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

Upchurch said:
Your revised OP (I'm referring to the three points) presupposes some form of materialism where the chairs and tables have existence independent of the observer. If that is not the case, please try to be more clear.

I'm only working with what you are giving me.

Perhaps it would help to start over and be very specific with your position. Go into as much gory detail as you like to fully express the argument you are trying to make here.
Click to expand...

Right now I am trying to demonstrate that both forms of realism must be false. Perhaps it would help if you started from the short refutation of indirect realism. If you agree with that then we can start on direct realism.

I have no intention of giving away my position this time, and for a very good reason. Once people know where I am going, they will start re-arranging their definitions and arguments if they want to avoid the destination. To prevent this from happening I am starting from phenomenological considerations. I am starting from the bald fact that there are objects of your perception - those things in front of you. I don't understand why it is such a problem to understand what I mean by this. Just point at your monitor and say "that monitor". If you think that monitor is a construction of your mind, then say so. If you think it is a real external object, then say so. But don't ask me to tell you whether I am asking about constructions in your mind or real objects because that is the question I am asking you! I am asking you whether THAT OBJECT is an external object or a mental construction and you keep saying "are you talking about an external object or a mental construction." Now you are asking me what I am trying to demonstrate before you'll answer the question at all. See the problem? What I do not want is to people to decide on their answer AFTER they know where the argument leads. That's reasoning backwards and it is to be consigned to trash. There's too much of it round here already, as demonstrated by the insistence by some people that we all agree materialism is true before the debate begins.
 
Last edited:
roger said:
The problem is aways back, where Geoff said he would not accept how we realists say the mind works. So he ends up dismissing a caricature of what we mean.
Click to expand...

I am a direct realist. I also think I have a means of defending direct realism from the arguments I am currently offering against it. But I don't think you'd like them.
 
JustGeoff said:
Sam



I tend to agree. But I'm surprised you think this. Surely if the same signals are being fed to the brain then the same brain state will follow and the same subjective experience will follow that. Nearly everybody accepts this. (although I don't)
Click to expand...

I do not accept the word "same" as useful in this context.
No two things are the same. If they were the same, there would be only one. They can be similar to given tolerances.

I do not think we are remotely close to a technical ability to feed a BIV with convincing false data, nor have I any idea what the internal state of awareness of that brain would be. I do think the internal state of awareness would be caused by neural activity.
 
apros of nothing at all:

A: is this brick heavy?
B: dunno. what do you mean by heavy?
A: comeon, everyone knows what heavy means
B: well, people use it in different ways. Give me an example.
A: Examples are irrelevent. Is the brick heavy?
B: Uh, I'm still not sure, but I'll stipulate yes.
A: Well, since we talk about poems being heavy, man, you think a poem and a brick have the same properties.
B: NO! That's not what I meant by heavy.Bricks are nothing like poems.
A: Now you're reasoning backwards.

No, I can't think of any reason in the world why we should define our terms before discussing the truth value of a sentence.
 
JustGeoff said:
What - you won't have the discussion unless we all agree the conclusion is going to be "materialism is true" before we start? :(
Click to expand...
Nope. You want to know what the implications of materialism being true is, you have to keep the discussion in the realm of materialism.

You seem to want to know what the implication of a combination of materialism, plus some hazy, undefined concepts are. No surprise, you're going to end up with contraditions. But all you've done is invalidated that unholy mismash, not materialism.
 
Can I offer a suggestion?

The real problem here is distinguishing between the case of the BIV and the case of normal perception. We could say that both the BIV and the normal person perceive intentional objects - their mind is directed toward an object. Our problem is that we know the BIV's intentional objects are merely intentional objects - they cannot also be objects of perception. It is really not a problem to argue that even though the objects of normal perception are (at least in part) constructed by our cognitive apparatus, they could still in some sense be external objects. We could still argue there is only one object we are discussing. But we would still be left with a serious problem. Unless we can find a way to distinguish between the BIV and the normal case, we are going to be left with no means of distinguishing between merely intentional objects and objects of veridical perception. As it currently stands, the only differences between the two cases occurs outside the brain, so we have to treat what is going on in the brain as the same in both cases. This seems to rule out any possibility that there could be a way to distinguish between the two cases. But maybe there is a missing piece of the jigsaw waiting to be found.

