Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:27 pm we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
The problem I have with direct realism, among others is, *it presumes an inner homunculus, an “inner eye” which detects these stimulus. So you are essentially just retreating inside your skull if you postulate such an explanation. Furthermore, **it doesn’t gel with current understanding of how perception works.
*No, direct realism posits no such thing.

**Obviously, the current understanding is just plain wrong, and wrong-headed.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:35 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:27 pm we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
The problem I have with direct realism, among others is, *it presumes an inner homunculus, an “inner eye” which detects these stimulus. So you are essentially just retreating inside your skull if you postulate such an explanation. Furthermore, **it doesn’t gel with current understanding of how perception works.
*No, direct realism posits no such thing.

**Obviously, the current understanding is just plain wrong, and wrong-headed.
For the world to be “apprehended as it is” presumes that the world enters the head in a way, and is apprehended by something. It simply shifts the mystery of perception inwards. What else do you mean by “direct contact with the world” other than, the self, soul, homunculus, or whatever, perceives the world as its signals make their way inwards? There is apparently no surrogate signal, no reconstruction of the world, so the signals from the outside simply make their way inwards, to who or what exactly? That’s why I think it presupposes some inner observer. The apprehending of the outer world involves the very understanding of those signals as objects, which must be some operation carried out in some way. So, you either have to have some intervening layer, I.e. perception, which reconstructs those signals and makes sense of them there, or, some inner observer to make sense of the signals, doing the work of a perceptual system.

Reconstruction is necessary, because the sensory signals alone don’t carry sufficient information regarding the content OF those signals. The sensory signals must be interpreted. And they can’t be interpreted by the person, because we are trying to explain the person via internal mechanism. That would be inserting the thing you are trying to explain into the explanation.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:27 pm we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
The problem I have with direct realism, among others is, it presumes an inner homunculus, an “inner eye” which detects these stimulus.
??? Where are you getting that from? Unless you're just equating mentality in general with an "inner homunculus" a la some sort of eliminativist position.
Furthermore, it doesn’t gel with current understanding of how perception works.
What current scientific account of perception do you believe posits that what we're actually aware of when perceptual phenomena occur are our own mental creations? (Which of course wouldn't square with an eliminativist stance.)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:27 pm we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
The problem I have with direct realism, among others is, it presumes an inner homunculus, an “inner eye” which detects these stimulus.
??? Where are you getting that from? Unless you're just equating mentality in general with an "inner homunculus" a la some sort of eliminativist position.
Furthermore, it doesn’t gel with current understanding of how perception works.
What current scientific account of perception do you believe posits that what we're actually aware of when perceptual phenomena occur are our own mental creations? (Which of course wouldn't square with an eliminativist stance.)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

For the world to be “apprehended as it is” presumes that the world enters the head in a way, and is apprehended by something.

Red, for example, is in the light. I see the red. I don't construct a model of red. As for who does the apprehendin': me, I do. There's no lil man in my head or lil movie theatre. The lil man, the lil movie theatre, these are what the indirectists say is plunked down somewhere in the brain.


What else do you mean by “direct contact with the world” other than, the self, soul, homunculus, or whatever, perceives the world as its signals make their way inwards?

I mean what I say: I apprehend the world directly, as is it.


So, you either have to have some intervening layer, I.e. perception, which reconstructs those signals and makes sense of them there, or, some inner observer to make sense of the signals, doing the work of a perceptual system.

I apprehend the world (see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it) by way of myself (my eyes, my skin, my tongue, my nose, my ears). The totality of me is in direct contact with the world. There's no particle of sense datum, no in-dwelln' quailia, no lil man or lil theatre: there's just me, in the world, apprehendin' it, movin' thru it, interactin' with it.


we are trying to explain the person via internal mechanism

Therein, I believe, is your problem. I'm not a collection of systems; I'm an irreducible whole. You can dissect me and write volumes about the pieces and parts but nuthin' you find in all those dismantled systems will tell you diddly about me, the person, me the apprehender.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:37 am When our perception has imperfect information about an object, it will “guess” about what that object is, and present it to us AS that guess. Furthermore, sometimes, perception can malfunction, such that its guesses are completely wrong, such as when under the influence of a hallucinogen, or for instance, if a person has psychosis. These are cases which suggest our perception of the world is built, and objects we see are our minds “best guess” of what is out there. Most of the time, it’s guess is very accurate, when the system is functioning correctly and with enough information, and if it has been “trained” correctly via past experience. But if these conditions aren’t met, the world is not perceived correctly, compared to other more reliable sources of what is there.

