Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Dimebag]

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

If perception is of the direct world, then we see things as they are. But you admit that sometimes things in the world appear one way, and yet the reality is a different case. Otherwise there would be no need to reinterpret your perceptions, in fact, there would be no need for any interpretation of anything, because we would essentially be god, seeing things as they are.

But we are fallible, we can be fooled, confused, forgetful etc.

Thus interpretation is required, the need to not take perception at its face value, but to interpret what we see, to in essence, describe what was seen, and determine whether there is some inconsistency, and based on prior expectations, correct that based on what is most likely.

Now, you are saying, the perception never gets it wrong, it is the interpretation which gets it wrong. There is no real way to tell the difference between your view and my view, because, the interpretation is the stage which actually allows us to “know” what is being perceived. We can only state about our perceptions, what we interpret as being there. Unless you think somehow, some information can slip through the interpreters fingers, yet still be expressed. But, as I understand it, anything we think we know, is expressed by this interpreter, otherwise known as the “confabulator”.

So I don’t think we can use this as a means of judging whether direct or indirect realism is the case.

[Dimebag]

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.

Okay, if you would care to, would you again express the problem you have. I addressed the initial gripe you had about how we can even know perceptions are anything outside of the mind. What else was there. Keep in mind I don’t live on here, and have limited time to trawl through pages of conversation, so as it is you who has the problem with what I said, it’s only fair that you re express that problem, since you bring it up again, even after I tried to address it.

[Terrapin Station]

I addressed the initial gripe you had about how we can even know perceptions are anything outside of the mind.

No, you didn't.

IF we're only aware of our own mental phenomena

Then

We can't observe something like an eye where we're saying something about an eye per se rather than our own mental phenomena. Why not? Because the conditional--the "If" statement above, just stipulated that we're only aware of our own mental phenomena. So we can't be aware of an eye qua an eye rather than qua something that our minds are doing.

You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this.

You'd need to systematically state how we can avoid this dilemma given the conditional that you're proposing.

[Dimebag]

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

Of course, none of the direct realists think this. But of course, direct realism also contains within it another obstacle or barrier towards any possible changing of mind. That is the problem that direct realists assume that they see the world objectively, and that, they have perfect knowledge of the world, through careful reasoning they have come to the conclusions they have, and they are unbiased, having no motivations to ignore new evidence, or to update their model of the world.

However, we know this is far from the truth, as all humans believe this about their views, as they are a lens they see the world through. So, how can YOU see through any other lens than the direct realist one, unless you have some ability to detach, step back from your deeply held views and beliefs, and evaluate it critically as well as other people’s views. Are we here to find truth, or are we so in love with our own knowledge, that we are incapable of seeing things from another perspective.

I am fully open to the possibility that we see things as they are directly. But, as I have studied both cognitive science and neuroscience, I have been influenced by the prevailing understanding of perception in these fields as being a representation.

The question which we are essentially asking is, do we see the world directly, or is it mediated in some way, whether or not those perceptions are accurate.

What does it mean to say, we see the world directly. MY understanding of this is, there is no MEDIUM IN WHICH our perceptions take place. That is, perceptions are not IN OUR MINDS, HEADS, CONSCIOUSNESS, AWARENESS. Thus, where are the perceptions but out THERE. So, we are directly aware of those qualities, which the objects and the world itself, possesses.

I want to ask, what is the proposed mechanism that this takes place via? What I mean by mechanism is, can you describe to me, the causal chain via which a perception takes place. Keep in mind, modern science’s current understanding of how we perceive, is via light, which is either emitted directly FROM an object, or, reflected off an object, and thus, was emitted from a prior source. That light when reflected, takes on the properties of that object, and reflects them, such that, for instance, if an object is smooth, the reflected light will display the smoothness in its consistency, not displaying ridges and valleys where light has bounced off in different directions. This is an example of how the properties an object possesses in its structural makeup, are reflected via the light, and the incoming image, which then enters our eye, and strikes our retina, that same pattern of light then forms a stimulation upon that retinal field, such that the same image is then transferred to our visual cortex, the perceptual system in our brains responsible for making sense of these images.

Keep in mind, an image alone does not allow give any usable information. If it did, computers would have no trouble in recognising objects in images. So essentially, there is no one inside who sees the image, the image has to recognise itself. Knowledge of the retinal image must be extracted, parsed, determined. Then, the knowledge of the visual image itself contains within it, all the usable information required to be acted upon, that which is important, and that which can be ignored.

