Think of it more like training, accompanied by pre-existing conditioning. There are only so many ways to see, and interact with the world that actually work. If the representational faculties of the brain are destroyed, your training and instinct will still allow you to interact with the world in a trained, and instinctual way. You can have everything above the brain stem removed, and no one (including yourself) would even notice. The only difference is that you'd loss all inhibition, become super exploratory, and couldn't learn anything new.

So it's an entity that sees, hears, tastes, feels, and responds to the world, but it never sees that, hears that, feels that...? What takes the place of thought is instinct.

I think that perception is non-conceptual at times, or rather, all the time to some extent (but not all the time in every aspect). It's simply a matter of observing/being aware of things but not thinking conceptually about them--not thinking about what you name those things (a la types), what makes them that type versus something else, etc.

Thought is made of hope and fear. It directs you towards desirable possibilities that are not ready at hand, and away from possible dangers that are not ready at hand. Representing stuff to yourself is always about one of these two things, and the forms, and modes that they take effect your dispositions towards the ideas, as well as your levels of desire and aversion. They're useful for bringing things up from the past in order to direct the future. They aren't actually necessary to get by, and they can so greatly diverge from reality that they can become entirely wrong about how you reacted and will react, and can even be entirely unpracticable.

When you're thinking, you're ignoring your senses in order to develop these projections. Thought takes the place of sense in every moment that you're thinking.

The brain activity, non-consciously constructs our perceptions. We don't experience "raw" perception. By the time a perception hits the executive part of put brain, where we can consider it, it's already gone through filters that include our preconceived notions about how the world works. Our model of the world isn't created by what we perceive, or at least not solely, but it is not entirely untrue that our model of the world determines what we perceive. It's a (to some extent) self-correcting feedback loop.

Should also say, that extracting memories in order to create projections alters the memories. You use a conceptual scaffolding to give form to memories, which are emotionally tagged, and remembered because of their emotional significance, and you may not even have the conceptual tools to bring them into focus. When you can and do, you alter them based on that scaffolding, which is a general form, and recreate the details every time, and store them differently depending on how you feel about them at the time of recollection or when you're done with them.

Representing stuff to yourself is always about one of these two things, and the forms, and modes that they take effect your dispositions towards the ideas, as well as your levels of desire and aversion. — Wosret

I've been doing a lot of fiber art lately and I've had a number of episodes of a kind of paralysis where an image of something that hasn't happened yet takes me over. In some cases it has to do with a way of doing something. It doesn't seem like something I'm doing. It happens to me in pretty much exactly the same way seeing an amazing flower or arrangement of clouds would arrest me. Are those things necessary to get by? No, probably not necessary, but I can imagine the same thing happening to somebody out in the desert.. a sudden inspiration of how to find water comes and momentarily paralyzes. I'm guessing that in the old days a person who gets that a lot would be called a seer.

When you're thinking, you're ignoring your senses in order to develop these projections. Thought takes the place of sense in every moment that you're thinking. — Wosret

I agree.

So you don't see mental representation that's totally non-conceptual as a viable viewpoint?

Hi dude! You're expressing my usual attitude. We see ideas. I was just exploring the opposing view.

Maybe that much greater thing that overtakes you is the real you, and the "seer" is what's unnecessary. Being receptive, engaged, not thinking, that's when the soul emerges, but the greatness, and excitement of it ironically distracts us from it immediately. It's such an amazing thing, that we turn our backs on it the moment it surfaces in order to replay that little tiny piece of it back to ourselves in a million different ways.

So you don't see mental representation that's totally non-conceptual as a viable viewpoint? — Mongrel

Not all the time, in all respects if we're talking about persons.

It's viable some of the time in all respects, and all of the time in some respects.

Sure. I hope my post added some information that was useful.

Not all the time, in all respects if we're talking about persons.

It's viable some of the time in all respects, and all of the time in some respects. — Terrapin Station

One of the things this view commits you to is qualia. Before I try to change your mind about that, do you really accept qualia as a form of mental representation?

Maybe that much greater thing that overtakes you is the real you, — Wosret

It's not a greater thing. It's little bubbles of red silk poking out of black wool. I've got a dye called "oxblood red." Oddly, it isn't what's normally thought of as oxblood. It's actually blood red.