How does your view that we see the world as it is account for cases where we don’t see the world as it is?
Please name or describe one such case.

I think like most people you are confusing perception, what is directly seen, hear, felt, tasted, and smelled, with conception, the rational identification and evaluation of what is perceived.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:22 am As an epistemic issue, the only way to know that you're getting something wrong perceptually is to know what's right instead. But you can't know that unless you can get things right perceptually.
Absolutely!

Good luck getting anyone to understand it.

If you cannot see something as it actually is, how can you possibly know it, unless you know what it must look like as it actually is. What's your standard?
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:02 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:14 pm Realism is called Naïve for a reason.
Yes, of course. It's useful to those who buy into sophistry (from which we get, "sophisticated,"), who call anyone who has not swallowed their sophistry, naïve.

The problem with your view is that no matter how many time you run into the wall, you will never be certain it will be there, "next time." It's what's wrong with the whole notion of, "induction."

When a chemist discovers the nature of sulfur or iodine, it is not based on how often those elements have the properties they have, as if sometime they might have different ones. Sulfur is always sulfur and can never be anything else, and iodine is always iodine, and can never be anything else, not statistically, but absolutely because they are identified by the properties they have, and anything that does not have those properties is not those substances, period.
Early scientists performed tests on the properties of substances many times before they could trust their findings. Repetition and repeatability are foundational principles in good Science. One measurement is never Scientific.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 1:41 pm Early scientists performed tests on the properties of substances many times before they could trust their findings. Repetition and repeatability are foundational principles in good Science. One measurement is never Scientific.
Repeatability in science is only necessary to insure that what is observed is correct. Nothing is proved true by how often a phenomenon is observed. I think that mistaken view of, "induction," is because those who have not really studied science, especially it's history, think science is discovering, "why," things are true; but true science can only discover what things are and what their nature is. "Why," things are what they is of no interest to science.

If you study the history of chemistry, for example, you will discover the identification of the elements, while certainly not simple and involved ruthlessly careful observation and analysis, was ultimately a simple matter of identifying the attributes of each element, that once identified, could never be wrong, for the simple fact, if something (iron, copper, bismuth, chlorine) had certain properties, anything with those specific properties was that element, and anything without those properties or with different properties could not be that same element.

Suppose someone observes a greenish-yellow gas, with a disagreeable, suffocating smell, which is two and one-half times as dense as air, has a specific gravity of 1.2929 kg/m3, dissolves in water, is a liquid below –34.05°C, is a solid below –101°C, and supports combustion, and names that gas chlorine.

It may take a number of complex experiments to discover each of these attributes, but once the properties of the gas are known, it is never necessary to repeat any experiment to establish what chlorine is. Even if the gas that is analyzed and discovered to have the properties of chlorine is the only one ever discovered, that gas is chlorine and can be nothing else, because chlorine is whatever has the properties by which chlorine is identified. No element that does not have those properties is chlorine, but any element that has those properties is chlorine because, chlorine is what has those properties.

Both induction (observation) and deduction can and are used in the process of doing science, but induction establishes no scientific fact or principle, and deduction only insures one's reasoning about observed facts is correct. The fundamental process of science is identification. The identification of entities, their properties, behavior, and relationships is the whole of science and its only purpose.

Please see my article, "Science Philosophy," here on the Forum.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 8:39 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:37 am When our perception has imperfect information about an object, it will “guess” about what that object is, and present it to us AS that guess. Furthermore, sometimes, perception can malfunction, such that its guesses are completely wrong, such as when under the influence of a hallucinogen, or for instance, if a person has psychosis. These are cases which suggest our perception of the world is built, and objects we see are our minds “best guess” of what is out there. Most of the time, it’s guess is very accurate, when the system is functioning correctly and with enough information, and if it has been “trained” correctly via past experience. But if these conditions aren’t met, the world is not perceived correctly, compared to other more reliable sources of what is there.

How does your view that we see the world as it is account for cases where we don’t see the world as it is?
Please name or describe one such case.

I think like most people you are confusing perception, what is directly seen, hear, felt, tasted, and smelled, with conception, the rational identification and evaluation of what is perceived.
Why would we have misconceptions if our perceptions were never incorrect? Unless you propose that we don’t always know what we perceive?

You are proposing two things, the initial perception, and secondarily the conceptual judgement about that perception. I don’t deny this is the case, that we have both perceptions, and evaluations of them conceptually. But, logically, how do you think conceptual evaluations occur? I would suggest via some pattern recognition.

