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.
As I'm interpreting this, a "screen" is the embodiment of the processes performed by our brain. It seems to be trying to give credence to the subjective nature of one brain's performance of absorbing a given amount of information versus another.
ReplyDeleteAm I completely off here? I'm just interested in some clarification.
I read the previous post on screens. "Screens" seems to be replaceable with "Sensory Perception" most of the time, accept when screens are referred to as "more than natural". I wouldn't argue that sensory perception is not natural or "more than" natural.
DeleteHi!
DeleteThanks for your comments!
You bring up a common misconception- I don't think you know what I mean by 'screens' yet.
Screens do not equal sensory perception, although the two are very close to each other. Our screens are dependent upon our sensory perception for the content we find on them.
Have you read this post yet?
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2013/10/examples-of-screens.html
It is a new one, that may answer your question.
Thanks again!
-JTS