So the question to you, because you seem to think you know the answer, is how, exactly, you see the tree, and what, exactly, you see. — tim wood

You can't seriously be mystified at how that's supposed to work.

So why are you getting so easily confused when it comes to perception? — Terrapin Station

How do you see the tree? What do you see? Might not light occur to you as a possible answer, and without light you do not, cannot, see the tree? And if you follow so far you might begin to "see" that you don't see the tree. Of course, of the light you see, how does it become the image of a tree? And so forth. And this just the start.

How do you see the tree? What do you see? Might not light occur to you as a possible answer, and without light you do not, cannot, see the tree? And if you follow so far you might begin to "see" that you don't see the tree. Of course, of the light you see, how does it become the image of a tree? And so forth. And this just the start. — tim wood

Seeing involves light, obviously. So how in the world would you take that fact to be against the notion of seeing a tree?

Is this some sort of game where we pretend than we don't understand preschool-level language?

You can't seriously be mystified at how that's supposed to work. — Terrapin Station

Kant provides a pretty good answer. Modern neuroscience refines and adds nuance, but doesn't really challenge the Kantian insight. I do not claim any virtue here, other than I read a book, and with some work understood part of it, with the help of decent commentaries, and that I did not suppose that I already knew it all. That is, I am not mystified.

Kant provides a pretty good answer. — tim wood

"We don't actually see the (objective) tree" isn't how it's supposed to work.

My money is on “mostly retarded”, or trolling. If it IS trolling its pretty elaborate. Its much more shameful than some of the threads ive seen shut down by mods.
You are certainly wasting your time. So am I lol

Seeing involves light, obviously. So how in the world would you take that fact to be against notion of seeing a tree? — Terrapin Station

You see light. No light, no see. If you could see without light then you would see the tree without light. But the fact is that it is light you see, not the tree. The light reflects off the tree. That is, incident on your eyes is narrow band of electromagnetic radiation. But that in itself all by itself does not give you the tree. Both your brain and your mind contribute. All three together give you the tree you see. Take any of the three away, no see, no tree.

Now you, as a naive philosopher, and that is not my term, are unfamiliar with any of this. Now you're familiar. But this example of the tree is not just a matter of seeing; it applies to all perception. I suggest you get and read the first pages, including Kant's introductory material of Critique of Pure Reason. It's the right way to leave naivete behind - and learn quite a bit as well.

I do not understand this reply.

Dingo. your ignorance is annoying. Put up or shut up! If you have anything of substance to contribute, contribute! If you have a complaint to make, make it!

No light, no see. If you could see without light then you would see the tree without light. But the fact is that it is light you see, not the tree. The light reflects off the tree. — tim wood

The only way that this would suggest that you don't see the tree to you is that you don't at all understand the notion of "seeing" in common language. But that would be inexplicable. How could you be capable of tasks like tying your own shoes while all the same time having zero grasp of what "seeing" is supposed to be? What in the world would you be thinking that "seeing a tree" should refer to that's not met by talking about light reflecting off the tree, etc.?

Are you thinking of "seeing" as referring to something literally touching your eye, akin to tactile contact?

(If so, follow-up questions would be why would you be thinking of sight that way? What usage are you familiar with that suggested this definition to you? And you'd be aware, then, that you'd be confusing sight for another sense, namely touch, right?)

If that's how you're thinking of sight, you could "see" a tree by rubbing your eyeball on the bark. I wouldn't want to see a tree in that case.

All you’ve done is once again ignore whats been said. Stop for a fucking second and think about the consequences of points made and the implications of the distinctions. They negate your responses. Its fucking painful dude, but only half as painful as me knowing better and still responding to you.
Im not interested in this topic anymore, I want to discuss your stupidity and outrageous ignorance, I want you to defend yourself from the accusations of dishonesty and deliberate thick headedness.
Why are you such massive fucking douchebag? You got nothing better to do but irritate people trying to have real discussion with your dim witted, mindless repetition? Everything you've said can be summed up in 2-3 sentences, and the other 34 pages is just people trying to get through your thick fucking skull. Pathetic.
Shut the fuck up and LISTEN. You are being idiotic, dont you want to learn how?

The only way that this would suggest that you don't see the tree to you is that you don't at all understand the notion of "seeing" in common language. — Terrapin Station

Of course common language - but common language isn't the way it really works, is it.

Would you like to recraft your definition of subject/object? No law against it and it's not a bad thing.

Are you thinking of "seeing" as referring to something literally touching your eye, akin to tactile contact?

(If so, follow-up questions would be why would you be thinking of sight that way? What usage are you familiar with that suggested this definition to you? And you'd be aware, then, that you'd be confusing sight for another sense, namely touch, right?)

If that's how you're thinking of sight, you could "see" a tree by rubbing your eyeball on the bark. I wouldn't want to see a tree in that case. — Terrapin Station

Seeing is just an easy example. Try Berkeley's Three Dialogues with Hylas and Philonous. The problem is with perception qua. The point is that it's a) not as simple as language makes it seem, and b) it's not simple period.

Another version, I think Hume's (courtesy W.T Jones) is that if perception is all in your mind, then how do you know anything of reality? If it's all out there, then how do you know about natural law? (E.g., every time you drop the ball it falls to the floor - but what entitles you to claim it will do the same thing next time you drop it?)

And again, Kant put perception and mind together. That is, with respect to perception, there is no pure subjectivity nor pure objectivity. And with respect to matters of reason, no subjectivity.

But our problem is that you have insisted that morality/ethics, and a few other things, are entirely subjective. But both reason and experience come into play. That means not purely subjective. See the problem?

Always open to education, though I suspect you're not up to it. But go ahead, educate me. Start with telling me what you're going to educate me about. And keep it simple; obviously I need all the help I can get.

Of course common language - but common language isn't the way it really works, is it. — tim wood

Common language is how it really works for understanding what "seeing" refers to.

Again, what in the world are you taking "seeing" to imply, so that it would suggest to you that we don't see objective things such as trees?

Would you like to recraft your definition of subject/object? — tim wood

Recraft them for what reason? Why not focus on resolving your confusion instead?

Seeing is just an easy example — tim wood

The questions you quoted from me above this response weren't rhetorical. Could you answer them?

if perception is all in your mind, then how do you know anything of reality? — tim wood

If taking is all in your arm/hand, then how do you take something like a cookie? This isn't a rhetorical question. I want you to think about it and answer. Because it's just the same confusion that's occurring in the question I quoted above.

If taking is all in your arm/hand, then how do you take something like a cookie? — Terrapin Station

Tell me something, anything at all, that you can say of the cookie, or the tree, or anything else, that is not conditioned by perception.

No one questions the phenomenon of the cookie. No one, I hope, as a practical matter questions the reality of the cookie. The only question here is that you have insisted on a particular division of subjective and objective. On your definition, perceptions, being of the brain, are subjective. But in as much as the cookie is all about perception, then the cookie must be subjective. But, you insist the cookie itself is objective. I ask, under your definition, how that can be?

And your division, as I understand it and your use of it, underpins your understanding of ethics/morality. That is, it's all a brain thing, therefore subjective, therefore it's whatever anyone wants to make of it, and therefore it has no objective reality. But, in short, I reject your axiom as nonsensical. And via Hume, Berkeley, Kant refer to the fact that this is a centuries-old problem that Kant dissolved by, expressing it pretty roughly, putting object and subject together in a synthesis of the two. People whose understanding has not accounted Kant are said to be naive philosophers, Not a bad thing but implying a natural and inevitable growth, as if a kind of pre-puberty of thinking....

As an extension of the argument as an FYI, are you aware that the sky is not, and not ever, blue? What it is, and what blue is in terms of perception, are just not that simple. Which means that the language, while practical and descriptive, is altogether misleading about the facts - states of affairs - of the matter. This failure of language, not your fault, is I'm thinking where you're caught.

Why not focus on resolving your confusion instead? — Terrapin Station

And how, exactly, am I confused?

The answer I'm looking for is you telling me how you can take a cookie if taking is something that your arm/hand does.

Think about it for a moment. The answer needs to explain how you can take a cookie despite taking being a function of your arm/hand.

An easy way to make sure that you're answering the question I'm asking is to copy/paste the following and fill in the blank:

"The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is ___________"

I have confidence that you won't do the stereotypical Internet jerk move of typing a long response where you don't follow the request here, or the alternate move of just ignoring it or just giving some short crack or something.

"The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is — Terrapin Station

"The way." I shall take that to mean how. Pace, neurobiologists: my brain, processing a lot of perceptions and internal states, orders my muscles to move in certain ways the result of which language easily describes as taking, yes?

Sure, but the issue is that taking something is a function of your arm/hand. Given this, how can you take something that's not your arm/hand?

Sure, but the issue is that taking something is a function of your arm/hand. Given this, how can you take something that's not your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station

You've lost me. What are you asking? Taking I think of as well-defined. You seem to be dismantling that.

The way you take something, such as a cookie, is with your arm/hand. But how do you actually do this if taking is something your arm and hand do? Doesn't that imply that really all you can take is your arm/hand?

Hint: what I'm asking you should seem pretty stupid.

The way you take something, such as a cookie, is with your arm/hand. But how do you actually do this if taking is something your arm and hand do? Doesn't that imply that really all you can take is your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station

This reminds me of the phrase "wet water." Almost like saying "All you can make wet is water (which discounts that all you can't make wet is water, because water is what makes wetness, and so, cannot in and of itself be made wet, nor wetter).

So, I see the point. Perceiving perception is redundant to consider. Any perception (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, space [proprioception]) is meant to orient us with objectivity (the latter, proprioception, helps us sense all or part of our anatomy in relation to everything else, and even to distinct parts of our own anatomy in relation to those respective structures, i.e. enabling someone to bring their fingertip to their nose even with their eyes shut.)

That doesn't mean that the end product we percive is completely free of objectivity, only that the objectivity is incomplete because our tools to percive it are limited. Our subjective predispositions add on to the misconstruction.

The objective world is the nonmental world. You observe it via your senses. — Terrapin Station

There are some who contend that we have no knowing access to Objective Reality (that which is), and that the world we observe with our senses is not necessarily O.R. I think from your words that you refer to something a little less absolute than the Objectivist's Objective Reality; is that correct?

There are some who contend that we have no knowing access to Objective Reality (that which is), and that the world we observe with our senses is not necessarily O.R. — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, and there are people who think they're Napoleon, too. :razz:

I wouldn't say that I'm positing something different than "Objectivists' objective reality," but I think that objective reality is relative, not absolute. (If that makes sense to you. I might have to explain it.)

In any event, in some circles, including seemingly on this board, there can be an attitude that "we have no knowing access to objective reality" is something that doesn't need to be supported. That's not at all the case. And in my opinion there's no plausible way to support it.

in my opinion there's no plausible way to support it — Terrapin Station

OK. I was only seeking to clarify what you meant by the phrase "objective world". Subjectivity/Objectivity debates can often be fun. But because they are fundamental to so many different topics, it's easy to derail almost any topic by raising it. So I'll stop here, but make a note-to-self that you and I will discuss what you posted another time, in another topic (an O/S topic). OK? :smile: Should be fun... :wink: