Comment by svnt
8 months ago
This is trivially untrue.
If you see a large enough, dangerous-looking enough animal in person and up close, you will respond physically without a single thought or idea. If you didn't, evolutionarily you wouldn’t exist.
This is because you are parallel systems. Ideas are not primary experience.
Sorry, I’m not sure how that disproves my claims? Or which claim it disproves. Say more?
> We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind.
The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
> I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly.
Also, and perhaps to be considered separately, you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived, only that they are qualitatively different from what you have been educated to second-order understand as sensory input.
Ah got it.
> The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
Yes you’re right. There’s a mountain of things that we do that we don’t have conscious control over. There’s multiple ways to think about that.
First is that we simply aren’t masters of every corner of our minds and bodies. But so what? Nothing I said requires us to have full control or full knowledge of ourselves. The existence of reflexes doesn’t directly counter any of my claims.
Another way to think about it is by changing the definition of self / mind to only include the things in our direct perception and control. After all, the boundary of self and world is incredibly fuzzy at the best of times. Are your fingernails “you”? If I accidentally touch something hot with my hand, “I” don’t choose to flinch my hand back. I could consider that reaction part of the external world, not part of me. Interestingly that definition implies self mastery makes “you” bigger. When children stop having tantrums, they bring their emotions under control of their mind. In the process, the part that is them gets bigger to encompass their newfound control.
My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis. None of us can directly perceive a tiger.
> you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived
Interesting! What do you think we do have evidence of directly perceiving? Surely not a tiger.
I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data - but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples. I see blue chair, door, ... I hear dog barking (low pitch), I feel headache feeling, etc). I think that’s good evidence that a pattern of “chair” and “dog” exists in my mind. And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I’m perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
1 reply →