Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Here's the point where I have to remember CN's wise words: Don't make fun of people with severe mental problems. I'm really sorry and wish you good luck (which you really really need)
Our experience of the world is a simulation of data. The brain doesn’t show us the world directly; it constructs a model from sensory data. What physics calls “light” isn’t actually luminous. The universe is pitch black. Electromagnetic radiation has no brightness in itself. Without conscious observers, the universe doesn’t look bright or colourful; it’s just energy and matter
Stars still give off light though, even on dead lifeless planets that orbit them.
There's no sufficient amount of time to prepare for your stupid, childish posts....the universe will be empty and dark at some point in the far far future but your horrible lack of education will still linger.
Every single one of your posts is childish and stupid, what are you even on about? Why is this guy still here when all he does is insult people and doesn’t seem to have anything to contribute?
I’m neither affirming nor denying a physical reality. I’m not making claims about ultimate reality with that. My point is that whatever reality is, the world we experience isn’t it directly. It’s an internal model built from incoming signals.And “brain” is part of that experienced world too. The brain I talk about in everyday language, the one I picture inside my skull, is itse
Then you’re just talking about a different thing from what we were talking about.
I think he’s saying that light isn’t intrinsically er “light” nd the only thing that makes it look “light” is the interaction of eye and brain.
I think he’s saying that light isn’t intrinsically er “light” nd the only thing that makes it look “light” is the interaction of eye and brain.
As plants don't have eyes or brains, this would apparently fail to account for photosynthesis.
And, you know, every single other nuclear, chemical or biological process, since it wouldn't get very far without electromagnetism.
I don’t really know enough about quantum mechanics to mentally map this out, but in certain theories what you’re really looking at is just one of the many possible worlds when you open the box, so if you’re standing outside of one of these possible worlds (box), what’s going on is one of those things once observed. So the box stands for all the possible worlds or just one of th
This stuff gets hard quickly imo. In many worlds interpretations the wave function doesn't collapse. If it was just a case of which of the many worlds are we in then that I think that would be just be classical physics. The worlds have to interfere with each other in some way.
A lot more beer is required.
I think he’s saying that light isn’t intrinsically er “light” nd the only thing that makes it look “light” is the interaction of eye and brain.
I know what he's saying, I just disagree for the reason I mentioned. As d2 said it's the whole falling tree thing, really. Just because we don't see or perceive it, doesn't mean it's not objectively there.
Dark matter is widely accepted as existing, despite being invisible, for example.
I’m neither affirming nor denying a physical reality. I’m not making claims about ultimate reality with that. My point is that whatever reality is, the world we experience isn’t it directly. It’s an internal model built from incoming signals.And “brain” is part of that experienced world too. The brain I talk about in everyday language, the one I picture inside my skull, is itse
This is just Schopenhauer.
I know what he's saying, I just disagree for the reason I mentioned. As d2 said it's the whole falling tree thing, really. Just because we don't see or perceive it, doesn't mean it's not objectively there.
Dark matter is widely accepted as existing, despite being invisible, for example.
We know many invisible things that exist. That's not his point. He's not saying that light doesn't exist but making some daft and somewhat irrelevant point about its appearance or even whether things have an appearance outside of how they're perceived by the animal kingdom.
* exist as in exist in the same realm that we exist in.
That's my claim. In support of that I'm saying, light as we experience it as luminosity is not a property of the physical universe. It's a property of our perceptual apparatus. Luminosity is what our mind uses to render and simulate that data as what we see.
That's my claim. In support of that I'm saying, light as we experience it as luminosity is not a property of the physical universe. It's a property of our perceptual apparatus. Luminosity is what our mind uses to render and simulate that data as what we see.
The energy of a photon or the frequency/amplitude of an electromagnetic wave are objective phenomena, though, whether you choose to call that "luminosity" or anything else you like.
That's my claim. In support of that I'm saying, light as we experience it as luminosity is not a property of the physical universe. It's a property of our perceptual apparatus. Luminosity is what our mind uses to render and simulate that data as what we see.
I’m failing to understand what you think is different about simulation from perception. It just seems like you are using the word simulate to mean perceive. Like there is some ball in front of me that is red, I just see some reflection of light off the ball that hits my eyes and goes into my brain somehow, and that’s just what it means to perceive the redness of the ball.
If you say, well you’re not perceiving the ball, you’re just perceiving the mental image of the ball, well I don’t see what the mental image is doing in that story other than just being another physical thing that we can point to. Like, ok there’s the ball and then there is the brain state that corresponds to me seeing the ball. But that’s where the story would end, in just another physical facts of the world. What enables me to see the ball? It’s the brain state over here.
Whether I’m seeing the “thing in itself”, the nominalist about composite objects is just always going to deny that there is a thing in itself to see, because they would say that the ball is fundamentally particles. But the cause of the brain state is not our brain simulating, it’s our brain perceiving.
Is a mental image a physical thing? Whatever it is, it can exist without the ball existing and with it existing but not being perceived. Our brains do a lot of work with various transducers to try to keep out model of the world coherent with the real one. There is a gap though.
Our perception at any time is to some extent (maybe a very large extent) based on that model as well as any current inputs such as sight.
Is a mental image a physical thing? Whatever it is, it can exist without the ball existing and with it existing but not being perceived. Our brains do a lot of work with various transducers to try to keep out model of the world coherent with the real one. There is a gap though.Our perception at any time is to some extent (maybe a very large extent) based on that model as well a
If a “mental image” is presupposing something other than the brain state that it’s corresponding to, it might just be objectionable to the physicalist that there is such a thing as a “mental image” that exists in reality.
That “there is a gap” is precisely what the physicalist doesn’t want to say. They want to say that there is no gap.
To illustrate this, if there is a gap, what exactly would the gap be? A soul? A mental substance? Some other entity that hasn’t been proposed yet?
I don't mean anything like that. it's the skeptical gap. We sustain a model of the world in our brains neural net using various feedback mechanisms. That model is not a perfect or direct representation of the external reality. When we see something it is both interpreted using that model and updates that model.
I’m failing to understand what you think is different about simulation from perception. It just seems like you are using the word simulate to mean perceive. Like there is some ball in front of me that is red, I just see some reflection of light off the ball that hits my eyes and goes into my brain somehow, and that’s just what it means to perceive the redness of the ball.If you
What about the vivid imagery in dreams? Isn't that just a simulation?
