Indeed. When it came to New Atheism, he was by far the best one. Not that the others were too good, but, he was much more kind which counts.

Ah, missed that.

Thanks for sharing.

They have and there are several ways to interpret that section.

But the main point is that when we try to "catch" the self in real time, we never quite do so. We mention the "I", but one has a very strong intuition that the self goes significantly beyond that word.

Do dogs have limits? Apes? Fish? Tigers or Elephants?

Are we a part of nature or are we an exception to nature, not subject to its whims?

Since I take it that we are natural beings, we have natural limits.

May be a cop-out but Hume's famous phrase here merits a mention:

"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception."

Notice this does not claim, as is often said, that he denies that a "self" exists, only that he cannot catch it. It plays a fundamental role in perception, but when we inquire as to what it is, we stumble around it.

These people can speak about their thoughts despite having no corresponding mental language (ie, their mentation is not linguistic - not 'there is no mental language per se' - it could be a language of feeling, or otherwise (as discussed by another poster earlier)). — AmadeusD

And in speaking about such non-linguistic thoughts, only the linguistic portions get communicated. If someone could attempt to describe in some manner, non-linguistic thought, it would be interesting to see. But the issue here is, are we discussing thought (whatever thinking is) or something else? Until we have a better notion of linguistic thought, we are going to remain stuck.

It doesn't come from your brain. It comes from your linguistic faculties (larynx, tongue etc..) as a symbolic representation. Again, if you call that Direct, that's a side-step of convention. Fine. Doesn't really address the issue here, though. It's 'as good as', but it isn't — AmadeusD

Come on man. People can use sign language, or sight, as was the case with Hawking, to express thought. But it does come from the brain, not from the tongue or the eyes...

I disagree. We have (arguably, more than half) of people describing non-linguistic thoughts. We're good. And we know the results. It doesn't differ from expressing linguistic thoughts in any obvious way until the speaker is interrogated. — AmadeusD

Describing non-linguistic thoughts how?

Because it is, to me, clearly the reason for your position. You ahven't addressed this, and so I'll continue to push it until such time as an adequate response has been made. This isn't 'at you'. This is the position I hold. It seems coherent, and I've not yet had anyone even deny it. Just say other stuff. — AmadeusD

If you want to call it convention, call it convention. I don't have a problem with direct and mediated. You take mediation to mean indirect.

I will once again say, we only have the human way of seeing things, not a "view from nowhere", which is where I assume you would believe directness could be attained.

I believe it makes more sense to argue that we directly see objects (mediated by our mind and organs) than to say we indirectly see an object, because it is mediated. "We indirectly see an apple." is just a strange thing to say, because the left-over assumption is that there is such a thing as directly seeing an apple, but on the indirect view, this is impossible, heck, there would be no apple nor object to say that remains when we stop interacting with it.

This left over aspect does not make sense to me. I think it is false.

Nevertheless, so that we may not continue this to infinity, I will readily grant that I am using a particular convention, because I think it makes more sense.

More important to me than direct/indirect is mediation, which I assume you would say is what indirectness is about. Fine.

And if Kant was wrong? As many, many people think? — AmadeusD

I think one can have issues with things in themselves (noumenon in a positive sense) for instance or may think that his specific a-priori postulates are wrong or disagree with his morality, sure, but to think his entire framework is wrong, well I think this is simply to dismiss what contemporary brain sciences say, not to mention common sense.

In the language you are using, I have to accept this because this does not suppose any kind of phenomenal experience and so doesn't adequately describe all of what matters.
But If what you're saying is the eyes directly receive the light, I accept that.
You'll notice that nothing in this is the object, or the experience, or the subject. So we're still indirectly apprehending. Hehe. — AmadeusD

Sure - we have an issue here too, what is an object? It's not trivial. Is it the thing we think we see, is it the cause of what we think we see or is it a mere mental construction only? Tough to say.

Convention rears it's head again. You're also describing a process of allocation. That isn't apt for the distinction we're talking about. I could definitely tell a biologist they are not directly perceiving the distal object of a phloem. What their response is has nothing to do with our discussion. Your point is taken, but it speaks to conventions. — AmadeusD

I will grant this as stated. I actually don't think that we disagree all that much on substantial matter, more so the way words are used. And I admit I am using direct in a manner that goes beyond the usual framing as "naive realism", which if anyone believes in that, they shouldn't be in philosophy or science, or I would wonder why they would bother with this.

100%, we're in the same boat. This is exactly why I noted you answered your own question. You have described, exactly, and with great clarity, why both communication and phenomenal experience are indirectly achieved. Nice (yes, I am being cheeky here). — AmadeusD

Yes, these are expressions of thought - they form a crucial part of it - that part that connects to the quite obscure aspect of non-linguistic thought with linguistic thought, but it is the linguistic aspect that gets discussed virtually everywhere. The linguistic expression of thought is direct, it comes from my brain and I articulate to you that aspect of thought which is capable of expression.

You have just used thinking/mentation with a practical meaning other than this, and linked it to why it is not identical, or even similar, to you conveying an expression of your thought through the air (or whatever) to me, another mind. So, this, on your own terms, is false. I agree. — AmadeusD

We don't know enough about unconscious brain processes to say if non-linguistic thought is, or is not, language like.

