So, to use what you mention just above, a tree is an example.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

You're the one being obtuse. I told you that I do not agree with "you don't see the tree." I said that I believe that claim is ridiculous.

I asked you why you believe that, why you buy representationalism, and you didn't answer. So what's the answer as to why you believe it?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

C'mon, man. Don't do that stereotypical Internet crap. Let's have a serious discussion. What's the reason that you believe representationalism? This is the third time I'm asking you and you just ignore it every time.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Representationism - whatever that is - is a red herring here. — tim wood

There are different stances in philosophy of perception. The view you're endorsing is one of them. It's known as "representationalism." As you say, "whatever you take to be the tree is just your mental representation." That's representationalism in a nutshell. You believe that what we're actually perceiving, what we're actually aware of, is something mental, where we have no idea how that mental representation actually links up with things external to us (assuming there is anything external to us--under representationalism, there's actually no way to know), because under representationalism, we have no access to things external to us--at least not aside from some possibly "mystery access."

You're treating representationalism as if it's some obvious, common sense default position. It's not. It needs to be justified. So that's what I'm asking for--your justification for believing that "We don't actually see the tree/we're not actually aware of the tree. We're instead only aware of a mental image or 'representation' of the tree."

There must be a reason that you believe that to be the case, no?

When it comes to philosophy of perception, I'm not a representationalist. I believe that representationalism is unsupportable, and any attempts to support it rather wind up undermining it. I'm what's known as a direct or "naive" realist instead.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@Terrapin Station @tim wood

I'm trying to follow this discussion. I thought I understood what was going on, but maybe not. Tim - can you clarify this:

@Terrapin Station Don't be obtuse. Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

When you said this, were you stating your position - OR - were you giving an illustration of what you perceive to be Terrapin's position (presumably in an attempt to demonstrate that his ideas are incorrect)?

BTW - and this goes out to both of you - I would not object if the level of invective came down a few notches . . . . :smile:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Why is this discussion still going? Is there a genuine problem here if there's a broad consensus? Doesn't it then become their problem? Those in the small minority. And if they can't get to grips with their problem after 34 pages, then what's the likelihood of a resolution? Seems like a waste of time.

Wait, are you even talking about the morality of taking illegal drugs? No, nothing on this page about that.

So which Kant argument do you take to support your representationalism?

Think about and answer these for a moment:

When you taste something, is it your taste that you're tasting?
When you take something, are you taking your taking?
When you give someone something, are you giving them your giving?
If you mash some potatoes, are you mashing your mashing?

The ground of all of this appears to be his understanding of subjective/objective, and it's untenable. And this is more than a twice-told tale. It famously exercised Hume and Berkeley, and Kant even more famously resolved it. But Terrapin is apparently innocent of any knowledge of these things. But that's mere ignorance, and we're all ignorant. But he's also been told, so that it really isn't ignorance. What do you call that? — tim wood

You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.)

Keep in mind it's being asked through the filter of his definition. If it's subjective, then it's not the tree. — tim wood

Why in the world would I think that a tree is subjective/mental?

Why in the world would I think that a perception of a tree, or knowledge of a tree is identical to the tree? What would the words "perception of" or "knowledge of" even be doing there if we believed them to be identical? We'd just say "the tree" in all cases because there would be no difference; just like if you thought that taking or tasting a cookie was identical to a cookie--there would be no need to say "taking/tasting a cookie." Simply saying "a cookie" would already tell you this (at least as long as it is known that the two are identical, supposing they are).

(And if you can't believe that this is material we'd have to cover outside of a short-bus kindergarten class, join the club.))

That your perception of the tree isn't identical to the tree doesn't imply that "Your perception is not of the tree but rather of your own mind," by the way. Just like that your taking a cookie isn't identical to the cookie doesn't imply that you're rather taking your taking (or your hand, or whatever we'd want to say), and not the cookie at all.

"When you take a cookie you're really just taking your hand, because your hand is the only way to take the cookie." <---This should be a pretty obviously stupid argument. And so should "When you perceive a tree you're really just perceiving your mind, because your mind is the only way you perceive the tree."

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I wish you'd give a more substantive reply . . . but in any event, to repeat:

"You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.) "

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How about a more substantive reply? Maybe offering reasons that you believe representationalism? Maybe addressing my attempts to straighten out the confusions you have over my views?

