Posted: Nov 29, 2017 12:38 am
BWE wrote:
Well, there is really no way to know what our particular sensory arrays are translating into experience.
Which physicalist science book did you pluck that mantra from?
As far as I understand, speaking from the physicalist perspective, our sensory organs send 'smoke signals' to the brain and they are interpreted by the brain to be about 'the world'.
I might be a dumb fuck, but have you ever asked yourself how that brain seemingly knew [apparently] a priori:
a) What type of sense each of the sensory organs were informing the brain about, to the extent that the brain could differentiate the exact kind of signals from different organs? I mean, since the signals from each organ are of a similar type/code, how can the brain discern sight from [say] sound [from those signals]?
b) That these signals were about 'the world'? I mean, why weren't these signals about the current state of my underwear, or even the current state of my currants? In other words, how the fugg would my brain know in which context the aforementioned signals should be appraised? This is not a question which should be conveniently brushed under the rug, unless you're utterly disingenuous when it comes to approaching metaphysics, for this is a BIGGIE when it comes to undermining physicalism.
However, we do know that patterns of observation are consistent (within the normal limitations of induction). Our models do indeed predict future observations quite precisely which means that there is some level of consistency to sensory input.
Big fuckin' deal. Do you somehow expect idealism to be an advocate of disordered experience??
I need to go, so my apologies for ignoring half of your post. I hope you've got the gist.