@ZaneScheepers So roughly, where we last left off, I was trying to convey that the truth of the statement "there is a real tree" depends on a concept within our mind; there's a very strong relationship here between what percepts suggest and semantics

More or less, the statement "there is a tree there" has a meaning; and it's stating, ultimately, that there's some thing in reality, whatever it is, that correlates to the concept of a tree

We can't quite say that "there is a tree there" is true pending some entirely independent reality, because the very concept of a tree in the first place is human. For that thing that's there to be a "tree", it has to "be" what a "tree" is, and that's a relationship between the concept and the thing

I think this is one of the things you're hung up on. You want to emphasize that the thing we see, the percept of a tree, isn't really "the tree" that is out there. My counter is that "the tree" is just some thing out there that correlates to the concept of a tree.

So analogously, we could say that we see a "real tree" under the condition that there's a thing out there that corresponds to a tree, which is causally related to the percept

That the percept doesn't always correspond to a "real tree" isn't really a major hangup; that's analogous to the statement "there is a real tree" not being justified (sorry, but to be correct, I have to say "justified", not "true")

@HWalters I get that. That's actually the easy bit. Where I'm stuck is the precept itself. There is no 'image' formed anywhere in the brain. Only thought trains. A part of the brain that interprets shapes. Another part that interprets spatial orientation. Another part that recognizes objects. So, what is the percept? Is it light, by which we conceive that there's a 'tree'? Or is the percept a tree and we conceive the presence of light?

The percept is in the brain. Technically there are images in the brain, but those aren't the percept (there's a Descartes like concept that Dennett calls the "homunculus" that's kind of like that)

Give me just a sec...

youtube.com/watch?v=AyzOUbkUf3M&t=1393s ...but before you watch...

...this is obviously not a human brain. This is what I consider a "classic" video, about a particular kind of NN

The link I'm giving starts at a certain point in the video... the video itself is about an hour long. But at this point, there's a demonstration of something very analogous to how I picture percepts, going "in reverse"

Something akin to you just picturing an image in your head

Given this as a model of the human brain, if it's an apt model, then a percept is something kind of abstract. It makes the most sense to talk about in the types of ways AI researchers talk about neural nets... "valleys" in a kind of multi-dimensional space

...an abstract space that in turn is simply a model of what it does... so it's hard to describe even here what it is exactly, but this is a good rough idea

If you're after a definitional description, just consider a Necker cube (or any other bistable stimulus)...

The Necker cube displayed here can be perceived in one of two ways; either as a cube with the top-right square comprising the side that faces you, or as a cube with the bottom-left square comprising the side that faces you

At any given point in time, we see it as one such way or another such way. That specific way of seeing it is a "percept"

In other words, the Necker cube elicits one of two percepts.

You can actually switch which percept you see fairly easily, but doing so involves only something in your mind. Nothing about the object or the light has anything to do with it.

So there's not much room to doubt that a percept is something going on in your mind

The everyday world isn't so ambiguous... you look at a cup, and you have a percept of it

Something like this? thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2018/01/10/…

The thing is, I don't buy the idea of a homunculus watching some type of carthesian stage. To me. It's more like the way an image is stored on a computer. There's no 'little image'. It's stored as bits of information. 1's and 0's. Which a computer can read. Out mind has its own 'basic' which it can read. There's no screen. Just interpretation of spike trains.

I don't know if I'm clear, but this might help. youtu.be/qAYXgbSlSv0

hey guys, I would like to answer this question: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/18351/…, but I was thinking if I could simply copy my answer from Physics stack exchange here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92849/…

p.s. my answer in the physics stack exchange is trying to "solve the problem" with abstract math.

@Shing what most people forget to take into account is that aerodynamics affects terminal velocity, not just mass/weight/density. Take a sheet of tin foil, 20 by 20cm and drop it from a certain height. It wafts down, almost like a leaf. Crumple that same sheet of foil (with the same mass/volume/density) into a compact ball shape, and it drops like a rock.

@ZaneScheepers Not quite like that; those are reconstructions from brain waves. The images that are technically in your brain is simply a flow of patterns through your visual cortex (which doesn't in principle have to be spatial, but so happens it is)... and it's not just one image

How it's like "to you" is irrelevant; the actual structure of the brain, not what one opines, is where the answer lines

But no, it's not like the homunculus looking at a screen; these "images" simply form the basis of multiple stages of processing

Also, where do you get that most people forget to take into account aerodynamics?

Do you just have a persistent belief in your head that most people get simple things wrong?

Any physicist knows that a feather will fall slower than a bowling ball in air, due to air resistance... there's no such grand ignorance. People ignore air resistance simply when they want to talk about gravity's effects per se.

@ZaneScheepers Just in case there's a hangup here, I'm not saying there's a place in your brain that hypothetically you can snap with an ordinary light camera and see what I'm seeing. These patterns are patterns of neural firing.

