|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 2:10:05 GMT
"Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. You are grounding yourself only in the physical organism and wonder that this is, just only getting half of the picture though. "Ego mind", is what holds us back and Freud was very self-aware Yes, the brain is our own little pc and has energy points connected through it. In fact, it is all energy and everything in the universe operates by it. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought or "projection". You are so powerful, that you create what is perceived as the physical. What would a nonphysical thing even be?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 7:32:23 GMT
so how come sometimes we are aware of sense data and sometimes not? How do you account for secondary ualities? It's not that there's always sense data and sometimes you're aware of it and sometimes not. It's that certain situations will produce illusions, say. Whether the illusion should be called "sense data" or not is another issue, but we can just bypass that. It's fine if we say that it's "sense data." I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 10:01:16 GMT
What would a nonphysical thing even be? If something is non-physical, like consciousness awareness, then it would be transcended and pure energy. Everything in the universe operates on vibration and energy. It all transmits. Better be careful what you wish for then. What we perceive as physical, is only our own creation, projection or even delusion. Perhaps then, our current life is all but a dream within a dream, and when we die we wake up. Some are just more connected and wake before death, though not many. The problem with that is that I believe that consciousness/awareness is physical, so that doesn't help me understand what we'd be referring to, and I think that the idea of "pure energy" and at least unqualified "transcendence" are incoherent. Energy only works if you have something that is in motion relative to other things, and transcendence unqualified just doesn't seem to refer to anything.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 10:09:49 GMT
It's not that there's always sense data and sometimes you're aware of it and sometimes not. It's that certain situations will produce illusions, say. Whether the illusion should be called "sense data" or not is another issue, but we can just bypass that. It's fine if we say that it's "sense data." I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously. Well, the straw in the water example isn't an example where you're seeing things incorrectly first off. It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid. The misconception there is a theoretical misconception, it's not a perceptual problem. And that theoretical misconception is one where reference point property variance facts are taken out of the picture, and we conceptually interpret data to be telling us or not telling us "what the straw is really like from a reference point-free perspective." There are no reference point-free perspectives, though, and from particular perspectives, what the straw is really like in terms of light waves at that perspective is that it is bent below the water.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 2, 2017 10:51:19 GMT
Do you have to presume physicalism to do science though? Yes. I don't see a single historical instance of any successful scientific program run under the assumption of anything else.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 2, 2017 10:59:14 GMT
Within my original question\statement I made about "purpose", you have shied away from acknowledging the absolute truth of our being and reason for living this human form. I'm not shying away from anything. I'm calling these claims complete and utter bullshit unsupported by anything that resembles logic or reason. This is pseudo-philosophy at its worst. "Absolute truth of our being and reason for living this human form?" That phrase literally means nothing. It's just babble pretending to be philosophy. And no, nothing about this has anything to do with the content of the opening post, which is actually about a very complex and legitimately deep issue in philosophy of mind.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 2, 2017 11:02:04 GMT
But surely reference points imply an observer?" Not at all. It's just a spatio-temporal point. Ok, well in your conversation with Saoradh you say "It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid." - How can it make sense to speak of something looking a certain way without there being a looker? What do you reckon counts as an explanation? That's the whole P-Zombie issue though, right? Someone can tell me they have the phenomenal experience of smelling burning toast when I fiddle with their brain but I can't know what they mean by this phenomenal experience is anything like what I mean by it. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say because they are physiologically similar to myself they likely have the same experience. But then what if a sophisticated robot also says he has the phenomenal experience of smelling toast? If I take him at his word then I am admitting qualia are not brain states as his "brain" is materially and constructually different from mine. If I refuse to accept he is really experiencing qualia then I am question-begging because I am only accepting the testimony of those I already think truly experience qualia. Interesting - would you be a formalist as regards mathematics then?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 11:04:42 GMT
The problem with that is that I believe that consciousness/awareness is physical, so that doesn't help me understand what we'd be referring to, and I think that the idea of "pure energy" and at least unqualified "transcendence" are incoherent. Energy only works if you have something that is in motion relative to other things, and transcendence unqualified just doesn't seem to refer to anything. You sound like you feel that if you can't see it, it's not there. The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements. These elements comprise everything and everything within us. How is "transcendence" unqualified? Why people live their lives believing it is all just a once around astounds me. No wonder there are those, who are many, who feel they are entitled to grab and take whatever they want, be arrogant and stomp all over others just to get a bigger slice of the pie because they believe it's not going to be there later. It's all about appeasing and pandering to their own decadence and self-serving means. How is responsibility then taken for our lives and state of being, if they don't care about the consequences of what is being put out? What we say and do is all action and our contribution is the "purpose" of our being. The work needs to be done on a much deeper and more evolved and resonant level. The resonance means operating at a higher vibration level. Feel the vibe man! It's not life that is the problem, but ignorant humans who are deeply asleep. "You sound like you feel that if you can't see it, it's not there. " That's an incorrect interpretation, because I don't agree with that view. What I'd say instead is, "if (a) there's not at least indirect evidence supporting it, and (b) it doesn't make conceptual sense, then there's no good reason to believe it." Which brings us to this: what would be a good reason to believe "The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements . . . These elements comprise everything and everything within us"? Re "unqualified" re "transcendence," that's simply noting that we're not saying what is transcending what.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:12 GMT
