Perceptual Structure

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore at triad.rr.com
Tue Sep 19 04:08:36 EST 2000


>If perception requires copies, then how is it that we
>perceive the copies? Putting the world inside the
>head is no explanation of perception.

IAN: Well, we do perceive data inside our brain and
I  suspect we can agree that that's what happens
when you  are dreaming during sleep. Exactly how
that happens is  a deeper issue than that which I've
addressed in my  essay:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/paranorm.htm

Glen: No, we don't perceive "data inside our brain."
We "must do something else with it" since
perceiving requires copies.

IAN: Furthermore, the fact that we may not now be
able to  answer the question of how the brain
perceives data  in it is not a counter argument to the
proposition  that all perceived data is in the brain.

Glen: The problem is not empirical. Nothing will
make "perceive" mean something that it does not.
You are correct that we don't understand the
neurobiology of perception........but then again, we
don't understand the neurobiology of anything.

IAN: I may not  know how my car converts gas into
motion, but I can know that all the gas it converts is
inside the car. Likewise, I may not know how my
brain converts the data that goes into it into the
things I perceive,  but I can know that all the data I
perceive has  already entered my brain and been
proceed therein.

Glen: This assumes the cogency of the notion that
"data...enter[s] [the] brain" and that the metaphor of
"processing" is likewise cogent. Notice that I am not
saying that physiological events are irrelevant, just
that referring to their role in the same terms that we
use to refer to the behavior of whole people (see
below) is silly.

IAN: The claim that we see anything outside of our
brain  is automatically refuted by the physical fact
that  you can't perceive a thing before data radiating
from it has reached and entered your brain.

Glen: This is nonsense. But I don't expect you to
understand, and I do not expect you to even attempt
to understand. Anyway, the real problem lies in the
definition of "see," "hear," etc. and in the definition
of definition. The latter is closely related to the
notion of usage - that is, we glean the "meaning" of
a term from seeing how it is used. Given this, it is
obvious that when we say something like "John
ducked when he saw the ball coming," we are not
examining John's brain......we are examining his
behavior-in-context (if that is not redundant). To
then take the word "see" and apply it to events
inside the brain is as silly as it is widespread.

IAN: I believe that this is hardly a disputable matter.

Glen: Oh really? A representationalist that can see
the world no other way? How unique!

IAN: Given that all perceived data is inside the brain,
it follows that all you perceive is in your brain,
and is a representation of the unseen external world.

Glen: Who has "given" this? The notion that the
world somehow penetrates the person is the worse
thing that ever happened to psychology, philosophy,
and neurobiology.


"Ian Goddard" <igoddard at erols.mom> wrote in message
news:39c664ee.169817845 at news.erols.com...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:52:39 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <gmsizemore at triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >If perception requires copies, then how is it that we
> >perceive the copies? Putting the world inside the
> >head is no explanation of perception.
>
>
>   IAN: Well, we do perceive data inside our brain and I
>   suspect we can agree that that's what happens when you
>   are dreaming during sleep. Exactly how that happens is
>   a deeper issue than that which I've addressed in my
>   essay: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/paranorm.htm
>
>   Furthermore, the fact that we may not now be able to
>   answer the question of how the brain perceives data
>   in it is not a counter argument to the proposition
>   that all perceived data is in the brain. I may not
>   know how my car converts gas into motion, but I can
>   know that all the gas it converts is inside the car.
>   Likewise, I may not know how my brain converts the
>   data that goes into it into the things I perceive,
>   but I can know that all the data I perceive has
>   already entered my brain and been proceed therein.
>
>   The claim that we see anything outside of our brain
>   is automatically refuted by the physical fact that
>   you can't perceive a thing before data radiating
>   from it has reached and entered your brain. I
>   believe that this is hardly a disputable matter.
>   Given that all perceived data is inside the brain,
>   it follows that all you perceive is in your brain,
>   and is a representation of the unseen external world.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
> ____________________________________________________________
> Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story
>
>
>
>







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list