When speaking about thought, the best we can do is to be practical about how we express ourselves about it, I have used thought in saying that it has likely has a non-linguistic basis, but this amounts to saying very little about it.

It's not what i require. THis is what meets the standard of 'Direct' in any other context. No idea why this one requires some massaging of that to make people comfortable. ONly discomfort with concluding that we do not directly communicate thoughts could require that weird side-step (on my view). Happy to hear another reason. One hasn't been presented so far. — AmadeusD

You really enjoy pushing the idea of discomfort.

I've said several times Kant's point, that the world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal. In empirical reality, we directly perceive objects, in virtue of our mode of cognition. Indirect would be something like attempting to find out a persons brain state if they are paralyzed, here we have to use some kind of experiments to figure on what's going on in the brain, absent this person speaking about his symptoms or sensations.

. It is using plain language as it is used elsewhere, in this context. If there's some special definition of Direct which includes indirectness, all good. But, you can see where that's going.. surely. You've not actually addressed the supporting discussions, I note, which are the empirical facts I am consistently mentioning, but are being ignored in favour of idea-fiddling. — AmadeusD

Plain language? Tell a biologist studying animals or plants and let them tell you that they are indirectly separating flowers based on colors. They will tell you they are directly identifying an object by its colors, even if colors are no mind-independent properties.

Claiming that we have to use the term 'direct' because there isn't a sufficient example of 'indirect' despite you having used that concept to describe X and Y. — AmadeusD

Not sufficient example is not the issue, it's the coherency of the argument. There are situations in which we do indirectly study things: coma patients, looking at the sun, etc.

Your thoughts aren't your statements. They are not identical. You are factually not directly conveying your thoughts. That is the nature of speech. I am entirely lost as to how you could call it anything else. It factually isn't direct, so your use of 'direct' must be a matter of your preference. This is why i keep coming back to "Why the discomfort?", That something isn't satisfying doesn't make it untrue. — AmadeusD

I don't recall saying that thoughts are statements.

Statements are an expression of thought, it's the only kind of thought we have acquaintance with, whatever else goes on prior to articulation, call it thought, call it mental activity, is not something that can be expressed and it is even doubtful it is open to introspection.

You are telling me that I am not conveying my thoughts because my statements are not identical to my thoughts, I say I am telling you what I think, in so far as we can use "think" to have any practical meaning at all. What you are requiring be given, in order to admit "direct" thought, is something that cannot be provided, as even the subject matter is extremely obscure.

Here it doesn't have much to do with discomfort, it seems as if you have defined thought in a way in which it must be indirect. Fine, if you want to do that. If so, then I think you would need to add that one does not have access to ones own thoughts, because when we express them, we are leaving out what matters.

But, it's not the thought. It literally is not the thought. You cant claim a direct transmission of your thought. That option isn't open. — AmadeusD

By this standard, as mentioned previously, I don't have access to my own thoughts. Then I think we would need a better conception of what this "thought" is which you insist we are not able to express or get across.

You've answered your own Q. This is exactly like asking "Why is something that has been made not-dry wet?". It serves as an analytical statement, essentially. — AmadeusD

If you say so.

I take it that mediation and directness (or indirectness) are different things, again with Kant: empirical reality, transcendental ideality.

Direct means there is no mediation. NO way-points. NO stops along the way. That is not hte case either with receiving external data to create a phenomenal experience or in communicating thoughts. They are necessarily indirect. — AmadeusD

If this is how directness is defined, then nothing is direct.

But then indirectness loses any meaning, there is no contrast to it, for even speaking about directness is indirect.

The issue here is insisting that mediation must mean indirectness. I don't see this as following.

Why would it indicate that? If there is not a way to directly apprehend something (i.e literally have it enter you mind without mediation) that doesn't mean we just give up and say ah well, closest we can get should be called Direct then. That is shoddy thinking, frankly. Somewhat cowardly, in the sense of retreating from the facts. If the case is that your communication is mediated and therefore indirect, we can then just call that direct and get on with it outside of day-to-day living(ie, this discussion is outside of that) — AmadeusD

No. We only have our concepts and our mode of cognition to interact with the world, there are no other avenues available to us. This has nothing to do with giving up, this is facing our situation as human beings. A flower (or whatever it is absent us) "in itself" is nothing without something that gives it some significance. "Closest we can get?" The only thing we get. Maybe there are intelligent aliens with a more sophisticated mind than ours, they would then see a flower in a different manner from us, perhaps see aspects of it we cannot.

This does not remove the fact that we deal with the world the only way we can.

This is not a consideration in this discussion. If it is, it is. Benefits are not relevant to whether something is the case. — AmadeusD

Maybe it is not for you. I consider the ability to form sentences to express whatever it is that goes on in my head to be a direct process. I can't make sense of such statements as I indirectly state my thoughts in my sentences. I can say I'm expressing a thought that needs elucidation, but I wouldn't call it an indirectly expressed thought, unless I am purposively saying one thing to mean another thing and am being obscure about it.

I don't understand how its possible disagree, without being plain incoherent, that something heavily mediated is indirect. The definition of direct seems to preclude a mediated system to be claimed as direct from one end ot the other. — AmadeusD

Why is something heavily mediated indirect? Why? In other words, how does mediated necessitate something to be indirect? If I follow that route, I am going to end up saying I indirectly mediated my view of this thing.

