Perception and reality

[Terrapin Station]

If your position is that logic (because that is set theory expressed in its purest form) has nothing to do with philosophy, then that explains why miscommunication between us in this thread has been so frequent.

My position is that set theory has nothing to do with philosophy of perception or how our minds epistemologically or ontologically link up with the world.

Re your other post above, how, on your view, do you know you're interacting with the world, receiving any sort of information from the world, etc.?

At this point, I'll just say read what I wrote above regarding this question. Key words to look for are "objective" and "survival".

You claimed that you are interacting with the world, but you didn't justify how you'd know this.

[Prof Bulani]

I answered your question about how we interact with the world on numerous occasions. I even broke it down into enumerated steps. Every time I answer this question, you misread and misrepresent my response, assume that my position is something it isn't, ignore what I actually write, and repeat the question.

[Terrapin Station]

I answered your question about how we interact with the world on numerous occasions. I even broke it down into enumerated steps. Every time I answer this question, you misread and misrepresent my response, assume that my position is something it isn't, ignore what I actually write, and repeat the question.

For example, you wrote this:

"New information is constantly being added to the contents of an individual's mind, through sensory input and internal mental processing"

"Information gathered via sensory input is knowledge that comes from experiencing and interacting with objective reality"

Those are claims that you're gaining information from sensory input from the external world.

They're not justifications for HOW YOU KNOW, on your view, that you're gaining sensory input from the external world.

[Prof Bulani]

You know you are gathering information from the external world because, as a result, you are navigating the external world in such a way as to sustain your survival. If the perception of the external world in your mind in no way resembled the actual external world, you would be unable to navigate the external world, and you wouldn't be able to sustain your own survival.

[Terrapin Station]

You know you are gathering information from the external world because, as a result, you are navigating the external world in such a way as to sustain your survival. If the perception of the external world in your mind in no way resembled the actual external world, you would be unable to navigate the external world, and you wouldn't be able to sustain your own survival.

If you're only aware of a mental model you create you can't arrive at knowing that you're navigating the external world. What seems to be an external world and the navigation of it could be only your mental model.

"If the perception of the external world in your mind in no way resembled the actual external world, you would be unable to navigate the external world"--that's making the assumption that there's an external world to navigate in the first place, but if you're only aware of a mental model you create, you can't arrive at knowing there's an external world to navigate, that your model needs to resemble in some way.

[Prof Bulani]

If you're only aware of a mental model you create you can't arrive at knowing that you're navigating the external world. What seems to be an external world and the navigation of it could be only your mental model.

I'm not going to repeat this again. Your sensory input and mental processes are constantly adding new information to your mental contents, thereby constantly updating your your mental model. As such, you become aware on new information.

"If the perception of the external world in your mind in no way resembled the actual external world, you would be unable to navigate the external world"--that's making the assumption that there's an external world to navigate in the first place, but if you're only aware of a mental model you create, you can't arrive at knowing there's an external world to navigate, that your model needs to resemble in some way.

I have established that there is an external objective reality. This is not an assumption, but the logical extension of the existence of self. Of course, you blankly dismissed this demonstration because your position is that logic has nothing to do with philosophy.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my model, but there's a simple solution to that. Rather than assume that my model fits into one of the cookie-cutter philosophical schools of thought that you're familiar with, try simply reading what I actually write without preconceived notions.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not going to repeat this again. Your sensory input and mental processes are constantly adding new information to your mental contents, thereby constantly updating your your mental model. As such, you become aware on new information.

I'll repeat this again though. Given that you believe you can only be aware of a mental model, you can't know that you actually have sensory input rather than the illusion of the same.

I have established that there is an external objective reality. This is not an assumption, but the logical extension of the existence of self. Of course, you blankly dismissed this demonstration because your position is that logic has nothing to do with philosophy.

Again, I didn't say that. The problem is that you're appealing arbitrarily to a stipulated definition in set theory. That of course doesn't make something a logical necessity, and especially not an epistemological (or ontological) necessity.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my model,

I understand it fine. My goal is to get you to realize why it's not at all tenable as stated.

[Sculptor1]

I'm not going to repeat this again. Your sensory input and mental processes are constantly adding new information to your mental contents, thereby constantly updating your your mental model. As such, you become aware on new information.

I'll repeat this again though. Given that you believe you can only be aware of a mental model, you can't know that you actually have sensory input rather than the illusion of the same.

I have established that there is an external objective reality. This is not an assumption, but the logical extension of the existence of self. Of course, you blankly dismissed this demonstration because your position is that logic has nothing to do with philosophy.