We don’t want to appeal to some inner homunculus to observe our vision. Therefore, vision itself must contain within it, the ability to be recognised. See what I mean about, if we see the world directly, there is still a need for someone INSIDE to recognise WHAT is seen. So when you say, “I SEE the world directly”, I want you to explain to me, what is seeing the image, because when you say that, it is a lazy, verbal expression of something happening internally. You are hiding the homunculus when you simplify seeing like this. We want to do away with the homunculus COMPLETELY. So, when I sense the homunculus is hiding somewhere, I will push that.

What I hear from some people, is that, because we might not be able to tell whether what we see IS really like the real world, if representationalism was true, that it begs a radical skepticism, and possibly solipsistic view. That to me is not PROOF that there is something wrong with the logic, but only highlights the nature of the interiority of experience, being private, and subjective. Only I have my particular experience. We share a common world which we experience. We know it’s there, because of the consistency which occurs between subjects when we describe the world we see. Our experiences are essentially the same, because we share the same biological and similar basic neuro-biology. But, because our experience shapes the way we perceive the world, each person will have a slightly different view of the world. You have rightly asserted that, this COULD be due to the interpretation OF The perception, and ill grant that possibility.

But again, this still doesn’t take away from the proposal that perception is a representation and not direct.

[Dimebag]

I addressed the initial gripe you had about how we can even know perceptions are anything outside of the mind.

No, you didn't.

IF we're only aware of our own mental phenomena

Then

We can't observe something like an eye where we're saying something about an eye per se rather than our own mental phenomena. Why not? Because the conditional--the "If" statement above, just stipulated that we're only aware of our own mental phenomena. So we can't be aware of an eye qua an eye rather than qua something that our minds are doing.

You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this.

You'd need to systematically state how we can avoid this dilemma given the conditional that you're proposing.

Because, we are born with the naive view BUILT IN. A stimulus response machine, UNABLE to know real from representation. That ability would be a rational, complex, MENTAL view, which young minds are UNABLE to comprehend. Thus, perceptions are taken on FACE VALUE.

You might not LIKE that as an explanation. So, show me exactly why this CAN’T be the case. The concepts of real, false, representation, direct etc do NOT EXIST AT THAT STAGE OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT. So there is No ability to question them.

[Terrapin Station]

I addressed the initial gripe you had about how we can even know perceptions are anything outside of the mind.

No, you didn't.

IF we're only aware of our own mental phenomena

Then

We can't observe something like an eye where we're saying something about an eye per se rather than our own mental phenomena. Why not? Because the conditional--the "If" statement above, just stipulated that we're only aware of our own mental phenomena. So we can't be aware of an eye qua an eye rather than qua something that our minds are doing.

You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this

You'd need to systematically state how we can avoid this dilemma given the conditional that you're proposing.

Because, we are born with the naive view BUILT IN. A stimulus response machine, UNABLE to know real from representation. That ability would be a rational, complex, MENTAL view, which young minds are UNABLE to comprehend. Thus, perceptions are taken on FACE VALUE.

You might not LIKE that as an explanation. So, show me exactly why this CAN’T be the case. The concepts of real, false, representation, direct etc do NOT EXIST AT THAT STAGE OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT. So there is No ability to question them.

It has nothing to do with liking what you're writing. Rather, your response above shows zero comprehension of what you're responding to.

When I write "You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this, " your response needs to propose how, epistemically, we can avoid the issue I'm talking about. Which means you also need to be capable of grasping the issue in the first place. It's weird that you apparently can't even begin to understand it, because it's not very complex.

[Dimebag]

No, you didn't.

IF we're only aware of our own mental phenomena

Then

We can't observe something like an eye where we're saying something about an eye per se rather than our own mental phenomena. Why not? Because the conditional--the "If" statement above, just stipulated that we're only aware of our own mental phenomena. So we can't be aware of an eye qua an eye rather than qua something that our minds are doing.

You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this

You'd need to systematically state how we can avoid this dilemma given the conditional that you're proposing.

Because, we are born with the naive view BUILT IN. A stimulus response machine, UNABLE to know real from representation. That ability would be a rational, complex, MENTAL view, which young minds are UNABLE to comprehend. Thus, perceptions are taken on FACE VALUE.

