From: David R (elephant@plato.plus.com)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 20:11:07 GMT
Scott, All,
Scott said
> I have to wonder if you are serious. Sure, there are all sorts of problems
> that arise when we try to precisely define things, but do you really have a
> problem...
Yes I'm serious. Seriously, the very large number of cases like the
puma/branch situation are a problem for your distinction between physical
sense and insight. Seriously, it's open to question, since we haven't
examined the matter yet, as to whether *all* seeing fails to fit neatly into
either 'physical sight' or 'insight' and not both. Seriously, I want to
know what you are talking about when you say 'sense perceptible'.
Seriously, if you know, you ought to be able to answer my question. If you
can't answer my question I will think that you don't know what you mean. So
here's the question again:
>> Try some actual cases of 'I see'.
>>
>> I'm walking home about 5pm in the deepening winter gloom in the dark eyes
> of
>> the forest, and I look up into the branches. I'm startled. I *see* the
>> silouette of a long catty tail hanging down, and the mass of a couched
>> animal. Immediately, without any pause for thought, I find myself stopped
>> and looking up, expecting a growl to emminate - Oh no, that myth about the
>> puma on the prowl: no myth.
>>
>> But no low growl comes. And no flash of eyes. And the movement in the
>> coiling 'tail' is the same for all the trees, just wind. And now I *see*
>> that it's just a knarled branch in a welsh forest, not a hungry killer.
>>
>> Ok, help me out. Is this a case of "physical sight", or of "insight"?
>>
>> If you explain that, maybe I'll understand what you mean by "physical
> sight"
>> and by "insight".
Scott said:
> I have to wonder if you are serious. Sure, there are all sorts of problems
> that arise when we try to precisely define things, but do you really have a
> problem distinguishing conceptually between seeing the keyboard you are
> typing on, having hallucinations, and understanding non-physical things like
> proofs in geometry?. Surely we don't need to get into pathological or
> borderline cases.
Yes we do. Borderline cases are the one's that theorists want to brush
under the carpet when they haven't dealt with them.
David R
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 20:13:39 GMT