Freedom of speech

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
I haven't.

Liar.

[Kuciwalker]

Because if we really want to understand how human beings perceive the world around them, we need to do science. We need to look at things like the functioning of the optic nerve, and the parts of the brain that are involved in vision. Perceiving is this in the sense that water is H2O.

"Science" doesn't mean "restrict ourselves to the study of the explicity material world". Science refers to a method, that can be applied to study abstract perceptions just as well as concrete brain states.

(Note: I am not asserting dualism.)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sure there are different perceptions, but as for the actual truth there is only one. Perceptions are not truth, not even in the slightest degree.

And what is "the truth"; how do we know it? And does the world exist outside of our perceptions ("if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?" ? If there are different perceptions about an event how is one know what the "one truth" is to the matter? Is it ever possible to know? If it is never possible to know the "one truth", how can we be sure of its existance?

I wouldn't be sure

Then you are nuts.

You're something to call be nuts after all that nonsense.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Because if we really want to understand how human beings perceive the world around them, we need to do science. We need to look at things like the functioning of the optic nerve, and the parts of the brain that are involved in vision. Perceiving is this in the sense that water is H2O.

"Science" doesn't mean "restrict ourselves to the study of the explicity material world". Science refers to a method, that can be applied to study abstract perceptions just as well as concrete brain states.

(Note: I am not asserting dualism.)

You might as well be. How can you live with your medieval views?

[Kuciwalker]

[Agathon]

You know, whenever I post something philosophical that is extremely pro-science, the science people on Apolyton reject it in favour of some really anti-science view.

It's funny and depressing at the same time.

[Jon Miller]

For what it is worth, I disagree with Kuci.

JM

[Alinestra Covelia]

I stopped following this argument awhile back. It made my head hurt.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon
You know, whenever I post something philosophical that is extremely pro-science, the science people on Apolyton reject it in favour of some really anti-science view.

It's funny and depressing at the same time.

That your philosophical stuff is so inadequate, you mean?



-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
You know, whenever I post something philosophical that is extremely pro-science, the science people on Apolyton reject it in favour of some really anti-science view.

It's funny and depressing at the same time.

I'm waiting for your counterargument, then.

[Kuciwalker]

Simple analogy:

The logical states in a computer program correspond to physical states of the computer. However, we don't say that the logical states "don't exist" because "no one has ever seen one", and it's perfectly legitimate to reason about a computer program in terms of logical states rather than physical states.

Equivalently, perceptions may (do) correspond to physical states in the brain, but that doesn't mean perceptions don't exist and can't be reasoned about independently of the physical brain state.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

That your philosophical stuff is so inadequate, you mean?

No. That the science people espouse weird 17th century views.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Simple analogy:

The logical states in a computer program correspond to physical states of the computer. However, we don't say that the logical states "don't exist" because "no one has ever seen one", and it's perfectly legitimate to reason about a computer program in terms of logical states rather than physical states.

It depends what you mean by "correspond". If you mean some kind of supervenience, then that is a very difficult notion.

I'm not arguing that conscious states exist or that we can be aware of seeing things. My point is that we aren't aware of a "perception" or a "sense datum". If I am aware of a cup, then my awareness is of the cup, not of some internal representation of it. My mental states don't stand like a mirror against the world - they are part of the world.

Equivalently, perceptions may (do) correspond to physical states in the brain, but that doesn't mean perceptions don't exist and can't be reasoned about independently of the physical brain state.

I would agree if you were talking about states of consciousness (I don't count these as sense data in the empiricist way). But that doesn't mean I have to agree that there are such things as perceptions. If all you mean by awareness is what we might call "my awareness of the cup", then that's fine.

My point is that such acts of awareness play no fundamental epistemological role. They aren't foundations for knowledge or anything like that. The Classical Empiricists were saying that, but it's hard to see how it could ever work.