Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:33 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:26 pm Everything you Know and ever can Know is obtained through your Conscious Experiences/Perceptions.

Obviously. It's just that what you know isn't only something mental. Confusion between those two ideas shouldn't be that difficult to sort out.

Think of an analogy with a camera, say. Everything you photograph is obtained through a camera lens, etc. This in no way implies that what you photograph is the camera, camera lens, etc.

You accept that you do not Perceive the Object but that you Perceive the reflected Light from the Object.

Not at all. What it is to perceive an object is to perceive it via light reflected from it. That's not NOT perceiving an object. It's what perceiving an object amounts to.

Camera analogy is a little Incoherent to me. Who is saying that the Human Eye is what we are Seeing when we See something. The Human Eye is just the first stage of chain of Processing that ultimately delivers the Conscious Visual Experience.

You say you See an Object as it is but you know that you are Seeing the Light and not the Object. But Seeing the Light is Semantically Seeing the Object. Now you must think about the Processing that happens after the Light hits the Retina. After the Light hits the Retina it is turned into Neural Signals that end up firing Neurons in the back of your head in the Visual Cortex. There is no Seeing before the Visual Cortex activates. Or do you disagree with that? If you agree that the Visual Cortex must activate to See, then you must agree that what you are Seeing is the result of Neural Activity. Do you agree?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:02 pm Camera analogy is a little Incoherent to me. Who is saying that the Human Eye is what we are Seeing when we See something.

Let's straighten this out first. The eye would be analogous to the lens. I didn't just say the lens above. I said the camera. When you take a photograph, you're not taking a photograph of the camera itself.

Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:02 pm Camera analogy is a little Incoherent to me. Who is saying that the Human Eye is what we are Seeing when we See something.

Let's straighten this out first. The eye would be analogous to the lens. I didn't just say the lens above. I said the camera. When you take a photograph, you're not taking a photograph of the camera itself.

Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

People who don't understand statistics keep abusing coincidental correlations.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:02 pm Camera analogy is a little Incoherent to me. Who is saying that the Human Eye is what we are Seeing when we See something.

Let's straighten this out first. The eye would be analogous to the lens. I didn't just say the lens above. I said the camera. When you take a photograph, you're not taking a photograph of the camera itself.

Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

Under your view, there's absolutely no way to know that there's an external world or that if there is, what your mind shows you has any particular correlation to it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:20 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

People who don't understand statistics keep abusing coincidental correlations.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

That comment is Incoherent when related to anything I have said.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm

Let's straighten this out first. The eye would be analogous to the lens. I didn't just say the lens above. I said the camera. When you take a photograph, you're not taking a photograph of the camera itself.

Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

Under your view, there's absolutely no way to know that there's an external world or that if there is, what your mind shows you has any particular correlation to it.

Yes, the External World could be a Simulation. But which option makes more sense to pursue, a Physical Reality or a Simulation?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

But if all you are actually conscious of is your own mind, how do know it correlates with anything, or that there is even anything for it to correlate to. I do not see how your view cannot evade becoming solipsism.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm

Let's straighten this out first. The eye would be analogous to the lens. I didn't just say the lens above. I said the camera. When you take a photograph, you're not taking a photograph of the camera itself.

Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

Under your view, there's absolutely no way to know that there's an external world or that if there is, what your mind shows you has any particular correlation to it.

Seems that way to me to.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:04 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm
Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

Under your view, there's absolutely no way to know that there's an external world or that if there is, what your mind shows you has any particular correlation to it.

Yes, the External World could be a Simulation. But which option makes more sense to pursue, a Physical Reality or a Simulation?

It's not that it would be a(n external) simulation. Under your view you have ZERO grounds for saying ANYTHING is external to you. Simulation or not.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:21 pm Your view of "perception" is that all we're aware of is our own minds/our own mental content, correct?

Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

But if all you are actually conscious of is your own mind, how do know it correlates with anything, or that there is even anything for it to correlate to. I do not see how your view cannot evade becoming solipsism.

If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:20 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:04 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:53 pm
Under your view, there's absolutely no way to know that there's an external world or that if there is, what your mind shows you has any particular correlation to it.

Yes, the External World could be a Simulation. But which option makes more sense to pursue, a Physical Reality or a Simulation?

It's not that it would be a(n external) simulation. Under your view you have ZERO grounds for saying ANYTHING is external to you. Simulation or not.

I just posted this which I'll repeat here: If you see a wall and start running towards it and then into it, you will discover that the Representation of the Wall in your Mind was a pretty good tool for understanding Walls.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.

Not on your view.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 pm
Yes, correct. But what ours Minds show us is Correlated with the External World, so it works pretty good to Detect the External World.

But if all you are actually conscious of is your own mind, how do know it correlates with anything, or that there is even anything for it to correlate to. I do not see how your view cannot evade becoming solipsism.

If you see a Wall and run towards it and into it you will realize that your Visual system was showing you a pretty good Representation of the Wall.

You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Unless, of course, that, "wall," actually exists and has the nature it has, whether I see or feel it or not. Then my seeing and feeling it are actually experiences of the wall. What is going on, in that case, would be my perceptual system making available to my consciousness what actually exists to be perceived.

It seems to me, that perception is not only a, "pretty good," representation of the wall, but a perfect one and the more I examine the wall the more I discover it is exactly what it looks like, feels like, and, if I hit it and it makes as sound, sounds like.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:19 pm You mean, I'll "feel" the wall? But, "feeling," is just another conscious experience in my mind, like seeing, or hearing, or tasting, or smelling. I have no more reason to think that, "feeling of hitting the wall," is any more an external world experience than seeing it was, do I?

Exactly. I'm not sure why he's having a problem understanding that that's what his view amounts to.