Of course in all this I'm reminded of the certain scientific and philosophical skeptics who mistake their lack of visualization or lucid dreaming for those abilities not existing in other people. That's a kind of logical error whose name escapes me — Marchesk
If Kant was astute, he would in my opinion have regarded his phenomena/noumena distinction as being a practical distinction made for the purposes of epistemology, as opposed to a metaphysical distinction, for obvious reasons pertaining to the creation of philosophical pseudo-problems. — sime
Of course in all this I'm reminded of the certain scientific and philosophical skeptics who mistake their lack of visualization or lucid dreaming for those abilities not existing in other people. — Marchesk
I don't know if that would be a logical error. I'm guessing the strong bias towards believing that we're all the same has to do with communication. — frank
Who is claiming you "really" seeing in your mind? — hypericin
How do we measure awareness? — Isaac
By report, or by measuring at the neural correlates. — hypericin
What about when you dream? I would put it more in terms of a VR headset kind of experience, particularly for lucid dreaming. — Marchesk
I believe there is actually a proof of that, of the fact that we cannot visualize very well, even though we convince ourselves that we do visualize really well. I discovered it in primary school. There was this girl I was very found of. She liked my drawings and asked me for one. I decided that instead of drawing Mickey Mouse or Lucky Luke as usual, for her I would draw something nicer, more original: a horse. I thought I knew exactly how it would be, for I had this picture in my mind of a splendid horse. Then I started to draw.
Try as I may, I could not replicate on paper the splendid image I thought I had in my head. I had to take a photo of a horse and draw from it. The result was somewhat ok but I wondered: how come I needed an external picture to copy? Why couldn't I simply copy my mental image?
Introspectingly, I realized that this image was not actually 'there' in my mind. — Olivier5
So. I look at my tea cup, and the claim is that in addition to the circuits processing the sensations I get from it, I also have this other thing called 'being aware' of it, which isn't simply the word we give to those circuits doing their job, but something else (which correlates with them). We assume bats have it (what 'it's like' to be a bat) even though they don't insist they do, but cameras don't have it (there's nothing it's like to be a camera)...because bats would be... offended? — Isaac
Introspectingly, I realized that this image was not actually 'there' in my mind. — Olivier5
I'm just trying to pin down what this thing 'awareness' is that neuroscience has apparently failed to explain. — Isaac
but logic* as a field does not present an argument or a justification of itself. — SophistiCat
This would be true if logic were, magically, its own interpretative base — Constance
I first put this out there to show how physicalism as a naive thesis, lacks epistemic essence. — Constance
I see my cat and I am thereby forced to admit I am reductively seeing brain states only. — Constance
Phenomenology remedies this matter, I argue. — Constance
What could it even mean for something that seems so obvious to most people to be a delusion? — Janus
Also I can draw a likeness of the face of someone I know well, even if I can't "see" a stable mental picture of it. Same with the human figure; I can draw a very accurate, proportionally and muscularly speaking, image of the human body, male or female. — Janus
Isn't this just what the 'hard problem' is about? 15 pages of texts and it's back to square 1. — Wayfarer
That's of no help because 'consciousness' is an equally vague and slippery notion defined, it seems, by exactly the same list of things it definitely isn't, but nothing it actually is. — Isaac
Why don't you give it a try then? Make the concept less slippery, if you can. — Olivier5
I consider it perfectly normal to lack a precise definition for a philosophical concept. — Olivier5
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.