something fascinating — Tate
:up:Science certainly does so. It is predicated on the idea that careful human observation of phenomena and the careful application of human reason to such observations (classifying, comparing, theorizing) can help make sense of the world. If you don't believe in that, you're not a scientist. — Olivier5
Something like this? — Olivier5
There are a lot more senses, which are recognized today as such, beyond the classic 5 ones: balance, weight, motion/movement/kinaesthesia, velocity/speed, spatial/orientation, body position, pressure, vibration, temperature, pain, and more ...We have five physical senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. — Art48
Certainly. But it looks to me that this is a subject of Phenomenology and not Phenomenalism. The word "how" betrays it. But then, maybe I am wrong. That's why I avoid to use "-isms" if their mentioning is not necessary. And I believe that using "Phenomenalism" in order to ask this interesting question and describe the subject related to it, is not at all necessary.So, how can we experience a tree? The answer seems to be we don’t directly experience a tree. — Art48
Well, a tree is not an abstract idea so that we have an idea of it. It is an object, something concrete. So I would say that, independently of its name, i.e. the word "three", it exists in our mind as an image connected to various data (knowledge) we have about it.our mind accesses the idea of “tree” because the idea makes sense of our sense data. — Art48
I think it also qualifies as representative realism because I'm leaving the existence of external, independently-existing object an open question.That's phenomenalism as I understand it. — Tate
Because for millennia human beings have worked to understand what they experience through their senses and the standard model is one result.Why do you have confidence the standard model if you learned about it through your senses? — Tate
I'd classify them as variations of the sense of touch.There are a lot more senses, which are recognized today as such, beyond the classic 5 ones: balance, weight, motion/movement/kinaesthesia, velocity/speed, spatial/orientation, body position, pressure, vibration, temperature, pain, and more ... — Alkis Piskas
I'd say we have more than the image. We have the idea of a tree which tells us more than an image: tree begin as seeds, they grow slowly, etc. Whenever we learn something new about trees, we revise our idea of them.Well, a tree is not an abstract idea so that we have an idea of it. It is an object, something concrete. So I would say that, independently of its name, i.e. the word "three", it exists in our mind as an image connected to various data (knowledge) we have about it. — Alkis Piskas
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? The answer seems to be we don’t directly experience a tree. Rather, we experience sense data (green patches that feel smooth, brown patches that feel rough, etc.) and our mind accesses the idea of “tree” because the idea makes sense of our sense data. — Art48
Can you give an example of an outside object (without just being programmed to detect what humans already think of as apples) detect apples. I can't think of a single example. — Isaac
science is based on human perception, logic and imagination. So if human perception, logic and imagination are deemed problematic, then so should science be. — Olivier5
Higgs particle is something we cannot perceive but is detectable in a repeatable fashion by equipment built through theories backed up by mathematical logic. — Christoffer
The perception of science data does not render the science data wrong just because we perceive the result of those tests. They have no correlation with each other. — Christoffer
if we and a bunch of aliens, with extremely different perceptions, were to analyze the apple, even with different types of tools, it would still confirm the existence of an object that we could apply definitions to that are descriptive of what we define as an apple. — Christoffer
The interesting thing about Putnam's argument is that it's about meaning, not about ontology, and depends on a causal theory of reference. I think it strange that in such a scenario the brain-in-a-vat cannot refer to itself as being a brain in a vat, and so I think that Putnam's argument is actually a reductio ad absurdum against a causal theory of reference. — Michael
fails because the pod and the vat are not just "theoretical constructs".So, it seems material objects are actually theoretical constructs — Art48
So we repeat the mantra "It's got science behind it" in the place of thinking? — Banno
The debate between direct and indirect realism was settled a ways back in favour of dropping the distinction. — Banno
— Banno
an analysis of our nervous systems leads straight to that conclusion. — Tate
one does not see the results of one's nervous system, as it where; one sees with one's nervous system — Banno
Point is, the brain isn't a video recorder, it's more like an organic computer, calculating and estimating. — Tate
Here's an example I gave elsewhere. On the table is a cup with one handle. The realist and the idealist agree that "the cup has one handle" is true.
In the cupboard is another cup. The realist says "The cup has one handle" is true. The idealist says "the cup has one handle" does not have a truth value.
In the end the musings here come down to a choice between which logic it is appropriate to apply to our situation. — Banno
None of which implies that we see things only indirectly. — Banno
You're saying the solution is to finesse the conundrum with a certain phrasing that leaves out the nonsense producing portion?
Why not just face the nonsense head on? — Tate
Better, drop the notion of direct and indirect and just say we see the tree. — Banno
You lump together imagination with logic, but logic is not a human concept. — Christoffer
If we build a detector, like the one in CERN, to detect particles we cannot possibly perceive, our perception does not dictate its function, which is what you mean with what you say when you lump in human perception with science.
...but we were talking about apples. I'm not seeing the logical link between the Higgs Boson being identified by purely mathematically programmed machines and apples. — Isaac
Logic is a very human concept. Maybe you mean to say that logic is not limited to humans, which I would agree with. — Olivier5
I think you would agree that a group of blind and deaf people could not build and operate the CERN accelerator. Even if they could, how would they know what the results of their experiments are?
We can build tools to expand on our senses but someone still needs to look into the telescope. With one's eyes. — Olivier5
I'm inclined to agree as per this particular argument. However the sentiment behind the argument, the rejection of radical scepticism by showing that it undermines itself, remains. Neo was evicted from his pod, and hence there is a world in which there is a pod. For the brain in the vat, there is a vat. The phenomenalist conclusion ... fails because the pod and the vat are not just "theoretical constructs". — 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.