• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 11

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Wikipedia I just posted and this

The only sense in which, on my view, we would say perception is internal would be in the sense that perception is a process in which a change within the organism co-varys with a change in the environment. But again, the organism is not percieving the change in its nervous system; rather, the change in its nervous system just is the perception.
 
And this:

my view, the frog is feeling the change in the pond (the real world) because the change in its nervous system just is the qualitative feeling of heat.

It sounds like your view is direct realism
 
"On my view we perceive reality in a way that is adaptive for us. That's it."

"As far as the claim that we perceive reality "pretty much as it is" which is often found with definitions of direct/naive realism—this is where my view would depart from direct realism. I don't see how anyone could support this view."

"Meaning, I don't think we see reality pretty much as it is extrinsically nor do we see it pretty much as it is intrinsically!"

"I'm not suggesting that perception of reality and reality are completely different."
 
The last statement above (which does seem at odds with the others and that's confusing) I think puts you within "quibble range" of DR in terms of seeing reality PMAII. I'm ok right now with this being DR.
 
I dont think my view is squarely in the DR camp, bc I would not say we perceive reality as it is or even pmaii. However, I'm not in the RR camp because I dont believe percpetion is a replica of reality either.

smcder said:
But the direct realist does not deny that the sunset is radiation; the experience perception has a hierarchical structure,[14] and the radiation is part of what amounts to the direct experience perception.
Click to expand...
We have to maintain a distinction between experience and a perceptual experience.

So if i understand the above correctly, i would agree that the frog directly perceives the temperature of the water in the pond. We could say the perception process/event involves the water temperature changing and the frog's nervous system changing.

However, and this will likely send this good discussion spinning off chaotically into the void, and organism's nervous sytem can and sometimes does change in the absense of changes in the environment.

When the water changes and the nervous system changes, and hotness is experienced, we call that perception.

When just the nervous sytem changes and hotness is experienced, we might call that a hallucination.

smcder said:
"On my view we perceive reality in a way that is adaptive for us. That's it."

"As far as the claim that we perceive reality "pretty much as it is" which is often found with definitions of direct/naive realism—this is where my view would depart from direct realism. I don't see how anyone could support this view."

"Meaning, I don't think we see reality pretty much as it is extrinsically nor do we see it pretty much as it is intrinsically!"

"I'm not suggesting that perception of reality and reality are completely different."
Click to expand...
PMAII <---------> Completely Different

I don't think this is the right way to think about the nature of perception. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. (I know my view is controversial.)

The mainstream view is that phenomenal perception is something that weakly or strongly emerges from the brain, but is then epiphenomenal.

On my monist view, perception is the process of two separate things co-varying in a way in which allows one of those things (the organism) to behave in an adaptive way.

The question isnt to what extent the changes to the organism's nervous system 'appear' like the the environment.

By drawing on objective and subjective evidence (keeping in mind not a true duality) we can gather that objective environmental change X corresponds to nervous system change X1 and nervous system chnage X1 corresponds to subjective experience Y.

So what we are asking here is how veridical is subjective experience Y to environmental change X.

The answer is, as best I can tell, that X is to Y roughly as X is to X1.
 
Last edited:
Soupie said:
I dont think my view is squarely in the DR camp, bc I would not say we perceive reality as it is or even pmaii. However, I'm not in the RR camp because I dont believe percpetion is a replica of reality either.


We have to maintain a distinction between experience and a perceptual experience.

So if i understand the above correctly, i would agree that the frog directly perceives the temperature of the water in the pond. We could say the perception process/event involves the water temperature changing and the frog's nervous system changing.

However, and this will likely send this good discussion spinning off chaotically into the void, and organism's nervous sytem can and sometimes does change in the absense of changes in the environment.

When the water changes and the nervous system changes, and hotness is experienced, we call that perception.

When just the nervous sytem changes and hotness is experienced, we might call that a hallucination.


PMAII <---------> Completely Different

I don't think this is the right way to think about the nature of perception. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. (I know my view is controversial.)

The mainstream view is that phenomenal perception is something that weakly or strongly emerges from the brain, but is then epiphenomenal.

On my monist view, perception is the process of two separate things co-varying in a way in which allows one of those things (the organism) to behave in an adaptive way.

The question isnt to what extent the changes to the organism's nervous system 'appear' like the the environment.

By drawing on objective and subjective evidence (keeping in mind not a true duality) we can gather that objective environmental change X corresponds to nervous system change X1 and nervous system chnage X1 corresponds to subjective experience Y.