Because I have mediation, I directly saw this thing, without mediation I cannot see anything. Again, this is in empirical reality, I am not talking about "ultimate natures", or the "ground of things" - not even physics attains this.

If I said, because of mediation I indirectly saw a flower indicates to me that there is a single proper way to see a flower, but this is false: knowledge is perspectival and relational.

I certainly don't accept naive realism; nor do I know of any scientist who does.

We accept that communication (of thought) is necessarily indirect. I don't see why that's so unsatisfactory, myself.
I suppose 'progress' would depend on whether you take an 'idea' to be different to a 'thought'. Thoughts are specific instances of ideas, surely. I just don't know if that adequate teases out separate concepts for each. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is. I see why you may want to say that and the reasons for it aren't bad, but I also don't see any evident benefits from saying that communication is indirect. Speaking for myself, I don't see a need for it, I think it causes more confusion than clarification, though we agree that there is something going on prior to language, so the issue here is one of preference as I see it.

I don't know quite well what an "idea" or a "thought" is, or how they differ. Yes, I have said that people can write down what they think, but this leaves the precise question of what "thought", which is very hard to clear up. And that's no surprise, it's been a problem for the philosophers for thousands of years.

That is, to my mind, clearly indirect on any conception of the word 'indirect' that I am aware of, and is coherent. I just don't have any discomfort with it! I can't understand that discomfort others have with concluding hte above (obviously, assuming it were true). — AmadeusD

I just don't see how this doesn't boil down, at bottom, to an issue of taste, I don't see substantial disagreements other than what word we use to describe specific processes. We agree on mediation but disagree on how mediation plays into a direct/indirect framework.

I am unsure you are being generous here. Some, and on some accounts, most people do not think in words. They have to translate, essentially by rote learned language, their thought to be intelligible to others. So, it's not clear to me that it matters whether we think linguistically, to define thought. I do think it nearly impossible to define 'thought' though. There's no way to extricate each thought from the other, so is it just a mess of mentation? — AmadeusD

Yeah sure, but if we want to make something clear to us or to others, we use language, if we don't articulate to ourselves what we are thinking, we can't say anything about it much less express it to other people.

But then you'd count what goes on prior to articulation as thought and expression as a form of mediation, which thereby makes it indirect. If you want to say that you can do so, but it then becomes semantic, because I am calling what I am doing know directly expressing my thoughts to you and you will reply by saying that I am using language to express my thoughts and hence it is indirect communication.

One is a factual claim: do things happen prior to articulation? Yes. The other is the point of contention and hence terminological: either I am directly telling you what I think about this subject, or I am not, because language is mediation and hence indirect.

But since we have no other way of discussing thought, I don't see how we progress here.

I probably was having a thought about that. But i couldn't be thinking that. It is external to my thought, and cannot be identical with it. Also, was I thinking of the photo, or the flower (this is irrelevant, but quirky and worthy noting)? Any way you slice this, my thought is indirectly of any given external thing, and my utterance to you is representative of my thought. It strikes me as bizarre that people are so resistant to this obviousness. It's not really a matter of 'certainty'. There is no room for 'uncertainty' about those relations, given the words we have invented for different relations. — AmadeusD

Technically correct, especially the "having a thought about". I directly see a flower as given to me, a human being, not a tiger nor an angel.

There is no access to objects absent mediation, but I don't think mediation is equivalent to "indirectness". If we remove mediation, we are left with a mere postulate.

As Kant put the matter, one can be an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist.

I disagree, but thats important. This does nothing for the discussion. If there is no better way to 'hear someone's thoughts, all we're doing is concluding that Direct Perception isn't possible wrt to another's thoughts, in these terms. It doesn't mean we have to call it Direct because we can telepathise. That seems to be a semantic issue — AmadeusD

What terms? Do you mean being inside another person's head? If so, then I would caution the point I made previously, we are "inside" our heads, but could be misleading ourselves constantly and if this could be the case, and I think it happens often, but can't specify how often, then we would have no reason to believe that being in someone else's head would be more informative than being in ours.

I'm unsure that's true. What of Automatic writing? Stream-of-consciousness? Is it a matter of degree? I have written things down months after thinking them (in the proper sense) and only recalled the thought I had initially. Is my writing an accurate depiction of the thought? I think not (hehe). — AmadeusD

I mean you are expressing your thoughts right now by posing these questions. And these are direct questions, unless you are attempting to hint at something hidden.

We have an issue here, we need to offer a definition of thought. This has been a massive problem in the history of the field. Specifically, we can attempt to articulate what a thought is absent language, that is, non-linguistic thought, but we don't have a clue on how to do that. We end up expressing our thoughts with words.

You could present to me an image of a flower, and say, I was thinking about this, and point to the flower, indicating a kind of visual thinking. But I take that your "thinking about", was about the phenomenon flower, but it must be expressed linguistically.

Of course, one can change one's mind, but that doesn't mean that at the moment you wrote something down, you weren't thinking about these things.

If someone tells me what they are thinking, how could I possibly know that this represents their thought? Well, actually, I know that it doesn't. They have told me the thought the had about telling me about their thought. Not their thought. See what I mean? — AmadeusD

I believe you may be trying to get at something like LOT (Language of Thought), but this is not available for introspection. If I am trying to clear up a notion, like we are doing here, I am telling you what I am thinking. You can reply by saying that I am not telling you what I am thinking, that I am telling you what I thought I was thinking, or something along these lines.

I don't believe I am.

I quite strongly disagree, and think this framing is a mere convention to avoid people constantly doubting the honesty of an interlocutor. As an example of why I think your account (this specific one) fails, is because I could be lying to you. — AmadeusD

Sure, but why would you in this case? Are we trying to clear up an issue or are we merely playing games with no purpose?

I wasn't referring only to myself. I have observed many times that people know what their partners or close friends will think about certain things. This is simply because they know them well, no special powers required. — Janus

I suppose what is noteworthy here would be to ascertain just how well you "got" what the other person was thinking. One thing is to have a general indication of what they may be thinking, the other is those moments of knowing exactly what they are thinking. But sure, point taken.

Fair. "Telepathy is the purported vicarious transmission of information from one person's mind to another's without using any known human sensory channels" — AmadeusD

Ok, so it is an unknown sensory channel, which renders it open to investigation.

I think I get it, as you've said before, being able to read a person's thoughts as they are having it.

Well, this isn't accessing someone's thoughts Directly or Indirectly. This is accessing someone's writing. Unsure how to relate it... — AmadeusD

I believe that the best way we know what we think is when we write it down in propositional form. If someone thinks (not you per se) that writing down your thoughts doesn't count as "reading" someone's mind, then we have a stumbling block. I know of no better way of knowing what someone thinks than reading what they think.

Though some people are able to speak quite well too.

We should be able to say that, at least at the time of writing Sam or Sarah thought what they wrote.

I am. That's inference (using your example to inform me of context - I think is simplistic and under other criteria you can indirectly know something (the shape of something causing a shadow)). You infer from someone's body language that maybe their utterance is veiled, or sarcastic or whatever. Indirect. Agreed. But, it's an inference, not knowledge of anything (you would need to directly confer with S to confirm their actual meaning). — AmadeusD

Alright, so here's an option. I can say I directly see how a person is behaving and using this information, I can directly ascertain what they are thinking. If a behavior contradicts what a person is saying, I use contextual information to ignore the behavior or what they are saying, to get what they are intending to say. It's all direct.

Another option is to say, I indirectly see how a person is behaving based on my mental architecture I have (I am a human being, not God) to try to get what the other person is indirectly thinking - since I have no access to any mind but my own, thus everything is indirect.

Or the common view: I directly see behavior, but I indirectly see mental states. I don't see why an honest report of what a person is thinking is not direct.

There is zero space or time between the thought of the other and yours. They are one and the same. No perception involved. This is, as far as I can tell, the only apt version of Telepathy. All others are just further mediation - so, I actually 'agree' with you, but think your example is misleading. — AmadeusD

Ah. Well, if we are going to speak of thoughts absent space and time, we are going to enter very abstract territory indeed.

Could you outline 'direct' communication on your terms (let us simply jettison telepathy for this exercise)? I'll see if, as you likely allude in your concluding passage, that this disagreement is an error in terms rather than in ideas. — AmadeusD

What you and I are doing right now. This is direct communication between my thoughts and yours. I am writing down what I am thinking at the moment I am writing these words, and you read them in real time and respond with what's in your mind.

If you speak of indirect communication, I would have something in mind like saying something and meaning something else, given an uncomfortable situation, or living in a totalitarian society. To be honest, I kind of have trouble thinking of too many examples of indirect communication at this moment.

You may be a good mind-reader. Or you have special powers!

But it isn't even close to telepathy or 'knowing another's thoughts'. It is guessing based on familiarity. — AmadeusD

We have to give a good account of telepathy before saying something is or is not like it. If you say that telepathy is akin to "hearing" someone's thoughts like I hear (or know) mine, I can only guess that other people are similar to me in this respect, but they could also differ in substantial ways.

I suppose that reading someone's diaries is as close as one can get, right? Then direct/indirect does not arise here.

To be clear, I am not deciding the terminological issue of stating a preference for "direct" or "indirect" realism, I am only pointing out what I think are issues with how these issues are discussed.

I don't deny that there is such a thing as indirectly knowing something, say, somebody is saying one thing while hinting at another thing given the tone they have, or the face they make, or that it would be quite a bad idea to look at the sun directly, because it can ruin one's eyesight, hence telescopes and such filters...

I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but given I don't take Telepathy as obtaining, I agree. There is mediation in every case of human perception. — AmadeusD

It pertained to the idea - not said by you, but could be assumed by others, that if we had the ability to enter someone's heads, like we are inside ours, we would have "pure" access to thought: mediation is a must, so we agree here.

I am aware that this is how communication works. It's indirect. Could you outline what the bit to be discussed is? — AmadeusD

Communication can be indirect, but often is not - of course, we have norms of behavior and the like which we frequently employ.

I see the terms used and the associated meanings, but ultimately, I frankly don't understand the problem behind the direct vs. indirect distinction, it seems to me that at bottom it is semantical, not substantial. "Direct" or "indirect" can be used in such a way that both are true in a straightforward manner.

I do not think this has ever occurred. It is not possible, as best I can tell, or as far as I know. More than happy to be put right here, though. It would be very exciting! But, forgive any skepticism that comes along with.. — AmadeusD

Really? That's a bit surprising. It's been my experience that if you know someone for some length of time, it can happen that you can tell what they are thinking given a specific situation. Not that it's super common, but not a miracle either.

So, in the Telepathy case, 'perception' retrieved or received data directly from another's mind with no interloping/interceding/mediating stage or medium - but the brain still has to make that into an experience of hearing words (or whatever it might be). So, for this part whether or not something is Direct, or Indirectly perceived is irrelevant. But I don't think that's been the issue at hand. I am sorry if i'm misunderstanding here. — AmadeusD

There is always mediation though, even in our own case.

He could not. He could tell you what his interpretation, as a physical mode of communication required, of his thought into an intelligible medium for traversing space and time. You can see here exactly why this is indirect vs telepathy proper. Some argue that speech is telepathy - but this misses the point, i think. — AmadeusD

I don't follow. What we "hear" inside our heads is not "pure" either, it's due to some processes in the brain of which we have no access to. If a person is angry or upset or is sharing an idea about something interesting or whatever, they can do what we are doing right now, putting into words what we think.

It's an interesting case, though I think we should keep in check that brains are assumed to be very complex objects with an extremely rich - and largely unknown - inner structure. One could say that the same logic follows about ordinary objects, but I think this analogy is not quite accurate.

If telepathy followed, I don't think direct realism would stand (nor indirect to be fair, I don't think for most cases these terms are too helpful). We have instances, rare to be sure, in which we can read exactly what we had in each other's mind, but we would expand these instances to it being accurate or "on" all the time.

We could expand telepathy to mean something like, getting into somebody else's inner dialogue (in as much as it is a dialogue, which if looked at closely, it's not, it's much more fragmented than that.). So let's grant this power.

We still have no clue how the brain causes these inner thoughts to arise. Something important is hidden from us, but direct/indirect does not enter:

You can say I inferred he was thinking X because he was behaving like Y (in this sense it can be called "indirect", but Y behavior can also tell us directly what the person is thinking or feeling), but he could also tell me exactly what he is thinking, if he's being honest.

It's a good issue to raise.

P1 if we were directly acquainted with external objects, then hallucinatory and veridical experiences would be subjectively distinct — Ashriel

How would this follow?

I think we have good reasons to give that show that our waking life is not the same as a dream, at least, a great deal of the time.

P1 if there is a long causal process between the object that we perceive and our perception of the object, then we do not know the object directly — Ashriel

You can say that, sure. But how would we know that whatever is at the bottom of our subjective perceptions is directly perceived? Why would be inclined to take as true whatever physics says?

Either the direct/indirect part applies to everything, or something is off about its formulation. At least that's how it feels like to me.

The issue that would be helpful to have clarified is what would "directly" perceiving an object imply? How would it differ from what we have (whatever its epistemic status may end up being) ?

Once upon a time everything was philosophy. After all, it didn't make much sense to say that separate things existed as several disciplines, logic, politics and astronomy all studied the same world, and educated people could be experts on everything.

Then came the scientific revolution during the 17th century and our knowledge of the world drastically increased, to such an extent that in little over a century, a person went from being well versed in everything to being primarily a chemist, historian or an economist, etc.

Today things are so specialized that you can dedicate your life on focusing on one specific sub-section of a subsection of a subsection, say, studying one type of mushroom, or the cells of jellyfish or specializing on a single video game or a type of whisky or a genre of literature on YouTube.

The areas where we have made progress stopped being called "philosophy" and became "science". Those very questions which belong to the ancient tradition but could not yet (or maybe ever) be made into a science, remain in philosophy.

It's a matter of the degree of specialized knowledge one has as opposed to the considerations of the bigger picture in any single field of knowledge, hence, philosophy of film, philosophy of history, philosophy of art, etc.

There's still overlap however, in areas where a science is not fully matured such as linguistics, neuroscience and psychology, as well as those areas in which our best science can provide no satisfactory answer: foundations of physics, cosmology, implications of biology, etc.

The issue is that "belief" is rather an English locution, which carries with it strong connotations of "absent evidence", related to the religious use of the term.

I think a simpler term is to use "thoughts" instead, which does not carry such associations. So, are thoughts knowledge? I do not know, because I can't say what knowledge is, or is not.

The term is too vague, imprecise and nebulous, that it's very hard to pin down what it is. Though to be fair, this is not limited to "knowledge" but applies to almost all words of which philosophers are interested in.

In a certain sense, perhaps.

But it's also part of being in this field. To try to contextualize (not mere) words, but concepts associated with the words.

Wayyy too late. You hath been judged :razz:

Is there a unified language for science? You can say there is a unified language for physics or biology or some other sub-field, but there is no unique language for science, because it covers too much territory.

Likewise, I don't think we should expect the same in the fields of philosophy. Another issue, closely related, is if there should be a unified language for philosophy of mind or some other area.

It might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss.

↪Manuel Or we can accept skepticism and carry on from there without stressing about certainty, knowing that we will die is as likely or less than that we were born. — Lionino

Stressing about Skepticism is futile, agreed. If Hume cannot overcome it and Kant cannot defeat it, what hope do mere mortals have?

Still, it's worth keeping it in mind as a problem. For ignoring it completely defeats the point of what is right about it, that we cannot attain certainty - in this world at least.

:up:

That's a good approach, among others. Skepticism can't be defeated merely kept in check occasionally.

If we play the game of skepticism, then we will not go anywhere, for there is nothing which is 100% certain in the empirical world.

If we loosen our restrictions a bit (leave aside skepticism), then we can say that we were born. Death would be a close second, assuming no afterlife.

They do, many beliefs (not all of them, I don't think) will change the world to some degree, some more than others. The issue is, how can we accommodate beliefs which are specific to some individuals (ghosts and fairies), versus other beliefs which are agreed by everybody: rocks, rivers, grass, people, etc.

I'm not clear on how belief in trees and rivers change the world for anybody, especially when compared to ghosts and fairies.

I'd like mention a related though perhaps side issue. Often, I think, it is assumed that if a belief is rational, then one can present enough evidence to convince people in general. I don't think that holds. We all have rational beliefs in things that we cannot demonstrate are correct to others. Of course, for many people these are things that others might consider possible, but we cannot prove the exact instance happened. But given that beliefs can form rationally from individual experiences, not all rational beliefs are going to be demonstrable to others. — Bylaw

Sure, and I think this applies quite widely. Part of the issue, which is far from trivial, is that we can't exactly say what "rational" is. We all assume and frequently act in a rational manner, but if one asks what is it that is "rational", people often given examples of what rational behavior is: If you see a man with a gun, stay away from him, or make yourself not noticeable or minimally so, etc.

Now, when it comes to having particular perceptions, it could be something like ghosts or a visual hallucination, such as seeing an oasis, the perception itself is neither rational nor irrational. It just is.

It's a popular issue, yes. But the attitude many determinists have in relation to free will matches the attitude of those who disbelieve in ghosts. They dynamic is the same. And, again, this was in relation to the idea that we shouldn't discuss this issue. You've now clarified that you don't believe that. — Bylaw

It is. It's a kind of stubborn attitude. And this connects to the previous issue of rationality, we will eventually find ourselves having specific philosophical positions for which we can give no further arguments for our belief in it, this is very noticeable in the case of free will.

I'm still responding to your saying they shouldn't bring it up in philosophical contexts. I haven't said that you, for example, should say they are real. — Bylaw

Not so much that it shouldn't be brought up, after all I am bringing it up here. What I want to convey is that if one believes in such things literally, then I think the arguments given for such views should be quite strong, considerably beyond say, demonstrating the existence of a tree or a river.

Again. I am responding to you saying that in philosophical contexts believers shouldn't bring it up. You seem to be taking this as me telling you what you should believe and do. — Bylaw

It's the same sentiment as above. By all means, anyone wanting to defend or articulate such views is welcome, but what I would want to see is what do they make about such experiences, so far as ontology is concerned.

Well, this is moving away from the points we were discussing, but, ok: how many adults believe in Santa Claus and believe they have see him?

And note: you don't need to tell me I haven't demonstrated that ghosts exist.
But I don't think those two things are the same. — Bylaw

Yeah, it's already complex. In one crucial respect, the vast majority of adults do not literally believe in Santa Claus.

In another respect, they do (or pretend to) and they have seen him numerous times, at malls or shopping centers of Christmas festivals and whatnot.

We can then clarify, they have not actually seen him, but they have seen people dress up to imitate how he looks like in our common mythology.

Not all phenomena have been as fixed and solid as trees. But again. I don't see why this shouldn't be brought up in a philosophical context.

Many people think the way you do about ghosts about free will. Would it make sense for them to say that free will shouldn't be brought up in philosophical contexts? There have been phenomena that were dismissed as the conclusions of people being irrational that later turned out to be true. On what grounds do we decide what should be talked about or not in a philosophical context? — Bylaw

With free will, we do have a very long and distinguished tradition going back to Classical Greece and even before that time. And it's very much pertinent today.

With ghosts or spirits, it's a bit more complex. I don't know how the Ancients thought about the gods, if they had a literal belief or a flexible belief system. As far as I know, I think the belief in literal ghosts started rapidly declining with the rise of modern science and modern philosophy.

To reiterate all beliefs should be looked at in philosophy and evaluated. The issue is the literalness of the belief and what this entails.

I mean I see the intuitive appeal but, are we then going to say: ghosts are real and so are trees and rocks?

Well, they could accept naturalism, but think that ghosts are a natural phenomenon. Something not yet confirmed via science, or perhaps they think there is enough evidence in parapsychology to take the possibility seriously and this fits with their experiences. IOW the discussion could be framed as, hey let's not close the door on this. Or one could be arguing against specific reasons people assert one can rule them out. — Bylaw

You can take that stance. The issue here is that, despite the numerous reports on such things, when they are investigated seriously, the evidence in favor of these accounts tend to be very thin or non-existent.

We should keep doors open, but it's tricky to do so, given what investigation into these things tend to show. Also, if we do this with ghosts, should we also keep the door open to fairies and gnomes? What about Santa Claus?

I don't intend to sound righteous or dismissive, but how do we differentiate between ghosts and Santa Claus?

