(2) On the other hand, when we're actually in that shaft ourselves, our brains are still mapping things that our eyes perceive, but there's more going on. Our bodies are in motion, which we sense directly. Our balance is affected. We know the extension and position of our limbs. We're getting tactile impressions from the walls. We feel the air flow. Lots of stuff is going on. It's far more than the sterile, indirect impressions we were getting from the robot probe.
Of the two analogies the second is a little better. I cannot imagine what the basis for the first analogy is. As for the second, which I also do not think is correct, when aren't we in the shaft, that is, when aren't we perceiving existence by actually being in it?
I would be very interested in why you think perception is consciousness of anything else other than material existence. If perception isn't how you learned about material existence, how did you learn about it. I mean, if material existence is something other than what you perceive, how did you ever discover it?
One important note: I said "perception ... is our direct awareness of material existence," not reality. Reality is a much broader term including material existence. We do not directly perceive reality, only that aspect of it that is material existence. We do not, in fact, perceive perception, for example, which is quite real.
Hank
I'm winging it a bit here. The first analogy is an updated version of plato's parable of the cave, where he says that all our perceptions are indirect, like watching shadows on the wall. To the extent that our brains are mapping distantly seen objects, there is some of that going on. But Plato says that's the totality of our experience, and I think it's marginal. Even in the case of distant objects, we can approach them and perceive them more directly. Then we're in my 2nd scenario -- being in that shaft ourselves rather than watching the image sent back by a probe.
I would be very interested in why you think perception is consciousness of anything else other than material existence.
It isn't, except in the case of internally-generated delusions and dreams. But they're not perceptions, and usually we know the difference.
One important note: I said "perception ... is our direct awareness of material existence," not reality. Reality is a much broader term including material existence. We do not directly perceive reality, only that aspect of it that is material existence. We do not, in fact, perceive perception, for example, which is quite real.
Some very fine distinctions being made here. You make "material existence" a different domain from, and presumably a subset of, "reality." You say we directly perceive the former, not the latter. I'm not sure what this is all about. What is there in "reality" which is so different from "material existence" that we don't perceive it? And if, as you say, we don't perceive it, how do you gain your knowledge of it?