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

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is a reality. I percieve something.

This is undeniable, and no other assumption is required.

So, the learning of language is irrelevant. No language is necessary at all to understand that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So, the learning of language is irrelevant. No language is necessary at all to understand that.

Gah! You weren't supposed to bring up language. Turns out that Upchurch's statement:

"sjkios dnnkwok arkdsjl qqies ab"

Means "This conversation is a big honkin' wanker" in Grezellian.

~~ Paul

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Gah! You weren't supposed to bring up language. Turns out that Upchurch's statement:

"sjkios dnnkwok arkdsjl qqies ab"

Means "This conversation is a big honkin' wanker" in Grezellian.

~~ Paul

LOL

Still, language is FULL of assumptions, words are FULL of assumptions. They are useful in normal, everyday living because they simplify things, but we cant utter a sentence "I perceive a monitor" without having learned A WHOLE COMPLETE LANGUAGE (sorry, Im not screaming, its just that with my keyb configuration Im unable to write with bold letters)

Now, in everyday life, I would have to agree with Geoff, its irrelevant if there are assumptions or not behind my comment "I see a tree". But in a philosophical discussion its VERY RELEVANT, even if he doesnt like it!!!

 

[hammegk]

So, the learning of language is irrelevant.

That would be correct. HPC level indeed is baggage-filled, but has zero to do with perception at least as I'd discuss perception.

No language is necessary at all to understand that.

Language allows us to attempt to communicate about those perceptions, and conceptions.

 

[Upchurch]

Gah! You weren't supposed to bring up language. Turns out that Upchurch's statement:

"sjkios dnnkwok arkdsjl qqies ab"

Means "This conversation is a big honkin' wanker" in Grezellian.

ARGH!

You win this time, context! Next time you won't be so lucky!

 

[Mercutio]

Just musing here...

So the proximal stimulus for vision is the 2-dimensional (well, except that it is curved) image on the retina. The study of visual illusions reminds us that there is quite a lot of learning involved with the perceptions of objects as objects. Whether something is big and far away, smaller and closer, or even a combination of near and far things taken as one object, cannot be determined purely from a retinal image. Pointillism works for us because we combine disparate elements into wholes; conversely, the things we experience as wholes are, before we learn they are wholes, a collection of potentially unrelated elements. As I write, I can look out a window and see trees across the yard. I know they are trees, but they could just as easily be one giant green multibranched organism. It is experience which allows me to see "trees". Or monitors. Or anything.

The study of perception tells us that we learn what our visual sense data mean by correlating it with touch, proprioceptive feedback, and basically by trial and error, matching vision with other vision and other senses. This is consistent with, but of course does not prove, an external real world through which we move (whether of matter or of idea). What it is not consistent with is that "seeing a monitor" involves no assumptions. At the very least, seeing anything that is identifiable assumes enough experience to identify that something. There is no reason to suspect that the same visual stimulation, without the prior experience, would mean the same thing (say, to a BIV).

...like I said, just musing here...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That would be correct. HPC level indeed is baggage-filled, but has zero to do with perception at least as I'd discuss perception...

... Language allows us to attempt to communicate about those perceptions, and conceptions.

Hammegk! You were the last person I would have thought about answering like this! So, language allow us to communicate, but its irrelevant to perceive? Interesting.

 

[hammegk]

and as I said:

You don't understand mathematical semantics and I claim my five pounds.

Actually, I do. You just didn't like my humorous (I thought) interjection. You lose.

Ed, if only reductive biologism hadn't failed!

Not an absolute, for sure, gotta be, failure, yet, but the indications are that it just doesn't get the job done.

Re Chalmers interactive dualism ... damn, he is getting close to objective idealism. I'm pulling for him to finally see the light.

 

[hammegk]

And of course, please visit Abandon All Hope to view my actual thoughts on this and other matters.

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk! You were the last person I would have thought about answering like this!

