My eyes are open the entire time. — creativesoul

Stay woke, brother.

Even if you find out your pain is simulated.

But Marchesk...

That example poses very significant real problems for the notions of perception and experience both.

Agree?

I'll have to think about it. Seems like you have memory and perception going on at the same time.

Seems like you have memory and perception going on at the same time. — Marchesk

We all do.

We give privilege to what concerns us, the pragmatic point. — Cavacava

Was Quine or Hume pragmatic? Seems both said much the same thing.

Pixels are simple. Computer images are complex.
Words are simple. Sentences are complex.
And so on and so forth. — Magnus Anderson

So would you analyse Game of Thrones in terms of pixels? Yet it is a sequence of computer images. Words are complex, letters simple. And so on and so forth.

Indeed; there are different senses of see.

I don't think either is more right than the other. — Michael

What would be a mistake would be to trade on your distinction, as @Janus appears to, here.

How many trees are there, one or ten? The argument from @Janus hypothesises one tree, but concludes that there are ten trading on the distinction you make.

And here, again,, @Michael

That's a difference between the trees, not between seeing the trees. — BlueBanana

The thing about virtual trees is that they are not trees.

If I can simultaneously a.) recall kicking a rock years ago and the sharp pain that immediately resulted, b.) see the rock in front of me, c.) feel the pain in my foot resulting from years ago, and d.) compare the current pain to the past pain, all while looking at the rock, then it ought be quite clear that there are some actual distinctions to be taken account of.

The current notions of perception and experience seem unable to do that.

When does my experience of (kicking)the rock begin and end?

You said:

But the point is that the tree only appears to each individual... — Janus

(My emphasis)

Not sure what the "only" is doing there, unless you meant it to imply that the tree appears different for each individual - with which I agree. You seem to want to say that each individual sees a different tree - but that's wrong, ex hypothesi. Do you want to say that ten individuals look at the same tree, but that there is no tree? How's that?

The point is, your picture of what happens when ten people look at a tree does not hang together; it is malformed. — Banno

No, it doesn't. It is seen by all the individuals. — Banno

The "only" was only to emphasize that every appearance of the tree is an individual appearance. And I have already stated a couple of times, if I am not mistaken, that the tree appears differently in each appearance;so I don't know what you are driving at with that.

And I have already said that I am not claiming that each individual sees a different tree; logically speaking of course they all see the same tree.

(On the other hand the tree is always changing, so just as we might say we can never step into the same river twice, in that sense we can say that we never see the same tree twice, but that is a different issue.Logically speaking it is still that particular tree which is changing).

I am also not saying there is no tree. Of course, logically, there must be a tree.

So, all in all, you have done a masterful job of misunderstanding what I have written. Or else you are attempting to force what I have said out of shape, to fit it into a confined space to which is not suited, like trying to force a round rubber ball into a square hole of the same volume. Are you willfully refusing to understand, so that you can claim that my "picture of what happens" "does not hang together" and that it is "malformed" (after you have malformed it)? Of course, I hope that is not the case, and that is just your innocent presuppositions which prevent you from understanding the perspective I presented. :)

The argument from Janus hypothesises one tree, but concludes that there are ten trading on the distinction you make. — Banno

No, there is only one tree. There are not ten trees, but ten seeings or appearances of the tree. But there are two senses of the word 'tree' in play here. One denotes the living appearance which we all may experience. The other presents the logical conception of the one tree that we are all seeing. The first is "inner" to each individual's lived experience, and the second is an externalized formal principle of commonality. What other sense of 'tree' do you think there is?

Equivocation is at hand...

Or monomania...

Or both...

No, there is only one tree. There are not ten trees, but ten seeings or appearances of the tree. But there are two senses of the word 'tree' in play here. One denotes the living appearance of the tree which we all may experience when we face it. The other is the logical conception of the one tree that we are all seeing. The first is "inner" to each individual's lived experience, and the second is an externalized formal principle of commonality. What other sense of 'tree' do you think there is? — Janus

One sense of 'tree' refers to the tree, the other refers to appearance/experience of the tree. So, what happens when we dispense with the one that refers to something other than the tree? Moreover, isn't the latter existentially contingent upon the former?

Yes, and they are perennially at loggerheads...

No, one sense refers to the tangible thing that appears to me, and the other sense refers to the idea of an identical object, that may be thought to be the same thing appearing to all of us. Of course, ultimately the two are taken to be the same, but this is just a matter of logic, not of experience. No one directly experiences the sameness of the tree that appears to all of us; we just experience features that we can agree upon, on the basis of which we infer identity.