If they seem to be suffering immensely and their belief in ghosts - or free will, or determinism, or Hell, or no afterlife, or The Ship of Thebes argument against the persistent self or whatever, iow regardless of the content of the belief, then we might tread lightly. But otherwise why not simply engage in the discussion like one might any discussion focused on a belief one disagrees with? Or is curious about, etc. — Bylaw

Sure, the point is to attempt to explore these topics, but irl situations are legitimate issues to bring up here, I think. In the case of schizophrenia, we do acknowledge the reality of the perception, as we must. But to assert the existence of what is experienced, the way we assert the existence of a tree we can all see and touch, is quite problematic.

I stole it from Donald Hoffman. ;)

Let me rephrase, for someone interested in philosophy, I think it would be a mistake to postulate things such as ghosts, unless that person accepts supernaturalism. If they do accept this, then there is no reason to tell them not to believe in anything.

But if they would like to have a more securely anchored system of belief, then the reasons for believing in literal ghosts and spirits should be extremely strong, otherwise I think we are not being critical enough of what our perceptions are informing us.

In general, that is, in the real world I do agree that is very much context dependent. I think that if say, someone latches on to religion because it gives them comfort about seeing loved ones in some other life, or it gets them through some really hard times, it would be very cruel to attempt to show them wrong.

Notwithstanding such exceptions, I do think we would like people to be better informed about the world than misinformed about it. I think we can explore ghosts and fairies and much else as experiences, which says a lot about us and the ways we interact with the world, thus treating it seriously, but not literally. For if they are taken literally, I think they are making a mistake.

It's somewhat analogous to telling a person living with schizophrenia that they should be extremely scared about this monster that are currently seeing. I think we should aim to the opposite, as it could help such people. But, again, there's a lot to tease out.

Really? I think there are triggers for hallucinations, sometimes these triggers can be external, sometimes internal, but I agree that the word can be quite loaded. One can also say one has a misrepresentation of ghost, or saw something like a ghost would be less likely to cause problems.

We can be technically agnostic, or say we doubt that, but I see no reason to tell them they are doing something wrong when they assert their beliefs. — Bylaw

I don't doubt the veracity of the perception they had, nor even the epistemology in some cases. The issue become problematic when we make metaphysical claims from perceptual judgements, such that if one says one sees a ghost, then it follows, that there are such things as ghosts in the world.

It's in this part that it becomes difficult.

Either side can speculate (in ad hommy and psychoanalyzing ways the reason the other has the belief or lack they have) but avoid it.
Those non-believers who have experienced something that they think matches the experiences of believers can instead be cautious about assuming they know, in fact, what the others have experienced. — Bylaw

That's a very good way to frame it, I think.

You do have people who outright think such claims are completely silly and meaningless. And while one can understand this attitude to an extent, it does miss out on analyzing the richness of said experiences.

But then there's also the issue raised here by others, suppose we don't believe such things exist, such is my case. Do I say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but instead saw a hallucination."?

Or the topic of, ghosts aren't real, ok. But then people who do see them (or any other related phenomenon) see fake ghosts? Some have suggested that they shouldn't claim they've seen a ghost or spirit, only that they have misinterpreted what they've seen.

That's a good point. I did not consider that arguments alone could cause people to anguish over sexual preference to the point of harm, so sure, there are similarities between sexual preference and religious belief.

As most of us know, according to Max Weber, as societies progress and become more rationalized, they tend to lose their mystical and enchanting qualities. This process is characterized by the replacement of traditional religious beliefs, magical thinking, and mystical worldviews with rational, bureaucratic, and scientific approaches to understanding the world.

Might it not be the case that many people bemoan this disenchanted world and flee to romanticisms and superstations for some relief? — Tom Storm

That's extremely hard to say either way. Sure, some people may find comfort in supernatural belief, but conversely others are terrified of potential negative consequences for such beliefs.

There is something to say about the issue of "something more", that there is more to this world than what we see with our senses. It may feel too poor or unjust, so in that case it could be a factor.

It's hard to completely get away from the fact that we just very recently left hunter gatherer tribes and got into modern society, so to speak. So some of these supernatural beliefs should be considered part of human nature.

I think by now aliens are folk accounts. All such traditions start somewhere. Perhaps aliens are just a technologically updated form of supernaturalism, located in the era's zeitgeist; science rather than magic.

I wonder if functionally there is much desirable psychological difference between aliens and spirits? They are probably founded on similar principles and psychological factors. Note, I am not considering in this account the more reasonable speculative notion that aliens may exist somewhere in reality. — Tom Storm

I suppose one can see it as a kind of technological God substitute, maybe something less powerful but mysterious and elusive, having powers that we cannot comprehend. I mean, this is complete guessing, but if we want to say that it's part of some people's folk account, then we should find a candidate substitute for traditional notions (god, spirit, demon, etc.)

So, you are probably correct here.

I wonder what counts as a receptive state? What are you thinking? A psychological state? My candidate explanations for this are personality, psychological health, and individual sense making shaped by culture. Same things that inform most of our choices. — Tom Storm

Nothing more than being that type of person who, for instance, feels that they are actually communicating with a higher power, as opposed to talking to oneself. As in cases in which people are in a church, and some people once they leave the religion say, they never felt such a force or power in the first place.

Or being the type of person who tend to believe that virtually every coincidence is very meaningful in some transcendent sense.

It's a capacity for being easily being influenced by external forces that other people lack or have less of.

