Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom? — baker

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me.

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that? — baker

Tom can quite easily walk away or just tell Dick to piss off. How is this relevant to what I said?

Paint flinger. — Bartricks

Oh dear, thank you so much. I never imagined that a dipshit like you was capable of paying such a compliment,

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jackson-Pollock

There are a lot more famous paint flinger like him.

Thank you so much.

I'm sure that passes for wit in a Burger King or a Kentucky Fried Chicken, but you are talking to a champagne drinking truffle muncher, so you really need to up your game. Thicky. — Bartricks

If I was abusive as you, I would correct your opinion of yourself to read piss drinking shit eating type of person. But I am not at all abusive. :halo:

And the monkey-flung painting is clearly not a portrait of you. However, if your reason says otherwise, then i think it is too badly corrupted to be of any use. — Bartricks

Please explain how you dickionary contradicts my point of view. IF YOU CAN. :rofl:

I use to think richness could be enough money. But what if a person does not have to pay the bills because of government assistance or welfare. This person gets bills paid because of a lack of money. Why should this person not be considered rich? — d Luke

Because it does not fit into the definition I gave.
I said that anyone with enough money to pay the bills without having to work. That would mean that they choose not to work because they don't need to.
These people do not have enough money to pay the bills, that is why they are paid for them. And most of them don't work because they cannot do so.

What does it mean for a person to be rich? — d Luke

Anyone with enough money not to have to work to pay the bills. But most of those people work harder than the rest of us.

I would drop $100,000.00 for the right information any day of the week. — Book273

Do you work for the KGB or something like that?

What are the problems of the world today? — Xtrix

Not to get into too much detail for the answer, but I would guess it to be at least 90% of the population.
Myself included.

Shall I help you to see how dumb you are being? (Or willfully ignorant) — Bartricks

It is about time you got a dictionary so that you can stop using the dickionary you use. Maybe it will help to stop you fucking up so much.
Your lack of knowledge about the use of words, ignorance, is only surpassed by the flagrantly abusive use of them to suite your own ideas, dumbness.

You don't seem to understand the argument. — Bartricks

That makes 2 of us then. One that does not understand it and one that does not understand just how bloody stupid it is.

Visual sensations cannot tell us about the world unless they have representative contents.
That is, unless they are telling us something. — Bartricks

There seems to be enough consensus to let this go.

And they will only have those, if the faculty that created them in us was designed by an agent for that purpose. — Bartricks

This still sounds like bullshit even after you have repeated it so many times.

It's pointless arguing with you, but anyway, in the hope that someone somewhere will get the point - imagine a portrait artist paints a picture of you. That's a pictorial representation. Now imagine a monkey in a room randomly flinging paint at a canvas. And imagine that by some pure fluke the image the monkey's mad antics create exactly resembles the portrait painter's painting.

Is it a portrait of you? — Bartricks

If it is as good as the painters image of me and is indistinguishable from the other one then of course it is a portrait of me. Even if the monkey does not recognize the fact. Can you provide a definition of
"portrait" that specifies that only humans are allowed to create them or that they have to be intentional?

I think you have this wrong again. :gasp: All you have done were is try to prove that only agent created messages are capable of creating representative contents.

But even if I were to admit that it was true, which it is certainly not. It in no way whatsoever proves that the perception of those messages has to be through agent create faculties.

Our visual sensations are random monkey-flung paintings if our visual faculties are bot built. And thus lookingin the oven is not something one can do with bot built faculties. All one can do is 'look' in the oven. — Bartricks

Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, BORING.

It's just that even your insults don't really make sense. — Bartricks

Oh dear, did I give you the impression that the list was of insults? Terribly sorry about that old chap, maybe I should have explained better. That is nothing more than a list of possible reasons for your "mistaken" (read as "Fucked up") ideas.

You proposed that I have read relevant philosophical works (can you tell me some of those, incidentally - ones that are not on an SEP page?) upside down or backwards. — Bartricks

That would be one way of explaining why you have these mistaken ideas.

That would require some skill. Leonardo da Vinci was capable writing backwards and so could presumably read backwards too. And he was a bright lad. So that's why it puzzled me. — Bartricks

No one said that you were/are capable of doing it. I think that you missed the point.
Penny will drop in 10 seconds from now, 9, 8,7..................................

