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

[Upchurch]

The main reason you think it has no relevance is because you have assumed materialism is true.

You never did explain how you plan to make a logical argument on no assumptions whatsoever.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You never did explain how you plan to make a logical argument on no assumptions whatsoever.

You start with the least number possible. You do not make any assumptions that are not required. That is the problem in this case - it is not actually neccesary for me to agree that materialism is true for you to be able to comment on my statements.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

True.

It's an unfortunate reality, but some questions simply cannot ever hope to be answered. Your question seems to be in this class.

Only because of an assumption you have made.

The real art is to identify such questions and not spend excessive time seeking the proverbial mare's nest - unless you just happen to want to.

I am a philosopher. This is a philosophy forum.

The trouble with your position is that you are declaring metaphysical questions to be unanswerable, but you also believe in a particular metaphysical theory with religious certainty.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How about: Sometimes?

That position does indeed exist, but it isn't what Paul described. These problems are so difficult that some people have proposed a theory known as "disjunctivism". If you think my metaphysics is weird, this is worse:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/philo/speaks/515/martin-disjunctivism.html

 

[Upchurch]

You start with the least number possible. You do not make any assumptions that are not required. That is the problem in this case - it is not actually neccesary for me to agree that materialism is true for you to be able to comment on my statements.

But I do need to understand what you mean by "object" or, more specifically, "object of perception". If that requries you to take a stance on materialism, immaterialism, or whatever, then so be it.

You can't expect to try to nail someone down using fuzzy terms and not expect them to nail you down on what you mean by those fuzzy terms.

If you insist on keeping the terms fuzzy, then I'll finalize my answers to your three points:

Upchurch: Maybe, Sorta, Kinda

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But I do need to understand what you mean by "object" or, more specifically, "object of perception". If that requries you to take a stance on materialism, immaterialism, or whatever, then so be it.

Whatever your metaphysics are, there is a monitor in front of you, right?
If you had never even heard of metaphysics, there would still be a monitor in front of you, right?

 

[LW]

You start with the least number possible. You do not make any assumptions that are not required.

Every time when you look around before you cross a street, you are making an assumption that the world may contain things that you don't perceive.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Every time when you look around before you cross a street, you are making an assumption that the world may contain things that you don't perceive.

Sure, but I don't need any assumptions to know there is a monitor in front of me. I just look, and there it is!

 

[Upchurch]

Whatever your metaphysics are, there is a monitor in front of you, right?

Not at all.

If I were an immaterialist, I'd say that there isn't really any such thing as a monitor in front of me. If I were a solipsist, I'd say that there is only the dream of a monitor in front of me. etc, etc, etc

 

[Upchurch]

Sure, but I don't need any assumptions to know there is a monitor in front of me. I just look, and there it is!

Assumptions:

• "Monitor" indicates a viewing device.
• "Front" indicates a spacial direction in relation to a subject.
• "Me" indicates a first person entity.
• Knowledge is possible, exists, and is now being experienced by the me/I entity.
• Looking is reflective of reality.

Do I need to go on?

eta one more

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Not at all.

If I were an immaterialist, I'd say that there isn't really any such thing as a monitor in front of me.

Then you would be a blind immaterialist. What on earth are you talking about??! It makes no difference whether you are an immaterialist, a materialist, a dualist or anything else. There is still a monitor in front of you!

If I were a solipsist, I'd say that there is only the dream of a monitor in front of me. etc, etc, etc

OK, maybe I understand your problema little better, although I still don't understand why you cannot overcome it.

What I am defining is far simpler than you seem to think it is.

**************************************************************
I am not asking you to give an ontological categorisation of what is in front of you.
I am merely defining a term to refer to what is in front of you. Before metaphysics f*cks it up!
****************************************************************

Is that easier?

I wish to refer to the monitor in front of you, FREE from the assumptions of metaphysics.

Now. See that monitor in front of you? That is an object of your perception.

I am going to the pub. <shakes head>

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Assumptions:

• "Monitor" indicates a viewing device.
• "Front" indicates a spacial direction in relation to a subject.
• "Me" indicates a first person entity.
• Knowledge is possible, exists, and is now being experienced by the me/I entity.
• Looking is reflective of reality.

