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

[hammegk]

Ambiguity seems to be the refuge of those who wish to engage in speculation about these matters rather than investigation.

At some level of discussion, what subject is not ambiguous?

 

[cyborg]

At some level of discussion, what subject is not ambiguous?

Thanks for proving my point with that ambiguous phrase "some level".

 

[davidsmith73]

An abstraction? A generalization? No one experiences "redness". We experience red objects. "Redness" is an abstraction created by our ability to generalize.

Indeed. Language is an abstraction. The experience is not. You are confusing the map with the territory so to speak.

Then what does it consist in? An abstraction? If we can't define the terms we can't discuss this.

I've no idea what you mean by "what does it consist in". Are you trying to concieve of some kind of experiential aether? I don't think that's necessary at all. I agree that maybe we are talking past each other here. The problem is that it is not possible for to define an experience to a supposed "third party". Maybe its the assumption of the third party that is the problem (cue solipsism). I suppose the best I can do for my position of terms of a definition is to define experience as non-relational.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, no confusion. What I am saying is that if you cannot define your terms you cannot speak of the "thing". This is where we rested previously. It seems that experience is indefinable for you, which is fine, but it means that no progress in discussing it is possible.

 

[Z]

If experience were non-relational, there'd be no differentiation between experiences... in other words, 'blueness' would be identical to 'redness', and we'd never be able to tell the difference.

It seems, to me, that what we actually have here is one side of the discussion saying, "Here's what we know: red is made thus and so; it is caused by such and such wavelength(s), and interpreted by this part of the eye, in this part of the brain; these things are what we call 'red'... etc." But no matter what that side is saying, the other says, "But what about the raw sensation of redness itself?" And on and on it goes. As long as the other side keeps using ambiguous terms, ill-defined, the discussion continues, round-robin. In the end, it reduces to an argument over whether qualia exist at all - that ethereal property demanded by dualists and idealists and denied by materialists.

 

[chris epic]

Q1 for materialists) Does the external world exist independently of our perceptions of it? A: Yes
Q2 for materialists) Can we perceive the external world? A: Yes

How could anybody speak for anyone else's perception? How could anyone know for certain if the external world did infact exist independently of their perceptions of it without somehow being able to escape their perception.

So I would have to answer no to the first question and yes to the second

 

[andyandy]

bumped....for ease of finding again

i may have some questions when i get through the 800+ posts

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

What we see is us.

The question is not well structured. There are three things implied: A self, Perceptions and a World. It is assumed that some people believe the world causes perceptions, and some others that the self causes perceptions. Both camps are wrong. The perception is the result of both the self and the world.

Now, the tricky part is that this two are not two. Explain it is complicated, but thats how things are.