Philosophy Discussion Forums

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 11:11 am Ok, so there's a fair amount of evidence that suggests that our brains process sensory input unconsciously, and then we become aware of the processed image. So we are aware of the cow in reality, because there is an image of the cow in our mind. There is no reason to think that the mind is aware of the data about the cow being transmitted through or processed by the brain. We do not have to decide to pick up sensory input, nor to process nervous impulses into images, sounds, etc. The brain does that involuntarily.

So just to deal with this first part again. If we're claiming that picture #2 is right--that we're only aware of something created by the brain, then that completely undermines a justification of that claim appealing to evidence of how brains work, because per the very claim we're making, we can't directly observe brains and how they work. We can only observe something created by our brains, and we'd have no idea how that links up to anything external to us, assuming there even is anything external.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 12:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 8:49 pm

Asking me a question that continues ambiguity over exactly what you're claiming doesn't help.

There is no ambiguity here. The question is plain enough.

Your awareness of the external world is ipso facto part of your mental content.

What I'm aware OF is not mental content. How I know what I know is via mentality. What I know is not mentality (not just, at least).

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 4:03 pm

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 11:11 am Ok, so there's a fair amount of evidence that suggests that our brains process sensory input unconsciously, and then we become aware of the processed image. So we are aware of the cow in reality, because there is an image of the cow in our mind. There is no reason to think that the mind is aware of the data about the cow being transmitted through or processed by the brain. We do not have to decide to pick up sensory input, nor to process nervous impulses into images, sounds, etc. The brain does that involuntarily.

So just to deal with this first part again. If we're claiming that picture #2 is right--that we're only aware of something created by the brain, then that completely undermines a justification of that claim appealing to evidence of how brains work, because per the very claim we're making, we can't directly observe brains and how they work. We can only observe something created by our brains, and we'd have no idea how that links up to anything external to us, assuming there even is anything external.

Ummm, no. First, we can directly observe brains and account for the delay between sensory input, brain activity and conscious awareness. This is testable. Second, images in the brain are not "created by the brain" in the sense you are implying, anymore than a jpeg file is "created by the camera". The brain doesn't conjure images through forms of creativity or inventiveness. The images are manufactured in the brain based directly on the raw sensory input and simple, fairly straightforward Neuro-processing.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 2:02 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 12:49 pm

That does not mean I cannot understand the difference between HOW and WHAT, as you rather idiotically suggested.

The comments in question have nothing to do with you or that discussion.

FOR **** SAKE!!!

That is what you said, idiot. It is exactly what started this whole moronic sub-thread.
TRY AND KEEP UP.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 4:04 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 12:51 pm
There is no ambiguity here. The question is plain enough.

Your awareness of the external world is ipso facto part of your mental content.

What I'm aware OF is not mental content.

You get the prize for the most stupid response of the week.
Try to read what people say.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:50 pm Ummm, no. First, we can directly observe brains and account for the delay between sensory input, brain activity and conscious awareness.

If we can directly observe brains then we can't say that we can only observe something our own brains are creating.

Which is fine. I'd say that, too. But then we wouldn't say anything like "We are only aware of a mental model we create." Directly observing brains isn't only being aware of a mental model.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:53 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 4:04 pm

What I'm aware OF is not mental content.

You get the prize for the most stupid response of the week.
Try to read what people say.

You get the award for sustained offense.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:57 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:53 pm

You get the prize for the most stupid response of the week.
Try to read what people say.

You get the award for sustained offense.

I'll take responsibility for that. What you need to do is take responsibility for what you say.
AND remember to keep up with the thread.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:53 pm

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 5:50 pm Ummm, no. First, we can directly observe brains and account for the delay between sensory input, brain activity and conscious awareness.

If we can directly observe brains then we can't say that we can only observe something our own brains are creating.

Which is fine. I'd say that, too. But then we wouldn't say anything like "We are only aware of a mental model we create." Directly observing brains isn't only being aware of a mental model.

Nobody said we are only observing things our brains are creating, except you. For the last 4 pages you have been harping on the same misrepresentation of what I said and after losing count of how many times I explained your misrepresentation, you still continue to repeat it.

Once you "directly observe" something (i.e., your sensory organs detect information about the external world) your brain processes it into images, sounds and other forms of information that we can become aware of. We know this because we "directly observe" brain activity and the way it responds to sensory input from the external world.

I can't say that I'm even disappointed at the degree of density I'm seeing here from you. After all, you proudly insisted that logic has nothing to do with philosophy, so I shouldn't be surprised. The extra effort I'm making to clarify my position is really for my own sake, so it's cool regardless.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 8:59 pm Nobody said we are only observing things our brains are creating, except you.

A mental model is something your brain creates. It's not something you perceive or receive from elsewhere.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 8:25 am

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 8:59 pm Nobody said we are only observing things our brains are creating, except you.

A mental model is something your brain creates. It's not something you perceive or receive from elsewhere.

What is a mental model made of?

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 9:13 am What is a mental model made of?

Brain states, or mental phenomena.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 10:31 am

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 9:13 am What is a mental model made of?

Brain states, or mental phenomena.

Wrong. A mental model is not made of brain states. A mental model is a model (of something) in the mind. It is made of information gathered from sensory input and pieced together through processing, to create a model of the external world in the mind.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 11:00 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 10:31 am
Brain states, or mental phenomena.

Wrong. A mental model is not made of brain states. A mental model is a model (of something) in the mind. It is made of information gathered from sensory input and pieced together through processing, to create a model of the external world in the mind.

Mind is identical to brain states.

The term "mental model" in the context of this thread means, and has meant since I first wrote it, a model in the mind. NOT a model of the mind. The mind (which I have no problem referring to as "brain states") is not in the mind, therefore "brain states" never was never interchangeable with mental model in the context of this discussion.