The problem with this is you can take this as two separate statements. >Close your eyes and imagine an apple. What do you want for dinner?
As far as visualizing an apple, I usually go through a few permutations, from the word(Arial font), to the Apple logo, a cartoon apple, and settle on a red delicious. And I feel like it all happens in a split second, a similar thing happens when I want to watch a movie, I'll grab the dvd or whatever, and put it back down. It's almost like I just watched the whole thing and move onto another film
Colton Lee
this isn't decartes. decartes pioneered primary and seconary qualities of things even though he never used those terms. later philosophers discussed perception but again, to simply call it a lie kind of ends the book and they never did that.
quine, however, offered an argument like "a fool imagines a "being greater than god" and that such a being can not exist. to make a long argument short, because the fool imagines a guy stronger than arnold, that can not exist, the mere fact that he imagined him means he does exist.
philosophy is more based than your want to go.
Adrian Fisher
sorry i'm drunk so i fucked that up but um, "what we see is lie" is more like based jaden smith tier philosophy
Carson Bennett
Anyone else just think in words, no images? More in line with a book than a movie or an image
Alexander Barnes
Yeah it seems like if you're a creative enough snowflake, there would be no difference between backs of eyelids and any other physical image. Why bother closing your eyes, are you not smart enough to do it otherwise?
