• Banno
    15.1k
    First time through, i read that as "medicated".
  • Ciceronianus
    2k
    First time through, i read that as "medicated".Banno

    I'm not sure medication would do any good. There's nothing real in that mental world to begin with, apparently.
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    Notice the air traffic controller sits looking at his screen.

    But do you sit, looking at your perceptions? No. You have your perceptions. The alternative is the homunculus fallacy, the little man inside your head looking out.

    You've mislead yourself with the analogy.
    Banno

    This again.

    Alright, where is the metaphoric computer screen properly positioned for my analogy to be correct? Is it at the watery surface of my twinkling eye or is it on the front surface of my closed eyelid? It seems you wish to eliminate the homunculus by saying the person begins at some molecular point and instantly perceives when the light of the flower hits my body, even if it means denying the science, which says that hairs and eyelids don't perceive. It's odd to me that I perceive a flower when my eyes are closed, but I suppose I do because bodies perceive, not parts of bodies. That's what I'm told at least.

    We have all seen the cartoon picture of a homunculus sitting inside the middle of the brain looking at what's delivered to him, with yet another man inside that man's head ad infinitum. That is not what I envision. What I envision is a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs. I envision that because that's exactly what happens. Sever the optic nerve, you'll stop the input of data. And that's not to say the only way to elicit the perception is through sensory input. You can stick electrodes in the brain, drug me up, let me sleep, do all sorts of things to make flowers appear to me.

    But back to the other part of my analogy that has gotten lost in this discussion. I'm referring to the blip. If I should see a blip when you see an airplane as we know airplanes to look, then properly understood, as you've presented it, that blip is the airplane. It's not a representation, correct? To say otherwise leaves us asking the age old question of what is the airplane in and of itself, wings and jet engines, or blips? As long as our perception enables successful navigation in the world, then we have truth. Do I have this right?
  • Janus
    11.3k
    What I envision is a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs. I envision that because that's exactly what happens.Hanover

    If we don't see things as they are; if things in themselves are unknowable, then how do you know "that's exactly what happens". I posed this question earlier and you failed to respond—too difficult?
  • Banno
    15.1k
    where is the metaphoric computer screen properly positioned for my analogy to be correct?Hanover

    So I, and others here, explicitly reject the distinction between internal and external worlds.

    But you are asking me where the line is to be drawn between these mooted internal and external worlds.

    See the problem?

    To say otherwise leaves us asking the age old question of what is the airplane in and of itself, wings and jet engines, or blips?Hanover

    It's both, or either. There's no essence-of-plane, just ways of talking about planes. Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrong.
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    But you are asking me where the line is to be drawn between these mooted internal and external worlds.Banno

    They aren't worlds. They are objects in the world. You deny objects?
    both, or either. There's no essence-of-plane, just ways of talking about planes. Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrongBanno

    You think they mean it's the plane or they mean it's a representation of a plane?

    Again, is a "plane" a plane? I'm just not seeing a difference between a symbol and a thing the way you're describing it.
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    we don't see things as they are; if things in themselves are unknowable, then how do you know "that's exactly what happens". I posed this question earlier and you failed to respond—too difficult?Janus

    I can only describe the phenomenal.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    Again, is a "plane" a plane? I'm just not seeing a difference between a symbol and a thing the way you're describing it.Hanover

    I do not understand why you are confused here.

    The dot on the screen is the plane, much as the word "plane" in "the plane is airborne" is the plane - it's a way of using the dot, and a way of using the word.

    I can only describe the phenomenal.Hanover

    Rubbish. As if you could only talk about the dot, and not the plane.
  • Janus
    11.3k
    Sure, we can all only describe things as they appear to us. But, if studying, describing and analyzing those appearances do not provide any basis for knowing anything about things, then you have no justification for claiming that there is "a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs", or saying "I envision that because that's exactly what happens".
  • Janus
    11.3k
    You realize that argument only works for realists. Skeptics and idealists will remain unconvinced by it. They will just reply that we can't make justified claims about a mind-independent real world.Marchesk

    From that position it seems to follow that we cannot make any justified claims at all.

