The Screen Argument, Further Explained

The whole screen argument seems to be persistent in its defiance for understanding, so I am just gonna keep on trying to explain it.

Look at this tree:

Lets talk about this tree a little bit. First, when you 'see' it, you see green leaves. By this I mean that electromagnetic radiation enters your eyes, which transfer information to your brain, which interprets the information, and comes up with 'green' for the color of the leaves.

But are the leaves actually green? In the actual, physical world, are they green? We don't know. All we know is that our brains interpret that wavelength of electromagnetic radiation as corresponding to the color 'green'.

If there is an actual, physical world out there, outside of our perception of it, we have no reason to think that the actual leaves on this actual tree look green.

The green you see is a result of your neural interpretation, not a dictation of what the actual world looks like.

Back to the Screen Argument

When you look at the image of the tree above, I argue that the image you see actually exists in the form that you see it. As in, 'green' does exist, as part of the screen of vision you possess. It DOES exist, because THERE IT IS. Just look at it.

Now, if you dissect a brain, you will not find a picture of a tree with green leaves in it. You WILL WILL WILL find neural pathways which correspond to the image of the tree. Your brain is completely sufficient for processing that image and comprehending it. However, there is no 'green' and no 'tree' in the form that you observe it in your brain. The screen does not exist in your brain. It corresponds to the brain, but there is a translation that must take place.

Screen exist, but they do not exist in the physical world.