Re: MD matt said scott said

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 02:52:22 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD matt said scott said"

    David R,

    If you are making an inquiry into the nature of perception, then the
    pathological and borderline cases are important. But that was not the
    context of my referring to "sense-perceptible particulars". If we need to
    precisely define all our terms in all contexts we will never get anywhere.
    That's why I was asking if you were serious.

    - Scott

    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 02:54:22 GMT