The common pop supposition is that since we only “see” the model of the chair, and not the chair-in-itself, there is no chair-in-itself.
A bit of consideration might show you that this is an invalid argument. It is entirely possible that we only ever see the model of the chair, and yet there is a chair-in-itself.
There is a stronger point, the simple one, implicit in Austin, that seeing the chair consists in constructing a model of the chair. Austin points out the error of supposing that we infer the chair from the model of the chair that we perceive. He points out that seeing the chair is not a two-step process of inference from a model.
We don’t have two things, the chair and the model. We just have the chair.
You seem to be just repeating statements meet by your friend Austin I’m letting them hang out there without justifying them. I don’t even know whether you were saying only the thinking self exists and we just have magical knowledge of it, or if you’re saying only the representation exists, not the thing in itself.
Do you also don’t seem to be speaking to the reasons I say there is the fundamental reality that is being represented and the representation.
Okay, in the opening paragraph I should’ve been more specific about how far my anti realism goes. I wanted to keep the opening paragraph a little shorter.
I’m not an anti-realist about everything with respect to science and what I refer to as things that are representational, I am a structuralist, not an anti realist. I believe that the universe has a structure and we can represent it to some degree. We however process this representation in evolutionary sensible ways. The information that we used to process the representation with is however not representative of a external reality, it’s just the way we need to process the representation in order to replicate our genes. I am an antirealist about this processing information and for me, meaning is a type of processing information. So not an anti-realist list about everything. When I say meaning, I mean felt meaning, right and wrong, good and bad, morale and immoral. This why I am. able to say things about the world and believe the things that I they say have representative value of world external to myself.
The definition that I gave was not the definition of anti-realism it was the definition of existential nihilism. I just pulled it of the internet, it isn’t mine.
“the philosophical view that life has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value, making human existence fundamentally absurd and without objective significance”
People hear the phrase existential nihilism, and they just assume what I am talking about is the most self defeatedly extreme version of nihilism. Existential nihilism only says that life has no objective, intrinsic meaning. It isn’t saying humans can’t create there own none objective meaning or that words don’t have meaning. I am not an epistemological nihilist. I do believe that we can generate epistemologist that do or at least can have representative value. There is nothing wrong with being an existential nihilist and not an epistemological nihilist. I think this undercuts your argument that nihilism is self defeating
Granted that perception consists of perceptual processes, but that’s no “evidence” for the idea that a model or representation follows. You blindly assume that the processes model or represent the object, and ignore the possibility that the processes enable you to see the real object directly (ie. not by way of a model). By assuming a model you detach perception from reality. You’d never see anything real directly, hence the skepticism or nihilism even.
See, again “information” muddles different kinds of information. Beliefs are indeed representational, but perceptions are not. A perception presents the real object in your conscious awareness so that you can form a belief that represents the object.
I did. You can also look up Austin’s famous criticism of sense-data theories, Searle on direct realism, or Putnam on color realism.
Because it takes a perceptual process to see an object. Now if you see the real object by way of seeing a representation, then you’d need a second process to see the representation, and a third process to see the representation of the first representation, and so on. By logic this becomes an infinite regress, and shows that the blindly assumed representation makes little sense.
Right, but as an object of perception, the object literally is the perceptual experience. There is no way to distinguish the experience from the object. Doesn’t mean that the object is a construct of the processes that are constituitive for having the experience. They’re separate things, like you say.
Well, it means that appearances arise under conditions of satisfaction. The way an object appears in your visual field is fixed by the conditions under which you see it. For example, distance and angle of view, light conditions, material properties that determine the scattering of photons and so on.
For example, the optical illusion of a straw that looks bent in a glass of water is not a flaw in some perceptual representation of the world, but exactly what it should look like under such conditions of observation. We see the refraction “bend” the straw. It would be unreal if we’d see a straight straw despite of the refraction.
Yes, I agree with what you’re saying. I just don’t see where the problem is.
I think there would be a logical problem with being an epistemological nihilist, and then having an opinion on existential nihilism, or anything else for that matter.
I don’t think that there is, however, a logical problem with overtly not being an epistemological nihilist and then saying things about existential nihilism. there is no reason that not being an epistemological nihilist means I also need to not be an existential nihilist. Indeed, my naturalistic epistemology which I am not a nihilist about forms the basis of, and is the justification for my existential nihilism.