Do you have to presume physicalism to do science though? Yes. I don't see a single historical instance of any successful scientific program run under the assumption of anything else. Can you give me an example of a scientific program that was only successful because the scientists assumed physicalism was true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:51 GMT
I'm not talking about inaccuracies (many of those can be explained away by distorted light or whatever) but that there appears to be an intermediatory between the retina and what is consciously (re)presented. It's important to remember that naive realism is a theory of perception. Perception requires a brain. It's something our brains do. Naive realism isn't a theory of non-perception. Then how would you discern naive realism from indirect realism? What is the core difference between them?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:57 GMT
I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously. Well, the straw in the water example isn't an example where you're seeing things incorrectly first off. It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid. The misconception there is a theoretical misconception, it's not a perceptual problem. And that theoretical misconception is one where reference point property variance facts are taken out of the picture, and we conceptually interpret data to be telling us or not telling us "what the straw is really like from a reference point-free perspective." There are no reference point-free perspectives, though, and from particular perspectives, what the straw is really like in terms of light waves at that perspective is that it is bent below the water. It is an optical illusion dependant on an perciever. The straw is not bent so it must be incorrect. It is caused by refraction.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 11:28:30 GMT
Well, the straw in the water example isn't an example where you're seeing things incorrectly first off. It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid. The misconception there is a theoretical misconception, it's not a perceptual problem. And that theoretical misconception is one where reference point property variance facts are taken out of the picture, and we conceptually interpret data to be telling us or not telling us "what the straw is really like from a reference point-free perspective." There are no reference point-free perspectives, though, and from particular perspectives, what the straw is really like in terms of light waves at that perspective is that it is bent below the water. It is an optical illusion dependant on an perciever. The straw is not bent so it must be incorrect. It is caused by refraction. It's dependent on a reference point. There doesn't have to be a person at the reference point. And there's always a reference point. In terms of lightwaves, the straw IS bent at that reference point. Again, it's a conceptual error to believe that there's a preferred reference point (or set of them), or to believe that "no reference point" is a possible option. It's always a matter of the straw's properties, at reference point r (or points) x, in q respect. The straw's properties, at reference point r, with respect to the lightwaves at r, is that it's bent in the liquid. That's no illusion. That's really what it's like at reference point r with respect to lightwaves. This is an extremely important thing to understand, as it's the case with everything in the world, and understanding it dismantles a lot of confusion, including the supposed "hard problem" of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 11:36:57 GMT
It's important to remember that naive realism is a theory of perception. Perception requires a brain. It's something our brains do. Naive realism isn't a theory of non-perception. Then how would you discern naive realism from indirect realism? What is the core difference between them? Direct realism is a philosophy of perception stance. It's a claim about how perception works. Indirect realism is a combination of a philosophy of perception stance--it's representationalist on perception, plus a theoretical belief about ontology--that there are external-to-oneself objects in the world. Of course, direct realists believe that there are external-to-oneself objects in the world, too--otherwise the perceptual stance wouldn't even make sense as presented, but the "realism" part of "direct realism" is present in the sense of a given (for the stance to even make sense), whereas the realism part of indirect realism is only present as a theoretical construct.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 11:45:36 GMT
It is an optical illusion dependant on an perciever. The straw is not bent so it must be incorrect. It is caused by refraction. It's dependent on a reference point. There doesn't have to be a person at the reference point. And there's always a reference point. In terms of lightwaves, the straw IS bent at that reference point. Again, it's a conceptual error to believe that there's a preferred reference point (or set of them), or to believe that "no reference point" is a possible option. It's always a matter of the straw's properties, at reference point r (or points) x, in q respect. The straw's properties, at reference point r, with respect to the lightwaves at r, is that it's bent in the liquid. That's no illusion. That's really what it's like at reference point r with respect to lightwaves. This is an extremely important thing to understand, as it's the case with everything in the world, and understanding it dismantles a lot of confusion, including the supposed "hard problem" of consciousness. That is like saying there Doesnt have to be a person at reference point x for there to be a person at a reference point x. I see no reason to think an optical illusion caused by failings in the eye is not dependant on it. That is only how it appears to us. It is like claiming that if you look through a glass with peanut butter on it that the thing you would be looking at if the peanut butter was wiped away is actually peanut butter. This absurd to me.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 11:55:49 GMT