Yes. But now reconcile that with your definition of subjective/objective. — tim wood

On my view you're not perceiving your own mind. I explained this above. That's just like you're not taking your own hand when you take a cookie.

Your mind is perceiving. It's not perceiving itself. Your hand is taking. It's not taking itself.

Maybe you could try to support why you think you're perceiving your own mind/taking your own hand?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That you think I am something you call a "representationalist" while I am referencing Kant simply demonstrates willful ignorance. — tim wood

Again, the view you described is representationalism. Maybe there are some differences between your views and representationalism, but you haven't detailed those views yet.

The trouble is that perception itself is in-itself nothing. — tim wood

I don't recall what the argument is for that. It sounds nonsensical on the face of it. So what is the argument for it?

If it's just saying that there is no "intransitive perception," I agree with that, but why would we say that there's any trouble with it? Perception needs to be of something, like a(n objective) tree.

The same goes for taking. There's no "intransitive taking." You need to take something, like a cookie.

It requires reason to put the perception into the order that, — tim wood

Again, this just sounds nonsensical on the face of it. "Put the perception 'into the order'"??? What was Kant's argument for that again?

Because the objects of knowledge are a synthesis of perception of the object and mind/reason, — tim wood

"Synthesis of perception of the object and mind" is just gobbledygook. Perception is a mental activity. "Perception of the object" is not something different than a mental event. Saying that it necessarily involves reason doesn't follow (again, what's the argument for this?), but that doesn't really matter, anyway.

you don't get to the object as ground. — tim wood

As "ground"? Why think of anything as "ground"?

You rule out mind/reason. — tim wood

That bears no resemblance to anything I say. Shouldn't you be able to paraphrase my views in a way that I'd agree with prior to criticizing them?

reason would be, should be, within, even define, the capacity of any reasonable being, — tim wood

That's not really saying anything aside from "reasonable beings are reasonable." Well, duh.

Because in your definition, everything is subjective or object(ive) (it's - they're - both). — tim wood

What definition of mine says that everything is subjective or objective?

You hold the tree is objective, which is irreconcilable with your definition — tim wood

Irreconcilable with which definition?

, because in its objectiveness, you rule out mind.

Which makes it irreconcilable with which definition?

The above is why I don't like for us to do long posts, by the way. Now we've got nine or ten different issues to discuss. If you respond even longer to all of the points above, then we'll have probably nine or ten additional issues to discuss, so then we'll have 20 or so. Eventually we'd get up to hundreds of things that we never address in any depth, never solve in any manner. That seems like a waste of time. Why don't we just pick one small thing at a time, focus on it, try to solve or at least come to some understanding about it with respect to each others' different views, and then move on to the next focused thing?

Good god, the TREE is objective, the idea, image or memory of the tree is subjective.
You are an imbecile, belligerently ignorant, aggressively arrogant...you aren’t really reading what anyone is telling you and are clueless as to how foolish and stupid you sound when you run around in these pedantic, semantic and wholly dishonest circles. You have not argued in good faith here in the slightest and you should be embarrassed. You constantly side-track, ignore and accuse your opponents of doing the things that you yourself are doing. What an absolute disgrace to a forum like this, I find you to be just as offensive as some of the trolling or bigoted/racist shit that the mods delete or ban.
It is foolish to engage with Tim Wood everyone. Just say no to the troll. (That rhymes if you say it right).

I don't mind to take him as sincere, but it does seem like pulling teeth to try to get to any focused discussion about anything.

I know this won't help, but I'm kind of getting an impression of him as a Kant fanboy in the vein of people who are hardcore religious apologists or Randroid Objectivists (or we could just say cult members in general), where anything that leads them off script is something that they basically can't parse. They try to veer things back on script, where they can wax poetic within comfortable boundaries.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You don't perceive perceiving. You don't take taking. You don't throw throwing.

You don't perceive your mind. You dont take or throw your hand/arm.

Your mind is what performs the action of perceiving. Your hand/arm is what performs the actions of taking or throwing.

Perceiving, taking and throwing are examples of transitive verbs. They're something you do, something you perform, with respect to particular objects.

You're conflating perception and what the perception is of.

It would be just like conflating taking and what we're taking. Conflating your hand and a cookie. You wouldn't do that, would you? So why are you getting so easily confused when it comes to perception?