Olivier5

Your rejection of emergence and your panpsychism are both illogical, and are thus rejected.

Don't you worry about me.

It works wonders. Should be used more often if you ask me, on scores of other problems. Whence art? Panaesthetism is the answer: atoms love beauty too...

In other words, it's an easy way out of the problem, which avoids dealing with emergence.

I don't remember.

This planet will be gone to ashes by then.

Assuming that you trust your speculation shivers and your logic shivers, note that, in order to offer any structure shiver to your memory shivers, a n...

Just pointing out that recognizing red apples implies a certain prior knowledge of red and of apples.

The question is: reconstructed based on what? Surely not some image bank like in a computer; I agree with Fury and you on this, because it's hard to r...

Vote.

Musical interlude. Yellow shines best in the dark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQ0QlFnBgA

Far more reasonable than what you usually say. If they can dream, they can imagine and recall scenes.

Tell that to the plants around you. Apparently they have some capacity to learn and yet none to maintain narratives.

In the experiment where a crow learns to fetch a red object to get food, one could conceive of red objects as symbols for food. In this sense, to use ...

That's what I meant too. If you can remember events from the past, you must have some way to record them.

Meaning?

So how do you explain your own memories?

If all organisms and even plants can learn, they can link past and present events, in the present. How do you explain that if no trace of the past is ...

I beg to differ. Your premise says nothing about storing traces or not storing traces.

That an organism can learn is beyond dispute. Even organisms without neurones display an ability to learn. This ability must logically be supported by...

I tend to stick to simple ideas here.

How does "active participation in person-sees-fruit events" helps you in any way, if you cannot recognize some similarity with a previous event? If th...

Couldn't help it... I'm aware the correct answer is 'practice'. But to recognize an apple, one needs to have some clue about how apples look like.

It's in the big apple.

How do you know these were apples, and not quinces?

It means that perception can be explained by physical mechanisms, and that absent these mechanism, you won't be able to perceive anything... No mechan...

The perception must have a mechanism.

Could you be more specific?

What what?

"That kind of things" are found at the core of many scientific questions. We do see anthropomorphic figures everywhere, we can't help it. I guess it's...

So what? It is still important to distinguish conceptually between objects as perceived (objects of perception), and objects as they are in the world.

Granted that it's probably "as direct as can be", but direct still means (in this context): without intervening factors or intermediaries. Which is no...

I have. Yes, it's consistent with my views but I believe illogical in calling itself "direct". That there are signals in the environment, already mean...

Sorry but for me, the concept of direct perception is an oxymoron. By definition, all perception is indirect. Kant, noumena vs phenomena, the thing in...

He can be a bit verbose but not vainly so. I'm on the same general vibe and consider him quite solid and intellectually honest. Consider him a non-naï...

I take my clues from Merleau-Ponty, but both Gibson and MP draw on this from the Gestalt psychology of Hurt Koffka et al. MP explicitly cites Gestalt ...

See you around when you feel better.

As explained to Banno, this is agreeable because factual, but we still seem to disagree on the meaning of it. I have insisted on understanding the bio...

Why do you think so? Why is it so important to correctly (or not too incorrectly) define ourselves?

We're still on the topic of what it means to perceive. We agreed it implies an object and a mind perceiving it. This characterization seems to make bi...

Not at all, you just need to keep tabs on the menagerie. Don't confuse the brains in vats with the brains in bats, for instance. In the final analysis...

That should surprise you, who think of them existing in some separate planes.

And yet they can perceive apples.

Then I'll eat it before you do...

Because of the menagerie of fantastic creatures that populates this site, and that must come from some old medieval treatise on exotic beasts with two...

And who is "we", in this context? How would you describe these things you call "I", "we", "you"?

We agreed already that it's red. What we still disagree about, I think, is what we mean when we say that it's red. I mean (among other things) that I ...

By this token, eyes don't see, because eyes don't have eyes... :lol: It's a system. It's made of interconnected pieces. Each piece does its own work, ...

I know, and I was checking that you agreed there was a mind seeing the apple. As pointed by Jamal, there was some legitimate reasons to doubt that. No...