Of course not. I'm not referring to "picture" in that sense of the word. I'm referring it in the sense as the object of the action, e.g. of "taking (photographing) a picture".Terrapin Station wrote:Your photographing something creates a picture --that's what photographing IS. You're not photographing a picture, though. There would have to be a photograph that you're pointing the camera at for that.
Perception and reality
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
The object of the action isn't a picture. You're perpetually confused.RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 10:17 amOf course not. I'm not referring to "picture" in that sense of the word. I'm referring it in the sense as the object of the action, e.g. of "taking (photographing) a picture".Terrapin Station wrote:Your photographing something creates a picture --that's what photographing IS. You're not photographing a picture, though. There would have to be a photograph that you're pointing the camera at for that.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
RJG wrote:Yes, we can be conscious-of-something, but we can't be conscious of our (consciousness-of-something). ...correct?
It seems that you are saying that we can be conscious of our consciousness, or that we can perceive our perceiving (i.e. an action/verb of an action/verb). If so, then this is incorrect, for it is logically and physically impossible to perceive one's own perceivings (actions).Consul wrote:No, we can be (but needn't be) introspectively/reflectively conscious/aware of our extrospective consciousness/awareness.
Or maybe you mean:
- introspectively/reflectively conscious/aware = current perceiving
extrospective consciousness/awareness = past perceiving (aka perception)
We can naturally perceive a 'past' perceiving, but that "past perceiving" only exists as a memory (and not a current perceiving). We can only be conscious of, or perceive that which has already happened. If we perceive an action, then we are really just perceiving the memory (the perception) of that action, and not the action itself.
Time does not allow us to perceive perceivings (actions) directly. We can only perceive perceptions ("past perceivings"). All processes consume time, even the process of perceiving (recognizing, becoming aware/conscious) consume time. So by the time we perceive something, that which we perceive is really just a memory, and not an action (or a perceiving) itself.
Do you not understand the meaning of "taking a picture"? -- Is "taking" an action (verb)? And is the "picture" the object (noun) of this action?Terrapin Station wrote:The object of the action isn't a picture.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
Of course the picture isn't the object of the action. The object of the action is what you take a picture of. You don't take a picture of a picture. Seriously, where did you learn English?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
RJG wrote:Do you not understand the meaning of "taking a picture"? -- Is "taking" an action (verb)? And is the "picture" the object (noun) of this action?
You are using (falsely equivocating) a different meaning of the word "object". Objects (in your meaning) are those things that are in the "picture".Terrapin Station wrote:Of course the picture isn't the object of the action. The object of the action is what you take a picture of.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Perception and reality
Consciousness of consciousness is mental self-consciousness, and—provided introspection is properly regarded as a kind of (nonsensory) perception—I can innerly perceive my perceptual experiences (and the sense-impressions they involve). The objects of introspective perception are the current, present experiential contents of my consciousness; and even if introspection is mixed with retrospection or recollection, it is still different from it, because the introspecting may well take place simultaneously with the introspected (perceptual) experience.RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 1:19 pmIt seems that you are saying that we can be conscious of our consciousness, or that we can perceive our perceiving (i.e. an action/verb of an action/verb). If so, then this is incorrect, for it is logically and physically impossible to perceive one's own perceivings (actions).Consul wrote:No, we can be (but needn't be) introspectively/reflectively conscious/aware of our extrospective consciousness/awareness.
Or maybe you mean:And if so, then I agree with you, as this then equates to "we perceive our perceptions", as I've been saying all along.
- introspectively/reflectively conscious/aware = current perceiving
extrospective consciousness/awareness = past perceiving (aka perception)
We can naturally perceive a 'past' perceiving, but that "past perceiving" only exists as a memory (and not a current perceiving). We can only be conscious of, or perceive that which has already happened. If we perceive an action, then we are really just perceiving the memory (the perception) of that action, and not the action itself.
Time does not allow us to perceive perceivings (actions) directly. We can only perceive perceptions ("past perceivings"). All processes consume time, even the process of perceiving (recognizing, becoming aware/conscious) consume time. So by the time we perceive something, that which we perceive is really just a memory, and not an action (or a perceiving) itself.
Extrospective perception (the sensory perception of external things or events) is different from retrospection or recollection too—despite the fact that e.g. when I see a star I don't see it as it is (now or simultaneously with my seeing it) but as it was many years ago. Nevertheless, seeing a star is different from recalling or remembering one's seeing a star.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
What sense of the term are you using so that your comments wouldn't suggest that you simply don't understand English?RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 3:07 pmRJG wrote:Do you not understand the meaning of "taking a picture"? -- Is "taking" an action (verb)? And is the "picture" the object (noun) of this action?You are using (falsely equivocating) a different meaning of the word "object". Objects (in your meaning) are those things that are in the "picture".Terrapin Station wrote:Of course the picture isn't the object of the action. The object of the action is what you take a picture of.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
Are you familiar with SVO (subject-verb-object)? You might want to look it up. It might help you better understand English.Terrapin Station wrote:What sense of the term are you using so that your comments wouldn't suggest that you simply don't understand English?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
Not that philosophy is "analysis of sentences I can construct" but you're apparently not familiar with "SVO" because the object of "taking a photograph" or "taking a picture" or "photographing" is not a photograph/a picture. Again, terms like "taking a photograph" or "perceiving" are effectively transitive. We need to say what we are photographing or perceiving. It's the answer to "photograph of" or "perception of." The answer to that "what" is the object.RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 8:07 pmAre you familiar with SVO (subject-verb-object)? You might want to look it up. It might help you better understand English.Terrapin Station wrote:What sense of the term are you using so that your comments wouldn't suggest that you simply don't understand English?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
I don't see how this is at all possible. The 'contents' of perceptions must exist prior to our consciousness (or perceiving, sensing, detecting) of said contents.Cosul wrote:Consciousness of consciousness is mental self-consciousness, and—provided introspection is properly regarded as a kind of (nonsensory) perception—I can innerly perceive my perceptual experiences (and the sense-impressions they involve). The objects of introspective perception are the current, present experiential contents of my consciousness; and even if introspection is mixed with retrospection or recollection, it is still different from it, because the introspecting may well take place simultaneously with the introspected (perceptual) experience.
It is physically impossible to sense, detect, perceive, etc anything 'instantaneously' or 'simultaneously' as it is happening. Sensing, detecting, perceiving are 'processes'. And ALL processes consume time. We can't know or perceive anything, including our own internal thoughts instantaneously. We must first 'recognize' them to 'know' we had them. Recognition is a process that doesn't, and can't, happen instantaneously.
When we perceive our inner perceptions they can only be 'past' experiences not 'present/current' ones, regardless of what we've read/or have been told. We can't do the impossible.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
Not so. Consciousness is a physical brain process. It is the process (memory/brain interaction) of 'recognition'.Terrapin Station wrote:You're looking at consciousness as if it's something other than brain processes.
Consciousness is the singular experience (bodily reaction) of 'recognition', made possible by 'memory'. It is this process of recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious bodily experience.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Perception and reality
You don't consider simple awareness to be consciousness?RJG wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 9:00 amNot so. Consciousness is a physical brain process. It is the process (memory/brain interaction) of 'recognition'.Terrapin Station wrote:You're looking at consciousness as if it's something other than brain processes.
Consciousness is the singular experience (bodily reaction) of 'recognition', made possible by 'memory'. It is this process of recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious bodily experience.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Perception and reality
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023