There should be a word for experiences/qualia, and I think it should not be “sense data”, since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs. Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
I suspect that sort of thing is true not only of visual perception, but of consciousness in general. It is not continuous, but we don’t usually become aware of the discontinuities.
It seems like your complaint is just with the term sense data then, and I don’t see why. You can replace the word sense with “experienced” and the meaning is identical. Sense data refers to the information we obtain through our experienced perceptions. Sense data refers to the experience not the raw information flowing through the nervous system.
since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs.
I don’t thjnk this is a fact. Our experience is one thing dependent on the entire process. If you cut off the front end, there is no information, if you cut off the backend the same is true.
Take your example of a camera. Which is more responsible for a photo: the incoming light, the CCD, the wiring (inc. A/D converter, line driver, frame driver), or the software the converts those signals into a display? Intuitively, my feeling would be the software is the least important (you could derive the information from the raw signals, but not the other way) but as far as understanding what captures the image you have to have the entire process for it to work.
There should be a word for experiences/qualia, and I think it should not be “sense data”, since in fact a larger part of your experience depends on the processing than the inputs. Whenever you look to a different spot you go blind during the eye movement but your visual field doesn’t blur and come back.
I suspect that sort of thing is true not only of visual perception, but of consciousness in general. It is not continuous, but we don’t usually become aware of the discontinuities.
It seems like your complaint is just with the term sense data then, and I don’t see why. You can replace the word sense with “experienced” and the meaning is identical. Sense data refers to the information we obtain through our experienced perceptions. Sense data refers to the experience not the raw information flowing through the nervous system.
I don’t thjnk this is a fact. Our experience is one thing dependent on the entire process. If you cut off the front end, there is no information, if you cut off the backend the same is true.
Take your example of a camera. Which is more responsible for a photo: the incoming light, the CCD, the wiring (inc. A/D converter, line driver, frame driver), or the software the converts those signals into a display? Intuitively, my feeling would be the software is the least important (you could derive the information from the raw signals, but not the other way) but as far as understanding what captures the image you have to have the entire process for it to work.
My complaint with the term comes from applying the criteria of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong
There are already definitions and uses of “data” and “sense”, and if you combine them into “sense data” but mean inner perception/experience, you will confuse a lot of people!