Is it possible to eliminate the conceptual element altogether?

We do have a lot of repetitive functions that seem to involve very little thought. Such as coming to a stop at a red light while driving. There must be some short cut processes in us.

Perhaps some seers had brain issues in the form of epilepsy. I recently read speculation that Paul had a form of frontal lobe disorder as explanation of why he fell off his horse, but this is not a very popular explanation in Christian circles.

Frontal lobe disorder probably wouldn't go over well with the faithful.

The topic sort of starts with realism about mental representation. Maybe it could be reframed as "what is thought.. concept or sensation?"

A proponent of the non-conceptual view would be Hume. Maybe exploring his view would shed light.

do you really accept qualia as a form of mental representation? — Mongrel

As a form of mental representation, no. But I certainly accept qualia as a mental phenomenon.

"what is thought.. concept or sensation?"

I think sensation is a two stage process. What we are aware of is filtered, we pick out what deem important but this occurs at a different level than our initial awareness, and both stages occur in millionths of a second. I think both are possible, the same tree I pass each and every day does not provoke any thought, it is simply given. The tree that just crashed into the house provokes all sorts of representations which I can't easily get out of my mind.

Perhaps the ordering of sensations give rise to concepts and the ordering of concepts give rise to thought, where intentionality is a product of our organism as a whole. I think the work of the intellect is done in an imaginary space, where reason, desire & memory interact. The vehicle for this interaction is language, which already is ordered, meaningful, already valued both rationally and emotively.

You allow qualia, but not as mental representation. Then explain again what sort of mental representation you support?

I think the work of the intellect is done in an imaginary space, where reason, desire & memory interact. The vehicle for this interaction is language, which already is ordered, meaningful, already valued both rationally and emotively. — Cavacava

If I understood correctly, you're describing one theory of mind that involves a sort of grand central station. When you say the vehicle for interaction is language, could you explain what you mean? Give an example?

Well you talk to yourself don't you. Something like 90% of our language use is our own internal dialogue with our self.

Not as much as some people do. It blew my mind the first time I met someone who claimed to experience that internal voice constantly. I didn't believe it at first.

Do you think of that voice as the bulk of mental representation?

I think language constitutes thought, but I don't think it is thought, I think thought is the workings of that "grand central station".

Well, I don't know how narrowly you're defining "mental representation." For example, I don't know if you'd say that perception on a direct realist account is "mental representation" (arguably it isn't because it's different than represenatationalism, but if we're using "mental representation" far more loosely, then maybe it counts).

If we're using "mental representation" more narrowly, I'd say that something like visualization is an example of mental representation.

I was wondering if you meant the voice is hardware (the walls and ceiling of the station) or software (the dance of the travelers through the station...did you ever see The Fisher King with Robin Williams?)

The SEP article defines mental representation loosely. That was the meaning I was using.

I think I'll just go back through Bundle Theory. Are you familiar with that?

Inner voice, is more like the trains that enter and leave the station...thought-trains.

I saw the Fisher King a long time ago. The scene at the station where everyone was waltzing, the disorganized crowd started to move to the rhythm of the music. I don't think sensations are a like a disjointed buzzing mass of a crowd. A crowd that we put into a dance. I think sensations come in pre-structured chunks, that they already by and large fit together, and we construct perception out of these chunks into a coherent whole,

Regarding the inner voice, Chomsky:

Now let us take language. What is its characteristic use? Well, probably
99.9% of its use is internal to the mind. You can’t go a minute without talking
to yourself. It takes an incredible act of will not to talk to yourself.

Thought train...woo, woo!

I think I'll just go back through Bundle Theory. Are you familiar with that? — Mongrel

Yes, and I suppose I could say that I basically agree with it, but the whole idea of separating properties and substances has always struck me as stupid, and bundle theory, if taken very "strictly," is still basically making that separation.

Just a train:
A $5.00 bill is a real representation, I can hand it over to you in repayment for a debt. It has presence and functionality, and its value is generally acceptable.

Oops.. due to Cavacava I've become interested in the corporealization of words... maybe Lacan?

Phenomenalism will have to wait for another day.

Any reading recommendations?