It's impossible to discuss the moon without discussing both our perception and the linguistic dynamics of our perceptions and representation of the moon. There may be an object preceding those things, but it's impossible for us to access that except through our perception and language, which are greatly linked.
— Thanatos Sand

Let me try to misquote you for the occasion:

It's impossible to discuss jorndoe without discussing both Thanatos Sand's perception and the linguistic dynamics of Thanatos Sand's perceptions and representation of jorndoe. There may be a jorndoe preceding those things, but it's impossible for Thanatos Sand to access that except through Thanatos Sand's perception and language, which are greatly linked.

If anything significant differentiates fictions/fantasies/hallucinations/dreams (which do exist) and perception, then it must be the perceived (the Moon, jorndoe).
Hopefully you wouldn't (rudely) suggest that I'm not self-aware because you cannot experience my self-awareness? :)

You didn't just misquote me, you completely misrepresented what I said. And I never suggested what you said I did. Instead of "misquoting" and strawmanning me, try to address my actual post. That works much better for discussion.

It's impossible to discuss the moon without discussing both our perception and the linguistic dynamics of our perceptions and representation of the moon. There may be an object preceding those things, but it's impossible for us to access that except through our perception and language, which are greatly linked.

Good luck on your dissertation, though!

No, my point was that even as brilliant a philosopher as Rorty was pushed away from his preference of idealist philosophy because he wanted a job and knew the predominance of non-skeptical realists in the field doing the hiring

If that's the best you've got, that's a terrible example of non-skeptical realist criticism.

The Philipapers survey found that 81.6% of professional philosophers accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism.

Only 4.3% accepted idealism.

Overwhelmingly, idealism has been rejected by those who study philosophy; that it is such a commonplace hereabouts is perhaps a reflection of the undergraduate background of our companions.

A lot of that is due to the bent of Philosophy Academia where most of the professors are non-skeptical realists and very few students can get their idealist dissertations approved or get jobs. Even Rorty, who said he wanted to write on Heidegger and Nietzsche, wrote his dissertation on analytic philosophy because he knew "what side of his bread was buttered." So, it is not, in itself, a foundation supporting non-skeptical realism's superiority. And the Continental schools would likely have a different result.

Back to the body being external and other subjects:

If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else.
— Thanatos Sand

If you don't want to discuss with people you disagree with, why use internet forums?

I never said I didnt' want to discuss with people I disagree with. I said I didn't want to talk religion, ghosts, and spirits in this discussion. Again, you need to improve your reading.

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body.
— Thanatos Sand

Similarly to how consciousness (strong AI) can't be created by algorithms, it can't be created by matter and energy.

Sorry, your irrelevant comment doesn't counter in any way my true statement about the human body not being external to the human mind. The human mind is not the same as A.I.s. It's cute you think they are.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it.
— Thanatos Sand

You didn't respond to my binocular argument. Information is either brought to brain from outside it, so that the information is external to the brain, and there's no difference between it being brought via the nerves or a binocular or wires in your head, or it's created within your mind/brain so it's internal.

I didn't respond because it was goofy nonsense like the goofy nonsense you repeated about it. Eyes are part of the body, binoculars are not. It's very odd you don't get that.

So, Ciao, as I said above, I have no interest in addressing your nonsense any further, so I won't be reading or responding to your posts on this thread.

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time.
— Thanatos Sand

"Or you could quote the part where you so clearly point that out. Not only that, you could even give a one word reply that'd clarify everything. But nah, I'm the one who needs to analyze your comments to show you haven't unequivocally made it clear. Fine."

So, you can't show my statement was unclear. Thanks for confirming what we already know. Only clueless people think people making statements have a responsibility to prove their clarity. Smart people know it is on the onus of the critic to show how the statement is not unclear.

one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves.
— Thanatos Sand

Neither option is incompatible with that statement so no.

That nothing comment you made didn't counter my correct statement in any way. So, "yes."

The rest of the comments are outside the timeframe where you've claimed to have made the question clear or are not directly related. If you disagree, reply with the quotation where you state your view. Your comments also include general disagreement with me, which I think you think implies either option, but it doesn't.

Either you by perceiving externally refer to perceiving external information regardless of whether it is perceived internally or externally, or you're claiming that there's no difference in how internal and external pieces of information are experienced by the human mind. You've made it clear that you think external things are always perceived externally and internal ones internally, but that doesn't imply either one.

