I do not mean believing makes things Real. Only being real is real; not knowing/believing. What I mean is believing brings a thing into our unique "reality" the narrative of mind/history. — ENOAH

Reasonable beliefs require reasonable reasons / grounds for believing. Without them, it becomes false and blind beliefs which lead to confusion and illusion. Could you reiterate your reasons / grounds for the belief?

I’d like to better understand the argument that intelligibility cannot arise through purely naturalistic processes. Some naturalists will react to this idea, and I fear the discussion may end up in the somewhat tedious “how is consciousness related to a physical world?” type of threads. — Tom Storm

Intelligibility is not just knowing things, but also understanding and solving the problems in practicality of life. There is limit of human knowledge on the world and even human mind, and knowing the boundary of intelligibility is also an intelligibility.

We must admit that not only there is clear boundary of our knowledge, but also there exists large part of the unknown universe. The limitation is due to lack of data on the type of abstract existence such as space and time, the origin of the universe, and God rather than human intelligence itself or naturalism.

Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you could demonstrate your access (be it direct or indirect) to a person's song playing in his/her mind would be, if you could tell what song the person is playing without him/her telling you anything about the song, and if you could sing along the song in the person's mind as it plays along.

It really doesn't matter. All neural activity is subject to physical time treatment of relativity. — noAxioms

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate with philosophical language?

Not directly, sure, but you still have indirect access. Supposedly a person could be doing the Macarena dance to the music playing only in their mind. Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you can have access to person's music playing in their mind is let them sing out the tune, or play the instrument the tune in their mind in front of you. Your claim that indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind is possible sounds like some black magic or telepathy stuff.

isn't the firing of neurons, which constitutes the playing of the song in the mind, something physical as well? It doesn't happen at the speed of light, because it occurs through a physical medium. So wouldn't time dilation slow down that activity? — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is we don't know if the firing of neurons are the playing of the songs in the mind. If they are, still we don't know which neurons and what type of firing are related to the song playing, in what manner and ways.

and you observe the corresponding neural activity. Then, whenever you see an exact replication of that physical activity you know the person plays that song. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, there is no concrete evidence or working details proving the observed neural activity is the person's playing the song. Isn't it your imagination which links the neural activity to the song in your friend's mind? It is possible to imagine it of course, but it is not demonstrable or provable with intelligible evidence, is it?

Why not? it's like when you play a 45 at 33 1/3. — Metaphysician Undercover

Replayed songs are physical - the speed of the motor regulates it. Unless you change the speed of the record player or digital sampling speed (in case the music is replayed digitally), the song doesn't appear stretched in time.

You can hear the song stretched in time in your mind, if your imagination can do it. But you cannot access the other folks mind, hence you wouldn't know what song is being played in his/her mind.

Suppose I could somehow observe their inner mental activity directly. Imagine they’re playing a song in their head — RogueAI

Not possible thing to do. The premise is false. Not accepted.

From my frame, would that mental “song” appear stretched out in time? — RogueAI

No.

I’m trying to understand how (or whether) relativity meaningfully applies to subjective mental events like imagined music, not just external physical actions. — RogueAI

Time dilation is possible within mental level. You can even travel to the past in your mental world using your own memory and imagination. But it is impossible to do so in external physical world.

The "up to now" is in contrast with the statement you're making. So it doesn't save it from being logically fallacious. — Hallucinogen

The statement All swans are white is based on the past observations, hence it doesn't say anything about now or future observations. If it does, then it would have been a prediction, not a scientific statement.

The critical words you seem to miss here is "up to now".
Don't forget the statement was made based on the past event, not now or future.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're joking. — Hallucinogen

No joking. Common sense.

Any scientific statement, for example: "All swans are white". — Hallucinogen

Just means that all swans seen up to now are white. If you spotted a black swan tomorrow, that doesn't negate the statement all swans are white. The black swan should be treated as a rare case, which needs further investigation on its nature.

A statement is falsifiable if we can specify a condition under which empirical observation can contradict it. — Hallucinogen

Could you give some example cases? Because it seems depends on what the statements were.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I agree that it's a bit on the fringe of this topic. — Ludwig V

OK, That's cool mate, as long as you are not a blind internet info worshiper, or a clueless apostle of guys with the white gown (doctors & medical folks) or someone who calls everyone stupid just because his own life is going bad. I have no time for folks like these, sorry.

If you thought the point with your own reasoning, and came up with your own logical conclusion to disagree with the others points never relying on ad hominem, then you are good to go. :)

"If it’s unfalsifiable you don’t know if it is true or false." — Hallucinogen

But how do you know if it is unfalsifiable first place?

But this is flawed because of tautology, — Hallucinogen

Isn't tautology always true in logic? Tautology is not flawed.

Statements do not always have clear meanings and sometime people deliberately mislead us and sometimes we just get it wrong. But not always. The fact that it is possible to get it wrong does not mean that we never get it right, nor does it mean that we cannot correct our mistakes. — Ludwig V

Statements have explicit meanings, and in most cases it carries truth or falsity value too. Actions don't have these characters I am afraid. All you can do about actions are inferring and imagining what it could have meant. Plus, folks from different cultures and age groups and different backgrounds tend to have different behaviors on the situations. You cannot bring behaviors into analytical discussions because it just won't work.

You are a victim of philosophical scepticism. — Ludwig V

No one is a victim of anything. We are just discussing on these topics speculating and reasoning.

and they don't always show their minds via what they say. Feeling the water and reporting feedback is one thing. Putting on (or taking off) clothes is another. Shivering, sweating. All sorts of clues. — Ludwig V

Whether they say their minds or not, a statement has clear meanings. Behaviors can have many different interpretations. And even if you interpreted with mos likely reasonable way, they could say, I didn't mean that at all, or how could you possibly imagined that?

What we say is also behaviour. I don't understand why you regard non-verbal behaviour as outside the scope of philosophy. — Ludwig V

Too broad claim to be meaningful I am afraid. I am not denying philosophy of action. But just saying it doesn't seem to go well with this thread. :)

Actions, as they say, speak louder than words. — Ludwig V

If you were in the bathroom where John and Jane were feeling the temperature of the water in the tub, yes their behavior could be part of the interpretation. But how likely is that? :)

Plus, folks don't always show their minds via behavior or actions. They tend to use words. And of course, philosophy deals with words, semantics and logic mostly. Behavior and actions would be more of psychological topic.

Well, there is behaviour as well. — Ludwig V

Behavior is random and would be too subjective for interpretation. But when Jane says cold, and John says hot, Jane can infer that John's bodily sensation for temperature is different from Jane's, and vice versa. That is all there is to it.

For if we accept that Michael's verbal behaviour is the causal expression of Michael's stimulus-response conditioning, then Michael cannot be literally intepreted as having a false belief in relation to a universal truth. All that we can allege when alleging epistemic errors, is that a person's verbal behaviour was in violation of our lovely communication protocol. — sime

A statement like "I feel hot." is about one's own bodily state and the content of sensation. It has nothing to do with the world outside one's own body and mind. There is no truth or falsity value in that type of statement.

If one heard that statement, one can only conclude his/her body is feeling hot. That is all there is to it.

I'm willing to be incorrect, but my understanding of indirect realism is not that visual (or auditory e.t.c.) experience is an illusion per se, but more that it is not the exact same as the object that is experienced. If I perceive a cat on my windowsill then that is a mental event that is completely separate from (although far from necessarily an inaccurate representation of) something real. — Nichiren-123

If the cat came to you, and you patted him, then he is real. But if you saw the cat, and it either vanished into nowhere, or became a dragon, then it could be your mental event for illusion. There are different cases of seeing and hearing depending on the circumstances of perception and sensation.

AI sentience depends upon what we believe to be true. — ENOAH

Not so sure if it would be a correct meaning of AI sentience. Some might, but many don't.

Could you prove AI is sentient? Some people say AI sentience is just programmed reflex.

Incorrect, death is biological as it's the cessation of biological phenomenon. Maybe you're just stupid. — Darkneos

We were talking about the body which is dead. Calling the dead body biological is real stupid. Anyway you don't even know what the point of talking was, so what does it tell you?

Biological means living and life. Adding it to body, and describing a dead body as biological body is incorrect, confused and unintelligible.

Philosophy is also about the brain and how it relates to the mind. — RussellA

which is all in the realm of inference. There is no conclusive objective details of proof or demonstration how physical brain relates to the mind yet.

I don’t think that neurologists or brain scientists can currently observe thoughts in the mind.

At the moment it is up to philosophy. — RussellA

Philosophy is largely about semantics and logic. It doesn't deal with the cells, neurons and brain chemistry how it works with the entered images into it, does it? These are the subject for Neurology and brain science.