But getting back to the rest of that post.

The whole problem could be solved by opening the oven and looking to see if there is a pie in it. That would eliminate any need of information being passed through any message and therefore even if there are such things as representers they would not be involved in acquiring information.
If I can then confirm that the pie is in the oven, it would seem that in some way I would have received that information directly from my evolutionary developed senses.

Now maybe if Fartrix can show why I am wrong, maybe I will continue to try to explain why he is wrong. — Sir2u

Don't you have anything to comment about it?

A hole exists as the space between boundaries not occupied by objects.

I think your original question lacks clarity, which makes it difficult for people to answer. What do you mean by ‘true awareness’? ‘Some things’? Why would you infer that if we were just the product of evolutionary forces, our senses would be unreliable or partial? Etc, etc. — Ignatius

He has no idea, and he will just tell you that it is in the OP and to read it again.

By the way, if you want to quote someone's text, just select it then click on the QUOTE button that appears.

Can you explain 3 to me above — Bartricks

Nope, if you are so freaking brilliant you should be able to figure it out all by your self.

If you can't do that, tough shit.

I think he just has a personality disorder and doesnt really know anything. Standard internet jerkoff. — DingoJones

That was possibility #6, but I am too polite to call people crazy even though it is possibly true. :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

Just one question. Does your theory apply to beer as well?

Or maybe 2 questions. Do all of the people involved in growing the ingredients, making the beer brewing equipment, brewing the beer, canning/bottling the beer actually do nothing at all?

Ya was very disappointed in you myself. He’s well fed and he won’t go away if people keep feeding him. — DingoJones

The world is a boring place right now, do you remember how enjoyable it was sitting in the park feeding the pigeons or squirrels? I used to loving going to a park in Mobile where the squirrels would sit in your hand to eat the nuts.

I am actually beginning to think that one of these might be the problem with Fartrix:
1. He never read the book about the topic, he just skinned the covers and maybe the introduction. Or got the Idea from the Amazon review.
2. If he did read the book it was either in a foreign language and he used google to translate it.
3. If the book was in his mother tongue he had it upside down or read from back to front.
4. He went to classes drunk or high.
5. The most probable is that he just does not know anything and is blowing ideas from his ass.

The whole problem could be solved by opening the oven and looking to see if there is a pie in it. That would eliminate any need of information being passed through any message and therefore even if there are such things as representers they would not be involved in acquiring information.
If I can then confirm that the pie is in the oven, it would seem that in some way I would have received that information directly from my evolutionary developed senses.

Now maybe if Fartrix can show why I am wrong, maybe I will continue to try to explain why he is wrong.

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another? — baker

Did I say anything about that?

But to be truthful, when "some" People find another person aggravating it is because of some trait or characteristic they have that is the cause. It would be logical to suppose that other would find that person to be aggravating for the same reason.

Most people do not have "being aggravating" as an objective but it is usually a inherent part of then.

When a book is expensive enough, it is not shared, because the price gets cheaper. — gikehef947

When something is expensive enough, someone will make a knock off, photocopy or just photos of it and sell it cheaper. It is the content that is valuable, not the book itself, And they don't care about the value of the original.

Fun fact of the day, pirating happens.

Why rent a house for $3000/month when you can assemble a tent under an overpass on the urban outskirts. — Nils Loc

Well that sounds like fun. We will have $2950 a month to spend on booze, and the ladies. Or maybe just the booze, safer maybe.

Capitalism is evil — gikehef947

Wait a couple of weeks and you will be able to download the PDF from Demoniod. :wink:

But what if a person is only perceived as aggravating by some other people? — baker

That is probably just because the rest of the people don't know them. If they did they would probably perceive that person to be aggravating as well

Teddybär A 200 page limited edition book of photographs of Germans posing with Bear (suit). SOLD OUT — Nils Loc

Eerrrr, thanks. I think. :smile:

I have had a few German friends, most of them seemed to be more obsessed with bear that anything else. But that might be because we are in the tropics and it never snows.

Note as well that I am not claiming evolutionary forces cannot have built our faculties, I am arguing that 'unguided' evolutionary forces cannot be responsible for them, for then they would not be representing anything to us.

