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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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: