — Richard B
Can I take this question in terms of Kant's thing-in-itself? Kant said we cannot know the thing-in-itself, only phenomena. I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it.The question arises: how did we determine that our knowledge stops with experience? — Tate
Question: do you believe we experience anything directly and, if so, what? — Art48
I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it. — Art48
. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it. — Art48
I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it.
— Art48
That's phenomenalism as I understand it. I guess my question would be: what supports this claim? — Tate
We do, in fact, not experience reality past our senses. — Christoffer
Adding to this we have an extreme amount of scientific data that is testable and provable that tell us about a world past our perception — Christoffer
That's phenomenalism as I understand it. I guess my question would be: what supports this claim? — Tate
Please explain what direct access means. What is an example of having direct access? If we want to confirm “Yes, we have direct access” don't we need some idea what that would be like when it is achieved? — Richard B
a) the properties of mind-independent objects are not present in the experience — Michael
I think that our scientific understanding of perception shows that both a) and b) are true — Michael
So science has access to the properties of mind independent objects? How is this possible if those properties are not present in experience? — Tate
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.