"We cannot believe what our senses tell us about the world because it is not presented to us by an agent.
If we accepted that there is an agent that is purposely sending the information then we can believe it." — Sir2u


That's not a quote from me! That's not my view! — Bartricks

Is this not confusing to you. I know it is not a quote of something you said, but it is saying almost the same thing as you are.
Our sense cannot give us believable information.

Perception denotes that which is involved in perceiving something. And you perceive something when you are subject to a certain kind of mental state known as a perceptual experience. This kind of mental state has 'representative contents' (though it is not the only kind that does) - that is, it represents something to be the case. And when that perceptual experience has been caused, non-waywardly, by its representative contents, then you are perceiving something. — Bartricks

You are very short sighted, you cannot see beyond the end of your own twaddle.

What I am arguing, in case you didn't know, is that unless an agent has designed the faculty that created that experience in you, it won't have any representative contents at all and thus won't qualify as a perceptual experience (just something that is introspectively indiscernible from one). — Bartricks

We all know what you are arguing, but I don't think many understand exactly how it could be possible.

Descartes argued that our faculties are designed by God and on that basis we can trust them. But that's not what I have argued, is it? — Bartricks

No you certainly have not claimed that. You just said agent instead of god.

And why the freaking hell do people have to capitalize the word god all the time?

Anyways, I for one have had enough. It was fun.

I wish I could help you there mate, but all I can see is "D7foreh.jpg".

Nicely written caption though, sound like an interesting image.

Not everyone has a network connection or device. — Tiberiusmoon

Even fewer have them here, but if you want to get along you have to find a way to do it.

He could have just made all the kids redo a year in a years time so that way teachers have a year to plan the additional students and request help from the government as needed — Tiberiusmoon

I have been giving classes online for over a year now. It is hard work, but it is possible to do it. What I cannot understand is why they have not been able to organize the schools to work that way.

Sorry mate, all I see is file names.

Why did you think it significant then? — Bartricks

I find no significance at all in it. I don't think that there is an agent behind anything so it makes no difference at all to me.
But as you are the one claiming that evolution cannot be responsible I would presume that you have an answer.

I have been arguing in this thread that mental states with representative contents require a representer. That is, absent a representer - an agent of some kind - the mental states in question will lack representative contents, no matter how much they may seem to us to have them. And thus, as perceiving the world requires us to be in such states, perceiving the world is not possible if the relevant mental states are the creation of blind evolutionary forces alone. — Bartricks

You are beginning to repeat yourself,. No sorry, you have been repeating yourself for most of the thread.
Maybe if I stated what you you appear to be saying in plain English you would understand what the problem is.

"We cannot believe what our senses tell us about the world because it is not presented to us by an agent.
If we accepted that there is an agent that is purposely sending the information then we can believe it."

No, I am using reasoned argument to show that perception is incompatible with our faculties being the product of blind evolutionary forces. — Bartricks

OK, let's try something else.
Define perception.
What are our faculties?

What on earth are you on about? Good riddance to the little shits. — Bartricks

So you are having trouble creating the mental state then. Difficult to do that if you have never really perceived them.

Are you, perhaps, thinking that if I can't say who is responsible, then somehow that'll magically mean that blind evolutionary forces can create mental states with representative contents? — Bartricks

Never said that, so it must be a thought of your own. I don't think magic has much use in this world either. But the fact that your theory needs an agent but you don't have one does very little to disprove that evolution is responsible. Which I presume is your objective.

Here's us at a crime scene:

Detective Bartricks: well, the axe lodged in the back of her head and 'die, you bloody bugger!' written in her blood on the wall makes me think she was probably murdered. — Bartricks

Point 1. why would anyone write "die, you bloody bugger" on the wall in a dead person's blood. Surely if the supposed murderer was using her blood she must have been dead already.
Point 2. seeing the evidence only made you think it was murder, you have not stated it as a fact. Is the mental state the scene caused not true because there is no agent to make it true?

Sir Fit of Ignorance: Who murdered her? — Bartricks

I doubt anyone except the writer of absolutely pathetic writers of pseudo philosophical examples would actually think of asking that question. Something along the lines of "Any idea who might have done it?" might be a more common question.

Detective Bartricks: I don't know - I've just arrived at the scene. I'm establishing that she has, in fact, been murdered. We'll try and figure out who later. — Bartricks

So it is still not established, you obviously are having doubts about the whole idea.

