hypericin

No? I think of it as entirely phenomenal. When you visualize, or play a song in your head, is that not phenomenal?

No, I mean thinking. When you think to yourself, "I'm having a nice day", you are generating the phenomenal experience of a voice in your head saying ...

I'm not sure of this. Selfhood (in my perhaps idiosyncratic view) consists in the organism voluntarily generating its own phenomenal experience. This ...

Then what can you say you do with the visual components of your dreams? With the auditory components?

we are talking about the single act of looking at a tree

is any of what a neurology textbook describes about vision visually perceptable?

There is absolutely something in between: all the neural machinery that, however it does, produces perception. This is readily distinguishable from th...

Yes. I am not denying seeing trees, I'm describing what seeing trees is.

Who in that tread was rejecting realism?

Except I make no such claim. The tree is real, and the tree as represented experientially is not the "way the tree really is". It is likely a faithful...

"hysterical"? "Pathologically certain"? Myself, I would ascribe these to the monomaniacal author of the 100s of posts long antivax crusade. But that's...

With touch, your body is directly interacting with the perceived object. But touch is not special. Like other senses, touch, via sensory receptors, mu...

On the contrary, I'm quite certian I'm not "seeing the tree as it really is", as this is nonsensical, an oxymoron. To perceive is necessarily to trans...

Not just a casual chain, a series of fundamental transformations, between which there is nothing "direct".

If I were attacking a position nobody holds no one would disagree with me.

Reacting to who's claim? His mental strawman he points at and shouts "Bad Argument! Stove's Gem!"

Exactly, it is incoherent. And yet they strut and prance as if their naivete were in fact sharp insight. That is what is most objectionable.

Not at all, experience is actively constructed, it is not a passive process. It's the direct realist that believe experiences are passively received f...

Our eyes are directly affected. The central claim of direct or naive realism is that we perceive things "as the are". Apples look red because that's r...

Yes. This is a question you can ask of all philosophy.

Then we do what with it? What is at stake is not vocabulary debates over how "see" shall or shall not be used, but rather how perception should be und...

What is at stake is the nature of perception. Claims like Are contradictory and fundamentally misunderstand perception.

Reflected light is what the eye directly interacts with, not the tree. Only in this sense do we "only see" the reflected light.

To see something *is* to experience it via its reflected light, so yes you see the tree. The argument is not that you don't see it, but that you see i...

Rather, you do not *directly* see the tree. To see is to indirectly experience something visually.

When you see a tree, you are directly seeing not the tree but it's reflected light. That is one level of indirection. Your body might tumble around an...

Exactly right, the tree transforms the light that reflects off it, which transforms the chemical activity of the light receptors, which transforms ele...

It is reasonable to treat the mental act of categorization as part of the perception. It is also reasonable to distinguish it from the perception.

We perceive directly. Perception is a transformative process. How can these be consistent?

Direct realism is logically impossible. To perceive something means to translate it's sense data into a form that is apprehendable by an agent. This i...

Does this imply that an amended science could account for the mental? What could that amendment look like?

It seems that recently our willingness to grant consciousness to others has increased recently. I was surprised to see Sartre, the philosopher of subj...

Precisely because we have no answer to the hard problem, we don't know definitely, we can only make educated guesses.

The hard problem seems inescapable. Even if you claim, "phenomenal consciousness is an illusion", the question remains, "why do some systems experienc...

After what, 100 posts on this topic? You demonstrate you have no clue what the hard problem is. At least read this: https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-o...

Free Olivier5!

In other words, the activity of that entity.

You can only say that because you have the advantage of the 20th century knowledge that the ether doesn't exist.. In the 19th century there were very ...

This suggests that the origin of the explanatory gap is theoretical, if only the wrong theory wasn't chosen there wouldn't be one.. I can't see how th...

Hi Ukraine. How's the weather up there, cold enough for ya? Sorry about Dnipro and all. I'm sure you have your ideas on how to proceed from here, but ...

A complaint typically levied by those lacking the virtue in question.

In the literary sense it doesn't have to be free of phenomenal content. It just means that the point of view is not tied to any one character: Philoso...

The fact that we share a common experiential ground stems from the fact that we share a common world, as well as a common neurology. Nonetheless I can...

For new posters, and even someone like me, that is not that a big deal. But Olivier5 had thousands of posts, and more importantly, real relationships,...

Except it is not. It is a voluntary community, moderated ideally for that communities benefit. There was no benefit here afaict, rather the mere assua...

If communication requires common experiential ground, this seems to rather imply the privacy of experience. If experience were communicable, then the ...

A few things struck me as odd. Why does epiphenomenalism "threaten"? So what if ? Are we supposed to reason towards what elevates our self esteem and ...

If I'm not understanding you correctly, maybe it would help if your "argument" was the least bit coherent. On the one hand, we "have" experiences, yet...

So do you experience them as public, external, effable? Im confused how much all these disagreements are due to conceptual differences and how much ar...

Why waste our time demanding evidence for something you wouldn't deny? Bishops move diagonally for historical reasons. History and science are both ne...