Geoff
 
Last edited:
G: Q for democrats: is it okay to tax cigarettes?
Democrat: sure, if we vote for it

G: AHA! According to libertarian principles, you can't use force. Taxation is force. I've proven that democracy contradicts itself.

democrat: No, you've shown that democrary+libertarianism doesn't work. Which is no surpise. Since they are based on different assumptions.

G: you expect me to agree that democracy is true to have this disussion?

D: yes, if you want to know what democrat thinks.


I have a million of these.
 
What - you won't have the discussion unless we all agree the conclusion is going to be "materialism is true" before we start? :(

Yes.

We are discussing material objects, are we not?




Edit because I got the wrong quote.
 
roger said:
Nope. You want to know what the implications of materialism being true is, you have to keep the discussion in the realm of materialism.
Click to expand...

Roger,

I admire your directness in this. I spent 40 pages of the last thread trying to get people to admit that their entire way of thinking was restricted to a box labelled "This is the case if materialism is true". It's the first premise to all arguments they have, whether or not it is stated. Furthermore, if I made any sort of statement that might be difficult to resolve with materialism, I was accused of "begging the question" or assuming my conclusion - when all I had actually done was start from no assumptions at all. Apparently if you don't assume materialism is true, you have assumed it is false. Not sure how the logic works behind that though. At least you are coming right out and begging the question even before I've offered my argument. This may save a lot of time later. :D

Geoff
 
Geoff for the sake of clarity- can you give me 10 line or so definition of "materialism" as you are using the term?
 
Soapy Sam said:
I do not accept the word "same" as useful in this context.
No two things are the same. If they were the same, there would be only one. They can be similar to given tolerances.

I do not think we are remotely close to a technical ability to feed a BIV with convincing false data, nor have I any idea what the internal state of awareness of that brain would be. I do think the internal state of awareness would be caused by neural activity.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. First - the technical difficulties aren't - let's pretend its possible. But the claim that even if you fed the brain EXACTLY the same signals that would come to it during veridical perception it may not experience anything at all is a very strange claim indeed. How do you justify that?

Does anyone else agree?

My own position involves a denial that the same neural state could be achieved with the BIV, but I provide an explanation why this is the case, and so far you haven't.
 
Geoff said:
What - you won't have the discussion unless we all agree the conclusion is going to be "materialism is true" before we start?
Click to expand...
No, I won't care about the discussion if we stick with the false dichotomy between direct and indirect realism.

~~ Paul
 
roger said:
Nope. You want to know what the implications of materialism being true is, you have to keep the discussion in the realm of materialism.
Click to expand...

No can do. That's like talking to a Christian who makes the same claim about the Bible. Pointless.
 
Soapy Sam said:
What - you won't have the discussion unless we all agree the conclusion is going to be "materialism is true" before we start? :(

Yes.

We are discussing material objects, are we not?

.
Click to expand...

No. We are discussing the objects of perception. If you want to think they are physical, that is your choice, but I am not going to agree to this a priori.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Geoff for the sake of clarity- can you give me 10 line or so definition of "materialism" as you are using the term?
Click to expand...

That won't take ten lines.

Materialism : The claim that everything which exists is physical. There is only one reality and it's physical reality.
 
Geoff said:
Furthermore, if I made any sort of statement that might be difficult to resolve with materialism, I was accused of "begging the question" or assuming my conclusion - when all I had actually done was start from no assumptions at all.
Click to expand...
This is not what happened. You were accused of begging the question when you were making some sort of dualistic assumption. For example:

"Eliminative materialism says there is no mind."

This only makes sense if you are assuming a dualistic mind. You said it about 100 times.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom