Is it possible to perceive a world which is external to our perceptions?

[Soapy Sam]

...nor have I any idea what the internal state of awareness of that brain would be. I do think the internal state of awareness would be caused by neural activity.

I do not know what "mental" state could be generated in such a case.
Brains evolved in bodies. Their senory inputs are integrated very closely with the nature of the body. If you put a human brain in a pig's body, would it become a pig? Do we mean the brain of an adult, complete with memory, or the brain of a neonate? I suspect the results might be very different in those cases.

ETA, given the definition of materialism in p178, I freely confess that so far as I'm concerned it is impractical to hold a debate which does not assume this from the start. i'd go so far as to suggest that if materialism as defigned in p178 is not basically the truth, it would be physically impossible to hold any such discussion, whether on the internet or face to face.

So yes, I will view any philosophical discussion from a materialist standpoint and judge it as sense or nonsense accordingly. I doubt this surprises anyone.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. You want to know what the implications of materialism being true is, you have to keep the discussion in the realm of materialism.

No can do. That's like talking to a Christian who makes the same claim about the Bible. Pointless.

No can do what? You aren't talking about the implications of materialism, or you are and refuse to assume a materialist perspective?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I thought we'd rejected indirect realism as dead before it started.

And so apparently assumed the other side of the false dichotomy. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of a false dichotomy. Just because direct is the opposite of indirect doesn't mean that the two descriptions exhaust all the possibilities.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

I have no intention of giving away my position this time, and for a very good reason. Once people know where I am going, they will start re-arranging their definitions and arguments if they want to avoid the destination.

Meanwhile, you are re-arranging your definitions and arguments?

No. If you are unwilling to state your position, you are not willing to engage in honest debate.

I am starting from the bald fact that there are objects of your perception - those things in front of you. I don't understand why it is such a problem to understand what I mean by this.

Becauses you are making the presupposition that "objects of your perception" are unambiguous in meaning. I can think of at least two things it might mean. Given that you mention its spactial relationship to "me", that suggests that you mean the physical meaning, but you won't confirm or deny that. So, I am left without an answer for you because I don't have enough information.

Just point at your monitor and say "that monitor". If you think that monitor is a construction of your mind, then say so. If you think it is a real external object, then say so.

Personally, I think it is a physical object whose existance is independant of my own or any perception I may have of it.

But don't ask me to tell you whether I am asking about constructions in your mind or real objects because that is the question I am asking you!

I'm talking about physical objects, but that still doesn't explain what the term "objects of perception" means. If I knew what you mean by the term, I could answer the question in those terms. I don't, so I can't.

I am asking you whether THAT OBJECT is an external object or a mental construction and you keep saying "are you talking about an external object or a mental construction." Now you are asking me what I am trying to demonstrate before you'll answer the question at all. See the problem? What I do not want is to people to decide on their answer AFTER they know where the argument leads.

So, you want people to make a decision on your argument before you explain what your argument is? That's dishonest, Geoff. You're asking people to do the same thing you are refusing to do yourself.

That's reasoning backwards and it is to be consigned to trash.

Ya think?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Geoff , you have repeatedly stated that your term "objects of perception" refers to real world objects - "the monitor in front of you"- now you say you do not accept that "objects of perception " are physical.
Which is it?

Or is this a wave / particle thing?

eta-spllinge (I'm dropngi assmuptoins)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No can do what? You aren't talking about the implications of materialism, or you are and refuse to assume a materialist perspective?

~~ Paul

Liberal Christian to fundie : Shall we talk about fossils?
Fundie : OK
LC : There's fossils in rocks 200 million years old
Fundie : Hold on. That's not in the Bible
LC : Yes but to be able to think about this clearly we might need to ask certain questions before we turn to the Bible
Fundie : No way. If this is about the veracity of the Bible, we must start from the Bible, otherwise you are assuming the Bible is false
LC : No, I just want to start from open, honest questions and see where it leads us
Fundie: You want to talk about the implications of believing in the Bible and you refuse to assume a Biblical perspective?
LC : Yes
Fundie : Then I'm not listening.

Paul - if you are going to try to get to the truth of ANY matter, then sometimes you have to start from no assumptions at all. Then you do not run the risk of continually question-begging. I'll tell you what the problem is here. The problem is that nobody knows where this is going so you don't yet know which way to question-beg. So instead, you are asking to reserve the right to question-beg later. All of which is very revealing indeed about the way people here think about these issues. There is no genuine enquiry at all. All there is is an assumption that materialism is true, followed by some arguments which are re-arranged so their conclusion is known before the line of reasoning is followed, all followed by the claim that all the evidence suggests materialism is true. Substitute "materialism" for "Bible" and quite frankly I cannot tell the difference.

Anyone willing to suspend belief in your materialist Bible is welcome to continue the debate. But I am not going to waste my time talking to people who are openly insisting we agree on what conclusion we are going to reach before the debate has started. What on earth is the point in that?

The fact that none of you think this is a problem is truly disturbing. This is wrong. It's not skepticism. It's turning materialism into a religion - a faith-based belief which WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED.

 

[roger]

Roger,

I admire your directness in this. I spent 40 pages of the last thread trying to get people to admit that their entire way of thinking was restricted to a box labelled "This is the case if materialism is true". It's the first premise to all arguments they have, whether or not it is stated. Furthermore, if I made any sort of statement that might be difficult to resolve with materialism, I was accused of "begging the question" or assuming my conclusion - when all I had actually done was start from no assumptions at all. Apparently if you don't assume materialism is true, you have assumed it is false. Not sure how the logic works behind that though. At least you are coming right out and begging the question even before I've offered my argument. This may save a lot of time later.

Geoff

Geoff, I hope my posts are being interpreted as being spirited, not antangonistic. In any case, have you read Dennett's The Intentional Stance? Pretty much everything I've posted goes back to that book, including the insistance on figuring out how you think a thermometer works.

Anyway, yes, materialism is based on some axioms. Are you familiar with how to invalidate an axiomatic system? you basically seem to be, as you are using the technique in this thread, albeit in a flawed way.

Basically, you start churning out thereoms based on your axioms and definitions, and look for internal inconsistancy. But the problem is, you keep introducing axioms that are not part of this set of axioms. Of course you are finding contradictions. That does not invalidate the original set of axioms, however.

In any case, I'll gladly agree that everything I've posted here, both in this thread and in general, is based on "This is the case if materialism is true".

 

[Soapy Sam]

You can't start from no assumptions at all. But feel free to try.
But don't assume we understand.

All there is is an assumption that materialism is true, followed by some arguments, followed by the claim that all the evidence suggests materialism is true. Substitute "materialism" for "Bible" and quite frankly I cannot tell the difference. -JG

Geoff the difference is not the claim, but the evidence. Ther is no evidence to support the biblical creation myth. Among the evidence of materialism is the internet. How do you know you are not in a vat now? How do you know this is not a Turing Test to see if you have passed QC testing?

 

[Upchurch]

if you are going to try to get to the truth of ANY matter, then sometimes you have to start from no assumptions at all.

How do you propose we accomplish that? Any logical argument starts with a set of givens or accpeted assumptions.

 

[Upchurch]

You can't start from no assumptions at all. But feel free to try.
But don't assume we understand.

You're assuming I hold the same definitions of "You", "can't", "start", etc. as I do. Quit assuming that.

 

[roger]

No can do. That's like talking to a Christian who makes the same claim about the Bible. Pointless.

Then I give up. If you want to know what the Bible claims, you have to keep the discussion within the realm of the Bible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul - if you are going to try to get to the truth of ANY matter, then sometimes you have to start from no assumptions at all. Then you do not run the risk of continually question-begging.