In other comments I have given I have described the epistemological basis for why I am not in a personal logical list, but I am an existential nihilist.
In brief, we have representative information that we used to represent philosophically real patterns in nature that we can build a representative epistemology from. We also have processing information that we used to process our representative information into evolutionarily reasonable output values. This processing information it’s not representative of the philosophically real patterns that exist in nature. What we call meaning is processing information and therefore is not philosophical real, therefore under the definition previously given I am an existential nihilist.
It’s a scientific fact you don’t see anything directly. How do you know anything about the process by which we see and say that we see things directly.
The Photons of light only interact with retinol changing its shape. This changes the amount of intact and broken apart G protein which changes the amount of a chemical called cGMP, which changes the rate proportion of a particular type of sodium channel to be open, which changes the rate of depolarisation of the photo receptor cell, it changes the amount of neurotransmitter it releases into the synapse ups with the bipolar cell. Which changes the rate of activation of the bipolar cell with this process being modulated by other neurons which is integral for the processing of colour and creation of contrast. And this is all before the information has left the eye.
Did you watch the video about retina topic maps? They can literally see the model in your brain of the object you are looking at.
“ignore the possibility that the processes enable you to see the real object directly” this is an oxymoron. If you need a process to gain introspective access of an external object, then you don’t have direct introspective access to that external object. You have indirect introspective access through the described process.
The use of the word seeing can confuse this as it can refer to both the process by which you gain introspective access to a representation of the object and the representation of the object itself. This double meaning of the word seeing is what your whole argument is based on.
The process that the word seeing can refer to start with photos hitting the retinol and flows all the way through the brain to where you gain the direct introspective access. So when referring to seeing as the process itself, you can say that this process is direct in that directly interacts with the photos.
When you use the word seeing to refer to introspective access to the representation of the external object, in this sense, seeing isn’t direct. This is because you have an entire Rube Goldberg machine of internal process that sits between the photo and anything you have introspective access to.
What you are in effect doing is smearing imprecise language of folk philosophy on a precise and well understood process. You were trying to reduce the complex process into the phrase seeing and conflict the process of seeing into direct introspective access.
Anybody who knows anything about science can see through your misleading use of language.
To say it’s an assumption that there’s a representation of the object in the brain just so you know nothing about neurology or you’re at least in denial about it’s straightforward implications
You didn’t. This is the first time you’re referring to any of this stuff you mentioned your boy Austin’s before, but not in this context. Also a criticism of one theory isn’t a justification of your own theory I’ve read plenty of BS criticisms of the naturalistic approach to representation. I will give you the 2 a look though.
There’s zero evidence for your assumption that the process of seeing is or makes a mental model, by way of which you’d see things indirectly.
So you point at a brain-event under the assumption that it is a model in order to prove that it is a model? That’s circular reasoning, not so scientific.
Interesting word combinations, but you’d be “introspecting” your own mental model, and never see the real object directly. Your “access” wouldn’t be perceptual even but entirely mental and blind.
The logic is clear, if seeing is representational, as you claim, then you access the object by way of seeing a mental representation. It means you see the representation, not the object.
If you were an existentialist, then you would have room to combat meaninglessness of life via arts, love and philosophy.
But if you are an existential nihilist, then you would not even accept the room or hope for overcoming the meaninglessness of life.
Therefore, it follows that your position of being an existential nihilist doesn’t have meaning either, from which you must start all over again on what you want to become.
Look, I’m not making up the definition, it is what it is. I’ looked it up in multiple sources if you have an. actual different definition please quote it. I’m unaware of any definition of existentialism that includes meaning that we personally generate.
Existentialism and existential nihilism are not incompatible ideas. In fact existentialism is really a response to existential nihilism. It is basically accepting the central existential nihilist premise and answering it by saying yes fundamental meaning doesn’t exist but we can create our own meaning. This isn’t contradicting existentialism and saying isn’t true. It’s next step in thought. You can be an existential nihilist and still believe that there’s HOPE in overcoming meaninglessness. All you have to do to recognise this is by reading the definition of existential nihilism, either the one I provided or the one that you find.
I think what you’re fundamentally doing is conflicting your idea of nihilism means, with existential nihilism is defined as meaning.
Just read the definition and and accept that this is the way it’s defined.
It is not matter for definition. It is a logical problem.