    I understand the indirect argument to mean there is something mental mediating perception of the real thing, as a result of all that neural activity. Thus why we have illusions, hallucinations and secondary qualities. Also why it's possible to have internal visual and auditory experiences, like with dreams and imagination.Marchesk

    Sure, but internal visual and auditory experiences, hallucinations, dreams and imaginings are not shareable except by report.
  • hypericin
    290
    How many worlds do you live in?Ciceronianus

    One world, with many different aspects which can be colloquially referred to as "worlds". You are being lawyerly, I guess.

    There's nothing real in that mental world to begin with, apparently.Ciceronianus
    Words are real, perceptions are real. Both are removed from the realities they refer to. We can look up from books, we cannot look up from our perceptions.
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    The dot on the screen is the plane, much as the word "plane" in "the plane is airborne" is the plane - it's a way of using the dot, and a way of using the word.Banno

    "The plane", the dot, and the thing you sit in are all the same plane, right?

    How does location play into identity? Not at all?
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    As if you could only talk about the dot, and not the planeBanno

    If the dot disappears, I think I'd say "the dot disappeared" as opposed to the plane disappeared because typically planes don't do that. I'd then radio the pilot to confirm the plane still exists. I'd do that because the dot isn't the plane.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    "The plane", the dot, and the thing you sit in are all the same plane, right?Hanover
    "The plane" is two words.
    The plane is a plane.
    The dot is ambiguous.

    How does location play into identity? Not at all?Hanover

    Not at all. It might play into your deciding that two names refer to the same thing. But what has that to do with the topic?

    If the dot disappears, I think I'd say "the dot disappeared" as opposed to the plane disappeared because typically planes don't do that.Hanover

    So what? If someone with more training in such things, looking at the screen, cries "the plane has disappeared!", are you going to quibble? "No, the dot has disappeared", says Hanover, "No need to call out search and rescue!"
  • hypericin
    290
    Air traffic controllers do talk about the blip as the plane, and they are not wrong.Banno

    If the dot moves north and the atc says the plane is moving north, this is because they have a justified belief in the correspondence between the dot's movement and the plane's. But if the dot started blinking and the atc said the plane has begun popping in and out of existence, they would either be joking or insane.
  • Hanover
    7.2k
    In the law, there is what is referred to as direct evidence and then there is indirect evidence. The latter is often referred to as circumstantial evidence. Me seeing you steal my car is direct evidence. Me seeing your fingerprint on my car is circumstantial. One is not considered more probative than the other. In fact, with DNA evidence, circumstantial evidence can be more powerful.

    Do you deny a meaningful distinction between direct and indirect evidence? That is, the fingerprint is Banno as much as those two curious eyes that are your avatar are Banno as much as the old man in your mirror is Banno?
  • Banno
    15.1k
    But if the dot started blinking and the atc said the plane has begun popping in and out of existence, they would either be joking or insane.hypericin

    Indeed. But the relevant point here is that they have made a claim about the plane.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    Do you deny a meaningful distinction between direct and indirect evidence?Hanover

    No.
  • hypericin
    290
    Indeed. But the relevant point here is that they have made a claim about the plane.Banno

    You are missing the point. The fact that they can make any claim about the plane at all is because of the correlation between dot and plane. Were the dot to start blinking (unless the blinking signifies something else about the plane), that correlation would obviously have broken down. Therefore to make a claim about the plane's cycling existence and non-existence on the basis of the blinking is crazy.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    And they can make that claim because there is a correlation between the dot they can see and the plane they can't. But correlation does not imply identity.hypericin

    Ah, so you have adopted a descriptive theory of reference - the dot is the plane in virtue of some correlation with a description?

    Here's why that doesn't work.

    I much prefer the intentionalist model, with a broad communal notion of intent, after Searle.

    But all that is irrelevant.
  • hypericin
    290
    But all that is irrelevant.Banno

    True.
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment