Just another feminist, atheist, humanist, polyamourous, erotic-positive scallywag. S/he who is a complete sex-and-gender rebel, who lives radical trans [(F or M) → x]. S/he who once, reasonably enough, called herself bisexual, but not anymore, because sex-and-gender dimorphism is a misguided model. S/he who has faith in an objective, material and scientific world. S/he who loves freedom of expression, limited constitutional government, free-markets, art and music. S/he who is a romantic, a radical individualist and libertarian. S/he who believes in the direct equation between the divine, the transcendental and the erotic. S/he who is XX, but considers that to be of little significance. And who is often on her knees in adoration before her friends and lovers, who are to be most devoutly revered and desired. Or lecturing them, a wagging finger pointed upwards as in "The School of Athens".
The error, indeed the contradiction in the argument, is to suppose there is a valid definition of “external world”, but then to suffer torments of metaphysical anguish because it seems impossible ever to justify the existence of such a world.
As Gilbert Ryle and Co. were forever pointing out, this definition of an unobtainable “external world” is an empty tease. What is my “internal mental world” being contrasted with? Nothing. So, all of reality has been pointlessly relabelled as mental. Big achievement
We don’t “see” the electrical impulses in the primary visual cortex, or the dorsal and ventral streams, or any other area of the brain. We “see”, by default, those parts of the world that emit electromagnetic waves to which our eyes are sensitive.
All this fascinating neural activity is a correlate of the content of our visual domain, but it is not what we are seeing. It may well be a necessary precondition of seeing things, but it is not the subject of our sense of vision. Cooking is a precondition of my eating the tasty grilled aubergines. But I am not eating the cooker or the act of cooking when I east the aubergines, except in some amusing poetical sense.
No wonder natural scientists think philosophers love to invent non-problems, due to over indulgence in arbitrary redefinitions.
There is a real problem masquerading as the problem of the external world. That is how to validly infer such things as quasi-permanent objects, from the vast array of snapshots. How we logically categorise and order the world – now that is a real issue. The use of nested hierarchies as a measure of information content is one place to start.
Holographic Universe: Its all illusion – Part 1/2
March 6, 2010 by andreaandrewmilne
Hmm, typical bad “idealist” argument.
The error, indeed the contradiction in the argument, is to suppose there is a valid definition of “external world”, but then to suffer torments of metaphysical anguish because it seems impossible ever to justify the existence of such a world.
As Gilbert Ryle and Co. were forever pointing out, this definition of an unobtainable “external world” is an empty tease. What is my “internal mental world” being contrasted with? Nothing. So, all of reality has been pointlessly relabelled as mental. Big achievement
We don’t “see” the electrical impulses in the primary visual cortex, or the dorsal and ventral streams, or any other area of the brain. We “see”, by default, those parts of the world that emit electromagnetic waves to which our eyes are sensitive.
All this fascinating neural activity is a correlate of the content of our visual domain, but it is not what we are seeing. It may well be a necessary precondition of seeing things, but it is not the subject of our sense of vision. Cooking is a precondition of my eating the tasty grilled aubergines. But I am not eating the cooker or the act of cooking when I east the aubergines, except in some amusing poetical sense.
No wonder natural scientists think philosophers love to invent non-problems, due to over indulgence in arbitrary redefinitions.
There is a real problem masquerading as the problem of the external world. That is how to validly infer such things as quasi-permanent objects, from the vast array of snapshots. How we logically categorise and order the world – now that is a real issue. The use of nested hierarchies as a measure of information content is one place to start.
Regards, andrea
Like this:
Posted in YouTube text comments | Leave a Comment
Comments RSS