This is incoherent nonsense made even moreso by its lack of sufficient syntax. Your run-on sentences are particularly painful. Nobody can rationally respond to that blather. After this, and your irrationality above, I won't be responding to any more of your posts after the one following this one.

I appreciate your response, but nothing in it countered what I said in my post.

Again, irrelevant. Your wager is a false dichotomy, as I've shown. As a rationale for believing in God, it fails.
— Michael

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways.

God may exist or he doesn't, but he certainly doesn't have to exist as you personally define him.

↪Thanatos Sand You did not make it clear at all. Am I to assume the former?

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time.

Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts.
— Thanatos Sand

Indeed, if it does not you might explain how it does not.

But it seems instead that you expect us to take your writing as "concise and clear", and hence you seek to avoid placing it under any analytic scrutiny.

I'm sorry, if you feel your tale applies to my posts, it is your responsibility to show how, not mine to pre-emptively show it does not. You have yet to do so.

And my correct statement that my argument in my previous statement was concise and clear does not prevent you from placing it under any analytic scrutiny. You have yet to do so; feel free to knock yourself out.

You would do both if you actually wish to discuss and not just prescribe...:)

There's a knot that philosophers sometimes get tangled in. They set themselves the task of explaining the stuff around them. They notice that both the thing being explained and the explanation or justification is presented in a language.

Through thinking about this, they reach the conclusion that all there is, is language.

Hence, they adopt some form or other of idealism. — Banno

That's a fascinating tale. Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts.

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true?
— Banno

...because if it is, then surely it is misguided. It is true that the kettle is boiling; we don't need to list the physical states of each particle in the kettle and associated system to correctly make that assertion.

You're just arguing against yourself here since you're not addressing anything I said.

It's also physical reality since "it falls" doesn't come close to fully representing the action that occurs.
— Thanatos Sand

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true?

My argument in my statement was concise and clear.

I made very clear what I correctly meant by "perceiving externally" and your notion of what "perceive" means is very wrong. Go look the word up.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it. As you keep forgetting, the human brain/mind is part of the human body.

Did you really have to ask that. You perceive something externally when it is external to you.

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body. If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else. And of course the human body perceives; the human eye sees, the human ear hears and so on. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

I don't see the point in making the distinction between perceiving a thought internally or externally as the perception is internal and thought is the same thing as perception of thought. Whose thought it is is defined by in whose mind its origin is in. By external thought I refer to a thought of someone else but the thought itself is of course internal.

You many not see the point in making that distinction, but many people do and have. It's a key distinction in phenomenology from Hume to Kant to Husserl. And you may personally define external thought any way you like, but you can't expect others to use or accept that definition.

As for the stomach pain, human body is external to the human and imo there's no difference as to how it's perceived and how the world outside human is perceived.

And the human body is not external to the human; it is the human itself. And again, you may see no difference in how it is perceived, but you cannot force that view on others, as both science and phenomenology consider another human being as externally perceived as an external object.

That's interesting, but one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves. And stomach pain is not an external feeling as one feels it inside their body that is sensing the pain, as opposed to external touch when one touches an object outside themselves.

Thanatos:

You said:

You just supported its existence by writing on it and successfully communicating on it to me. Thanks

1. So, if someone says that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland, Ohio, and I ask them for verification of that claim, then the fact that I thereby "wrote on it" and "successfully communicated about it", i have thereby supported the claim that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland Ohio? :D]

The fact you even ask this is very sad. We were discussing material reality, not unicorns. So, you're writing on material reality that was conveyed to me in material reality supported the existence of material reality. So, your sad "unicorn" parallel is irrelevant and fails.

2. Thanatos has shown himself to be long on assertions and short on justification of them. In this instance, he isn't being very clear with us about what he's trying to say.

No, the one who has shown himself to be long on assertions and short on justification of them has clearly been you, and you prove it with this unjustified assertion of yours above.

The rest of your post is rambling, barely coherent nonsense that doesnt' address anything I said. I did see you erroneously accuse me of not explaining what I explained many posts ago. So, your thinking is lagging along with your reading.

Tighten those up and maybe we can have a discussion.

P.S. This is the definition of explain: "make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas:" So, when I pointed out your commitment to material reality by depending on it to send your post, I was revealing relevant facts or ideas about it. You need to work on your vocabulary as well.

