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

[roger]

Just saw your post on indirect realism. Disagree with it entirely. I'm pretty much done posting for the night as well, so sorry for the brevity of that response.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

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.

Well, if I am agreeing with Roger, then I should stipulate that from a strictly materialistic understanding, the perception of tables and chairs are, materialistically, the configuration of neurons that make up the memory of the visual signal from the eyes (or sense of your choice).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just saw your post on indirect realism. Disagree with it entirely. I'm pretty much done posting for the night as well, so sorry for the brevity of that response.

I thought that might happen. Nevertheless, the position you've described is indirect realism, as did Upchurch.

 

[roger]

This is why this is going to get out of hand. We are going to be asked to describe exactly how the brain works down to every detail, how that engenders consciousness, qualia, etc. It's a profoundly complicated system, and we admitadly dont' know a lot about it yet.

The assumption is that the brain works in the same way a thermometer senses the room temp, only in a much more complicated and sophisticated manner. That's why I want to know if Geoff and us agree about how a thermometer works. Because if we can't agree with that, we surely can't agree about how humans perceive stuff when using all of this loosey goosey dualistic language.

 

[Upchurch]

Just saw your post on indirect realism.

There was hardly enough there to say for certain whether or not I agree that it is consistant with a materialist perspective (no pun intended)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, if I am agreeing with Roger, then I should stipulate that from a strictly materialistic understanding, the perception of tables and chairs are, materialistically, the configuration of neurons that make up the memory of the visual signal from the eyes (or sense of your choice).

That's irrelevant at this point. It's still indirect realism with regard to the objects of perception. You may argue that you directly percieve brain processes (sort of), but those aren't the objects I'm talking about. I'm talking about the things in our everyday world like tables and chairs. I've never seen a brain process apart from on TV medical documentaries.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There was hardly enough there to say for certain whether or not I agree that it is consistant with a materialist perspective (no pun intended)

I'll explore it further tomorrow. I'm going to leave the thread like this for a while so others can have a chance to post before everything goes ballistic.

 

[roger]

I thought that might happen. Nevertheless, the position you've described is indirect realism, as did Upchurch.

Well, my problem is those articles are very biased towards dualism. There is no homunculus problem, in my view, for example. The phrase "Internal representation" is just loaded with dualistic assumptions which I do not grant. Hence, everything that follows just doesn't parse.

If you are going to discuss materialism, you need to keep the discussion within the assumptions of materialism. it's easy to find problems if you impose dualistic or other assumptions upon it. Just like it is trivial to find problems with idealism if you thrust the assumptions of materialism on it.

ETA: Suppose you started a thread stating "Assume Idealism is true". You'd rightly dismiss any argument starting with "well, as materialism teaches us...".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

Really? You don't percieve tables and chairs?

Tricky was right. You never know what sort things people are going to have a problem with. You can assume nothing at all.

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.

But you don't percieve 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'm making a dualistic assumption by asking if you perceive a table? How?

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.

Which words? "Perception"?

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

You want me to accept ontological materialism before you'll say whether you can agree with my three statements? Is there a law that says every philosophical discussion, even if its not actually about materialism, must start with an assumption that materialism is true?

Whose law is that?

 

[CFLarsen]

Patience is a virtue. Something on your mind?

Are you here to play games, or are you here to find answers to your questions?

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.

No. You sort out your definitions. You are the one starting these threads. Why should it be up to others to define what you mean?

Do you really want other people to make up your mind for you?

 

[chriswl]

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

I think this is the real source of the confusion in every debate I've seen you participate in in the last month. Where do you get the extra thing from? The real world, our perceptions of it and us, the perceiving subject. Three things, there aren't three things, it's arguable that there aren't even two, but there sure as hell aren't three.

We don't perceive our perceptions we perceive things. This is the act of perception.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Are you here to play games, or are you here to find answers to your questions?

I'm here to play games, ask questions, answer questions and find things out? Why are you here?

No. You sort out your definitions.

For what? All I've made three statements:

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.

What do you want me to define?

You are the one starting these threads. Why should it be up to others to define what you mean?

What I mean by what?


Do you really want other people to make up your mind for you?[/QUOTE]

 

[Earthborn]

Earthborn posted (in another thread)
No, I'm sure I asked the question I wanted to ask.

I'm sure it is. But turning the question around is the easiest way to answer it: the mind and physical world are not independent.

I know you'd rather ask that. But that isn't what I asked, quite deliberately.

Maybe you quite deliberately don't want your question to be answered?

I didn't mention the word "mind", quite deliberately.

You mentioned 'mind' in Q1 in the other thread. I quote: "Q1 for materialists) Does the physical world exist independently of mind?"

