So polite :grin: I will try to emulate the behavior, but I often get caught up in the argument and forget there is another human involved. — ZhouBoTong

:grin:

Nope. I answer "I don't know" to knowledge questions. I answer "I don't think so" or "I don't believe so" to thought/opinion questions (to be fair, in a normal conversation 'think' and 'know' are interchangeable. But we are talking about belief in a philosophical setting and we get the added buffer of typing our responses so I can be extra careful about EXACTLY what I mean.) — ZhouBoTong

How is that different than what I said?

There are creatures that can see different ranges of electromagnetic radiation than humans see. Those ranges are visible light for them. It's very similar to sound waves. Different creatures can hear different frequency ranges of sound waves. Well, different creatures can see different frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation, too. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I know all of this. This just strengthens my argument and weakens yours.

Do you know how perception works? I don’t think you do.
— Noah Te Stroete

Patronizing much? And after not understanding electromagnetic radiation, doppler shifts, etc. — Terrapin Station

I understand all of these things. I’m pointing out that perception doesn’t give you the things in themselves.

To us, no. Again, it just depends on how facilities evolved for the creatures in question. That usually has a lot to do with what's survivally advantageous for the creatures in question. There are creatures that can see different ranges of electromagnetic radiation than humans see. Those ranges are visible light for them. It's very similar to sound waves. Different creatures can hear different frequency ranges of sound waves. Well, different creatures can see different frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation, too. — Terrapin Station

This brings us back to perception. Perception doesn’t give you the things in themselves, hence transcendental idealism, which includes empirical realism.

Can it be considered without that? No. Because of what it refers to to consider something. — Terrapin Station

That’s what I’m getting at that you don’t seem to be getting. I don’t think we understand each other.

Visible light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds. — Terrapin Station

Yes, visible light is electromagnetic radiation, but not all electromagnetic radiation is visible light, for example, the color of oranges. Microwaves are not visible light. You seem to think that the perception of reality gives you reality. Do you know how perception works? I don’t think you do.

Yes, spatio-temporal locations. You can't consider anything absent a spatio-temporal location, and all property changes occur relative to spatio-temporal location differences--necessarily so, since time is simply motion or change. — Terrapin Station

Can a point of reference be “considered” without conceptualization or perception? That is what I’m getting at.

You asked how fast they'd need to be moving in order to detect doppler-shifted light. The answer is not very fast. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds. — Terrapin Station

But visible light is what humans perceive when it comes to oranges.

Category error, I think.
— Noah Te Stroete

? — Terrapin Station

We were talking about points of reference, not the flux of reality.

You're it aware that visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Microwaves would be visible light to creatures that evolved sensitivities to be able to perceive them. It's all the same stuff, just different frequencies. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I know but the discussion was about the color of oranges. We were talking about perception of color.

How would you think that the properties of an orange (or anything else) don't change? You wouldn't be able to have orange trees flowering, some of the flowers turning into fruit, the fruit developing, eventually ripening, falling, decomposing, etc. — Terrapin Station

Category error, I think.

Not very fast. Radar guns work via doppler effect measurement, for example. Radar guns use microwaves, but it's all just part of the electromagnetic spectrum. — Terrapin Station

Except that has nothing to do with color which is visible light.

Not very fast. Radar guns work via doppler effect measurement, for example. Radar guns use microwaves, but it's all just part of the electromagnetic spectrum. — Terrapin Station

Okay. Now I know! Thank you.

It's not that the orange is emitting light. It's reflecting it. Reflected light is doppler-shifted just as well as emitted light. — Terrapin Station

Exactly how fast does an orange have to travel in order for there to be blue or red shift detected? I’m ignorant on this subject.

It seems likely that consciousness has benefits. I just think people put too much emphasis on it because it's at the center of their sense of who they are. — T Clark

What possible benefit could it have if we’re all on autopilot (unconscious motivations)?

A lot of Native American tribes had communal property, and they were successful for millennia before the white man. I have no desire to read ad hoc arguments justifying the need for or the justification for private property.

I'm have no reason to believe that's true and I'm not sure I understand its relevance to this discussion. — T Clark

???

How doesn’t that relate to the OP?

I think you and I have a different understanding about how evolution works. — T Clark

Well, if you mean that some traits are “evolutionary riders” that weren’t specifically selected for, then no, I don’t think we understand differently. Was consciousness an evolutionary rider that came along with something else that made us more successful at procreating?

