如实地看待事物
Seeing things as they are
John R. Searle · 初版 2015 年
3位读者提及
3次提及
本书对知觉体验的意向性进行了全面的阐述。Searle特别强调视觉，解释了知觉的原始现象学如何设定体验的内容与满足条件。其核心问题涉及主观意识知觉场与客观知觉场之间的关系。客观场中的一切要么被感知，要么可以被感知。主观场中的一切都既没有被感知，也不能被感知，正是因为主观场中的事件本身就构成了感知活动，而
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
John Searle 在最新一期《The Partially Examined Life》播客里接受了采访，聊了他的新书《Seeing Things As They Are》。他说那种认为我们只能看到心理表征而非现实本身的谬论“太扯了，我都直接叫它‘那个烂论点’（The Bad Argument）”。采访非常逗，去读一读可能会挺有意思……
John Searle was interviewed in the latest episode of The Partially Examined Life about his new book, Seeing Things As They Are. He says that the fallacious argument that we only see mental representations and not reality is "so bad I call it The Bad Argument." The interview is quite amusing, and it might be interesting to read…
……https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/125777.The_Feeling_of_Wh... - 《焦虑：利用大脑来理解和应对恐惧与焦虑》（Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety） - Joseph LeDoux - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23398722-anxious?ac=1&fr... - 《Seeing Things As They Are: A Theory of Perception》 - John Searle: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22104265-seeing-things-a... 前两本书讲的是神经生理学方面的内容，重点关注大脑和相关的特定脑区……
…https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/125777.The_Feeling_of_Wh... - Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety - Joseph LeDoux - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23398722-anxious?ac=1&fr... - Seeing Things As They Are: A Theory of Perception - John Searle: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22104265-seeing-things-a... The first two books are dealing with the neurophysiological aspects, with a focus on the brain and the specific areas involved…
……这方面我完全是个门外汉，但至少懂的一星半点足以打破科学唯物主义的偏见，不管是维特根斯坦、McGilchrist 那一派，还是神经学和心理学的文献，甚至是 Searle 认为感知并非由数据构成的《Seeing Things as They Are》。我会站在 Daniel Dennett（虽然我相信他是个大好人）或 Richard Dawkins 这种人的对立面。那在这场讨论里我能辩得过吗？当然……
…I'm very very much out of my depth here but at least enough to puncture the scientific materialism bias, Wittgenstein, from the likes of McGilchrist and neuro and psychological sources, even Searle's "Seeing Things as They Are" which argues that perception is not made of data. I'd be against someone like a Daniel Dennett (though I'm sure he was a swell fellow) or Richard Dawkins. Would I prevail in the discussion? Of course…