Oh, no. It is the indirect realism X direct realism discussion all over again. Here we go 50 pages. — Lionino – page 7
I see colours when I dream and hallucinate. — Michael
those are experiences evoked by stimulation of the neural connections that your brain developed when you were awake — jkop
When you dream or hallucinate seeing a colour, you have the experience, but you don't see anything, and that's why they're called dreams and hallucinations. — jkop
Brain stimulation is insufficient for colour-experiences. Stimulation from a sense organ that interacts with light and discriminates between different wavelength components is necessary for colour experiences. Therefore, colours exist outside of the brain. — jkop
The fact that we know that phenomenal states can exist without external stimuli and that phenomenal states can be manipulated to provide varying perceptions of the same external stimuli forecloses direct realism as a viable option. Yet it persists. — Hanover
So you've never heard of Franz Brentano and intentionality of mental states? If you don't want to continue the conversation just say so. It's much more becoming than playing dumb.I'm not sure what "aboutness" has to do with anything being discussed here. This history textbook is about Hitler, but it isn't Hitler; it's bound pieces of paper with ink writing. — Michael
I don't see how that suggests that color of the pen is part of the pen and not the person's perception. — Hanover
We can also stimulate non-functioning auditory nerves in the profoundlly deaf by implanting a cochlear implant. Once implanted, the person will begin experiencing beeps that he learns to translate into words and sounds so that he can properly respond to them. — Hanover
The same way you don't confuse the car on your left from the car on your right: the direction of stimulation is extremely influential on how we perceive the stimulus. Throwing one's voice is a good example of where this is writ large - despite there being no voice coming from the direction one perceives (when on the receiving end!) - that is what one perceives. We can even be tricked about hte direction stimulus is coming from. Not being able to locate an itch is another perfect example. "I can't put my finger on it" has developed out of this experiential norm.
On-point to your comment, your internal depth perception is what creates the experience of distance - not the distance itself. It is your mind interpreting it which is why perspective can get really fucked up really quickly in the right physical circumstances. The mind does what it thinks it should be doing. It is not veridical in the philosophical sense.
I should say, if your argument is in line with Banno's hand-waving idea that we can somehow magically see things veridically, despite that being in direct contradiction of hte science of perception, I'm unsure we'll get far - which si fine, just want to avoid you wasting your time here if so. — AmadeusD
That's a cool trick the nervous system does. Pain is handled by a special neuron called a nociceptor. People who have chronic pain develop nervous superhighways so that any pain stimulus in the area jumps onto the same path. In other words, they lose the ability to correctly locate the pain. That problem can eventually progress until they have what's call "generalization" where they can't locate pain at all. It's just everywhere. — frank
Which is to say that the mind interprets the pain (information) as located in your toe. Information has to be interpreted. When we get at the actual cause is when we have interpreted something correctly. We still experience mirages even though we know the actual cause of the experience. Understanding the correct cause doesn't dispel the illusion. It becomes predictable. We can now predict when we will experience a mirage based on certain environmental conditions.You feel the pain in your mind. — AmadeusD
Which accomplishes the task of having planes land and take-off in a safer way. The blips accomplished the task they were designed for - nothing lost in translation.I don't understand the reasoning behind this question. You're asking why speak at all if our speech isn't 100% accurate and complete in terms of what it conveys? My response would be because knowing something is better than knowing nothing. Why did we have black and white photography before color photography came out? Because something is better than nothing. And, I'd say, I don't labor with the belief that current color photography is 100% accurate in what it depicts. It's 2 dimensional, for example.
As in my example earlier of the air traffic controller looking at blips on his radar screen. No one believes that airplanes are blips, but we can all see the value in having him look at those blips. — Hanover
How about they all stand up together?Will the real Genesis 1:2 please stand up? That is, the one where nothing gets lost in translation. — Hanover
In saying that no one believes the airplanes are blips, you are implying that we aren't expecting more than what the blips are telling us to accomplish some goal. We don't need to know the color of the plane to prevent it from crashing into another one while landing. — Harry Hindu
With disagreement. Surely you don't think there is one final interpretation of the Bible that irons out out all the inconsistencies. Jesus died to save mankind from the original sin that occurred in the Garden of Eden said no Jew ever.How about they all stand up together? — Harry Hindu
If you're conceding our perceptions might just be a pragmatic stimulus to navigate the world, which may or may not bear any resemblance to the object, then we're agreeing. — Hanover
I don't think so. It's more like asking why you accept science of any kind if you can't rely on your senses to tell you the truth. — frank
Do you trust the numbers on a Geiger counter to tell you the level of radiation in the environment, even though the numbers do not resemble radiation?
The presumption you have that one can trust one's experiences if and only if one's experience "resemble" their causes is a fallacy. — Michael
When you dream or hallucinate seeing a colour, you have the experience, but you don't see anything, and that's why they're called dreams and hallucinations. — jkop
Why would you believe you actually have a geiger counter in your hand if your perceptions may or may not resemble the object? — frank
What creates the depth perception of pain inside your lungs instead of a pain inside your bowels? — Lionino
the direction of stimulation is extremely influential on how we perceive the stimulus. Throwing one's voice is a good example of where this is writ large - despite there being no voice coming from the direction one perceives (when on the receiving end!) - that is what one perceives. We can even be tricked about hte direction stimulus is coming from. Not being able to locate an itch is another perfect example. "I can't put my finger on it" has developed out of this experiential norm. — AmadeusD
so too are there distinguishing properties of red and white images, and also distinguishing properties of the two sets of code that generates those different images. — Leontiskos
Understanding the correct cause doesn't dispel the illusion. It becomes predictable. We can now predict when we will experience a mirage based on certain environmental conditions.
What I find so odd is when someone makes these scientific explanations, like frank did above, as if that somehow makes what we experience questionable, when science is based on empirical observations. — Harry Hindu
I addressed that with the very question I asked you, and which you conspicuously didn't answer. — Michael
Conclusion: you have to believe your senses are telling you the truth in order to accept the Standard Model. — frank
This is what Russell was talking about. It's a conundrum. — frank
I don't even know what you mean by "senses telling the truth". Hanover and I are talking about experiences resembling their causes. — Michael
Russell said the opposite: if direct realism is true then we must accept physics, but physics tells us that experiences do not resemble their causes, therefore if direct realism is true then indirect realism is true. — Michael
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.