Well, I did say "inasmuch" and "almost".I clicked agree for the rest of your post. On this point, however, I note that not all members can successfully communicate.
Upvote
0
Well, I did say "inasmuch" and "almost".I clicked agree for the rest of your post. On this point, however, I note that not all members can successfully communicate.
I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.Your illogic is consistent, I'll give you that.The 'reality external to them' is still a model perceived by someone.
If really pressed upon my belief system I have been known to claim adherence to that delightful concept from Robert Heinlein - pantheistic, multi-person solipsism!I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.
I've found that with most people there is at least some semblance of logic to their madness, although you may have to look very hard to find it. Of course I'm also aware that quite often I'm one of those people.
Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.....I would guess that most of us don't take these semantics under advisement when someone tells you their car is red....
You see only Solipsism, which prevents you from seeing the perspective .. which is actually a consistent conclusion, abundantly evidenced, from an objectively testable, scientifically formed hypothesis.I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.
Your self-confessed madness aside (and noted), the highly useful point of the underlying hypothesis however, (which actually demonstrates that minds conceive everything in the notion of 'an external reality'), is in highlighting the almost absolute reliance upon the very common belief at the core of philosophical Realism. Such an absolutist view completely negates the abundance of objective evidence supporting the role the mind plays in the way we perceive the universe .. (which is about as close to 'madness' as I can think of).partinobodycular said:I've found that with most people there is at least some semblance of logic to their madness, although you may have to look very hard to find it. Of course I'm also aware that quite often I'm one of those people.
I agree. But we know about rods and cones. We know about transmission of signals from the eyes to the brain. In principle we could measure how objects that reflect various wavelengths trigger effects/processing in the brain. I imagine some degree of this has been done, but you have to filter out, the fact that it is a car, that it is parked at such-an-such an angle, etc. It should be much easier if you're using 3x5 cards, say, in a fixed environment with a limited number of variables.Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.
But is each internal experience just like mine? Probably, I'd guess. But who really knows?
Its interesting to go back and exploring how we all originally learned that 'red' is red.Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.
But is each internal experience just like mine? Probably, I'd guess. But who really knows?
I don't think we have to suspect that .. its objectively demonstrable. One conclusion is pretty clear is that we all process 'sensory information' in similar ways .. which is not so surprising, given that we (objectively) all also posses the same brain type, which incorporates the 'rods and cones' model as the primary explanation.But, too, it's possible that the responses would be so scattered as to prohibit any kind of reasonable guess. But ... I rather suspect that the first scenario is more likely.
Sure, lets say we can in-principle understand all the physical processes of color apprehension. Do you think that would be sufficient to grant access to another persons first-person experiences? I'm skeptical.I agree. But we know about rods and cones. We know about transmission of signals from the eyes to the brain. In principle we could measure how objects that reflect various wavelengths trigger effects/processing in the brain. I imagine some degree of this has been done, but you have to filter out, the fact that it is a car, that it is parked at such-an-such an angle, etc. It should be much easier if you're using 3x5 cards, say, in a fixed environment with a limited number of variables.
I also imagine that we haven't come to much of a conclusion or we might have heard about it. I suspect, however, that what we will find human responses will fall in a bell-curve of possible responses. That is, we can expect X percent of response to fall with Y standard deviations from the mean.
But, too, it's possible that the responses would be so scattered as to prohibit any kind of reasonable guess. But ... I rather suspect that the first scenario is more likely.
I think its fine to say that your 'first person experience' there, is common enough across the whole human population, to give credence to saying such experiences are real phenomena and therefore exist.(But maybe I've fallen into one of those philosophical traps of chasing down something that doesnt exist in any way. Like the notion "first person experience" is just an artifact of how we think about things rather than a real phenomenon. I dont think so. But would be interested to hear why I'm wrong.)
Sure, and the discussion assumes that model. ISTM that without that model, there's nothing to discuss and no one to discuss with.The 'reality external to them' is still a model perceived by someone.
Through intersubjective communication, I suspect that we all suspect that our experience of "red" independent of cars and apples are much the same. If we were able to neutralize confounding variables (like when statisticians control for income and race and gender, etc.), and we saw that the exact (for some useful degree of exactness) same areas of the brain were lit to the same degrees of intensity, etc., we might reasonably conclude that we all experience red the same way--At least the "we" that don't suppose some sort of mind-body duality.Sure, lets say we can in-principle understand all the physical processes of color apprehension. Do you think that would be sufficient to grant access to another persons first-person experiences? I'm skeptical.
(But maybe I've fallen into one of those philosophical traps of chasing down something that doesnt exist in any way. Like the notion "first person experience" is just an artifact of how we think about things rather than a real phenomenon. I dont think so. But would be interested to hear why I'm wrong.)
Assuming "red's", (for eg), actual existence, external from the very mind perceving it, is a nonsensical proposition. The discussion only becomes objectively useful without references to assumptions based on such untestable beliefs.Sure, and the discussion assumes that model. ISTM that without that model, there's nothing to discuss and no one to discuss with.
How would it be objectively useful without assuming objective reality?Assuming "red's", (for eg), actual existence, external from the very mind perceving it, is a nonsensical proposition. The discussion only becomes objectively useful without references to assumptions based on such untestable beliefs.
Good question. One has to actually recognise (via testing) how the phrase 'objective reality', which you used there, acquires its meaning.How would it be objectively useful without assuming objective reality?
ISTM that's how we arrive at what we call objective reality - continual testing, both formal (scientific) and informal (everyday interaction). As Philip K Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".Good question. One has to actually recognise (via testing) how the phrase 'objective reality', which you used there, acquires its meaning.
That process doesn't call for completely ignoring the mind required for assigning the meaning of that phrase.
Photons are light ... which is a form of energy.We don't know what kind of image, or reaction a dolphin imagines when it uses echolocation for instance. But if it creates a kind of imagery in the dolphins mind, then is that image real..? In the same way, when humans detect light, by photons passing through our eyes, is the light *actually* as real as our minds perceive it to be?
IOW, perhaps the sun is *actually* very dark, and perhaps, the world is pitch black in reality... But we perceive it differently because of our brain's unique ability to interpret photons in a useful way.
Also ... your sense of smell and taste.Light is bouncing off my lunch and into my eyes. I see that. The visual form of my lunch is corroborated by my sense of touch. I'm not grasping how this is illusory.
At different scales, the lunch would be described differently. But why should I privilege those other scales as "more real"?
One should consider the corroboration of our senses. Our eyes present an image of the world around us ... which is almost 100% corroborated by our other senses.I was just curious if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality, or do our eyes just perceive photon reflections, off of objects and photon detection, as illumination.
IOW, are our eyes deceiving us, causing a mental picture of our surroundings by exploiting it's own unique ability to analyze photons?
Your eyes are consistently and accurately interpreting sensory data of a particular wavelength of light.But it still leaves me wondering why we generally see the stoplight as red and not yellow?