Is the world a hallucination?

[Dillinger4]

so the world isnt real, but it isnt a hallucination?

Not read any then?

Because you would know that existentialists have solved the problem of the external world. ESPECIALLY Merleau-Ponty. You would love that book if you read it. It would solve all your unbelievably stupid philosophical problems.

 

[max_freakout]

in order to have a concept of real, you must also have a concept of unreal

 

[Jonti]

... and vice-versa?

 

[Dillinger4]

It is a false dilemma, like selamar said. Based on a false distinction.

Its funny how you lie about what you have read.

 

[max_freakout]

so is the world a hallucination or isnt it?

 

[selamlar]

in order to have a concept of real, you must also have a concept of unreal

Balls. Imagine if you only had experience of one colour, say red. You then see a blue ball, something that you previously had no knowledge or conception of. Would you have to assume that this ball was also red?

 

[Brainaddict]

by 'world' i mean the phenomenal manifestation, does it refer to something outside of itself?

Let me try putting it this way: your implied category 'outside of the phenomenal manifestation' is a silly arrangement of words. It is grammatically correct but is otherwise meaningless, in the same way 'all blue is square' is meaningless - just a construction of words that bears no relation to how our minds operate.

 

[Dillinger4]

so is the world a hallucination or isnt it?

Nope.

 

[Dillinger4]

Let me try putting it this way: your implied category 'outside of the phenomenal manifestation' is a silly arrangement of words. It is grammatically correct but is otherwise meaningless, in the same way 'all blue is square' is meaningless - just a construction of words that bears no relation to how our minds operate.

Couldn't put it better myself.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

It is grammatically correct but is otherwise meaningless, in the same way 'all blue is square' is meaningless - just a construction of words that bears no relation to how our minds operate.

arent humans capable of abstract thought?

 

[selamlar]

arent humans capable of abstract thought?

Abstract isn't the same as bollocks.

 

[Dillinger4]

arent humans capable of abstract thought?

 

[Dillinger4]

Dont answer. Its a cleverly disguised trap in which i-have-no-idea will draw back the curtains on our sham of reality.

*shudders*

 

[jonH]

is this for real?

 

[Dillinger4]

Yep

 

[d.a.s.h]

I see the words appear on the screen as i type them, but am i seeing the screen itself? or my mind's representation of the idea of the screen?

You're not seeing the screen itself, but experiencing something constructed by your visual cortex. It doesn't have to look the way it does. All the matters is that it consistently represents what it does.

 

[max_freakout]

Nope.

the world isnt a hallucination

so the computer screen I see in front of me is real

but if i was dreaming that i was typing on a computer, the screen might be identical to this one, but it wouldnt be real, because dreams are hallucinatory experiences, the objects perceived in them, do not refer to objectective existence outside the mind


so how do we distinguish dreams from reality, in terms of their phenomenal appearance?

 

[Jonti]

Not read any then?

Because you would know that existentialists have solved the problem of the external world. ESPECIALLY Merleau-Ponty. You would love that book if you read it. It would solve all your unbelievably stupid philosophical problems.

Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Merleau-Ponty ...

The first sentence of The Structure of Behavior reads, "Our goal is to understand the relationship of consciousness and nature: organic, psychological or even social" (SB, 3). In the philosophical field that Merleau-Ponty entered, the question concerning the relationship of consciousness and nature was dominated by two distinct approaches: on the one hand, what Merleau-Ponty would call ‘objectivism’, understood as naturalism in philosophy, behaviorism in psychology, and mechanism in biology; on the other hand, what he calls ‘intellectualism’, that is, the neo-Kantianism which loomed large in France at that time, particularly the thought of Brunschvicg. Merleau-Ponty's own position emerges as he critically negotiates his way between these two approaches. In The Structure of Behavior, he argues against naturalism and objectivism, however, he does not employ the epistemological resources of the Kantian tradition. In his rejection of an epistemological starting point, Merleau-Ponty's position resembles that of Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The Hegelian influence on The Structure of Behavior should not be underestimated. Like Hegel, Merleau-Ponty ‘starts from below’, which is to say, he does not begin with an analysis of a subjectivity which would constitute the condition of possibility for the appearance of objectivity. Rather he turns his attention to the research that was currently being done in the psychology and the biology of his day, attempting to demonstrate that the actual results of this research contradict the explicit ontology that subtends it.