So, when a certain perceptual pattern matches a certain concept, that concept identifies the coinciding perception.

Could it then be the case that, certain perceptions at times resemble similar different perceptions, such that, this pattern recognition which identifies the perceptions might mistakenly label them incorrectly?

What then does this say about how we see the world. Surely this is NOT objective, but subjectively filtered, even if what we say doesn’t veridically coincide with the identified conception, the case is that, what can be stated about the perceptions is mediated by that conceptual overlay, such that any non veridical perceptions will effectively be subjectively non veridical, meaning, to the observer, they will think their perception is one way, when the reality of the world is in fact different.

This would mean, we see the world the way our conceptual overlay thinks it is, not as it really is.

Some examples where perception does not match the real world.

- phantom limb syndrome
- rubber hand illusion
- synesthesia
- psychedelic trips
- temperature perception experiments
- internal voice
- hearing music internally
- dreams
To name a few.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

You didn't address the other points/answer the earlier questions I made, but in any event:
Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am What then does this say about how we see the world. Surely this is NOT objective, but subjectively filtered, even if what we say doesn’t veridically coincide with the identified conception, the case is that, what can be stated about the perceptions is mediated by that conceptual overlay, such that any non veridical perceptions will effectively be subjectively non veridical, meaning, to the observer, they will think their perception is one way, when the reality of the world is in fact different.
That is getting far more complicated than the issue I was focusing on. The issue I was focusing on was a much simpler, earlier step in the process--just a single little thing that needs to be sorted out first.

That issue is whether we're capable of perceiving (as "the initial perception" as you just put it) the external world as such (so that our awareness is of the external world), or alternately, whether we're only capable of perceiving (or "perceiving" as it would be in this case) something that our minds are doing, so that we're only aware of mental phenomena per se. In philosophy of perception, representationalism claims the latter. Direct/naive realists claim the former.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 1:28 pm You didn't address the other points/answer the earlier questions I made, but in any event:
Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am What then does this say about how we see the world. Surely this is NOT objective, but subjectively filtered, even if what we say doesn’t veridically coincide with the identified conception, the case is that, what can be stated about the perceptions is mediated by that conceptual overlay, such that any non veridical perceptions will effectively be subjectively non veridical, meaning, to the observer, they will think their perception is one way, when the reality of the world is in fact different.
That is getting far more complicated than the issue I was focusing on. The issue I was focusing on was a much simpler, earlier step in the process--just a single little thing that needs to be sorted out first.

That issue is whether we're capable of perceiving (as "the initial perception" as you just put it) the external world as such (so that our awareness is of the external world), or alternately, whether we're only capable of perceiving (or "perceiving" as it would be in this case) something that our minds are doing, so that we're only aware of mental phenomena per se. In philosophy of perception, representationalism claims the latter. Direct/naive realists claim the former.
In simple terms, as our mind develops, from no conscious awareness, to becoming more aware and knowing, our default state of understanding IS that of naïve realism. But, the ACTUAL state of affairs is different, I.e. representationalism. When we begin to become aware of the world, we naturally assume we are in direct contact WITH the world, not with a representation.

Why is this necessary? Because, if our organism knew perceptions were representations, it wouldn’t have to necessarily act on them, and thus would prove to be a problem for survival. Thus, there must first be formed a strong base of stimulus response behaviours, which naturally result in actions based on perceptions. In fact, this is the normal state of affairs, until an organism develops the ability to withhold desires temporarily. Basically impulse control. Otherwise, we are pure stimulus response machines. I am talking early in development of the mind.

Once self awareness begins to unfold, we can begin to question our perceptions. Did I really see a snake? Or was it maybe a lizard. Is that scary movie really a threat to me, or is it just a series of moving pictures which pose no threat to me. A detachment can form between observer and the observed, enough to allow some rationalisations to be inserted prior to behaviours being acted out. This allows more thoughtful, nuanced behaviours, going beyond mere fight or flight. It is also the same detachment which can allow us to stand back from our own perceptions, and see them as appearances within us. Until this detachment is possible, we are all naïve realists, and there is no possibility of being convinced otherwise. But belief is not the same as reality.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dimebag wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 12:04 pm But, the ACTUAL state of affairs is different, I.e. representationalism.
Okay, but for that claim, you need to be able to address the issues I was talking about earlier, and the first step of that is simply understanding the issues I was talking about earlier. I asked you to paraphrase those issues, you attempted to, you asked how you did, and I said poorly. Then you just dropped it, apparently uninterested in understanding the problems with suggesting that we know (so this is an epistemic issue) that representationalism is the case re how perception works.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

the ACTUAL state of affairs is different, I.e. representationalism

No one, in any of the threads opposin' direct realism, has demonstrated this to be the case.


question our perceptions

You don't have to abandon direct realism to ask did I just *see what I thought I **saw?

