I have yet to see a good argument why color is "mental precept" all the way down, but presumably shape and size are not. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The burden would be on you to show that bodily interaction is necessary to consciousness. — frank
The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank
It happens every time you dream, it's happening to people who have received chemical paralytic drugs, it's happening to people who are locked in. — frank
The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank
The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank
Data from inside the brain?
Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience. — creativesoul
So on your account, when we agree that the pen is red, we are talking about quite different things - the percept-in-my-mind and the percept-in-your-mind.I'm saying that I can talk about them, just as I can talk about your thoughts even though I can't think them. — Michael
Which is no more than a play on "mental".. I just deny that colours are something other than mental percepts, — Michael
WE?Oh, no. It is the indirect realism X direct realism discussion all over again. Herewego 50 pages. — Lionino
Yes. Mental phenomena are either reducible to brain activity or are caused by brain activity. We dream/hallucinate/see (in colour) when the visual cortex is active. — Michael
So on your account, when we agree that the pen is red, we are talking about quite different things - the percept-in-my-mind and the percept-in-your-mind. — Banno
In this example, are the contact lenses causing new mental phenomena? — Richard B
Or, are they just allowing us to see the colors the fruit had all the time. — Richard B
For example, a person took a hallucinogen which put the brain in a particular physical state, and thus caused the hallucination. Is this not enough to explain what is happening without appeal to mental phenomena? — Richard B
How come "pen" picks out a mind-independent object, and not just whatever has the causal role in eliciting a particular type of mental percept. Doesn't the noun "pen" refer to this type of mental percept? — Banno
But why?Because some words pick out mental phenomena and some words don't? — Michael
In addition to what? An individuals percept and and what? A pen, perhaps?...also... — Michael
The naive view that denies colour to objects is mistaken. Why shouldn't a red pen simply be a pen that reflects light at various wavelengths and various intensities?The naive view that projects these colour percepts onto mind-independent objects is mistaken. — Michael
But why? — Banno
In addition to what? — Banno
Why shouldn't a red pen simply be a pen that reflects light at various wavelengths and various intensities? — Banno
It happens every time you dream, it's happening to people who have received chemical paralytic drugs, it's happening to people who are locked in. The burden would be on you to show that bodily interaction is necessary to consciousness.
Does a brain generate any experience on the ocean floor? On the surface of a star? In the void of space? — Count Timothy von Icarus
The noun "pen" refers to a mind-independent object. The adjective "red" describes this mind-independent object's causal role in eliciting a particular type of mental percept. The noun "red" refers to this type of mental percept.
I think I've been really clear on this. — Michael
Imagine you're in a debate. Your opponent keeps using the same word, but it feels like they're using it in different ways to make their point. That's called an equivocation fallacy. This tricky tactic can make an argument seem solid when it’s really not.
They use a word or phrase with more than one meaning, but act like it’s just one. That confuses things.
How does the equivocation logical fallacy work? You can think of the equivocation fallacy like a chameleon. A chameleon can change its color to blend into different surroundings. Similarly, a word in an equivocation fallacy changes its "color" or meaning to fit different parts of an argument. This tactic can mislead people or just cause a lot of confusion.
Weird that a chameleon would change my mental phenomena(the color of the chameleon) and result in blending into its surroundings which are not my mental phenomena. — creativesoul
So, yes, apparently brains can generate experiences in the vacuum of space. All that is required is the appropriate neurological activity, regardless of what causes and maintains this activity.
Are you under the impression that Boltzmann brains actually exist? — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.