What are some good critics/criticisms of phenomenalism? Namely, it's claim that our phenomenal experience offers minimal insight into the actual world, and that the perceived existence of other bodies may be subjective rather than objective.>in;b4 that's woo-woo bullshitOur sense of sight comes from the eye taking in discrete photons, but that is not what we see. The brain constructs this strobe of fundamentally unrelated particles into a continuous three-dimensional field of differentiated objects. This is the type of thing I'm talking about - I am not talking about new-age bullshit.
>>18116836Do you believe in God? If so you can see the world as made with user experience in mind and therefore comprehensible. Otherwise yes it'd make sense to say your brain just has constructed a reality out of sensory perceptions to aid survival and not truth seeking
>>18117199These beliefs originally came from a desire to maintain faith in God despite advances in Newtonian physics and logic. There was a recognition that all proofs of God were leading to contradiction, which The Critique of Pure Reason, the book I am lifting heavily from, devotes many pages to justifying. Theological proofs fail not because God doesn't exist, but because He exists most truly, in the world "itself" that we cannot access through our worldly senses. Theologians reach contradictions because they are trying to extend their reason (which originates in their worldly constructions) into a realm which exists outside of it. Regarding God's motivations for this, there are many passages in the bible emphasizing mystery, the unknown, and faith - a hard limit which prevents us from knowing Him without faith would be in this interest. Now on the God vs science problem, the determinism of classical physics is no longer an issue; this is not truly how the world works, rather it is an excessively detailed portrait of how out mind constructs it. Here, we can continue to believe that the soul is a freely acting moral agent because it is the thing constructing these Newtonian laws, while the soul's construction is not subject to anything except its Constructor.To actually answer your question, I don't, but the people who made this philosophy very deeply do.
>>18116836>our sense of sight comes from the eye taking in discrete photons, but that is not what we see. The brain constructs this strobe of fundamentally unrelated particles into a continuous three-dimensional field of differentiated objects.Yes, which is how we perceive objects, which generally are real. What's the problem?
>>18118338I'm assuming the anons here have some familiarity with phenomenalism. It's not something that I can convince you of in a /his/ post. Russel's first chapter of The Problems of Philosophy (Appearance and Reality) is the most succinct description I've read.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm#link2HCH0002
>>18118338How do we verify the sense organs except by using other sense organs?At most all we really have are "the thing I see MUST be there because I also can touch and hear and smell it" but those senses have the same issue as the eye, if you allow the issue at allHow do you verify the eye?Assuming that the perceived world is real is absolute blind faith.Actually, perception constitutes the entirety of the world. For every person, the world aroubd them is the field of vision, made into a kind of composite with a soundscape from the ears and an innate proprioception of the body and so on.It's impossible to imagine a world that is not perceived, because even as you imagine it you're trying to imagine in terms of sight-images and ear-sounds.
>>18118257None of that is a refutation, doesn't matter what philosophies you believe though if they're devoid of God however
>>18116836>What are some good critics/criticisms of phenomenalism? Namely, it's claim that our phenomenal experience offers minimal insight into the actual world, and that the perceived existence of other bodies may be subjective rather than objective.Do you view the inevitable descent into insanity and psychosis as a criticism? (Insanity defined by the consensus reality). If you don't view that as a criticism nothing will convince you IMO.
>>18116836What are you hoping to achieve? And for the love of God, don't say "truth" as though your circuitry is obscuring it instead of mediating it. The best thing you can do is ditch the subject-object dichotomy in general instead of perpetuating the most destructive element of Western thought - cartesian implosion of self into an infinitely small homonculus behind thoughts and stimuli.
>>18116836Read the bible