You might not LIKE that as an explanation. So, show me exactly why this CAN’T be the case. The concepts of real, false, representation, direct etc do NOT EXIST AT THAT STAGE OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT. So there is No ability to question them.

It has nothing to do with liking what you're writing. Rather, your response above shows zero comprehension of what you're responding to.

When I write "You never proposed how, epistemically, we can avoid this, " your response needs to propose how, epistemically, we can avoid the issue I'm talking about. Which means you also need to be capable of grasping the issue in the first place. It's weird that you apparently can't even begin to understand it, because it's not very complex.

If I am incapable of grasping the issue, it must also be because you are not correctly or adequately explaining the issue, and why it is an issue, and in what MANNER you wish to have it addressed.

Maybe you could clearly explain, in a few simple sentences for me, what you want explained, and in WHAT FORM an acceptable answer would take, because what you seem to be after from me is something very SPECIFIC, something which meets some criteria which YOU find to be important. So, as you are so choosey, please make it VERY CLEAR, what you are meaning.

Maybe you could explain some epistemic rules I am violating?

Now look what you have done, I sound like AGE!

[Terrapin Station]

If I am incapable of grasping the issue, it must also be because you are not correctly or adequately explaining the issue,

Why would it have to also be that? Because you can't believe that you have any cognitive blocks? Isn't it a possibility that there are some things you're simply incapable of grasping?

[Terrapin Station]

Maybe you could clearly explain, in a few simple sentences for me, what you want explained, and in WHAT FORM an acceptable answer would take . . .

Re this, by the way, I already did this, basically, and more than once if you look far back enough in this thread. But I'll do it again.

Aside from needing to grasp the issue that you need to address, the answer would take the form of something like this:

"The way, espistemically, that we avoid this issue is by _______" and then you fill in the blank by describing, in some detail, just what the epistemic way around it would be. That's what I'm asking you after all, to tell me just how we'd avoid the issue I'm bringing up (though again, you need to be able to understand the issue in the first place to be able to adequately address it).

At the very least, you should be able to figure out that an adequate response would need to (a) be something about epistemological issues, (b) acknowledge the issue I'm talking about, and (c) explain in epistemic terms how we'd get around the issue I've been talking about.

[henry quirk]

direct realists assume that they see the world objectively, and that, they have perfect knowledge of the world, through careful reasoning they have come to the conclusions they have, and they are unbiased, having no motivations to ignore new evidence, or to update their model of the world.

No. No direct realist claims, as a function of direct realism, objectivity or perfect knowledge or lack of bias. Nor are any direct realists, as a function of direct realism, unwillin' to review evidence and update theories.

The direct realist sez this...

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 also 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.

...granted, my version is plain and lacks all the philo-trappings, but it jibes with any formal definition of direct realism you care to compare it to.


I am fully open to the possibility that we see things as they are directly. But, as I have studied both cognitive science and neuroscience, I have been influenced by the prevailing understanding of perception in these fields as being a representation.

I'm no stranger to the research. That's why I remain a direct realist.


do we see the world directly, or is it mediated in some way, whether or not those perceptions are accurate.

Yes. No. I don't care for perceptions...I prefer apprehendings...and no, our apprehendings aren't always accurate.


What does it mean to say, we see the world directly. MY understanding of this is, there is no MEDIUM IN WHICH our perceptions take place. That is, perceptions are not IN OUR MINDS, HEADS, CONSCIOUSNESS, AWARENESS. Thus, where are the perceptions but out THERE. So, we are directly aware of those qualities, which the objects and the world itself, possesses.

None of the above is sensible to me. Simply: I apprehend...I see, I hear, I taste, I smell, I touch...the entirety of me is in direct contact with the world around me.


can you describe to me, the causal chain via which a perception takes place

I don't have to. Direct realism is not *ahem* naive. The Direct realist does not say light, or molecules, or sound waves have no role in seein', smellin', tastin', hearin' the world. The direct realist only sez he sees, hears, tastes, smells, apprehends the real, independently-existing world as it is (not perfectly, not in it's entirety) without buildin' models of it somewhere in his gray matter.


Keep in mind, an image alone does not allow give any usable information. If it did, computers would have no trouble in recognising objects in images.