Same upbringing but they chose one of the two dominant belief systems in ther culture - Christianity and materialism. Why do people make such choices - why are some 'receptive' to religion and others to materialism/physicalism? I've often likened this to a sexual preference. We can't help what we are attracted to. The justifications and arguments are post hoc. — Tom Storm

Well, I used to be religious as a kid, up until I was probably 16 or so, I really felt that I was speaking to God. Something in me kept surfacing that the dots weren't connecting and then I read some books and talked to other people and saw that my beliefs had no justification.

The comparison to sexual preference is interesting, but very complex. For instance, the issue of finding belief to be comforting is alluring, or that there may be a life after this one is an option which is available for the believer. But the difference from sexuality is that, on some occasions, arguments can persuade some people the religious belief is not based on a rational foundation.

I don't think you can use arguments to make a gay person not gay, or the other way around.

But I get what you are coming from, quite often, it's not a choice, it's a preference. It's very intricate though.

Yes, I think so too. It appears to be the case that there is something about the mind which we intuitively feel is qualitatively different from matter, because we also intuit matter to be "dead and stupid", but this latter belief is no longer supported by our best physics. To be clear, not that matter as such, is "smart", but to call it "dead and stupid" is to not appreciate how hard the topic is.

And thus we project images to external stimulations which we may experience as ghosts or spirits or monsters, and these can be very powerful.

I don't think it is a 'state of mind' as such that we're looking for. Just a worldview that includes, perhaps even embraces, ghosts and spirits and is therefore receptive to them. Which tends to result in an experience of them readily in ordinary events. A flash of light, a sudden breeze, a movement, a noise and, 'bang' it's a ghost or spirit. I have met many people who default to such interpretations regularly.

For those more elaborate (and much rarer) accounts were an entity appears and talks to the person - we can perhaps include lucid dreaming, wishful thinking, and other brain states. — Tom Storm

Sure there are such people who do interpret a flash of light or sudden movement as having some spiritual dimensions. But if they did not have a state of mind by which such experiences would be interpreted as ghosts or monsters, then they would merely say they saw something strange.

It's not too unusual to find people who may, as you say, have a worldview in which ghosts form a part, but whom they admit they do not frequently experience, because perhaps the mind they have is not readily or easily put in such a receptive state.

And yes, I do think that we experince things based on the culturally informed sense making tools and narratives we are immersed in. A person whose culture recognizes demons will see demons. A person whose culture recognizes djinns will see djinns.

I wonder if there is some similarity between some 'ghost stories' and UFO abduction stories. We can find hundreds of folk worldwide who are convinced they were abducted and probed by aliens. Is this, as Jung suggested, an expression of our psychological state, our anxieties and fears and, perhaps, an emerging spirituality/religion for this era of technology and science? — Tom Storm

Yes, this is accurate as I see it too. The UFO thing is in some respects even more bizarre, at least "supernatural" stuff like spirits or ghosts (of whatever specific variety) have some foundation in a human beings folk understanding of the world.

The UFO people tend to almost always describe the actual UFO like the ones we see on 50's movie billboards on the topic. And the aliens have the huge black eyes and are green. That's a very strong connection between culture and experience.

But I don't even find a supernaturalist "folk-account" that could explain this belief.

The point being that morphic fields, and morphic resonance, provide a medium for what is perceived by us as ghosts. I will add that the existence of morphic resonance is on the whole rejected by most scientists, despite Sheldrake's claims to have found evidence for it, so I'm not saying you should believe it. Only that they at least provide a paradigm. — Wayfarer

It is a way to think about the topic and I think we even have quite direct evidence that we experience things similarly, we assume that if one brain is damaged say, in Broca's area, then that person will not be able to use speech well, if at all, but this applies to all people.

In a similar vein, we understand when somebody says that they saw a ghost or maybe even a fairy, though we may personally not believe these things to be existing phenomena.

As for Sheldrake, yeah, he's been criticized for not being scientific. Ok, well that's up to each person to evaluate. He doesn't bother me like Chopra does, for instance. It's worth being open here.

That type of approach can be seen as a particularly speculative branch of sociology, but I don't think that as stated in that essay, is specifically problematic.

My own feeling is that some parts of these topics, especially when considering society as a whole, it's just a lot of it we do not know and some of this may be at the very edge of our understanding capacities, in which we can proceed no further.

Still, it's worth experimenting and keeping an open mind. We may differ in emphasis and articulation, but "hardnosed materialism", is something we both disdain. :)

That's not a bad way to put it actually.

It does sound strange though to say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but I actually saw some strange lights in human form."

But still, good way to frame it.

True, there is that tendency among people who wish to maintain that they are uniquely unique, in this experiential respect.

I'd only quibble that I think all of us have had at one time or another a "special experience", which is beyond normal experience. But that doesn't make one gifted or transcendent. I suppose what would be strange is to live an entire life and to have never had a particularly strange or powerful experience.

It doesn't serve to prove anything.

What, sunk cost fallacy for people who have become accustomed to believe in such things and now see evidence showing them they are wrong? In that case, I agree with you.

What about cases in which you don't have a person who believes strongly either for or against ghosts or spirits, but has a strong experience of them, would that be sunk cost too?

I know empirical evidence would be helpful here, I'm just thinking out loud