Anyone want to answer the questions I actually asked instead of telling me I should have asked something else?

I answered the question you asked in the other thread. Turning the question around was just a way to make it easier to answer it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm here to play games, ask questions, answer questions and find things out? Why are you here?

I am certainly not here to play games.

Do you have questions? Let's hear them.

Do you have answers? Let's hear them.

For what? All I've made three statements:

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.

What do you want me to define?

Whatever it is you want other people to define. Why should other people define what you mean?

What I mean by what?

Stop being an idiot.

Do you really want other people to make up your mind for you?

Stop being an idiot.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, my problem is those articles are very biased towards dualism. There is no homunculus problem, in my view, for example. The phrase "Internal representation" is just loaded with dualistic assumptions which I do not grant. Hence, everything that follows just doesn't parse.

OK, that was just a stub from wikipedia. It's not the gospel. All I am interested in right now is whether you are happy with my three statements.

If you are going to discuss materialism, you need to keep the discussion within the assumptions of materialism.

I quite deliberately haven't mentioned materialism.

it's easy to find problems if you impose dualistic or other assumptions upon it.

But nobody has mentioned materialism, or minds, or dualism, or anything of the sort. Is materialism like some kind of Bible? Must we always go back to it before we start thinking about any question like this? Even if materialism hasn't been mentioned?

Just like it is trivial to find problems with idealism if you thrust the assumptions of materialism on it.

I haven't mentioned idealism either.

ETA: Suppose you started a thread stating "Assume Idealism is true". You'd rightly dismiss any argument starting with "well, as materialism teaches us...".

Yes, but I don't go around assuming my conclusions before I start and then trying to re-arrange all the questions. I start with questions. I think it's better to start from a question and work to a conclusion. Otherwise you end up like Christians and start from your conclusion (God, in their case) and re-arrange all the questions so none of them threaten the conclusion you've already decided upon (God exists, materialism is true, whatever....).

So it's best to start with questions.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sure it is. But turning the question around is the easiest way to answer it: the mind and physical world are not independent.

Unfortunately, there is no agreement on how to define "mind", and since it's not actually directly relevant to these three statements I'm going to avoid talking about "minds" just for now.

Maybe you quite deliberately don't want your question to be answered?

I want people to agree or disagree with my three statements. Upchurch seems to have agreed. So far nobody else has, but they haven't been clear about their objections.

You mentioned 'mind' in Q1 in the other thread. I quote: "Q1 for materialists) Does the physical world exist independently of mind?"

Yeah, I was more careful when I respecified the question.

I answered the question you asked in the other thread. Turning the question around was just a way to make it easier to answer it.

I know. But that means you're answering a different question to the one I asked you, and it's not relevant to the philosophical problem I want to examine.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am certainly not here to play games.

Do you have questions? Let's hear them.

Do you have answers? Let's hear them.

My question is:

Do you agree with my three statements?

Whatever it is you want other people to define. Why should other people define what you mean?

I don't want other people to define anything. I want them to tell me whether they agree with my three statements. You seem to be having some difficulty answering. Why is that?

Stop being an idiot.

Is it idiotic to ask questions?

Any particular reason why you are losing it?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just in case some of you are new to this Geoffesque thread, it is the same as the other Geoffesque thread.

~~ Paul

 

[Earthborn]

Unfortunately, there is no agreement on how to define "mind", and since it's not actually directly relevant to these three statements I'm going to avoid talking about "minds" just for now.

It is a bit dishonest to change the questions and then reposting someone's answer to the previous version, wouldn't you say?
Still to me the answers are still the same: No to Q1, Yes to Q2.

I want people to agree or disagree with my three statements.

Could you be so kind to point out the third? I must have missed it.

I know. But that means you're answering a different question to the one I asked you, and it's not relevant to the philosophical problem I want to examine.

I think it is relevant, as in the end it does answer the question as you asked it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think this is the real source of the confusion in every debate I've seen you participate in in the last month. Where do you get the extra thing from?

What extra thing?

The real world, our perceptions of it and us, the perceiving subject. Three things, there aren't three things, it's arguable that there aren't even two, but there sure as hell aren't three.

What's this got to do with my three statements?

We don't perceive our perceptions we perceive things.

This is what I asked. We percieve things. By that, you mean we perceive things like tables, yes? Those are the objects of perception. That's one lots of things, yes? Or are the objects we percieve not things?

This is the act of perception.

Fine, but I am talking about the objects of perception and the objects in the world external to humans. Those are another of things, right?

Do you agree with the three statements? Or are you unable to answer that question?

I am trying to clarify the point of confusion, not make it more obscure.

Geoff