@HWalters had to share this youtu.be/bHKeEHbNh_U maybe he explains sight better than I do

@ZaneScheepers Watching the opening of that YouTube video, he quite simply gets it wrong. After a few minutes he reflects the same confusion you had about what perception means.

Yes, "experience" can be said to be in the mind. There's even an interrelationship constructed within the mind between percepts of different sorts... the world model

But by definition, you perceive things in the external world. If there's no external world referent, at least some of the perception process did not occur. This is what we have the word "hallucination" for.

There's an even bigger impediment towards your misunderstanding here, Zane... there is actually a distinction between the models we construct in our mind and sensory inputs. "Light", for example, exists at all frequencies... there's no physical difference between pure red, pure violet, and the frequency of your favorite AM radio station

...save frequency

But, there are perhaps people who are confused about this

The problem is, you keep confusing a correction about a definition with a misunderstanding of this principle

The guy in the video does the same thing

Almost everyone who has even thought about this a bit really realizes this (that is to say, most people who have passing interest in philosophy)

Perception simply, by definition, is what we do with real cups to get that mental model of the cup in our mind

Some of the things this guy says is spot on... for example, that black is a color "in the mind dimension", and his description of darkness. People confused about this are the same sort of people who cannot grasp that blind people simply don't see... they think they see black

...and strictly speaking, denying that the mind-light is electromagnetic isn't something he can really do, since it so happens that photons are involved in all of quantum electrodynamics, including most of matter interactions, which is what makes macroscopic objects have the potential to have holistic emergent properties in the first place

@HWalters yes, but the point is we don't perceive 'visible light'. We perceive 'brain model light'. This is the perception resulting from our eyes detecting 'visible light'.

The mind light is electrochemical, not electromagnetic

Here: pasteboard.co/H6fhCSS.png

This is a cartoon illustration

The distal stimulus only "looks like" what it does through the perspective of a human mind looking at it

But all that's being claimed here is that perception is that entire process

Hallucination isn't perception, if that helps

Experiencing the percept isn't perception

Once you have the percept, everything about perception is done; experiencing it is simply the "rest" of what you do with it from the conscious end

(And yes, I hold that conscious awareness isn't necessary for perception; there are two ways to "view" a necker cube outside of conscious awareness)

I must go and do "life"

I understand your point... I just want you to realize that confusing that point isn't the point :)

The point is to try to communicate what perception is; just because I include (properly, because such is the definition) everything in that grouping, doesn't mean I'm confusing the distal stimulus with the mind model of it

So what do we call the percept of a hallucination?