"I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea what you saw because you cannot access that information."
Does this seem like a good definition of "see" according to you?
Of course that's not true.
> "I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea what you saw because you cannot access that information."
No. You both saw and perceived a cow. You also thought the cow outside was too skinny for being a Chianina. We perceive things through the use of the senses, and then we interpret, discern, and think.
You perceived a cow through the senses of sight, smell, and maybe sound and touch but probably not through taste. Your sense of sight was used to see, making you aware of the cow in that way.
Why so much discussion about the basic meanings of words that can be viewed in a dictionary? I find it odd that on HN people want to debate the meanings of words, when those words are already well defined.
Are you saying that the brain interpreting signals from the eyes (real-time) cannot be affected by past experiences (i.e. interpreted)?
If that’s not what you’re saying then I’m not sure what your opinion is, feel free to re-state it if you want to have more pointless discussions ^^