When the IR says “I see the ship indirectly” the word “indirectly” is not referring to the space between the person and the ship but rather is referring to what is happening in the mind of the IR. — RussellA

Once the image you saw enters into your mind, shouldn't you then consult neurology or brain science in order to find out what is happening with the perceived image in your mind, rather than calling it Indirect Realism?

Yes, I had never heard of Direct and Indirect Realism ten years ago. — RussellA

Saying, you see a ship directly or indirectly sounds like, if there are any obstacles in the middle of the path of the seeing, rather than seeing the ship itself. It just sounds like it is a statement something unnecessarily confusing.

You would only say that when asked - how do you see the ship? Was there anything between you and the ship, not blocking the view?

Yes, Direct and Indirect Realism are just names which need further explanation. — RussellA

Isn't it the case that anyone can see a ship directly or indirectly depending on the circumstances or the way they see a ship? A folk see a ship with his bare eyes, then he is seeing it directly. If he picks up a binoculars, and sees it, then he is seeing it indirectly?

Surely there are no such folks as DRists or IDists from their births, who must see a ship always either directly or indirectly no matter what situation under they see a ship?

Words need to be added because the Direct Realist, Indirect Realist and person in the street understand the world in different ways. — RussellA

Yes, they can add these words in their sentences, but it seems making the meaning of the sentence more confusing. It is ambiguous on telling why they are seeing a ship directly or indirectly. The sentence begs for more explanations on why these folks are seeing a ship in those ways.

If you say, well because they are DRists and IRists, then it doesn't make any sense, and tells nothing meaningful, because it is not explaining why they see and understand the ship they are seeing in that way.

That is why posts on the Forum get confused when people mix up ordinary language and philosophical language. — RussellA

It sounds really confusing when you say that you see a ship directly or indirectly, when you can say you see a ship. Why add those words, and make the statements unclear and muddled?

The expression “I am a Direct Realist” would mean something different to the person in the street and a philosophy person. — RussellA

It is not what you call yourself, which makes you a philosopher. It is how you think, see, understand and explain on the world and mind, which makes you one. Wouldn't you agree?

However, in philosophical language, when looking at a ship in front of them, the Direct Realist could say “I am directly looking at the ship” and the Indirect Realist could say “I am indirectly looking at the ship”. When looking through a telescope, the Direct Realist could say “I am indirectly looking at the ship” and the Indirect Realist could say “I am directly looking at an image of the ship” — RussellA

Doesn't it sound odd to add "directly" and "indirectly" on these statements, when they perfectly make sense without these words?

There is ordinary language and philosophical language. — RussellA

Really? How do you tell the difference between the two?

Well judging by your replies and exchanges so far there would be no point in doing so, which ironically proves my point. — Darkneos

If you cannot demonstrate, explain and prove your own statements on others in logical and understandable manner, when asked, then your statements wouldn't be accepted as significant philosophical remarks or comments, but will be regarded as just your emotional blurt out on others.

To be perfectly honest, no one in the forum would like to read statements in that nature, when they are trying to discuss serious philosophical topics. It is just waste of your time and others' time.

There is ordinary language, “I indirectly see the ship through my telescope — RussellA

Surely what you are seeing is the image of the ship via telescope, not the ship itself?

Your statement sounds like a particular reading of Kant, I suppose. — Paine

Kant's idea on time is, that it is the pure form, intuition and sensibility, which is imposed on the external world and objects. It is a priori ideality which is subjective.

I thought Hegel's idea of time is different from Kant in the sense that Hegel thinks time is in the concept of world spirit which moves history. Time is objective and universal in the sense that without time no change, development and history is possible.

Of course there should be far more detail in the point, but above is just a short summary of my account on the understanding which could be wrong and missing more important parts.

I thought you could confirm on that point with elaboration letting us know whether you agree or not. If not, what point you don't agree and why.

It wasn't complaint. Was just answering to your question truthfully.

We can talk something about shadows and God, because we have some ideas on them from what we heard, seen (the shadow case) and read about them, even if enough sensory data lacking.

However, if I asked you what am I seeing in front of me now? You have no idea at all, and cannot say anything because of total lack of sensory data on your part on what I am seeing now. This is the real unknowable, which one cannot talk or know about. But is it thing in itself?

Do you see "what you have read" in the portions I have quoted from Hegel? — Paine

I didn't see anything directly relating to Hegel's idea on time from your quote, hence wrote what I read on Hegel's time in the reply. From my memory, most of Hegel's writings on time is in his Encyclopaedia II and III.

I don't understand

which cannot be subjectively imposed on them — Paine

It sounds like you haven't read Kant's CPR.