How would you think that the properties of an orange (or anything else) don't change? You wouldn't be able to have orange trees flowering, some of the flowers turning into fruit, the fruit developing, eventually ripening, falling, decomposing, etc. — Terrapin Station

Category error, I think.

You're it aware that visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Microwaves would be visible light to creatures that evolved sensitivities to be able to perceive them. It's all the same stuff, just different frequencies.

Category error, I think. — Noah Te Stroete

?

You're it aware that visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Microwaves would be visible light to creatures that evolved sensitivities to be able to perceive them. It's all the same stuff, just different frequencies. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I know but the discussion was about the color of oranges. We were talking about perception of color.

Category error, I think.
— Noah Te Stroete

? — Terrapin Station

We were talking about points of reference, not the flux of reality.

You asked how fast they'd need to be moving in order to detect doppler-shifted light. The answer is not very fast. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds.

You asked how fast they'd need to be moving in order to detect doppler-shifted light. The answer is not very fast. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds. — Terrapin Station

But visible light is what humans perceive when it comes to oranges.

We were talking about points of reference, not the flux of reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, spatio-temporal locations. You can't consider anything absent a spatio-temporal location, and all property changes occur relative to spatio-temporal location differences--necessarily so, since time is simply motion or change.

Visible light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds.

Yes, spatio-temporal locations. You can't consider anything absent a spatio-temporal location, and all property changes occur relative to spatio-temporal location differences--necessarily so, since time is simply motion or change. — Terrapin Station

Can a point of reference be “considered” without conceptualization or perception? That is what I’m getting at.

Visible light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. We can detect doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation at relatively slow speeds. — Terrapin Station

Yes, visible light is electromagnetic radiation, but not all electromagnetic radiation is visible light, for example, the color of oranges. Microwaves are not visible light. You seem to think that the perception of reality gives you reality. Do you know how perception works? I don’t think you do.

Can a point of reference be “considered” without conceptualization or perception? — Noah Te Stroete

Can it be considered without that? No. Because of what it refers to to consider something.

Can it be considered without that? No. Because of what it refers to to consider something. — Terrapin Station

That’s what I’m getting at that you don’t seem to be getting. I don’t think we understand each other.

but not all electromagnetic radiation is visible light, — Noah Te Stroete

To us, no. Again, it just depends on how faculties evolved for the creatures in question. That usually has a lot to do with what's survivally advantageous for the creatures in question. There are creatures that can see different ranges of electromagnetic radiation than humans see. Those ranges are visible light for them. It's very similar to sound waves. Different creatures can hear different frequency ranges of sound waves. Well, different creatures can see different frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation, too.

You seem to think that the perception of reality gives you reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. And I can easily show the flaws in empirical-based arguments that claim otherwise.

Do you know how perception works? I don’t think you do. — Noah Te Stroete

Patronizing much? And after not understanding electromagnetic radiation, doppler shifts, etc.

Do you know how perception works? I don’t think you do.
— Noah Te Stroete

Patronizing much? And after not understanding electromagnetic radiation, doppler shifts, etc. — Terrapin Station

I understand all of these things. I’m pointing out that perception doesn’t give you the things in themselves.

To us, no. Again, it just depends on how facilities evolved for the creatures in question. That usually has a lot to do with what's survivally advantageous for the creatures in question. There are creatures that can see different ranges of electromagnetic radiation than humans see. Those ranges are visible light for them. It's very similar to sound waves. Different creatures can hear different frequency ranges of sound waves. Well, different creatures can see different frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation, too. — Terrapin Station

This brings us back to perception. Perception doesn’t give you the things in themselves, hence transcendental idealism, which includes empirical realism.

There are creatures that can see different ranges of electromagnetic radiation than humans see. Those ranges are visible light for them. It's very similar to sound waves. Different creatures can hear different frequency ranges of sound waves. Well, different creatures can see different frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation, too. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I know all of this. This just strengthens my argument and weakens yours.

I understand all of these things. I’m pointing out that perception doesn’t give you the things in themselves. — Noah Te Stroete

It gives you the things in themselves at particular reference points and everything is always relative to some reference point or other, with there being no preferred reference point.