Again, I didn't say that. The problem is that you're appealing arbitrarily to a stipulated definition in set theory. That of course doesn't make something a logical necessity, and especially not an epistemological (or ontological) necessity.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my model,

I understand it fine. My goal is to get you to realize why it's not at all tenable as stated.

Do you have any candidates for the mysterious wizard that is creating all these illusions that you seem to want to claim is feeding your mental model?
Does this mystery force/person has a purpose in generating a complete updating mental picture?

[Terrapin Station]

I'll repeat this again though. Given that you believe you can only be aware of a mental model, you can't know that you actually have sensory input rather than the illusion of the same.



Again, I didn't say that. The problem is that you're appealing arbitrarily to a stipulated definition in set theory. That of course doesn't make something a logical necessity, and especially not an epistemological (or ontological) necessity.



I understand it fine. My goal is to get you to realize why it's not at all tenable as stated.

Do you have any candidates for the mysterious wizard that is creating all these illusions that you seem to want to claim is feeding your mental model?
Does this mystery force/person has a purpose in generating a complete updating mental picture?

I'm a direct realist, so you'd need to ask Prof Bulani or someone who is emphasizing a "mental model" view.

[Prof Bulani]

Do you have any candidates for the mysterious wizard that is creating all these illusions that you seem to want to claim is feeding your mental model?
Does this mystery force/person has a purpose in generating a complete updating mental picture?

Where are you getting an implication that anybody said anything about mysterious wizards and forces?

[Sculptor1]

Do you have any candidates for the mysterious wizard that is creating all these illusions that you seem to want to claim is feeding your mental model?
Does this mystery force/person has a purpose in generating a complete updating mental picture?

I'm a direct realist, so you'd need to ask Prof Bulani or someone who is emphasizing a "mental model" view.

FFS
You said this "I'll repeat this again though. Given that you believe you can only be aware of a mental model, you can't know that you actually have sensory input rather than the illusion of the same."

[Prof Bulani]

Do people in this forum actually read and understand what other people write? Sculptor, you are responding to terrapin's misrepresentation of what I wrote. Terrapin has no idea what I mean by "mental model" (its simply another term for perception), and keeps harping on a single line where I said that what we are aware of is equivalent to what's in our mind, pretending to ignore the multiple times I explained how we are constantly gaining new information. He wants to believe that my position is somehow related to representationalism (which it isn't) because he is prepared to refute that position.

Then you come along talking about mysterious forces and wizards, possibly in an effort to derail the thread even further. And in doing so you are accusing terrapin of supporting a position he has been opposed to all along.

I don't know what to say. Reading what people were saying isn't difficult. Yet it seems like the preferable convention is to project easily discreditable positions onto others, despite that not being their position in the slightest.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm a direct realist, so you'd need to ask Prof Bulani or someone who is emphasizing a "mental model" view.

FFS
You said this "I'll repeat this again though. Given that you believe you can only be aware of a mental model, you can't know that you actually have sensory input rather than the illusion of the same."

The idea being that you have no way to ground it to anything else, assuming there is anything else, IF you can only be aware of a mental model.

[Terrapin Station]

Do people in this forum actually read and understand what other people write? Sculptor, you are responding to terrapin's misrepresentation of what I wrote. Terrapin has no idea what I mean by "mental model" (its simply another term for perception), and keeps harping on a single line where I said that what we are aware of is equivalent to what's in our mind, pretending to ignore the multiple times I explained how we are constantly gaining new information. He wants to believe that my position is somehow related to representationalism (which it isn't) because he is prepared to refute that position.

It's really just an issue of either we're ONLY aware of our mental models, or we can be aware of other things, too--like objective things that we directly experience. It doesn't work to have it both ways.

[Prof Bulani]

It's really just an issue of either we're ONLY aware of our mental models, or we can be aware of other things, too--like objective things that we directly experience. It doesn't work to have it both ways.

Sigh...

1. The sum of everything known by an individual at any given point in time (what they are aware of) is that individual's mental content

2. New information is constantly being added to the contents of an individual's mind, through sensory input and internal mental processing

2 a. Information gathered via sensory input is knowledge that comes from experiencing and interacting with objective reality

2 b. Information accumulated from internal mental processes includes that which connects knowledge from objective reality into a more cohesive model, sometimes filling gaps in the model that is missing from direct sensory input.

3. As new information is added to the mental content, the individual learns things other than what was in their mental content at step 1.