If one cannot happen without the other, then the splitting of them into two concepts doesnt reflect the real world, no? Its an artificial conception, rather than a natural one. It might still be useful to do so, but i cant see what you gain by doing so.
Simply calling it a canyon is an interpretation. It is just the sensation of a canyon, it could be painting on a backdrop for instance.
Say for example, me and some medieval intellectuals stared at the horizon. I would go to them:
"There, the curvature of the earth"
and they would reply "No, the edge of the earth".
Interpretation is 9/10ths of perception. If not higher. Perception without interpretation is a random particle. I think we arent actually arguing concepts anymore, just language.
In the Descartes example, oh aye, he is not accepting that the wax experiment isnt dependant on the senses. But it does prove it isnt just the senses, mental faculties have to be involved. In Descartes example of course, he does have a higher power to call upon.
Tell me what you think of this reasoning:
How to prove an external world exists:
1. Dreams are constructed of perceptiions from the real world.
C. Perception is not a dream.
2. Things happen in my perception that i do not will
3. I am merely a thinking thing who has a will
C. Things outside of "me" exist. This is the external world.
If thats not bad enough, hows about this>
1. Humans cannot create an infinite idea.
C. An infinite idea must originate from an external world.
2. Humans have an idea of an infinite God.
C. The idea of infinite God must have came from an external world (and is therefore real)
3. God is benevolent and all powerful.
C. God would not trick me in my perception of the external world
Final Conclusion: My perception is real and unfaltering thanks to God.
Well thats cleared everything up no?