Cameras do not perceive anything.
Feel free to divulge your idea.
Bonus points if you can explain it in a fashion that doesn't link perception with consciousness.
You made a fantastic claim. You explain it.
Cameras do not perceive anything.
Feel free to divulge your idea.
Bonus points if you can explain it in a fashion that doesn't link perception with consciousness.
more specifically, our abilities of observation, which automatically precludes issues pertaining to our origins and consciousness.Its "jurisdiction" being anything which can be observed, directly or indirectly.
On the contrary, you're the one suggesting cameras do not have any perception issues ....You made a fantastic claim. You explain it.
Which is simply an evasive statement to avoid saying that yes you do believe that the cause of consciousness must lie outside of the brain. If the brain is the cause then empiricsm is the appropriate approach. But yet you still stumble over showing any meaningful alternative despite your loud bravado in dissing empiricsm.I am simply pointing out that yours is an assumption, since empiricism (your modus operandi on the subject) doesn't even lay these subjects on the horizon, what to speak of the table.
lg,
Which is simply an evasive statement to avoid saying that yes you do believe that the cause of consciousness must lie outside of the brain.
FineIf the brain is the cause then empiricsm is the appropriate approach.
The beginning of an alternative would be to understand the futility of empiricism in investigating such a manner.But yet you still stumble over showing any meaningful alternative despite your loud bravado in dissing empiricsm.