Strange. We usually seem to be in agreement. What can be said to exist if it cannot perceive and be perceived?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Strange. We usually seem to be in agreement. What can be said to exist if it cannot perceive and be perceived?

I believe that Geoff, you and me are in agreement about lots of stuff, and if Im not mistaken, I would say the same about other respectable members of the forum, but they tend to be even less expressive than myself regarding their own views

Nothing can be said without a language, but the trick is to assume that we would think (without words) "I see a tree in front of me". Thats absurd, of course, and my claim is that without words (to be more exact, without language which implies conceptions, ideas, culture) the individual is in "another world" so to speak. Not that it is, literarily "out" of this world, but without the ability to interpret there is no "tree" and no "he". Reading Hellen Keller is interesting in this respect.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe this thread done crashed and burned.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

I believe this thread done crashed and burned.

Shame. This touches on one of the fundamentals of skepticism: always questioning one's assumptions (even one's own assumptions).

Okay, technically, it touches on identifying one's assumptions, but whatever.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Now you may continue, Geoff.

~~ Paul

What't the point? All debates are now void because nobody can issue a premise. If you cannot start a philosophical debate with....

Premise 1 : I perceive objects.

...then there is no debate to be had. I've never seen anything quite so anal than the self-congratulatory nonsense I've just read. This thread has been a demonstration of one thing:

If the assumption in question is a faith-based metaphysical assertion, then that is fine, provided it is materialism. Indeed many people went to great lengths to argue that it was quite reasonable to start a philosophical argument with the premise "materialism is true". But start an argument with "I perceive an object" and we are told that this is loaded with all sorts of unreliable assumptions and can't be accepted. And at the end of it all you all have a group wank and congratulate yourselves for being such careful thinkers.

I have never seen a bigger crock of **** than I have seen posted in this thread.

 

[Upchurch]

What't the point? All debates are now void because nobody can issue a premise. If you cannot start a philosophical debate with....

Premise 1 : I perceive objects.

...then there is no debate to be had.

I think what Paul is saying, is let's just assume your Premise 1 is given and go from there. We can hash out any problems with your Premise 1, if it becomes an issue.

eta: or is "without any other assumptions" meant to be a part of Premise 1?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK

Let's lay down one ground rule:.

NO Metaphysical assumptions are to be made. You can make them in your answers, but you cannot stipulate other people must share the assumption.

Premise 1: I perceive objects.

This, it seems, needs some clarification. When I say "I perceive objects", nothing more is to be assumed. Nothing is to be assumed about what is happening to the objects when not perceived. Nothing is to be assumed about what ontological status of the object is (idea, material, both, sense-data). The class of objects I percieve shall be refered to as the objects of perception i.e. THE ONES I PERCEIVE.


By the way....

Arguing about a premise of "I percieve objects" when the description of the objects in question is "the ones I perceive" is really really stupid.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If the assumption in question is a faith-based metaphysical assertion, then that is fine, provided it is materialism. Indeed many people went to great lengths to argue that it was quite reasonable to start a philosophical argument with the premise "materialism is true". But start an argument with "I perceive an object" and we are told that this is loaded with all sorts of unreliable assumptions and can't be accepted. And at the end of it all you all have a group wank and congratulate yourselves for being such careful thinkers.

Zaaydragon listed some of the assumptions:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1589641#post1589641

Clearly a newborn would not have the same experience of "I perceive a tree" as you do.

But let's just move along and see what happens.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

OK

Let's lay down one ground rule:.

Ok. Let's lay down another ground rule:

Personal attacks are counter productive and should not be engaged in. If you disagree with someone's position, construct an argument against it rather than simply calling it or them names like "really really stupid"



I thought you wanted to move on and have a discussion and not get bogged down with the metaphysics?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually, I really can't be bothered with this. I have work to do now and the thread was so successfully and mindlessly derailed that I've lost any interest in continuing. See you in the summer.

Geoff

 

[Upchurch]

m'kay.