Sir Fit of Ignorance: So all this time you've been banging on about how she's been murdered and yet you haven't got a clue who did it!! — Bartricks

Of course you don't have a clue who did it, you still have not made up your mind if it was murder or not. Again, after being told that you only think it is murder a sane person would not even waste their time asking such a silly question. It might be a good idea to ask if you are ware of anyone with a reason to kill her.

Back to the drawing board everyone - how did she die? — Bartricks

I thought you already knew the she had an axe in her head.

[/quote]She wasn't murdered until we find someone who murdered her. But until then she wasn't murdered. So, we're not looking for a murderer, because we don't yet know how she died.[/quote]

The only crime scene here is your attempt to use bullshit to try to convince people that they are wrong.


.

An agent that designs the world is a description of God — Gregory

That is not what I asked you to point me to.

Aw, that's no fun. You haven't seen any bears recently then, eh? — Nils Loc

Lesson #1, Never make quick comments on TPF from your mobile if you are dyslexic.
Lesson #2, Turn the freaking auto correct off.

I thought I had written SITE, not sight.

They are blocked where I live, I have never been able to see anything on that sight.

Bartricks is saying we can know an agent is behind the world. But God is unknowable. Bartricks is saying we need to believe in God in a literal obnoxious way but people who are open to possibilities will say they are atheists and don't believe in proof of God but could possibly be true believers of whatever is beyond thought. Who can say for sure whether they are believers or not — Gregory

Could you point me to where he said that please, I must have missed this gem.

It is not in dispute that we perceive things by way of mental states with representative contents. — Bartricks

Sorry to tell you, but there is quite a bit of dispute about how and what we perceive.
Most people would probably agree that mental states come about because of perception. Try building a mental state about how sorry you are that the Trescian Water Mole is extinct.

Maybe you could finally explain why Banno's red cup is red.

An agent. Do you mean who? Not sure. God probably. — Bartricks

So all through the thread you have been telling us that the information that we have been perceiving is sent from an agent, but you have no idea what that agent is!

He is ruled by society, they elected him. He has to try and keep them happy.

But all over the world things went pretty much the same.

If they had closed all borders around the world for 4 months in January, then looked everyone up until June, they would have had a chance to get things beck to normal in six months. But no one wanted to do that.

Do you know what a 'state with representative contents' is? — Bartricks

Yes.

Perception happens by means of them. — Bartricks

Are you sure about that, or is that just the information we perceive through our senses. The theory you present is, if no agent is sending us the information then we are not perceiving anything.

So it all comes down to one thing, if it is not evolution that has made it possible for us to perceive, what is the agent that is sending it to us?

Thinking higher thoughts (not focusing on chemicals for example) is good is it leads to character building. But nobody really knowns what "God" is so atheists can sometimes be the greatest believers of them all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-DliKSGu0 — Gregory

Maybe you could take the time to explain exactly what this has to do with the discussion.

Yeah people are idiots and our PM is a mass murderer.
Where do you live? — Tiberiusmoon

I thought the guy was a clown, but now I find he has a dark side.

I live in Honduras, Central America. And if you think your PM is a bad guy you would probably love to meet our president. Mass murderer, drug lord, psychopathic/ sociopathic would be dictator, corrupt son of a bitch. And that is on the good days.

UK — Tiberiusmoon

When I lived there the only way outstanding was used negatively was when someone was called outstandingly stupid. Glad I left 45 years ago, things seem to have gone downhill since then.

I am arguing that if our faculties are a product of unguided evolution, then they do 'not' provide us with any awareness of the pie in the oven. — Bartricks

So basically if humans are a product of evolution, then we cannot perceive. If we were created then we can. Is that what you mean?

I argued this by showing how the lack of agential guidance would mean that our situation is that of someone having an accurate dream about a pie. — Bartricks

But the problem here is that if no one tells me that there is a pie in the oven I will not know. So how will I ever know that there is a pie in the oven?

I am somewhat puzzled, then, that you should ask me to show you the connection given that the entire OP is devoted to doing precisely that. — Bartricks

Actually it is not. It is devoted to explaining that you think we are blind without the hand of a god guiding us.

If by saying that our sense could not work if they are a product of evolution you think that you have explained, sorry but you failed to explain anything.
With either created eyes or evolved eyes I can still see the pie in the oven if it is there.