From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Eyes as Windows of the Soul
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:01:04 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX ComputerCorp. The 
 opinions expressed are those of the user andnot necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul30.032944.14307@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.152734.9663@news.eng.convex.com> 
>cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>Mikhail, I'm surprised at you! Don't you know that the real "you" is a
>>little guy that lives in your head and looks out of your eyes? (Actually, I
>>do think that a metaphysical picture like this underlies the
>>"commonplace".)

>Aside from the fact that this is singularly unhelpful, I believe that
>homuncularism has currency in legitimate philosophical circles solely
>as a strawman fabricated by unscrupulous antirepresentationalists.  I
>hereby offer a token bounty in the amount of US $1 to the first person
>who demonstrates an occurrence of the aforementioned "metaphysical
>picture" in the writings of any bona fide philosopher who professes to
>hold the homuncular view as described above.  No metaphors will be
>accepted; this offer expires on July 30, 2002.

I'm not sure how seriously to treat your answer. No more seriously than my
suggestion, I suppose. Surely you don't think I meant to suggest that any
philosopher has ever said that there is a literal "inner man"? If that's
what you want, then you could have been more liberal with the amount of
your wager.

What I meant when I spoke of a "metaphysical picture" is the rather
commonplace notion of a "mind" that perceives the world by (metaphorically)
looking through the eyes. Sort of like what Plato says:

	 Yes, it would surely be strange that there should be a number of
	senses ensconced inside us, like the warriors in the Trojan horse,
	and all these things should not converge and meet in some single
	nature--a mind, or whatever it is to be called--_with_ which we
	perceive all the objects of perception _through_ the senses as
	instruments.
Theaetetus, S. 184d.

Actually, Plato makes it sound as though the mind were a bit of a
super-sense that combines the "impressions" received through the other
senses and (presumably by having reference to the Forms), apprehends
objects. Presumably, the soul is watching the mind. 

The problem with this picture is, of course, the traditional problem of the
infinite regress--if "we" are minds or souls that perceive "impressions"
(or sense data) then how does this perceiving of mental objects take place?
Since we needed to posit a mechanism for perceiving in the first place, it
seems we now need a second mechanism, and so forth.

In regard to your original question, however, it looks as though I may have
been on entirely the wrong track. As Jeff Zucker pointed out, the saying
most likely refers to the way in which the world sees what goes on in the
soul by looking at facial expressions--or the eyes. So maybe I should have
addressed my philosophical ramblings to the issue of solipsism, and not
sense perception...



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~