Computers are not conscious, not aware, they are nuthin' but jumped up abacuses. Computers recognize nuthin' cuz they can't.


We don’t want to appeal to some inner homunculus to observe our vision.

But that's exactly what representationalists do: they appeal to an inner theatre where lil movies of the world play out; lil movies written, directed, produced by the theatre-owner.


See what I mean about, if we see the world directly, there is still a need for someone INSIDE to recognise WHAT is seen.

This highlights again what I pointed out up-thread...

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.

I, for example, am significantly more than an optical system or an olfactory system or an auditory system or a tactile system or a nervous system. I'm a whole, a person. I self-direct. I don't passively receive data. I actively, with intention, apprehend the world.

There's no need for a homunculus or internal theatre becuz I am in the world as a whole being. I'm not a brain connected to various sensing systems. I am the sensing systems as much as I am the brain. Consciousness, self-awareness, mind may originate in the brain, but it extends out thru the whole of me. The finger (not middle) I wag at you is me as much as the matter between my ears is me.

When I pick up the mug, sniff the coffee, take a sip, and enjoy: I do those things directly, not by way of prosthetics and sensors.

I pick up the mug: I don't control the arm, I am the arm.

I sniff the coffee: I don't access an olfactory sensor, I am the nose.

I take a sip: I don't control lips, tongue, and access taste buds, I am the mouth.

I enjoy: I don't build a sensory model of coffee in my lil internal theatre, I simply enjoy the smell and taste and heat of the coffee as I see it, touch it, smell it, taste it.

[henry quirk]

If perception is of the direct world, then we see things as they are. But you admit that sometimes things in the world appear one way, and yet the reality is a different case. Otherwise there would be no need to reinterpret your perceptions, in fact, there would be no need for any interpretation of anything, because we would essentially be god, seeing things as they are.

In context: it's probably better to say we sometimes don't recognize than rather than say we misinterpret.

Interpretation, like perception, is too easy to twist.

A baby, as he begins his explorations of the world, recognizes nuthin'. The piano, covered in dust from lack of use, is not a piano to the baby. He is ignorant of its use, makeup, or the multiplicity of placeholders we apply to it. All he apprehends is this thing, this shape, this solidity, this very real sumthin'. His recognition of it is currently confined to thingness. With further exploration he will signify it, discover its man-made purposes, he'll overlay his apprehendings with his learnings. He'll come to have beliefs about the thing (piano) which may or may not align with the fact of the thing. There is no interpretation of it in the sense you mean or that you may have thought I meant. There is only apprehension of the thing followed by recognition of the thing. And this apprehension and recognition is bound up by, as I say 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.

So, when I see a snake, in dim light, instead of a stick, I'm not misinterpretin' but failin' to recognize. That failure could be traced to any number of causes. Perhaps I got snake bit in a dark room ten years ago. If so, that might make me wary, and ready to see (to recognize) snakes. This is not a failure of direct realism, but instead sumthin' direct realism accounts for.

[Dimebag]

If I am incapable of grasping the issue, it must also be because you are not correctly or adequately explaining the issue,

Why would it have to also be that? Because you can't believe that you have any cognitive blocks? Isn't it a possibility that there are some things you're simply incapable of grasping?

Of course, you mention epistemology, with no further explanation of what about the situation requires elucidation. I explain to you, in quite a lot of detail, just WHY our developing minds don’t question that mental content, and why it continues to not be questioned. But that’s not good enough for you.

Is the reason that you don’t believe we are JUSTIFIED to believe our experiences are of a real external world if they are actually representations? I mean cmon man, clarify your problem? Give me some thing for which to respond. Use that finely tuned epistemically minded lens to explain exactly WHAT PROBLEM you have, other than appealing to the single word, epistemically, which can cover QUITE A RANGE OF TOPICS in regards to knowledge. I could be here all day GUESSING which issue you have.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, you mention epistemology, with no further explanation of what about the situation requires elucidation. I explain to you, in quite a lot of detail, just WHY our developing minds don’t question that mental content, and why it continues to not be questioned. But that’s not good enough for you.

Because that has absolutely nothing to do with the epistemological dilemma I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is a situation that can be formalized this way:

(1) F only involves x
(2) Y (re F) is not possible given G
(3) We know (2) via F
(4) To know (2) requires y as opposed to x

The above is obviously a problem, because (1) through (4) can't be conjointly the case. It's an epistemological dilemma, a set of premises/conditions that are contradictory when taken together. A proper response needs to show how to solve the contradiction from an epistemological perspective. It either needs to modify one or more premises, or it needs to show why the premises aren't conjointly contradictory despite the appearance that they are.

Explaining why developing minds don't question something yada yada yada obviously has nothing to do with the formalization above. But the formalization above is what I've been talking about (just not as a formalization, but with particular variables plugged in).

[Dimebag]

No. No direct realist claims, as a function of direct realism, objectivity or perfect knowledge or lack of bias. Nor are any direct realists, as a function of direct realism, unwillin' to review evidence and update theories.

My bad. You see in my research of direct realism I think I stumbled across the usage of naïve realism in social psychology, which goes under the same name, but is as I described, viewing the world as objective (seeing the world as it is), as well as one’s own views as such and therefore others whose opinions differ as suffering from ignorance or stupidity, so you could see how I might conflate the two views. I’ll make sure I steer clear of those references and keep to the purely philosophical definition. I don’t want to infer states of mind on you that you don’t hold.

I don't care for perceptions...I prefer apprehendings...and no, our apprehendings aren't always accurate.

Would you care to elaborate on why you don’t like the usage of the word perception in the context of direct realism?

None of the above is sensible to me. Simply: I apprehend...I see, I hear, I taste, I smell, I touch...the entirety of me is in direct contact with the world around me.

So it seems you very much identify with your entire body? When you say I see, I hear, etc, these are all dependent on the sensory organs doing their jobs, detecting the light, detecting the sound, etc. Or would you object even that the sensory organs detect signals? See, this is why details are important, when we get into the details, we uncover just where you stand on these important metaphysical details. Keeping it too simple glosses over that rich and important detail.

I don't have to. Direct realism is not *ahem* naive. The Direct realist does not say light, or molecules, or sound waves have no role in seein', smellin', tastin', hearin' the world. The direct realist only sez he sees, hears, tastes, smells, apprehends the real, independently-existing world as it is (not perfectly, not in it's entirety) without buildin' models of it somewhere in his gray matter.

no, you don’t HAVE to. But I asked you to. Again, for important clarifying reasons. I want to see if your view even agrees with current cognitive and neuroscientific understanding of perception. But, I suppose if you refuse, I can’t force you to. But by saying you hear smell etc, you have literally not given me any extra detail than we already knew. It seems tautological to state that we do. Not clarifying.

Computers are not conscious, not aware, they are nuthin' but jumped up abacuses. Computers recognize nuthin' cuz they can't.

No that’s right, but see that’s my point, perception, or apprehension if you like, isn’t so simple, if it were it would have succumbed to computer science. If it was a simple matter of I see, I hear the world directly, computer vision for example might be a little easier to crack, but instead they are finding that they have to literally build the world from the inside, identifying every aspect of the world within a scene. Our minds are perfectly built for a world of objects, because we need to interact to survive. The objects we perceive in the world, simultaneously contain within them, the manipulability which we require. For instance, when we see a cup, we actually see a handle to grip with our hand to hold liquids in for drinking. The shape and form of the object also contains encoded within our perception it’s functionality.

This is what is meant in cognitive science and neuroscience by “sensori-motor”. Because our senses and motor capabilities are actually highly integrated and inseparable, such that seeing things in the world induces possibilities for interaction and movement within our motivational systems.

But that's exactly what representationalists do: they appeal to an inner theatre where lil movies of the world play out; lil movies written, directed, produced by the theatre-owner.

There is an appeal to consciousness. Consciousness necessarily entails at minimum, the sense of a bound unity, though some argue it might be illusory. So, there doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be a Cartesian theatre, but there does have to be consciousness, that we are in agreement. But, as I have elucidated elsewhere here, there is no need for a subject object divide, I.e. to divide consciousness into perceiving subject and the perceived object. I agree, THAT would be begging the homunculus, but, just because there is a representation, doesn’t mean anyone is actually observing it. The sense of observing can itself also be a representation, or content on the “screen of the mind”, albeit a very persistent one.

This highlights again what I pointed out up-thread...

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.

I, for example, am significantly more than an optical system or an olfactory system or an auditory system or a tactile system or a nervous system. I'm a whole, a person. I self-direct. I don't passively receive data. I actively, with intention, apprehend the world.

There's no need for a homunculus or internal theatre becuz I am in the world as a whole being. I'm not a brain connected to various sensing systems. I am the sensing systems as much as I am the brain. Consciousness, self-awareness, mind may originate in the brain, but it extends out thru the whole of me. The finger (not middle) I wag at you is me as much as the matter between my ears is me.

When I pick up the mug, sniff the coffee, take a sip, and enjoy: I do those things directly, not by way of prosthetics and sensors.

I pick up the mug: I don't control the arm, I am the arm.

I sniff the coffee: I don't access an olfactory sensor, I am the nose.

I take a sip: I don't control lips, tongue, and access taste buds, I am the mouth.

I enjoy: I don't build a sensory model of coffee in my lil internal theatre, I simply enjoy the smell and taste and heat of the coffee as I see it, touch it, smell it, taste it.

A beautiful and poetic description of being. Of course, while you can identify as all of these aspects OF your organism, we could take each one of them away, one by one, and YOU would still be here, just a you which is less capable of sensing the world. But, arguably, there would be certain parts of you, presumably important parts of your brain, which, without those, you would no longer be. We could keep the blood pumping to your brain via a heart lung machine, renewing the oxygen and nutrient mixture, removing the waste products, allowing your brain to continue even if your heart and lungs gave out. Admittedly, the liver is a different ballgame, we haven’t got there yet, but, imagine if we were able to invent a machine which could perform the same function as you liver. We could essentially have just your head, kept alive. A state almost akin to a quadriplegic. Now, you will be far less that you were, no longer apprehending the world, but, there will still be something inside there which it feels like. Or so we think. Maybe without some form of sense coming in, you would loose all touch with reality and fade into some mental nothingness. But no doubt some people have had such existences, or similar.

What I’m saying is, we can identify as literally our whole organism, or we can focus on certain aspects of ourself and identify with those. But on some level, it might just be an idea, the idea of you. In fact, why stop at the boundary of your body? You take food into yourself, which at some stage becomes “you”. But there is no clear line as to when that happens. How about the air which you inhale and exhale? Isn’t that just as much a crucial part of you as any other resource your body requires for survival? Or the water you drink? Or the ecosystem you inhabit which you need to sustain you? In fact, why stop there, because we need this earth, and of course, this earth would not have been without the sun, which we also need the light and heat from to survive, to maintain a certain body heat, to stimulate the melanin in our skin and release vitamin d. To set our body clock. We literally are part of the whole universe, which is all interconnected. We need it all. So, why not identify with that? At some point you could just say, it’s all me? At that stage, what is the difference between saying, I am everything, and I am nothing? Maybe I am just this collection of things.

[Dimebag]

Of course, you mention epistemology, with no further explanation of what about the situation requires elucidation. I explain to you, in quite a lot of detail, just WHY our developing minds don’t question that mental content, and why it continues to not be questioned. But that’s not good enough for you.

Because that has absolutely nothing to do with the epistemological dilemma I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is a situation that can be formalized this way:

(1) F only involves x
(2) Y (re F) is not possible given G
(3) We know (2) via F
(4) To know (2) requires y as opposed to x

The above is obviously a problem, because (1) through (4) can't be conjointly the case. It's an epistemological dilemma, a set of premises/conditions that are contradictory when taken together. A proper response needs to show how to solve the contradiction from an epistemological perspective. It either needs to modify one or more premises, or it needs to show why the premises aren't conjointly contradictory despite the appearance that they are.

Explaining why developing minds don't question something yada yada yada obviously has nothing to do with the formalization above. But the formalization above is what I've been talking about (just not as a formalization, but with particular variables plugged in).

I will admit, these formalisations are my LEAST favourite part of philosophy, so I tend to avoid them.

It is difficult for me to understand how this applies to the problem at hand, especially since you haven’t defined the variables for me, again, making me have to guess.

I am assuming, F is perception and X is mental representation. I am taking Y to be justified knowledge of the world, G I am not so sure of, but it seems that F seems to exclude it based on 3. 4 seems to again state that we cannot know Y, which I have guessed as justified knowledge of the world.

I feel like I missed the mark there, though with so many different undefined terms it’s not hard to wonder why.

It would be far simpler if you would either fill in those terms, or even better, express the same logic in some sentences.