One sense of 'tree' refers to the tree, the other refers to appearance/experience of the tree. So, what happens when we dispense with the one that refers to something other than the tree? — creativesoul

Why would we do that? We talk about seeing people on TV, not seeing pixels, and that's the proper way to talk.

Are we debating whether the people we see on TV are mental constructs of people on TV?

My point is that the sense of 'tree' that refers to our experience is naming our experience. The sense of 'tree' that names what we're looking at isn't.

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree?

No, one sense refers to the tangible thing that appears to me, and the other sense refers to the idea of an identical object, that may be thought to be the same thing appearing to all of us. Of course, ultimately the two are taken to be the same, but this is just a matter of logic, not of experience. No one directly experiences the sameness of the tree that appears to all of us; we just experience features that we can agree upon, on the basis of which we infer identity. — Janus

You have this the wrong way around, as far as existential contingency goes. The sense I'm using when a say 'tree' is not an idea of identical object. It's that right there---------->

Look for yourself.

Both senses you're presenting require highly complex thought/belief.

Are we debating whether the people we see on TV are mental constructs of people on TV?

My point is that the sense of 'tree' that refers to our experience is naming our experience. The sense of 'tree' that names what we're looking at isn't.

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree? — creativesoul

I'm looking at a TV, and I see people. What does the term "people" refer to? The TV? The pixels? My experience? The actors who are far away, doing other things than what I see them doing?

I'm looking at a TV, and I see people. What does the term "people" refer to? The TV? The pixels? My experience? The actors who are far away, doing other things than what I see them doing? — Michael

You tell me.

My point is that the sense of 'tree' that refers to our experience is naming our experience. The sense of 'tree' that names what we're looking at isn't.

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree?

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree? — creativesoul

We say we're looking at a tree, because we have an experience of seeing a tree that can be backed by other people, instruments, etc. The tree is empirically verifiable.

This isn't the case with dreams, hallucinations, etc. Although pre-scientific cultures may have thought otherwise.

How many trees are there, one or ten? — Banno

Still peddling this false calculus?

For a realist, the question is do all accounts converge. And clearly those of the poetic, the insane, the asleep, the infant, the non-english speaking, etc, may not.

So the realist can define what is normal in a measurable tendency of normal minds to converge. The teacher can gather the class and ask the kids to count the trees. Peer pressure can be relied on to produce "the right answer" after a period.

But normative behaviour is all that has actually been demonstrated. Pragmatism is the best realism can achieve. To not admit to the epistemology in operation - to simply play the teacher barking "count the damn tree" - is the disingenuous language game we all know as direct realism.

And that is odious and oppressive behaviour. Just like any social norming that can't acknowledge its epistemological basis.

No, when I look at the tree I see what appears to me. I directly experience its appearing to me, I do not directly experience its appearing to others; that is an inferentially derived purported fact that is mostly just taken for granted.

There is far more "complex thought/ belief" operating in the second case.

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree? — creativesoul

I think this is a misleading question, and highlights the "talking past each other" issue I mentioned earlier. One person is saying that all we're reading is words, and then the other person asks "are we reading about words, or are we reading about a hobbit's journey to save the world?". One person is saying that the painting is just paint, and then the other person asks "is the painting of paint, or is it of the Last Supper"?

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree? — creativesoul

Of course we are looking at the tree. We cannot look at our experience; our experience is the looking.

If I look at a tree and if I call it a tree, then I directly experience looking at a tree. I do not directly experience looking at an entity that also appears to others.

No, when I look at the tree I see what appears to me. I directly experience its appearing to me, I do not directly experience its appearing to others; that is an inferentially derived purported fact that is mostly just taken for granted.

There is far more "complex thought/ belief" operating in the second case — Janus

Well both cases use a sense that I do not. So, there are at least three at work...

It is impossible to have any idea at all about 'appearances' in the sense you're using prior to learning about our own perceptual/conceptual limitations.

We do not need to learn about our own limitations in order to name.

I think this is a misleading question, and highlights the "talking past each other" issue I mentioned earlier. One person is saying that all we're reading is words, and then the other person asks "are we reading about words, or are we reading about a hobbit's journey to save the world?". One person is saying that the painting is just paint, and then the other person asks "is the painting of paint, or is it of the Last Supper"? — Michael

Funny. No one has said any of that. Can you explain by referencing what is actually being discussed?

Are we looking at our experience, or are we looking at the tree?
— creativesoul

Of course we are looking at the tree. We cannot look at our experience; our experience is the looking.

If I look at a tree and if I call it a tree, then I directly experience looking at a tree. I do not directly experience looking at an entity that also appears to others. — Janus

Even if that entity appears differently to others? Doesn't the tree appear to others?