 

[Dillinger4]

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[selamlar]

so how do we distinguish dreams from reality, in terms of their phenomenal appearance?

I'm tempted to say 'Go on stand in the middle of the road and see what happens'.

But that would be immoral.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

This isn't a paradox, its a false dilemma. You've got yourself caught in the horns again.

I'm not struggling over which horn to keep tho. There are other ways 'out'.


The classical responses are to either choose one of the two horns and refute the other or alternatively to refute both horns by showing that there are additional choices. Pirsig then mentions three illogical or rhetorical responses. One can "throw sand in the bull's eyes" by, for example, questioning the competence of the questioner. One can "sing the bull to sleep" by, for example, stating that the answer to the question is beyond one's own humble powers and asking the questioner for help. Finally one can "refuse to enter the arena" by, for example, stating that the question is unanswerable.

 

[max_freakout]

You're not seeing the screen itself, but experiencing something constructed by your visual cortex. It doesn't have to look the way it does. All the matters is that it consistently represents what it does.

my visual cortex, is presenting to my awareness a visual representation of a screen, what is being represented by this representation?

Does it represent something which isnt itself?

 

[Dillinger4]

the world isnt a hallucination

so the computer screen I see in front of me is real

but if i was dreaming that i was typing on a computer, the screen might be identical to this one, but it wouldnt be real, because dreams are hallucinatory experiences, the objects perceived in them, do not refer to objectective existence outside the mind


so how do we distinguish dreams from reality, in terms of their phenomenal appearance?

 

[Dillinger4]

I'm not struggling over which horn to keep tho. There are other ways 'out'.


The classical responses are to either choose one of the two horns and refute the other or alternatively to refute both horns by showing that there are additional choices. Pirsig then mentions three illogical or rhetorical responses. One can "throw sand in the bull's eyes" by, for example, questioning the competence of the questioner. One can "sing the bull to sleep" by, for example, stating that the answer to the question is beyond one's own humble powers and asking the questioner for help. Finally one can "refuse to enter the arena" by, for example, stating that the question is unanswerable.

Arrogance.

 

[selamlar]

I'm not struggling over which horn to keep tho. There are other ways 'out'.


The classical responses are to either choose one of the two horns and refute the other or alternatively to refute both horns by showing that there are additional choices. Pirsig then mentions three illogical or rhetorical responses. One can "throw sand in the bull's eyes" by, for example, questioning the competence of the questioner. One can "sing the bull to sleep" by, for example, stating that the answer to the question is beyond one's own humble powers and asking the questioner for help. Finally one can "refuse to enter the arena" by, for example, stating that the question is unanswerable.

You're quoting 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' now?


Its a FALSE DILEMMA.

 

[Jonti]

... how do we distinguish dreams from reality, in terms of their phenomenal appearance?

I have a variety of techniques myself. If you are being chased by a dragon-like phenomena, you are dreaming. If what you imagine shortly after happens then you are dreaming. If you gaze intently at a solid object and it dissolves away into another scene, you are dreaming.

Once you have established you are dreaming, you can take control; being in a lucid dream is quite unlike being-in-the-(real)-world.

Hope this helps

 

[Jonti]

my visual cortex, is presenting to my awareness a visual representation of a screen, what is being represented by this representation?

Does it represent something which isnt itself?

Yes: it represents your visual cortex.

 

[tarannau]

Christ, this thread is painful

Max probably thinks he's being all perceptive, enquiring and insightful. To the rest of us, he's become a vacuous cliche of an arrogant drugs bore, with all the depth of the skin on a particularly watery potion of rice pudding.

 

[The Groke]

Reading a Max_Freakout thread really is like inadvertantly stumbling into the presence of a 13 year old boy who has just finshed reading the Celestine Prophecy and, having carefully replaced his normal lightbulb with a red-tinted one, is now smoking his first joint and listening to the Doors.

 

[Dillinger4]

Christ, this thread is painful

Max probably thinks he's being all perceptive, enquiring and insightful. To the rest of us, he's become a vacuous cliche of an arrogant drugs bore, with all the depth of the skin on a particularly watery potion of rice pudding.

Yep.

And it just goes on and on.