If you deny all the meanings in the universe, then generating your own meaning on something sounds contradicting act, whatever the newly generated meaning was about.
Zero evidence? I’ve given you a list of evidence. Cut the optic nerve and stick a pin in the retina. Cut a piece of the visual cortex out, see what happens.
Your whole bit about it being an assumption that the retina topic is evidence for us having a model of the world in our brain is odd.
What do you think is meant by a model in the brain? What is meant is neuronal activity occurring in the brain in a way that preserves information about what is happening outside the brain. The retanatopic map is recording increased metabolic activity of neurons resulting from increased firing of the neurons. The increased firing of neurons in shape of the object seen by the monkey constitutes a model/representation of the object that the monkey was shown before it died. The existence of this kind of internalization of external information by the brain constitutes a model and was predicted to exist, looked for and found. I think this qualifies as evidence.
When you cut open the scull of epileptic patients and stimulate there visual cortex neurons with electrodes they have the introspective experience of seeing things whether or not their eyes are closed. This is the introspective experience of sight with your eyes closed. You add this to the retanatopic map and everything else mentioned we have evidence.
“Interesting word combinations, but you’d be “introspecting” your own mental model, and never see the real object directly. Your “access” wouldn’t be perceptual even but entirely mental and blind.”
Yes although the visual model is being continually updated to fit with information hitting the retina. Also the self doing the introspecting is also a model generated by the frontal and pre-frontal cortex. A model that models it access to the visual model as seeing.
“The logic is clear, if seeing is representational, as you claim, then you access the object by way of seeing a mental representation. It means you see the representation, not the object”
Yes. Like a shadow on the cave wall isn’t the object that is casting the shadow.
I read those philosophers you previously suggested and they don’t provide a naturalistic explanation about how we see without utilizing brain generated models. Nobody has because nobody can
So whether A is compatible with B isn’t dependent on the definition of A? How’s that?
With any logic problem, you need to start with defining what you are using logic to understand the relationship of.
Who in the world is denying all meaning in the universe? Surely you can’t mean me.. I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I am not denying the existence of meaning made by humans. I don’t know how much more explicit I can be about this.
If you think that by me saying I’m an existential nihilist, I am denying the existence of the meaning that humans create, this is where the definition of existential nihilism is important.
You seem insistent on telling I am saying things that not only have a not said, I have explicitly told you I am not saying.
As per the definition of existential nihilism, I am only, with emphasis on the word only, denying that fundamental objective meaning exist. I am explicitly not saying that human generated meaning doesn’t exist. Human generated meaning quite obviously
And probably quite uncontroversial does exist.
Find a quote where I “deny all the meaning in the universe.” or definition of existential nihilism that “Denys all the meaning in the universe.”
No, you give a technically saturated version of a crusty old idea from the 1600s, Descartes idea that you’d experience the world via the pineal gland somehow.
The processes and details in your list are obviously constituitive for a conscious perceptual experience. But it doesn’t follow that the object of the experience is an element of the processes, nor that they’d construct a representation inside your brain open to view for some other part of your brain (the homunculus).
Your confusion of processes with the object arises from your use of the term information processing which muddles beliefs and perceptions (and other mental states). A belief about the object you see represents the object in your head. The visual experience of the object presents the object in your head. The latter means that you see the object directly, not by way of seeing something else first.
You can impair or manipulate the processes, e.g. remove your ability to see colours. You will then see the object exactly as it should appear under such conditions of observation (without colours). You’re not seeing it by way of seeing something else first. That’s what it means to see it directly. It’s your direct access to our shared reality.
I am pleased you now acknowledge the definition of existential nihilism to be relevant. Given this you should read the definition of existentialism I provided or as I suggested find your own and quote it.
Having read multiple definitions of both existential nihilism, and unqualified nihilism you are conflicting existential nihilism with unqualified nihilism.
Also Camus does not deny that words have definitions. Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote.
I would have thought an authentic existential nihilist does create his own meaningless meanings and definition-less definitions on the existential nihilism without quibbling on the others’ definitions.
The reason you would’ve thought that is because you don’t have the correct definition of existential nihilism.
If I’m wrong about how I’m defining existential nihilism, I am happy to stop calling myself an existential nihilist. Nobody however has quoted me a different definition. Have you even looked up the definition of existential nihilism, look it up and quote to me what it says.
