Page 1 of 1
Seeing & Believing
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:48 am
by Philosophy Now
Raymond Tallis looks for the missing link between them.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Seeing_and_Believing
Re: Seeing & Believing
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:53 am
by thedoc
There is one point in this article that I have a problem with. I will read it again to be sure that it is a central point, but from the article,
"As Gilbert Ryle pointed out, “there can be false coins only where there are coins made of the proper materials by the proper authorities” (The Concept of Mind, 1949)."
I see no reason to believe that reality must exist for illusion to occur. Illusion can exist in and of itself without any help from reality.
Re: Seeing & Believing
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:24 pm
by MMasz
thedoc wrote:
There is one point in this article that I have a problem with. I will read it again to be sure that it is a central point, but from the article,
"As Gilbert Ryle pointed out, “there can be false coins only where there are coins made of the proper materials by the proper authorities” (The Concept of Mind, 1949)."
I see no reason to believe that reality must exist for illusion to occur. Illusion can exist in and of itself without any help from reality.
I would then ask, "Can an illusion exist if
no one can identify it as an illusion."
Re: Seeing & Believing
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:38 pm
by thedoc
MMasz wrote:thedoc wrote:
There is one point in this article that I have a problem with. I will read it again to be sure that it is a central point, but from the article,
"As Gilbert Ryle pointed out, “there can be false coins only where there are coins made of the proper materials by the proper authorities” (The Concept of Mind, 1949)."
I see no reason to believe that reality must exist for illusion to occur. Illusion can exist in and of itself without any help from reality.
I would then ask, "Can an illusion exist if
no one can identify it as an illusion."
Interesting. For sake of argument let me define an illusion as an image with no physical manifestation, and 'One' is a consciousness with or without a physical manifestation. If we assume 'with' then we have an endless regression of who's illusion is it? Again for sake of argument, let me suggest a consciousness without a physical manifestation existing in a non-physical dimensionless void. Is this consciousness illusion or real? And can this consciousness have an illusion?