@HWalters I said, 'most people', not most people on this site. Not most scientists. Not you. You seem to think that everyone shares your level of intellect and knowledge. Trust me, very few do. It's why I enjoy our conversations.

So back to our discussion, what is that representation of, that I see? Do I see light, in the shape of a tree, and comprehend there's a tree? Or do I see a tree and comprehend that there is light being reflected off the tree? Or, do I see a representation and comprehend both the tree and the light?

I don't have an answer. I don't know if there is an answer.

@ZaneScheepers In physics, we are usually much more interested in the cases no air (in other words, vacuum), because that's what physically deeper, and more interesting - say, why the speed is independent of mass(resistance of accelerating)? (furthermore, my answer's $G$ can depend on the speed of the falling object [air resistance] )

The percept you have of a tree represents a tree

I don't see where the confusion is here honestly

Each percept of the Necker cube represents a cube

@ZaneScheepers I think it might help to look at semantics a bit closer... I'm going to introduce a few terms

For this purpose I'm going to talk about words, in sentences... specifically, written words

Consider the word "tree", in the statement, "there is a tree out there". BTW, for the record, there's a specific tree I actually am looking at outside my window... we can say this is not hypothetical and that I'm referring to that tree

Now you're reading this sentence, and you see the word "tree"

That word is on your monitor

When you read that word, it invokes a concept.

You have a notion of what a "tree" is; you know what trees look like, etc.

That concept is in your mind... but I'm going to be making spatial analogies here to help grasp the terms, so I'll say it's in your head

That is called an "intension" (I don't recall, but I think used the word "comprehension" here... that's the same thing)

Correction, the tree you see is not 'outside'. What you see is 'the inside representation of the tree outside'.

And finally, there is that thing I'm looking at outside my window

That thing is "across the street".

The street is a representation

@ZaneScheepers Put that aside; forget that for a second... focus on the terms

I'm not talking about percepts; I'm talking about words

Ok

So the thing that's out there, across the street... that is an "extension"

So now I have three terms... they're all related in some way

Is a percept equal to the way we interpret some information. e.g. the necker cube example, we received the same raw data that gives the shape of the necker cube, but to switch between the two bistable states, we are switching how we interpret the data itself such that this rod is closer instead of further in space?

Or more precisely, is percept the same as an interpretation?

The sign "tree" is on your monitor. The intension is in your head. The extension is across the street.

@Secret Yes, sort of

A Becker cube is ambiguous, which leaves it open to interpretation

We have control over how we interpret it

We have some control... some bistable stimuli are a bit more difficult to swap between

To me, the word and the image are both precepts of a concept. One is visual.

The direction she is twirling for example

I can control which way she spins

I can too... but it's a bit harder than the Necker cube

I mean, seems to spin

So a distal stimulus in the semantics analogy is an extension

When we switch an interpretation, obviously nothing is changing for the object that is being perceived (assuming there is an objective reality where the object is located in), so everything has to happen in the mind. I am curious on whether such switching actually has a neural basis like a neural network, or is it like qualia that it cannot be fully described by neural patterns?

The extension across the road is the distal stimulus

A percept's analogous to a sign (slight difference; it's a representational sign)

Secret: I'm not entirely convinced by the notion that qualia cannot be described by neural patterns, but that's a longer discussion

@ZaneScheepers Exactly

Bbl. Gotta start work. Great chat.

But the percept is "about" that extension

Anyhow, the reason I relate a percept to a sign as opposed to an intension is that we can tie the same percept to different intensions (e.g., that's a "tree", or that's a "deciduous tree", or it's a "plant")

...and now I must be off

@Secret Just an initial sketch of this... suppose Joe is looking at the Spinning Dancer. On seeing the illusion, Joe says, "The woman seems to be spinning counterclockwise (from above)". Half a minute later, Joe says, "Interesting... now she seems to be spinning clockwise."

These are entirely different utterances... different patterns of speech, at the least

At some functional physical level, we can explain the patterns of speech in terms of stimulation and relaxation of various muscles

If we trace this backwards, we can hit neural patterns... if we keep going, either one of two things happens

Either we reach some new form of physics, or we can trace this all the way back through to brain states

Even if it's a new form of physics, something's being caused by the image... and something results from it... so there's at least a type of causality to its mechanics

At least that aspect is just as good as saying that the form of physics is simply regular physics anyway

There may be something a bit "ineffable" about qualia, but I'm skeptical that it's something that cannot be described in terms of function

This is just a sketch... I can fill it in later if you're interested

sounds logical, I never thought of placing the mind behind the neural level, although it is obvious for the brain

@HWalters I'm definitely interested in discussing this idea

As far as I know, the percept is not a product of only information from the distal stimulus, but it's an interactive phenomena. Our brain takes shortcuts. We see, what experience has taught us. Take the inverted face illusion for example. Faces are always convex in our experience. So even though the face is actually concave, we see it as convex. @

In this next illusion it looks like the top row is convex and the second row is concave because light usually comes from above.

goo.gl/images/FCqj5U