On naturalism and consciousness

[Surgenator]

If I don't know your position, how am I going to respond to it? I think I know your position, and I am in the process of confirming-- while you, apparently, are in the process of tap-dancing.

First off, I'm not tap-dancing, I don't have the cordination for it. I have been answering your questions.

You said that rasetsu's "image from the eyes" was about a real thing. However, she specified (I think she's a she) that in all four of her possible sources, the image as the brain experienced it was exactly identical. This means that there is nothing intrinsic to anything in the brain, at least at the level of experience, that represents reality. Instead, the reality is a property of the object being observed.

If that is your understanding of rasetsu's question, then we are in agreement. However, I saw rasetsu's first choice to be different from the rest, because it had external inputs. Eventhough, the image is processed by the mind the same way as if it were imagined doesn't change the fact that it came something outside the mind. Hense, #1 is considered a about a real object, not an imagined, hallucinated, or remembered.

You want me to drop the socratic method? Instead of just making the positive assertion "X is real and Y is not" why don't you explain what that means, and how a person can use his/her conscious awareness to confidently make that determination?

You asked me if X or Y. I said X. I tried to explain it. You apprently didn't like my aswer or didn't understand it.