Good epigenetics implies good nature and good nurture. “Good” here means to me that which is valued by society. You seem more productive than me.

If that means I think consciousness is riding in the car, but not driving, I guess the answer is yes, mostly. — T Clark

Same question to you then. What is the evolutionary use of consciousness?

The brain uses it for something, else it wouldn't have evolved. — PoeticUniverse

If determinism is true, then what would be the use of consciousness?

It sounds like you’re on autopilot a lot of the time. I’m not like that. I don’t do much. I think it’s epigenetics. Good nature and good nurture.

For example, did you have a good childhood? Do you have lots of good relationships? Do you enjoy your work? Is it good epigenetics?

Well, I don't mean someone is unaware of the feelings associated with motivation, only that they are unconscious of their source. Of course I was speaking based on my own experience, although I seriously doubt that motivation is truly generated from our conscious thoughts. — T Clark

But what about you in particular makes you more motivated than me or Schopenhauer?

So you both believe that consciousness is an epiphenomen?

It's completely unconscious. — T Clark

Not all of it. Not for me. I need a good reason to do a lot of things. Also, my emotions (which I’m consciously aware of), help or hinder performing a certain activity. I’m not consciously aware of which neurons fire to cause these feelings and thoughts about good or no good reasons, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all unconscious. Or did I misunderstand you?

anti-realist account of trees. — Michael

But is it anti-realist?

Can you explain? — schopenhauer1

He’s a determinist. He believes your lack of drive was determined since the Big Bang.

If you lack drive, you’re probably depressed, something that seems apparent to me given my familiarity with your discussions.

To be more precise, I said that the NAP is incompatible with the right to private property. You have shown me the fundamental disagreement between right and left on this issue of property rights, such that you have demonstrated that there is no such thing as convention on property rights. Therefore there is no "system of property rights". The NAP presupposes the existence of something which does not exist, a system of property rights. The convention required for there to be a system of property rights does not exist, yet the NAP presupposes such. That is why the right to private property (something recognized as non-existent, by lack of convention) is incompatible with the NAP which presupposes the existence of that right. — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re going to shatter her reason for living.

The limbic system provides drive. The frontal lobe organizes the world. That’s what the neuroscientists say anyways.

Maybe it partly has to do with indoctrination, partly socialization (learning right from wrong), partly rational thought (the hypothetical imperative), partly aesthetics, partly an inherent need to organize the world (something we’re born with). Can you think of any others?

I like them. I also don’t like my wife getting upset with me, so I do other things (perceived coercion), too.

But if you mean to say the human mind creates spatio-temporal reference points, then Kant would agree, for the excruciatingly simple reason Nature doesn’t incorporate them in her catalog of physical objects. If she did, you can bet yer arse there’d be a preferred one, which from our perspective of course, there isn’t. — Mww

Yes, I was trying to say something like this. “Unintelligible” is a better word than “incoherent.”

I do not even consent to being governed, so how can it be said to 'represent' me? — Virgo Avalytikh

I do consent to being governed, so I guess that’s where we differ. The US government is supposed to be answerable to the people, but that was until the judiciary was filled with conservatives, which one could argue was from the get go.

How does desire lead to the actual activity? How does the desire arise for you? — schopenhauer1

It’s a drive to accomplish something I personally value. If my drive (or what some might call a lack of drive) is to do philosophy (what others might call being lazy and unproductive), then I do philosophy. If I value having a nice yard (which I do), then I can often find the drive to do the work (which often doesn’t feel like work, but sometimes it does and I put it off for a little while, what is called “procrastination”).

But I suppose you could say that these judges are not truly right wing libertarian. They think they are, however.

If it weren’t for right wing libertarian judges declaring corporations as people with rights, then the State wouldn’t be oppressive. We are supposed to live in a constitutional representative democratic republic. That means that the government IS the people. They are supposed to be answerable to the people. It only got coercive because of right wing libertarian judges.

I am opposed principally to aggression for philosophical reasons, and the State is an agency of monopolised aggression. — Virgo Avalytikh

I don’t think this way.

Desire or perceived coercion.

“Reference” implies a referring to something. Can something refer to something else without conceptualization or perception? That is what I can’t figure out. I’m leaning towards no.