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

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, and once this last point is cleared up, could you also re-state your OP point in this clarified understanding of terms?

Not till we've sorted this out. I want people to be clear in their own minds what they currently believe and what their words mean before I take it further. On the advice of Tricky and Paul.

 

[roger]

In other words, I don't think there is a difficult philosohical problem here.

1) there are particles
2) objects are made of particles
3) particles can be bounced off of other particles based on the 4 fundamental forces
4) the grouping of particles we call humans can detect these bounced particles
5) the complicated system of detection we use is suspetable to jamming, confusion, broken mechanisms, etc.
6) careful testing allows us to place a degree of certainty on our interpretations of these signals. High degree of certainty, but never perfect certainty.
7) these detection systems simplify things to such an extent that the properties of the individual particles transmitting the information is not ordinarily detectable.
8) we can and have devised tests to detect those properties
9) the inability to assign 100% certainty in our interpretation of a particular signal detection does not in any way alter the reality of the object being detected.

 

[CFLarsen]

My question is "Are you happy with that?"

It's not a question of us being "happy".

It's only a question of you being able to form a coherent proposal for discussion.

Are you capable of that?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

c4ts

I do not follow your logic. Elaborate. You assume a lot about perception that you do not explain or ask about.

Lets' go back to my three statements instead. When we've sorted out the confusion, we can continue.

Geoff

 

[CFLarsen]

Lets' go back to my three statements instead. When we've sorted out the confusion, we can continue.

Since when has a statement from you not resulted in confusion?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In other words, I don't think there is a difficult philosohical problem here.

1) there are particles
2) objects are made of particles
3) particles can be bounced off of other particles based on the 4 fundamental forces
4) the grouping of particles we call humans can detect these bounced particles
5) the complicated system of detection we use is suspetable to jamming, confusion, broken mechanisms, etc.
6) careful testing allows us to place a degree of certainty on our interpretations of these signals. High degree of certainty, but never perfect certainty.
7) these detection systems simplify things to such an extent that the properties of the individual particles transmitting the information is not ordinarily detectable.
8) we can and have devised tests to detect those properties
9) the inability to assign 100% certainty in our interpretation of a particular signal detection does not in any way alter the reality of the object being detected.

Eh? There's a whole load of philosophical problems in there, from ontology to the philosophy of science. None of them are the problem of perception, though.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's not a question of us being "happy".

It's only a question of you being able to form a coherent proposal for discussion.

Are you capable of that?

Yes.

First we must form a coherent means of me asking the question.

 

[roger]

I saw some of Geoff's questions for me, so to continue

10) hallucinations are a result of the particles comprising the brain injecting signals into that brain system which are indistinguishable from a signal that would have been generated from a collection of particles external to the particles comprising the brain. I don't know what "external", "internal", "object" means in this regard, nor do I care. It doesn't matter.

 

[c4ts]

c4ts



Lets' go back to my three statements instead. When we've sorted out the confusion, we can continue.

Geoff

No. Let's go back to your statement about independant existence. Can you give an example?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I saw some of Geoff's questions for me, so to continue

10) hallucinations are a result of the particles comprising the brain injecting signals into that brain system which are indistinguishable from a signal that would have been generated from a collection of particles external to the particles comprising the brain. I don't know what "external", "internal", "object" means in this regard, nor do I care. It doesn't matter.

None of these descriptions are much use to me. I am interested in the objects of perception. I am not asking how a hallucination happens, I am asking you what is it that you are percieving during a hallucination?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No. Let's go back to your statement about independant existence. Can you give an example?

Sure. Let's take the example of a small lump of rock currently orbiting Alpha Centauri.

 

[roger]

None of these descriptions are much use to me. I am interested in the objects of perception. I am not asking how a hallucination happens, I am asking you what is it that you are percieving during a hallucination?

I have no idea what you mean by "objects of perception". I strongly suspect that if you define it coherently, I would disagree that it exists. I told you what you are perceiving. A signal.

 

[Upchurch]

So there are two lots of tables?
Or there are there external tables and perceptions of tables?

For the sake of argument, there are external tables and perceptions of tables.

Not till we've sorted this out. I want people to be clear in their own minds what they currently believe and what their words mean before I take it further. On the advice of Tricky and Paul.

Yes, that is what "once this last point is cleared up" means.

 

[c4ts]

Sure. Let's take the example of a small lump of rock currently orbiting Alpha Centauri.

So there is no contradiction if one affects the other. Is this right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

First we must form a coherent means of me asking the question.

That is your problem, not ours.

State your question, and let's get on with this.

If you can't do that, why are you here?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I have no idea what you mean by "objects of perception". I strongly suspect that if you define it coherently, I would disagree that it exists. I told you what you are perceiving. A signal.

Do you percieve tables and chairs? I am talking about those tables and chairs - the ones you percieve. I don't know how else I am supposed to define them. I've spent my whole life percieving objects. Those are the objects I am talking about.

So what we directly percieve is "sense data"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

For the sake of argument, there are external tables and perceptions of tables.

Sounds like you are agreeing with Roger. There are tables and chairs and there are perceptions of tables of chairs and these are not the same thing.

Both of you are expressing a view called "Indirect Realism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_realism

I doubt that I will get beyond that point tonight, because other people will have a problem with your stated position. Tomorrow I will explain where I'm going with this.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is your problem, not ours.

State your question, and let's get on with this.

Patience is a virtue. Something on your mind?

If you can't do that, why are you here?

Last time I started a thread about metaphysics it turned into a monster. In order to avoid that happening I have been advised by a number of people to go much slower at the beginning so people can sort out their definitions.

 

[roger]

Do you percieve tables and chairs? I am talking about those tables and chairs - the ones you percieve. I don't know how else I am supposed to define them. I've spent my whole life percieving objects. Those are the objects I am talking about.

So what we directly percieve is "sense data"?

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

I told you. There are particles out there that comprise a table. Some particles (photons) bounce off of that table, and hit the particles that comprise the cones and rods in my eyes. the particles in that system pass the information on, in an encoded form, to the particles in my brain. etc. I can confirm my perceptions to a degree by bouncing different particles off that table. Say, I tap it with my knuckle. Yup sounds like a table.

When you start using words like "perceive", "you", etc., you start running into trouble because those words are loaded with dualistic assumptions. I cannot, and will not, allow the use of those words if I'm to answer a question based on a materialistic understanding. How could I? It's just nonsense at that point.

So, accept the assumption that particles exist for the purpose of your question, and go on from there.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

1) We percieve objects (tables, chairs, etc....). We will call these "the objects of perception"

2) There is a world, external to humans (it existed before we evolved, it exists when we aren't looking), which is made of things like tables and chairs. Even with a materialistic definition of "mind", this would still be true, since there are no tables and chairs inside our skulls.

3) Presumably, the tables and chairs we perceive and the tables and chairs in the external world are the same tables and chairs.

Everyone happy with that?

I'd say close enough for starters. It depends on where you are going with this.

The only on that seems kinda fishy is the first one about us perceiving a table or a chair. I'd say we perceive "percepts" just as we concieve of concepts. We can concieve of things we cannot percieve.

Also, the Kantian terminology of noumena and phenomena might help clarify here. (Or not)