It's dependent on a reference point. There doesn't have to be a person at the reference point. And there's always a reference point. In terms of lightwaves, the straw IS bent at that reference point. Again, it's a conceptual error to believe that there's a preferred reference point (or set of them), or to believe that "no reference point" is a possible option. It's always a matter of the straw's properties, at reference point r (or points) x, in q respect. The straw's properties, at reference point r, with respect to the lightwaves at r, is that it's bent in the liquid. That's no illusion. That's really what it's like at reference point r with respect to lightwaves. This is an extremely important thing to understand, as it's the case with everything in the world, and understanding it dismantles a lot of confusion, including the supposed "hard problem" of consciousness. That is like saying there Doesnt have to be a person at reference point x for there to be a person at a reference point x. I see no reason to think an optical illusion caused by failings in the eye is not dependant on it. That is only how it appears to us. It is like claiming that if you look through a glass with peanut butter on it that the thing you would be looking at if the peanut butter was wiped away is actually peanut butter. This absurd to me. "That is like saying there Doesnt have to be a person at reference point x for there to be a person at a reference point x. " No, it isn't. It's like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a reference point. And there doesn't. And that's what I said because of that. A reference point is simply a spatio-temporal point. There do not need to be persons for there to be spatio-temporal points. "I see no reason to think an optical illusion caused by failings in the eye is not dependant on it." I don't know what "it" is there, exactly (there being a person who has an eye?). At any rate, I'd agree that an optical illusion cause by "failings in the eye"--whatever an example of one would be, if there are examples--is dependent on there being a consciously aware creature with an eye. It's just that the straw example isn't an example of this. Maybe there's an example. I don't know. I don't really catalog optical illusions and haven't bothered with them in any detail in some time. "It is like claiming that if you look through a glass with peanut butter on it that the thing you would be looking at if the peanut butter was wiped away is actually peanut butter." That doesn't even make much sense to me to comment on it, but why you'd have trouble understanding that lightwaves at particular spatio-temporal points are such that straws look bent at that point, I don't know. It seems like something very simple to understand to me. I can't imagine kindergarteners having much problem with it even.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 11:59:58 GMT
That is like saying there Doesnt have to be a person at reference point x for there to be a person at a reference point x. I see no reason to think an optical illusion caused by failings in the eye is not dependant on it. That is only how it appears to us. It is like claiming that if you look through a glass with peanut butter on it that the thing you would be looking at if the peanut butter was wiped away is actually peanut butter. This absurd to me. "It's like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a reference point. And there doesn't. And that's what I said because of that. A reference point is simply a spatio-temporal point. There do not need to be persons for there to be spatio-temporal points" " That doesn't even make much sense to me to comment on it, but why you'd have trouble understanding that lightwaves at particular spatio-temporal points are such that straws look bent at that point, I don't know. It seems like something very simple to understand to me. I can't imagine kindergarteners having much problem with it even" I agree with all of this so I have no idea why you think I disagree with it. Nothing in my posts suggests I dont agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 12:03:15 GMT
"It's like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a reference point. And there doesn't. And that's what I said because of that. A reference point is simply a spatio-temporal point. There do not need to be persons for there to be spatio-temporal points" " That doesn't even make much sense to me to comment on it, but why you'd have trouble understanding that lightwaves at particular spatio-temporal points are such that straws look bent at that point, I don't know. It seems like something very simple to understand to me. I can't imagine kindergarteners having much problem with it even" I agree with all of this so I have no idea why you think I disagree with it. If you agree with it then you agree that it's not like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a person at a reference point, for one.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 2, 2017 12:05:53 GMT
Can you give me an example of a scientific program that was only successful because the scientists assumed physicalism was true?
How about: every single one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 12:07:21 GMT
Then how would you discern naive realism from indirect realism? What is the core difference between them? Direct realism is a philosophy of perception stance. It's a claim about how perception works. Indirect realism is a combination of a philosophy of perception stance--it's representationalist on perception, plus a theoretical belief about ontology--that there are external-to-oneself objects in the world. Of course, direct realists believe that there are external-to-oneself objects in the world, too--otherwise the perceptual stance wouldn't even make sense as presented, but the "realism" part of "direct realism" is present in the sense of a given (for the stance to even make sense), whereas the realism part of indirect realism is only present as a theoretical construct. Thanks for explaining. I always saw naive realism as the common sense view that things are seen directly. The case of the straw in the drink is the case in the same way placing tinted cellophane over a window would make everything outside the window appear purple. With indirect realism there is an intermediary between the thing in itself and the perceiver. That being the unconscious mind which does all the editing and filling in and created a new picture. Sort of like the newest smartphone takes great pics but the pics aren't the thing being taken. So it isn't direct but it can be described as realism in that it was shaped by evolution to do what it does and can be assumed it is working well enough most of the time. And the same would be true of naive realism since other organisms have worse or better perception than others. Removing the middle-subconscious mind part would turn it into direct realism and not indirect. Other than that I can't see any difference between the two.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 12:11:37 GMT
"It's like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a reference point. And there doesn't. And that's what I said because of that. A reference point is simply a spatio-temporal point. There do not need to be persons for there to be spatio-temporal points" " That doesn't even make much sense to me to comment on it, but why you'd have trouble understanding that lightwaves at particular spatio-temporal points are such that straws look bent at that point, I don't know. It seems like something very simple to understand to me. I can't imagine kindergarteners having much problem with it even" I agree with all of this so I have no idea why you think I disagree with it. If you agree with it then you agree that it's not like saying that there doesn't have to be a person at a reference point for there to be a person at a reference point, for one. Maybe I misinterpreted you. I thought you were making a similar argument to those that believe colour (the visual experience( is not mind-dependant.
|
|