Terrapin Station wrote:You're skipping something here.
You have to believe that you have nerves in the first place in order to believe that you can poke them and block them.
And so I do, however I do not things 'nerves' are the same thing as 'an experience of pain'. Nor do I think 'nerves' are just 'the experience of seeing fibrous tissue'. What happens is that I connect these experiences, and more, together and call it 'nerves'. I do it because the association is useful; it helps me predict future experience. But I don't have to; perhaps I am unaware of the physiological connection between the experience of pain and those fibrous tissue. In that case my idea of 'nerves' , i.e. what I 'believe in', would be different. And if I discover more things about nerves, then 'what I believe' in when I refer to 'nerves' will change again.
So you see, 'what we believe' when we refer to 'nerves' is something we have put together
. We do so because it is useful
. What 'nerves' connotes is not fixed
. It is mental construction from
experiences, not the raw experiences.
Basically, you're either not understanding the question I'm asking or you're intentionally avoiding answering it. But what I'm asking here is the heart of the discussion I'm having with you.
I think you understand my answers perfectly well. But, let's try an another approach.
Do you believe that Paris exists? If so, what exactly is it that constitutes 'Paris'? Is it the buildings, the river, the sewers, the air, the stones? If Paris exists, then surely some bit of Paris must exist. But then, if just individual bits exist, then what is this 'Paris'? If the world is just given to us directly, it can't give itself in two different ways at once.
Or, on a smaller scale, let's go back to that rock. The rock is red...or is it? We might equally say that the red is not the rock, but the light reflected from the rock. Under a different light the rock appears a different colour. So again, if the rock is just given to us directly, is it red? Or do we say the rock has no colour, that what is given to us directly is something different; red light? But then, the light wouldn't be that colour if it wasn't for the pigmentation of the rock, so we can't leave the rock out of it entirely...
I have no problem with such things, since for me both Paris and the rock are mental constructs. I can aggregate lots of things and call them 'Paris', or single particular ones out. I can interpret 'the colour of the rock' in varying ways. But for you, the claim is that what we sense is simply 'what is'. Except, whenever we look closely, there never is a simple 'what is'.
I'll get to answering questions you're asking me later. I want to focus on one thing at a time so that we don't just gloss over anything. I want you to understand and answer the question I'm asking first.
Socrates asked questions but also put forward arguments.