Fine, so we aren't talking about the implications of materialism. We are attempting to derive a coherent metaphysic from scratch.

Anyone willing to suspend belief in your materialist Bible is welcome to continue the debate. But I am not going to waste my time talking to people who are openly insisting we agree on what conclusion we are going to reach before the debate has started. What on earth is the point in that?

We're not.

What does this have to do with my concern over the false dichotomy inherent in the definitions of direct and indirect realism?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't miss Titus Rivas's latest paper:

Metasubjective Cognition Beyond the Brain: Subjective Awareness and the Location of Concepts of Consciousness.

~~ Paul

 

[roger]

If I may expand on Dennett's book, and why I recommend it:

In general it's a book that talks about conscioiusness. But he really gets to the nub of the problem being discussed in this thread as well. Much of his other writings have been criticized by other philosophers, some of those who adopt Geoff's stances. So he lays out his position in the first chapter. Get the book, it's excellent, but allow me to paraphrase based on fault memory:

"I assume materialism is true. By that I mean there is a real world out there, composed of particles, and that we are composed of those same particles.

I recognize there are ontological issues with that stance, but they don't strike me as exceptionally difficult. I'm not interested in ontology, and freely admit I haven't solved the problem. My strategy is to assume it is true, and see what the results are.

It may be another approach will yield better results. But this system has a very high level of predictive value, and it's my time to waste, so it's how i'm going to proceed. I'm betting I can make real progress based on this assumption.

Let's see what the implications of my assumptions/assertions are.

[rest of book goes here]"

Again, the word in the quotes are mine, not his, based on my memory of the book. But I do share this stance. Geoff, if you want to find out the implications of a materist perspective, I may well participate. But if you're unwilling to start from an agreed set of assumptions, well, good luck, it's your time, but I don't think it's a productive way to spend mine.

 

[Roboramma]

Okay. I got fed up. I had to stop reading at page 3. I'll try to finish later, but I'd just like to make a quick statement.

We don't know that the objects exist external to us or not. I think they do, because that seems to be the best assumption based on the data I have.

What do I know?
Only that I have experiences, which doesn't say much.

From a materialist's perspective, though, I know that there is something that's affecting my sensory perception. That is, there could be photons coming in contact with my eyes, which then effect my brain, etc.
Or there could be a wire connected to my brain that gives the exact same message that my eyes would have if those photons existed.
I don't know, and I can't tell the difference. But either way, what I'm perceiving is the affect that this is having on my neurons. That's perception.

When I see a coherent pattern of a table, I assume that I'm seeing that because there are photons bouncing off a table. It's not necessarily true, but I can test it by walking over to the apparent table and touching it. Again my brain is affected by something, and the perceived affect is consistent with the hypothesis that there's a table.
Enough such tests (including leaving the table and coming back to find it there, asking others if there is a table), and I find myself quite confident in the existence of the table. But all I really know is that the universe affects my brain as though there were a table.

And this is no different for the BIV than for someone who lives in a physical world with physical tables.

Sorry if this has all been said. I just got fed up.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I find Dennett hard to read. Not a difficult writer, but one who seems able to make interesting material seem dull. (By comparison, Dawkins makes rather dull material come alive). The reader is part of the system too of course.

Have we driven JG to the pub in despair at such rampant materialism?

 

[roger]

I just want to add, I wish I could spell.

 

[roger]

I find Dennett hard to read. Not a difficult writer, but one who seems able to make interesting material seem dull. (By comparison, Dawkins makes rather dull material come alive). The reader is part of the system too of course.

Huh, I find him very invigorating to read. But then I adore Moby Dick and many people can't abide the book. I certainly agree with you about Dawkins.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, but are you spelling words as they exist in an external world, or words as they exist in your inner experience?

I consider myself a direct speller, but I could be convinced otherwise.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I was going to try direct experience of my desk chair, but it will not fit into my ear.

~~ Paul