So what we are asking here is how veridical is subjective experience Y to environmental change X.

The answer is, as best I can tell, that X is to Y roughly as X is to X1.
Click to expand...

Have a listen to the Kane B video. I'm listening to it again but if I remember he talks about hallucinations and I'll have to listen for what he says re PMAII but In think you may well be square ly in DR.
 
Soupie said:
I dont think my view is squarely in the DR camp, bc I would not say we perceive reality as it is or even pmaii. However, I'm not in the RR camp because I dont believe percpetion is a replica of reality either.


We have to maintain a distinction between experience and a perceptual experience.

So if i understand the above correctly, i would agree that the frog directly perceives the temperature of the water in the pond. We could say the perception process/event involves the water temperature changing and the frog's nervous system changing.

However, and this will likely send this good discussion spinning off chaotically into the void, and organism's nervous sytem can and sometimes does change in the absense of changes in the environment.

When the water changes and the nervous system changes, and hotness is experienced, we call that perception.

When just the nervous sytem changes and hotness is experienced, we might call that a hallucination.


PMAII <---------> Completely Different

I don't think this is the right way to think about the nature of perception. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. (I know my view is controversial.)

The mainstream view is that phenomenal perception is something that weakly or strongly emerges from the brain, but is then epiphenomenal.

On my monist view, perception is the process of two separate things co-varying in a way in which allows one of those things (the organism) to behave in an adaptive way.

The question isnt to what extent the changes to the organism's nervous system 'appear' like the the environment.

By drawing on objective and subjective evidence (keeping in mind not a true duality) we can gather that objective environmental change X corresponds to nervous system change X1 and nervous system chnage X1 corresponds to subjective experience Y.

So what we are asking here is how veridical is subjective experience Y to environmental change X.

The answer is, as best I can tell, that X is to Y roughly as X is to X1.
Click to expand...

"On my monist view, perception is the process of two separatethings co-varying in a way in which allows one of those things (the organism) to behave in an adaptive way.

The question isnt to what extent the changes to the organism's nervous system'appear' like the the environment."

This is discussed too. And he talks about the problems you raise with color.
 
You mention that you're view is controversial and not squarely in this or that camp....but that's how it is with views of individuals: you don't have to sign off line by line to be in the camp - I don't think the confusion lies in your view being unique or mind boggling, I think it's mostly about terminology and communication.

BUT...we'll see ;-)
 
The thermal vision example you give above to me is evidence that we do see the world "as it is".

Do you see the argument for this?
 
smcder said:
The thermal vision example you give above to me is evidence that we do see the world "as it is".

Do you see the argument for this?
Click to expand...
We need to hash out what "as it is" means exactly.

If by "as it is" we mean perception informs us of states if the world, sure.

If by "as it is" we means the world "appears" in the absence of humans as it does in human perception, then no (on my view).
 
Soupie said:
We need to hash out what "as it is" means exactly.

If by "as it is" we mean perception informs us of states if the world, sure.

If by "as it is" we means the world "appears" in the absence of humans as it does in human perception, then no (on my view).
Click to expand...

"by "as it is" we means the world "appears" in the absence of humans as it does in human perception, then no (on my view)."

Is that controversial? Is it a required definition of "as it is" for DR?
 
Last edited:
by "as it is" do we mean the world as it is in the absence of any possible perceiver and/or sum total of perceptions by any possible perceivers (APP)?
 
smcder said:
"by "as it is" we means the world "appears" in the absence of humans as it does in human perception, then no (on my view)."

Is that controversial? Is it a required definition of "as it is" for DR?
Click to expand...
In many definitions of DR it is stated that we perceive the world "pretty much as it is."

I'm trying to understand what that means for a DRealist.

Does that mean that a flower as it is in human perception is pretty much the same as it is?

I say the answer is a resounding no.
 
Soupie said:
I interpret it to mean the former.
Click to expand...

I'll ask it this way.

A thing as it is has aspects (properties) inaccessible to any possible observer...or?

If so...does that mean it has qualities that can have no impact on any possible observer in any perceptible way? If so, the next question is ....
 
Last edited:
smcder said:
A thing as it is has aspects (properties) inaccessible to any possible observer...or?
Click to expand...
I would say probably not. But, the way in which organisms like us "access" these properties is limited. If a thing as it is has property X and we "access" this property via change X1 in our nervous system, this way of accessing the properties of things as they are will only take us so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top