tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post108790096036270932..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Objects of PerceptionRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1093753534543657642004-08-29T00:25:00.000-04:002004-08-29T00:25:00.000-04:00[Copied from old comments thread]
Richard, intere...[Copied from old comments thread]<br /><br />Richard, interesting blog! Thanks for your comments to my post. It's funny that our posts resemble one another (purely by coincidence).<br /><br />To my mind, there is something more to the justification of experience. It requires commitment. Commitment is an antecedent condition to belief. So, when someone says, "there's an antelope," the person is committed to the notion that visual perception is not now failing me. Is commitment a priori? hmmm...<br /><br />I've added you to my blogroll as well!<br />Joe | Email | Homepage | 24th Jun 04 - 2:58 am | #<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />Quick question. Have you read Putnam's latest (The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World)? It deals with these questions directly, and takes a novel direct realist approach, arguing that the causal theory of perception is ultimately nonsense.<br /><br />Anyway, just thought I'd make the recommendation, if you haven't already read it.<br />Anonymous | 27th Jun 04 - 10:53 pm | #<br /><br />-----------------<br /><br />Nope, sounds interesting though. I'll add it to my reading list. Thanks for bringing it to my attention<br />Richard | Email | Homepage | 28th Jun 04 - 1:09 pm | #<br /><br />No problem. Like the blog. I put it on my regular rotation.<br />Hunt | Email | Homepage | 28th Jun 04 - 2:05 pm | #<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />The conclusion "it would seem that our perceptions don't tell us anything about the outside world at all" does not follow from the statement "if all we perceive is sense data, not the world itself".<br /><br />True, we do not experience the world directly, but the mechanisms by which we have indirect knowledge have evolved as we have evolved because they correspond to elements of the external world which are import for our survival.<br /><br />eg. the categories of Red and Green are mental constructs as they do not correspond to any discontinuities in the electro-magnetic spectrum. However, the Red/Green aspect of colour perception reflects our more fruitarian past where it was advantageous to discriminate between these two colours.<br /><br />We do not experience and process a random stream of sense data. This activity has honed to reflect our external world.<br /><br />You may be interested in Ramachandran's Reith Lectures - the Emerging Mind:<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml<br /><br />cheers<br />neil | Email | 30th Jun 04 - 12:43 pm | #<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />Neil, you're quite right, though you took my quote a little out of context. You'll notice that I later point out that realism can be saved if "we add in the additional assumption that our sense data are usually caused by, and resemble, real objects".<br /><br />But the skeptic would say we are not justified in making that assumption. Appealing to evolution won't do much good if the external world (and thus all evidence for evolution) is just an illusion<br />Richard | Email | Homepage | 30th Jun 04 - 3:20 pm | #<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />Apologies for not noting #2. Skepticism then becomes a form of solipsism since some of our percption faculties - face recognition for example - have been designed for the external reality of other people. If, for the skeptic, there is no external reality then there can be no other people (as well as no everything else).<br /><br />But as you suggest it is impossible to argue against a pure skeptic position, accept to threaten bodily harm - since as they would deny external reality they should have no objection.<br />neil | Email | 30th Jun 04 - 4:29 pm | #Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com