As to what you "said about" me, I get irony; you clearly do not. The rest of your post was an unhinged rant to which nobody could rationally respond. So, be well, Agustino; I won't be responding to any more of your troubled posts.

No we weren't, because the five senses are outdated and definitely not "present definitions".

You said we weren't talking about present definitions. I showed we clearly were. So, your complement clearly fits...;)

You're hopeless:

Noun
1.
sense of touch - the faculty by which external objects or forces are perceived through contact with the body (especially the hands); "only sight and touch enable us to locate objects in the space around us"

We weren't talking about ancient man. We were talking about present definitions. So, you sure haven't been clear in what you've been thinking. Goodbye.

I didn't classify it into two parts. I said the Nervous system has numerous parts including the system of touch, which does not apply to stomachaches, and that was correct. So, you're just trolling and we're done.

that — Thanatos Sand

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system.
— Thanatos Sand
The sense of touch is part of the nervous system.

Yes, but the stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. I've said that twice now. If you don't grasp it by now, that's on you.

Actually, I did in my first post, and you just confirmed I was right by showing that another English phrase ("it has fallen") could represent the action, meaning "it fell" doesn't succeed in fully representing it. And there are thousands more such phrases in English that could partially represent the action but fail to fully represent it as my first post and your last posts have just shown.

So, thanks for the help and we're done. I'm aware you're mostly trolling, so I will move on to other conversations.

Ease up, I never denied those facts...:)

Then you should be silent as you've shown a clear incapability of discussing the matter. And if you think observation fully elucidates representation, you should remain silent on those matters, too.

How is something a linguistic reality and then becomes a physical reality? If we assume that linguistic reality accurately depicts physical reality (for which there are no grounds to even doubt that fact), then there's nothing more that can be said about the tree falling.

I hope you're being coy. Everything is part of physical reality, but some things are part of certain areas of physical reality, like linguistic reality as I showed in my original post. I can't believe I had to explain that to you. My second statement mentioned physical reality since it wasn't primarily a matter of linguistic dynamics but the physical reality that the phrase "it falls" does not fully capture the physical dynamics of the tree falling.

It's also physical reality since "it falls" doesn't come close to fully representing the action that occurs.

The tree physically moves in that way "it falls" aims to represent, but the action itself is not fully represented by the phrase "it falls;" "it falls" only fully represents the symbols of the English language working to point to other symbols in the English language to best represent the action of the tree.
— Thanatos Sand

Semantics. It falls just means that it falls. What else can be said?

No, that's not semantics; it's linguistic reality. I'm sorry you can't get that.

No dispute here. However, traditionally the five senses are all our senses - so when I speak of the five senses, I speak with this connotation.

But the five senses do not include all our senses, since they don't include inner feeling.

But for the purposes of the conversation, what's important to realise is that both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects".
— Agustino
Terrapin disagrees with this. Do you agree, or disagree with this statement, and why?

I would agree that thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can.

Again, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, it still falls.

The tree physically moves in that way "it falls" aims to represent, but the action itself is not fully represented by the phrase "it falls;" "it falls" only fully represents the symbols of the English language working to point to other symbols in the English language to best represent the action of the tree.

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system.

No, they are not one and the same since the nervous system includes internal and external sensations and the sense of touch only involves contact with external objects. Therefore, a stomachache is connected to our nervous system but not our sense of touch.

Sense of touch deals with external objects; the nervous system extends throughout the inner body allowing us to feel pain such as stomachaches.

I'm talking about the Press, Congress, and many Americans obsessions with (at this point) Russia conspiracy theories--and anything possibly related to them--to the detriment of more important issues.

Two things need to be proven which haven't:

1. Russia tampered with the election and affected the outcome.
2. Trump and/or the Trump campaign facilitated that.

Until incidents like idiot Don Jrs I'll-advised meeting with the Russian lawyer connect to those possible occurrences, they should not take precedence over working towards Medicaid-for-all, working against American racist police brutality, ending the war in Syria, and the coverage of those things.

But your personal use of God goes against the standard definition of a monotheistic God, as that God would be omnipotent and eternal. What you are describing could be Elvis Presley, Michael Jordan or Jimi Hendrix, and that's not God or even a super-human polytheistic god.