It's a way of speaking. I'm sure you have met it many times in discussions.how can you so boldly assert that others are in the same position — plaque flag
The shadow’s wrong. — Mww
And phenomenological direct (naive) realism says something exactly like this. They don’t just say that we respond to external world objects. They say that external world objects are as they are seen, e.g. that the colour property in the experience is the colour property of the apple. — Michael
And vice versa. — frank
Not so sure. 'I' seems to be the sign for a 'virtual' bearer of social responsibility, a 'player' on the 'stage,' which is associated with a particular living body. It exists within the tradition at the root perhaps (any exceptions?) all traditions, that of the unified voice, the ego, the individual.A body learns to be an 'I' [singular]. One ghost per machine. — plaque flag
I sense some hatred of the ego here. What's that related to? — frank
Only the little story about the Real being beneath the real-- that's what's being doubted. — Moliere
'See' does not have this dual meaning where it's also describing a self-report about mental states. — Isaac
What’s the actual physics of this? What mechanical process counts as “estimating external states”? — Michael
I would say that “estimating external states” is itself just the firing of certain neurons. — Michael
So what all perception reduces to is an external stimulus influencing sense receptors which in turn trigger the firing of certain neurons and then sometimes a bodily response. That is perception at its most fundamental. — Michael
But given the mostly deterministic nature of such physical processes (I say mostly because at the quantum scale it is stochastic) it doesn’t make much sense to describe the firing of certain neurons or its response as being correct or incorrect. One can only say that it’s adaptive or maladaptive. — Michael
But with this it really makes no sense to talk about seeing the world “as it is”. There’s just neurons firing in a useful way, and it’s not a given that there’s just one useful way for neurons to fire in any given situation. — Michael
No problem. No offence taken.I was pointing out what I thought was an incoherence in your position. — plaque flag
Well, if you feel like betting on your positions and beliefs ...We are just 'playing poker' here. — plaque flag
do understand of course that claims about the we are attributed to the I that makes them. This is as common as any discussion about the rules of a situation. — plaque flag
I might be more in the direct realist camp, so I'll try to answer this — plaque flag
We need not assume in the first place that we are trapped behind a wall of sensations. This methodological solipsism is unjustified, in my view. Concepts are public. They exists within a system of norms for their application. This is why bots can talk sensibly about pain and color. — plaque flag
As an Indirect Realist, I agree with everything you wrote in your post. It is interesting that you used Kant, in today's terms an Indirect Realist, to support your case. — RussellA
Kant discussed "Existence", in that there are things-in-themselves, "Humility", in that we know nothing of things-in-themselves and "Affectation", in that things -in-themselves causally affect us. Kant's concept of a thing-in-itself is not that of a Direct Realist. — RussellA
The Direct Realist would argue that if two people are looking at the same object in the world, as both will be perceiving the same object in the world immediately and directly, their private mental images must be the same, meaning that each will know the others private sensations. — RussellA
The question for the Direct Realist is how is it possible to know that the world outside our senses is the same as the world we perceive this side of our senses, when science tells us that what is on the other side of our senses is different to what is this side of our senses. — RussellA
No, it's that "we" means a group of individuals. Yes, the ego is an idea. It's a kind of construction. Monotheistic divinity reinforces the primacy of the ego. The burning bush told Moses that its name was "I am.". Genesis 3:13. — frank
:up:However you come to realize that the ego is a kind of fixture of the mind, it's startling, yes. — frank
Sure. You can't really dispense with the self though. Unless you want to become a homeless lunatic living under a bridge babbling and being hit in the head by rocks thrown by kids. — frank
Presumably more intelligent and creative (and aggressive?) groups dominate other groups in the long run, which would seem to require a relatively more intense but still controlled expression of individuality — plaque flag
Of course. And I'm an ambitious fucker. I'm trying to drop some memes. I'm not preaching against the softwhere but making it a theme within which to show off and gather prestige coins. — plaque flag
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.