If, as I say, you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and ***the inherent limits of the observer himself; mistakes or interpretations are accounted for.




*hear, taste, smell, touch

**heard, tasted, smelled, touched

***the most important when it comes to interpretation
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by RCSaunders »

Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am When our perception has imperfect information about an object, it will “guess” about what that object is, and present it to us AS that guess.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what perception is. Perception makes no interpretation of anything. All perception is capable of is the direct consciousness of attributes of entities that can be perceived--the color and intensity of the light they produce, reflect, or transmit, what sound waves they produce, whatever chemicals are in the food we taste or air we smell, and whatever kinds of pressure or temperature things we touch have. That is all that is perceived. It is by means of those directly perceived attributes that our ability to identity and think about what is seen, interprets configurations of those perceived attributes as entities and events.
Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am Furthermore, sometimes, perception can malfunction, ...
Perception cannot malfunction, because it performs no function. Perception is immediate direct conscious awareness of whatever the neurological system makes available to consciousness at any moment and nothing else.

If there are anomalies in the neurological system what it makes available to be perceived will be different than would be available without those anomalies, but perception itself is of reality exactly as it is, including the state of the neurological system.
Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am

Please name or describe one such case.

I think like most people you are confusing perception, what is directly seen, hear, felt, tasted, and smelled, with conception, the rational identification and evaluation of what is perceived.
[NOTE: I am not ignoring your discussion of how you believe perception works, but it would take to much explanation to give a fair appraisal of that here. I've actually explained what is wrong with that view in another article, "Perception." If that does not address your issue here, or you have further questions, I'll try to answer them.]
Dimebag wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:41 am Some examples where perception does not match the real world.

- phantom limb syndrome
- rubber hand illusion
- synesthesia
- psychedelic trips
- temperature perception experiments
- internal voice
- hearing music internally
- dreams
To name a few.
Except none are examples of perception being wrong about the real world.

"phantom limb syndrome," is a correct perception of the behavior of certain nerves that remain active after a limb has been amputated, which is conceptually mistaken for feelings of a limb. The nerves and their behavior are the, "real world," that is perceived.

"rubber hand illusion," is not perceptual at all. It is entirely a, "psychological," phenomenon that takes place (if at all) post perception.

"synesthesia," if it exists at all, is probably not perceptual.
Little is known about how synesthesia develops. It has been suggested that synesthesia develops during childhood when children are intensively engaged with abstract concepts for the first time. This hypothesis – referred to as semantic vacuum hypothesis – explains why the most common forms of synesthesia are grapheme–color, spatial sequence and number form. These are usually the first abstract concepts that educational systems require children to learn.
In other words, synesthesia is something resulting from the conceptual level of consciousness which misinterprets what is perceived. But, like all other so-called psychological phenomena, it's validity cannot be established scientifically, because there is no evidence at all for synesthesia except the testimony of those who claim it.


"psychedelic trips," like all perceptual experiences considered illusory, such as voices heard or people seen by those suffering from schizophrenia, are perceptions produced by physical anomalies of the neurological system. Perception always includes the state of an organism (called interoception) as part of its perception of reality as it actually is.

"temperature perception experiments" only prove how accurate perception, taking into account the entire real context of all that is perceived, including the state of the perceiver.

"internal voices" if the one claiming it isn't lying, it is a correct perception of a defective brain behavior, as in schizophrenics.

"hearing music internally" is the same as above. I hear, "music," all the time. It's not actually music, but it is a, "sound," caused by auditory nerve problems, called tinnitus. It is a correct perception or a real phenomenon.

"dreams" are perceptions of perceptual attributes stored in memory, which, when awake are used and organized for all cognitive functions, but when asleep are not under direct conscious control. The random, unorganized recall of perceptual attributes from memory (dreams) are not mistakes about reality, they are real percepts of recalled attributes, which is how we know they are dreams and not direct percepts.

If perception itself were deceptive, none of these things you think invalidate the fidelity of perception could be known. One has to assume real unamputated limbs are perceived as they actually are to call a perception of a limb deceptive, and assume that one's perception of their body parts are correct to call a mistaken belief about a body part a mistake in perception. None of the things you call perceptual illusions could be known if you did know what non-illusory perception is.
Post Reply