Yes, I know all of this. This just strengthens my argument and weakens yours. — Noah Te Stroete

Nice move basically doing this:

It gives you the things in themselves at particular reference points and everything is always relative to some reference point or other, with there being no preferred reference point. — Terrapin Station

Then what is the point of theorizing or the scientific method? Theory and science are needed exactly because perceiving doesn’t give us the things in themselves.

Then what is the point of theorizing or the scientific method? Theory and science are needed exactly because perceiving doesn’t give us the things in themselves. — Noah Te Stroete

How would you know that you've perceived something other than it is? Could you give an example?

Do you see atoms when you look at a chair? The idea of atoms is a theory.

That is abstraction -- taking what interests us out of its larger context. — Dfpolis

OK. I can handle that.
———————

what we do focus on has associations, but associations are not judgements. — Dfpolis

Handling that well too, I am.
———————-

My model includes other experiential elements, (...) but it also has a construct, namely that there is a physical basis for the fact that some data is available to awareness while other data processing is unavailable to awareness. — Dfpolis

OK. The latter being the unconscious or autonomic condition, the former being the conscious or attentive condition? But you said some data is available to awareness but some data processing is not. Seems like this is two separate and distinct dynamics, only one of which would seem to have any continuity with the treatise on Realism and experience. What bearing does unavailable data processing have on the topic?
————————

My perception of an apple is an existential penetration of me by the apple. The apple's modification of my neural state is identically my neural representation of the apple. This identity precludes any separation of perception and perceived -- any perceptual duality. — Dfpolis

Penetration, projection, same-o, same-o. Ok. I get it.

I call an object’s modification of my neural state the appearance of an object; it is not yet represented by a synthesis of intuition and concept. So yes, we agree perceptual duality is a non-starter.
————————

It is this radiance of action which penetrates the perceiving subject -- creating the partial identity of perceiver and perceived — Dfpolis

Radiance of action....ok....just another theoretical tenet.

Not clear about partial identity. What would be full identity? If the apple’s modification of a neural state is identically a representation of the apple, is that the same as saying the apple is experienced? Does this experience correlate one-to-one with knowledge?

Where did “apple” come from? Doesn’t look like this theory has any place for conceptual naming. Must be rather many neural states, one for round, one for red, one for weight, one for the stem sticking up from the top......one for top. One for naming, one for determining the name matches the representation.

I just call it understanding.
————————

We confuse our abstract notion of the object — Dfpolis

If one holds with the idea that any object of perception is nothing to us until we add our own elements to it, by means of synthesis, rather than take away from its totality those <8 thoughts you spoke about, there is no need for confusing the abstraction for the object. While there is still a chance for confusion, it arises from judgement alone, as an aspect of reason.
————————

Your reification fallacy is my transcendental illusion. Same idea, different predicates.

Good stuff.

Do you see atoms when you look at a chair? — Noah Te Stroete

Was that your example? So a chair doesn't really look like a chair from a frame of reference that's however many inches or feet away from it and that includes the whole of the chair or a big section of it?

Was that your example? So a chair doesn't really look like a chair from a frame of reference that's however many inches or feet away from it and that includes the whole of the chair or a big section of it? — Terrapin Station

I don’t see your point. Sorry.

I asked you "How would you know that you've perceived something other than it is? Could you give an example?" And then I wondered if the chair was your example.

And then I wondered if the chair was your example. — Terrapin Station

Yes, that was one example. Your example of certain insects seeing ultraviolet light is also an example. We are not insects.

Yes, that was one example. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. So first, I'm confirming that you're saying that a chair doesn't really look like a chair from a frame of reference that's however many inches or feet away from it and that includes the whole of the chair or a big section of it. Is that correct?

That’s true. I don’t think anyone would deny that. What does that have to do with my examples, though? One cannot perceive atoms or perceive the way insects perceive. That takes mental constructs. That is my only point.

Again, my view is that perception gives you things in themselves at particular reference points and everything is always relative to some reference point or other, with there being no preferred reference point.

You didn't think that I was saying that perception gives you "everything about existents from every possible reference point," did you? (As if that even really refers to something that's not nonsensical)

So, how does one know that insects perceive UV light? From what reference point is that given? How do we know the structure of atoms? Has anyone ever seen a single atom?

I want to continue this discussion but Crystal says I have to put down TPF for the day.