They are picking out red things.

Are they not?

Animals can be trained to select red things.

I don't think pain is "in your foot," to begin with. — Samuele

That's odd.

When you accidentally kick something with your little toe... are you saying that the pain is not in your toe?

I'm left wondering what on earth you think counts as "flawless" perception... or "flawed" for that matter.

:worry:

...humans are the only ones that see "red", "green", "yellow", "blue", "brown", and other colors humans talk about. — InPitzotl

That's not true.

"Elitism" on Fox News is equivalent to anyone on the left, particularly those people who are financially well off, live on the coasts, enjoy Starbucks or some other kind of 'higher quality' coffee, and think that their ethics are better than the Fox viewers'(those put on display at Fox).

Not at all.

I have a pain in my foot. My foot is in the world. Pain is in the world.

Where have I gone wrong?

Perhaps the problems you're attempting to discuss are the result of the language you're using to discuss things...

That's what I'm seeing overall.

That is par for the course in current American political discourse. Unfortunately, it's not just Trump supporters.

This thread is prima facie proof of many inherently inadequate notions of thought and belief(mind) at work.

Yep.

Everyone's perception...

Spell this out. Clearly it's not "what is perceived". So...

You're equivocating the term "perception". Clear that up, and it will help.

Trees aren't absolute. Ok.

:brow:

You're equivocating...

In the OP, you say "what is perceived" and "what exists".

Our perception is not "what is perceived".

Humans are not the only creatures capable of seeing color. Camouflage wouldn't quite work as an evolutionary advantage if there were no color...

It's just ridiculous. If 'science' can't square with simple everyday facts... then 'science' is using the wrong linguistic framework.

The argument from illusion(delusion) fails.

In order for there to be an illusion of something, that something must already exist.

Trees exist. Blind people perceive them without sight.

Mommy, I want the little brown puppy.

But honey, there are no brown puppies.

Relationship between what is perceived and what exists — Samuele

What makes you think that they are different?

:brow:

Trees exist. I see(perceive) the tree.

Numbers are names for quantities.

What a mess!

:yikes:

I find that you're putting her thoughts to use. That has been educational for me. Thanks.

I appreciate your participation here...

:smile:

1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth. — tim wood

Standards are linguistic devices... I think?

If so, then true belief would require language. Clearly, that's not the case. There are non linguistic creatures who have true belief.

However, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. — TheMadFool

Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent.

If morality - as a term - refers to codes of conduct, and all codes consist entirely of common language, then it only follows that so too does all moralities. It would also follow that whatever all common language consists of, so too does all morality. It would also follow that whatever all common language is existentially dependent upon, so too is all morality. — creativesoul

That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to that something else. Codes of conduct consist of common language. Codes of conduct cannot exist prior to common language. Morality consists of codes of conduct. Morality cannot exist prior to codes of conduct. Morality cannot exist prior to common language. Common language consists of thought and belief statements. Common language cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements.

That which consists of something else is existentially dependent upon that something else. Morality consists of codes of conduct. Morality is existentially dependent upon codes of conduct. Codes of conduct consist of common language. Codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language. Morality is existentially dependent upon common language. Common language consists of thought and belief statements. Morality is existentially dependent upon thought and belief statements.

That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to that something else. Codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language. Codes of conduct cannot exist prior to common language. Common language is existentially dependent upon thought and belief statements. Common language cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements. Morality is existentially dependent upon common language. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements.

So, we've arrived at the irrevocably important role that thought and belief play here, in morality.

Thought and belief statements consist of correlations drawn between different things, as all thought and belief do. Statements thereof involve naming and descriptive practices(common language use), and are of a more complex kind as a result of including language use as an integral part of the aforementioned correlations. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements, but it seems to me - and I suspect you'll readily agree - that morality is also existentially dependent upon whatever thought and belief statements are also dependent upon. Morality would also consist of whatever thought and belief statements consist of, which brings us to the parts of morality that are not existentially dependent upon language, but are irrevocably important elements nonetheless.

Prelinguistic thought and belief. Here, is perhaps where the intuitionist's basis can be found, and on a universally applicable and/or extant way... rather than just being relative to individual particulars.

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else. Some thought and belief is prior to common language use, and thus prior to all codes of conduct.

Here is where we find the need to distinguish between morality, and what's universally relevant to it. Perhaps then, we can establish some true statements about morality that are universal.

:wink:

Moral intuition, I suspect, is founded upon(consists of) such morally relevant prelinguistic universal thought and belief.

Yup, but you may not like what i have to say about it. Wallows.
— creativesoul

Yeah, not a very happy thought. Although, who knows what the big entity, up above, thinks about it too. — Wallows

I'm not a believer in such things. I'm much more a believer of recognizing our own part, our own role, and thus our own power to realize what's within our reach, and working from the principle of being helpful in each and every situation, as well as finding contentment purely in the fact that we're doing our best.

Personally, I find that your habits of thought are self-perpetuating. That's fine, I suppose, if you like where you are. If not, I suggest taking a different path by being courageous enough to deliberately and intentionally develop different more productive(new) habits of thought.

This, of course, requires someone else to show you and/or lead the way, so to speak.

A burning faun is what happens when the woods catch fire. A burning thought life is what happens when one doesn't recognize the power that they have to put out the fire in one's own mind.

Do something else.

See the issue here, already? — Wallows

Yup, but you may not like what i have to say about it. Wallows.

...a belief is a state of affairs in the brain... — Isaac

This is dead wrong.

I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic on the matter in the sense that we cannot know anything about something that exists beyond space and time.

All of them.

With all atheists it starts out as personal. Only after finding reasons to hate God do they then rationalize that there is no God. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not true Noah. Some atheists... the militant ones... may hate God, whatever that means. Not all.

As I said earlier... the term "socialism" being bandied about - as a negative - in the current political landscape is hollow.

Cannot wait for the national debates between Bernie and Trump.

What do you think "public" means?

:brow:

Now it's Stove's worst argument?

The leading theory of perception? Is it physicalist? Does it include notions like perception that is informed by language as well as perception that is not?

Meh.

Gibberish.

Can't say... I'm not a believer.

Not really. Where there is no intent, purpose, or plan there is no needless suffering. It's just suffering. Causality. Needless suffering is meaningful. Causality is meaningless.

Remove all intent and purpose. Look at what's left.

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."

Exactly — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Taxes are much better called by another name...

User fees.