tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393585416528924730.post1670219265429944696..comments2022-04-13T12:43:18.414-07:00Comments on Theory Parker: I Percieve a Mistaketheoryparkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08193567910878615371noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393585416528924730.post-60841813079929174322013-03-23T19:33:17.270-07:002013-03-23T19:33:17.270-07:00I feel it necessary to clarify exactly where I dis...I feel it necessary to clarify exactly where I dissent with Boghossian’s original and follow-up quotes since it isn’t clear in my original post. I acknowledge that I am at fault in that respect, so allow me to rectify the situation if I can.<br /><br />It is my suspicion that Boghossian feels that perceptions – particularly ones regarding faith – are faulty. If we’re talking about how perceptions line up with an external world we suppose really exists, of course he has a point. Such a point is old news and has been since Descartes. My point is that a perception itself cannot be wrong internally and this leads to a philosophical problem. The disconnect with Boghossian’s quotes begins to occur when he invokes a Corrective Method (CM) for faulty perceptions – reason. Yet reason – that is, inferences – are based upon, ta da, perceptions. To illustrate what I’m saying, let’s consider the McGurk Illusion [click here and follow the instructions in the video’s description]. When you play the video, most likely you hear “da da.” Close your eyes and you hear “ba ba” indicating that something, somewhere is wrong. Or is it? The explanation (given by an external source we believe exists) is that our eyes and ears synthesize a perception different than what our ears alone perceive. But if you run this experiment by me and I tell you I heard “da da,” guess what, I did hear “da da” when I watched the video even if I get a different result – “ba ba” – when I simply listen to the video. You cannot tell me I actually heard “ba ba” even if additional input from my eyes fooled me. I wasn’t fooled. I heard “da da” when watching the video. So, the perception itself is not faulty. To been shown otherwise takes another perception, one that may just as well be faulty as the faulty one and there’s really no way to tell them apart. How, with reason? Okay, I conclude that I heard “ba ba” when only one of my senses were activated. Only now, why can’t I question that perception? How do I know hearing “ba ba” isn’t a faulty perception? If I was just shown a perception can be falsified, they can all be falsified. Isn’t that reasonable of me to think? Sure, at some point even the most annoying philosopher gives up for the sake of getting anywhere with philosophy, but any philosopher does not do so out of necessity. While I agree that perceptions can be faulty, sometimes people believe they’ve reached a point where their perceptions aren’t faulty, to which I respond that such people have no real business reaching that conclusion, for how do they know their conclusions aren’t arbitrary? That question poses a HUGE obstacle for the study of how we know anything; Epistemology. Of course, being a Determinist of any variety pretty much clears the obstacle, only, one could be a Determinist based upon faulty reasoning that is based upon faulty perceptions. <br /><br />I hope this clears things up a bit. <br />theoryparkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193567910878615371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393585416528924730.post-2549131589811673912013-03-23T16:12:58.600-07:002013-03-23T16:12:58.600-07:00(via a continuance of this discussion on FB)
Me: ...(via a continuance of this discussion on FB)<br /><br />Me: All you ever see of a coffee cup is its properties, not the coffee cup (the substance) itself. What is yellow? A property of something reflecting the yellow part of the spectrum. Same difference. What people seem not to understand about what I wrote is the difference between internal observations and external reality and the problems that arise from the difference, assuming there IS an external reality. Now, supposing you could get me to perceive that my coffee cup perception is wrong, what's to prevent your Corrective Method (giving me a perception to counter a perception) from being prone to a counter CM?<br /><br />Scott: If the author of the article (is it you?) had claimed to see an IMAGE of a coffee cup, then I would agree with you. But he did not. Here is what he said:<br /><br />"Even if I’m tired and in fact hallucinating a cup of coffee (a delusion since it’s not there when I reach for it), I cannot deny that I saw a cup of coffee."<br /><br />I could dispute that he saw "a cup of coffee," because a cup of coffee is a real object that has mass, energy, form, and can be verified by other observers.<br /><br />Again, I agree with him that I cannot dispute his claim of "I see yellow" because an image of yellow is still yellow. But it is not equivalent to say "I see a coffee cup" because an image of a coffee cup is not a coffee cup. The two statements are not equivalent.<br /><br />Me: I understand what you're saying, Scott. But the INTERNAL observation of yellow or a cup of coffee cannot be denied. In that context, the statements ARE equivalent. If I never reached for the cup of coffee in my example, I would have never known it was a hallucination. (Was it a hallucination? How do I know the outside world isn't the illusion?) For the record, I authored the blog post, I think.<br /><br />[Somewhere in there, someone yawned…]<br />theoryparkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193567910878615371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393585416528924730.post-28327594766282780312013-03-23T11:58:03.181-07:002013-03-23T11:58:03.181-07:00I am not a philosopher or trained logician, but I ...I am not a philosopher or trained logician, but I see a flaw in your reasoning. Here is what you seem to be claiming:<br /><br />1. If I claim, "I see yellow," you cannot dispute this.<br />2. If I claim, "I see a coffee cup," that is equivalent to the above claim, so you cannot dispute this.<br /><br />I agree with #1, but not with #2. They are not equivalent. Why? Because yellow is not an object. The key is this:<br /><br />An image of yellow is yellow.<br />An image of a coffee cup is not a coffee cup.<br /><br />Take a picture of something yellow, and your picture will be yellow.<br />Take a picture of a coffee cup, and your picture will not be a coffee cup.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293646249581355214noreply@blogger.com