Do I need to go on?

eta one more

FORGET METAPHYSICS. JUST LOOK IN FRONT OF YOU.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Not at all.

WHAT!????

If I were an immaterialist, I'd say that there isn't really any such thing as a monitor in front of me.

Rubbish. Even an immaterialist percieves a monitor. I couiuldn't give a flying **** what the immaterialist has to say about whether it "really exists". Why can't you grasp this?

 

[Upchurch]

Then you would be a blind immaterialist. What on earth are you talking about??! It makes no difference whether you are an immaterialist, a materialist, a dualist or anything else. There is still a monitor in front of you!

Irregardless of the metaphysic? Can you prove that claim? Or at least provide evidence in support of it?

OK, maybe I understand your problema little better, although I still don't understand why you cannot overcome it.

From reading your other threads and past experience in general, I know that the moment I take something like definitions for granted, you will most likely twist the definition around to mean something other than I meant when I originally agreed to whatever statement you make. That is why I'm being a stickler for definitions now.

On the other hand, if you wanted to start making less broad and far reaching statements, maybe we could get somewhere.

What I am defining is far simpler than you seem to think it is.

**************************************************************
I am not asking you to give an ontological categorisation of what is in front of you.
I am merely defining a term to refer to what is in front of you. Before metaphysics f*cks it up!
****************************************************************

Is that easier?

Nope. You cannot define a word absolutely free from context. You won't find a word or term in the dictionary that does not depend on the defintions of other words.

I wish to refer to the monitor in front of you, FREE from the assumptions of metaphysics.

It's too late. By indicating "the monitor in front of you", you've already introduced some metaphysical assumptions. You'll have to (somehow) rid yourself of these assumptions if you truely want to start your argument assumption free.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I see a monitor. It is made by Philips,in Hungary. It weighs several kg.
I take it to be a real, material object as defined by the post 178 agreement.
Extensive evidence gathered over centuries implies that such massive objects have inertial properties which include not going elsewhere when not watched, as this would involve violating a number of thoroughly established conservation principles none of which is in any way violated by anything with the word "quantum" in it.
I conclude that this monitor is at least as real as I am. It is a real object.

Does anyone have any evidence to support a different view?

Incidentally, as a rule, I think it's safer for me to explain the reasons I think as I do and you to explain your reasons. I don't think QM has anything to do with perception because I have seen no evidence that it has and I have no reason to think it would. For similar reasons, the only reason we think relativity is odd is because we do not experience it daily. Our senses are not capable of handling very large, very small or very fast things. Our thinking therefore finds them odd, because our senses and our thinking are closely integrated.

 

[Upchurch]

Rubbish. Even an immaterialist percieves a monitor. I couiuldn't give a flying **** what the immaterialist has to say about whether it "really exists". Why can't you grasp this?

Becasue you're assuming that an immaterialist considers the perception of "a monitor right in front of you" identical to a monitor right in front of you.

For someone so concerned about assumptions, why can't you see your own?

 

[hammegk]

I still don't know what you mean by "perceive tables and chairs". Really.

Perceive is what you do, and all you do, sfaik.

.... accept the assumption that particles exist ....

We would need to discuss the attributes of those particles -- or whatever "actually exists": (hello Wittgenstein) -- to discover if they are constituted of body-stuff, or mind-stuff. That is the Question. All else depends on that answer.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

My question is "Are you happy with that?"

mm Im happy with that, it works and let us interact in a reasonable way, both with the depicted "world" tables and stuff, and with "perceptors" or humans.

And you know perfectly that I do not see that that point of view is accurate. It is just congruent and operative in a daily basis.

For my real answer you could look at my small thread, and tell me what you think.

 

[Upchurch]

We would need to discuss the attributes of those particles -- or whatever "actually exists": (hello Wittgenstein) -- to discover if they are constituted of body-stuff, or mind-stuff. That is the Question. All else depends on that answer.

What do you say, hammegk? Is there a monitor right in front of you?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, in my case, there is a monitor in front of me. Now, I do not see this "monitor" as an objective entity nor I see "me" as a subjective entity. This is the problem, stating that there are two entities in a simple act.