I just realized as I was looking at a picture of a woman on my computer screen - I am not looking at this woman. I am looking at a computer screen. The woman in question is Scarlett Johansson (well known - red dress, shows off her, erm, *golden globes * at the identically named awards where she displayed them much to the gratuity of those who adore her)
There is no literal truth in the statement “I am looking at Scarlett Johansson”. It may even be argued that “I am looking at an image of Scarlett Johansson” is also an untrue statement. That the only true statement is “I am looking at a computer screen” or “I am looking at some red, blue, and green diodes through a transparent plastic screen, which are lit in such a way that they are portraying an image of Scarlett Johansson”l
I, a strongly atheistic pessimistic person, am, by virtue of being a person, susceptible to the power of belief’s ability to shape our perception of the world.
For instance I can look at this image and it evokes feelings of desire, even though the object of that desire is probably halfway around the world eating a burger, or having her way with a black lift attendant, or dead in a car crash. That of me which controls my emotions seems to be completely isolated from that of me which decides on the truth of things.
I have to say that the significance of this realization is completely diminished by the feeble way I have described it in this post. This is the best I could do in the circumstances.
But you don’t really believe it to be her; you just recognize it as a pattern that looks like her. I mean, if you called up an image of a man on the monitor pointing a gun out of the screen, with a voiceover demanding that you hand over your money, would you hand your money to the computer ? No, you wouldn’t, because you’d know that it was an image.
Belief and image recognition are two separate things. Hallucinations, for example, are often quite unbelievable - what makes them dangerous is that the mental illness/drug causing them forces belief. In cases where belief isn’t compelled, they can be ignored or regarded as entertaining. Or in the other direction, a particular form of brain damage can leave your ability to recognize people intact, but destroy your belief that they are who they look like. Which can lead to people murdering loved ones under the impression they are avenging them upon the impostors who replaced them.
It would not be conceptually different were Scarlett in the room with you - you’d still not be seeing her - just the photons that bounced off her. Even if she let you touch her, you’d still not be experiencing her directly - but rather, merely allowing your brain to interpret pressure signals from the nerves in (whichever appendage you used to touch her) - and even then, you can’t actually touch anything, but rather, merely be repelled by its electromagnetic forces as you get close.
You experience nothing firsthand, and nothing as it actually happens. Your world is entirely second-hand, and has already happened before you notice it.
The observations in the OP are correct. As are those of Mangetout.
You don’t get to be in direct communication with “actual reality” in the objective sense that most of us tend to think exists. Instead, you interact with sensory input which you interpret based on an a priori model of reality you carry around in your head, without which you would not be able to make much sense of the sensory input.
Agree with the first point here, but not with the second. What exactly is an image of something, if not a visual representation intended to invoke a sensory response similar to that of looking at the real thing? The fact that you recognise it as a depiction of Scarlett Johansson makes it an image of Scarlett Johansson, regardless of the medium on which it is presented.
“Lift attendant”? They don’t have automatic elevators on the Isle? This isn’t one of those “The Prisoner” type islands is it? You need to get out of town dude! Visit the big city. Push some elevator buttons! It’ll perk you right up.
Sure, but that’s just because we don’t experience anything directly - our world is reconstructed inside our heads from second-hand, out-of-date information
I think money is the most fantastic illusion of all. A medieval pope couldn’t dream of the incredible things that people would do in pursuit of something so wholly intangible. Not gold, and in 99% of cases not even anything as tangible as paper. There is nothing to justify any financial transaction you engage in, except shared belief.
Shared belief in true things, as it happens. (The other day, I forked over some paper [paper, by god!] motivated by nothing more than the grand fantasy that, by so doing, I would be given the food I desired. And you know what? I was correct!)
Whether it’s cows or coins I’m forking over or being given, the question to me is the same: “Will I be able to use this to get the things I want?”. I don’t see fiat currency as particularly prone to worries about unreliable beliefs here.