Philosophy Now Forum

If you are merely co-existing with them, there is no way they should be taken in, enter, or maintain in your body.

I breathe, for example; I actively inhale. I'm not connected to atmosphere: i make use of it.

but not a permanent "me" that survives physical death.

You know this how? I'm the religionist and even I don't claim to know that.

Irrelevant anyway: my existence, my realness, isn't mooted simply becuz I'm finite.

Note I stated "intricately" and interactively part and parcel of reality.

I noted it. It's a false assertion. I'm not intricately connected to Reality; I live within Reality.

The universe is not a unit; it's a box. You and me are in the box; we are not part of the box.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:44 am If you are merely co-existing with them, there is no way they should be taken in, enter, or maintain in your body.

I breathe, for example; I actively inhale. I'm not connected to atmosphere: i make use of it.

One point is you cannot exist if there is a vacuum.
The universe is some sort of womb you are in that sustain your life.
If there is no Sun, you would not be alive.
If there is no universe as it is, our Sun would not exist.
Therefore you cannot be disconnected [unconditioned] from the atmosphere, the world, the Universe and the whole of reality.

but not a permanent "me" that survives physical death.
You know this how? I'm the religionist and even I don't claim to know that.
Irrelevant anyway: my existence, my realness, isn't mooted simply becuz I'm finite.

Show which human [billions since humans first emerged] who have died since the past had remained permanently alive as an individual in whatever form?
This is based on common and rational sense.

Note I stated "intricately" and interactively part and parcel of reality.

I noted it. It's a false assertion. I'm not intricately connected to Reality; I live within Reality.

The universe is not a unit; it's a box. You and me are in the box; we are not part of the box.

As I had stated, the universe is a womb that sustain the survival of your self and that self dissolves under various circumstances.

Are you familiar with a Terrarium?
A terrarium (plural: terraria or terrariums) is usually a sealable glass container containing soil and plants,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrarium
Some can be sealed for years yet sustain life.

From the common sense view each thing in the Terrarium appear to be independent and separated from one another.
At the fundamental level [if you understand] all the living organisms within the sealed Terrarium are interdependent [connected, intricately intertwined] on one another.

Your problem is you only view things physically and not in other perspectives such as holistically where things are interconnected at the very subtle levels.
Btw, are you familiar with Entanglement re Quantum Physics.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

The point is your claim of Direct Realism is merely conditioned upon your ignorance naivety of so much knowledge that is already known.
I believe if you expand your vista with more advanced knowledge you will have a different view of reality and that direct realism is merely common sense and conventional beliefs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:24 am

Henry Quirk wrote:...

Btw, are you familiar with Entanglement re Quantum Physics.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

It's one thing to quote what Quantum Entanglement entail, quite another to actually understand it, since it baffled Einstein over the fact that it would mean information can travel faster than light, no matter how far apart the entangled particles are - instantly - thus I don't hold out much hope for you on the matter, not even sure why you mentioned it to HQ.

Such matters only increase a theists argument against anything you might have to offer in refutation, since the complexity of reality has no way of refuting Pantheism or my preference, Panentheism.

VA,

How does entanglement refute direct realism as I define it up-thread?


And: even in the womb, connected by umbilical to his mother, literally surrounded by her, her son is still a separate being. He's sustained by her but is not her. The connection between mother and son dissolves neither. No lines are blurred.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:24 am As I had stated, the universe is a womb that sustain the survival of your self and that self dissolves under various circumstances.

This makes sense. There is clearly shared material and information, as well as interdependency, all throughout life and the Universe, which includes human beings.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:44 am The universe is not a unit; it's a box. You and me are in the box; we are not part of the box.

This does not make sense, and it's surprising that anyone could believe such a detached and separatist view... but that's what ego and fear do to people. They shake their fist at what they are a part of and insist that they are better than all the rest of it. Perhaps they even imagine that a bigger being will open the lid of the 'terrarium' and pluck them uniquely out because they are so special/distinct from the rest of creation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:12 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:46 am
Rovelli referenced
132. See, for example, Andy Clark, “Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science,”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2013), 181–204.

I believe your thinking here is a bit outdated.

The truth is the signals travel both ways in different parts of the brain.
In this case, 'eyes' do not mean the external eyes but rather the visual cortex in the brain.

So you dont even know the meaning of the word "eye" and my thinking is out of date?

Please indicate, specifically what is not true about what i said!

You stated the common understanding, emphazing "ALL"
"All signals travel from the eyes to the brain where seeing happens."
thus your dogmatism and out of date knowledge re seeing and perception.

It is a fact.
Live with it!

But Rovelli countered [referenced Andy Clark] there is the other way round re 'seeing'
i.e. signals from the 'brain' travel to the eye [visual sense].
What Rovelli implied is the signals from the brain as inputs in the system of 'seeing' is more critical than whatever is the other way round.

Bullshit

But human being naturally imperfect [note Normal Distribution] are bound to commit errors and visual illusions in the process of seeing which is very evident in many cases.

Btw, there are certain empirical illusions which are very necessary and critical for survival in the past and some are still valid at present for the majority.
In this case the signals from the brain flow necessarily and more dominantly to the input of the system of of seeing.

This thread is a great example of just how the adult human beings in the days when this was being written were NOT able to SEE FULLY.

Instead of LOOKING AT the WHOLE Picture here they, once again, SHOW just how they pick some made up "side", and then fight/argue for that make-BELIEVED "side", without even beginning to consider that there maybe some 'truth' in the "other side".

OBVIOUSLY, the physical eyes on the human body, when working, 'see' things, then ALL of these 'seen' things become signals, which travel from the eyes to the brain, where it is said, 'seeing happens'. But, JUST AS True is that signals from the 'brain' travel to the eye, through thoughts, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, which then affects the way one now LOOKS AT and SEES/UNDERSTAND things.

Just about every time whenever these adult human beings would express a VIEW "another" human being would 'see' ANOTHER "side" and then express that opposing VIEW. And, because of their upbringings, through a DISTORTED 'education system', then BELIEVE that THEIR VIEW is the true, right, AND correct VIEW and also 'try to' FIGHT and/or ARGUE for 'that' VIEW.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:32 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:48 am
Not sure of your point.
The OP is about 'How do we see' not about 'consciousness' per se.
The point in the OP do not solve the 'hard problem of consciousness' at all.

What would we mean by expecting, elaborating and even seeing where we're not talking about consciousness?

In this case of the OP, consciousness is assumed to be existing, i.e. we are in a state of waking consciousness; we are not talking about seeing while we are asleep, in a coma, or even close our eyes.

?????

When someone asks you, "What would we mean by x, y and z where we're not talking about F," the only acceptable form of answer is either, "By x where we're not talking about F, we'd mean such and such" and so on, OR "Actually, we ARE talking about F."

No other answer is acceptable there.

And I certainly shouldn't need to explain such basics of interactive communication to you. You're presumably an adult who doesn't have some significant functional disability.