Re: Deconversion

On Jan 28, 11:19 pm, Paul <pgr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, but the post exists before you look at it.

Depends what you mean by 'post' - please clarify. If you're meaning
some binary data on a disk within one of Google's servers, then I
agree with you. If you mean the visual perception on my screen, then I
disagree.

Yes. Binary data on the disk, I think we agree on this point.

But that's not what I *see* - I see characters on my screen.

Put another way, what I see is all in my mind

But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers,
so the post is not all in your mind.

I did not say that, that interpretation is in *your* mind :-) I merely
asked what you meant by 'post', and you've replied. But if that's what
you meant by 'post', its not what I see, and I've been speaking about
what I see, not what's on Google's servers.

Even when you view it the post is
still partly outside your mind. Kant made this point, but he also
pointed out it's partly a construct of your mind.

Kant talked about posts on servers ? I'm gobsmacked he was so forward-
thinking. Do please cite a reference.

No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how
does everyone see the same tree?

They don't all see the 'same tree'. They construct their own tree, and
I assume that the biology of the brain/eye makes them look jolly
similar, but I can't know this and neither can you.

Yes I can. If I say "Did you see that tree shaped like an armchair
you're likely to know what I'm talking about (if you've looked at the
same tree).

Likely to, I agree. But likelihood isn't knowledge.

If os, we can say we have seen the same tree. It is not
just our pwn tree because we agree on features that apply to the tree.
There is some 'in itselfness' of the tree independent of our minds.

No, that thing which gives rise to the tree in our minds isn't a
'tree' itself, that would be way too confusing, just as the 'trash
can' on my Windows desktop isn't a real wastepaper basket but an icon
representing one. I agree that whatever it is, its independent of each
of our minds.

I agree that there

is something 'outside my mind' but since no-one can know what that is,
what's the point of speculating ?

We cannot know things in themselves but we can agree that there is a
shared objective reality which we can grasp in some way through our
(very) limited sensory and mental apparatus.

I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality'
isn't what we both see - in other words, it contains no 'trees' but
rather things which trigger the construction of trees in our minds.

If it was all in your mind there
wouold only be your tree and no way for everybody to agree that, say,
it has four branches.

Broken dualist thinking I'm afraid. Having my tree in my mind in no
way precludes you from having your tree in your mind. The way that we
agree how many branches it has is by whatever gives rise to both our
trees in each case being the same thing (unknown and unknowable) and
us both having pretty similar brain/eye biology so that the trees we
both construct we are able to agree on. Furthermore, being able to
agree (beyond merely on branches) depends on us both having been
taught the same names for colours in our respective cultures, not
forgetting such basics as having a common meaning for 'branch' and so
on.

So what gives rise to the commonality between our impressions of the
tree? You are sounding like a Berkelian idealist -- are yu suggesting
that the tree is an idea in the mind of God?

I already said, its commonality in our biology, plus commonality in
our upbringing if we come to compare our two trees using language.
When you speak of the tree, are you referring to what's prior to the
tree (in unobservable 'objective reality') or are you talking of the
two trees in our two minds ? What's prior to the tree could indeed be
an idea in the mind of God, its as good a suggestion as any.

my mind
projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality'
for me.

The mind has to have some external reality to work with to create a
shared objective reality.

I agree with the first part, disagree that there's a 'shared objective
reality'. There's symmetry between both of our constructed subjective
realities.

So you agree there is an objective reality?

Yes, but since its unavailable to our experience, that means its
irrelevant. What you and I see isn't it; its the input to both of our
perceptual processes which result in the output of 'tree' in each of
our conscious awarenesses.

How, then, can you state
that everything is just an idea in your mind?

I said that its all in my mind, I didn't say its an idea.

Maybe 'shared objective
reality' was badly put, I think I agree with your (well put) 'symmetry
between both of our constructed subjective realities'. That symmetry
is objective reality as we can know it, but we cannot know objective
reality as it is in itself.

OK, so we are coming a little closer to agreement. We just need to
agree on nomenclature - you are now using 'objective reality' in two
rather different ways - in one way 'as we can know it' and in another,
as something we cannot know 'in itself'. This is rather confusing to
me :-)

Your mind does the same for you - we are 'windowless monads'
to borrow a phrase.

Sounds like Leibniz? I'm trying to push Kant's view, which seems to
express reality better to me. How can windowless monads see the same
tree?

There needs to be a window so each monad can look out and agree
the tree has four branches.

That's dualism for you! The eyes aren't that window - if they were,
why does 'reality' stay still when we move our gaze elsewhere ? Why
doesn't 'reality' disappear when our eyes saccade? How is it that
'reality' is 3D whereas all our retinas have is 2D images?

They are windows in that they let in some sensory data from the
outside world.

That 'outside world' of course not actually being 'reality' (as we
know it) but rather the unknown world of 'objective reality'. Or as
Gordon Globus might put it, 'reality is not world-like'.

Of course, that data has to go through our mental
filter, our mind construct the 3D images that make up our image of
reality (although reality 'in itself' might be very different!)

Well its not 'image of reality' - it is rather reality as we know it.
What we know is the *output* of our mental filter, not its input.

There's a dualism.

Yes, but that dualism is illusory when carefully examined.

It doesn't seems so to me. There's me, and there's the tree. I agree
my mind has a lot to do with creating how the tree appears to me. But
there is still a me/tree duality.

So you say, and you're a dualist, so this makes perfect sense :-) When
you've dissolved your self-image, you'll realise your mistake.

If I dissolve my self image there will not be a self to realise
anything.

You've lost me. Once you have dissolved your self-image, your true
self (Rogers' 'organismic self') will be in the ascendent. You do seem
to confuse self with self-image.

Richard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deconversion
    ... so the post is not all in your mind. ... does everyone see the same tree? ... I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality' ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how ... wouold only be your tree and no way for everybody to agree that, say, ... projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality' ... Don't follow this line of reasoning as to why something can't be me ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers, ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... shared objective reality which we can grasp in some way through our ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality' ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Two photons... relative distance question
    ... I'm viewing as tree and it doesn't show ambiguity that way. ... I have not forced an absolute reality above. ... Otherwise we face the George Hammond pit of non-existence. ... guaranteed not to be applied in practical life, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)