Thanks for your considered reply.

We learn that things (objects) exist in their own, but in fact each time you sense-target there is only a substratum which requires mind to become an existent. — Nelson E Garcia

I don't understand what the bolded phrase means nor why I should regard it as a fact. Conventionally, the term mind has an idiomatic use (e.g., I changed my mind), it doesn't have substantial existence (in Descartes' sense).

Such state of affairs does not affect logical facts such as the one you mentioned: “the Earth existed billions of years before the emergence of human beings (with minds).” — Nelson E Garcia

What is your second sense of fact/state of affairs and what does that usage clarify philosophically?

Therefore before you become acquainted with my whole frame of mind, all significant aspects of it, I suggest taking my initial explanation as a correction of misguided language. In metaphysical talk (perception metaphysics in particular) it is incorrect to refer to existence-in-its-own, there is no such thing in the universe. Existents become by act of mind. — Nelson E Garcia

What does "become" mean here? You seem to be defining it in terms of mind which, so far, remains undefined. The scientific view is that the Earth came into existence billions of years in the past and has undergone many changes prior to the emergence of human beings. While no-one thinks the Earth existed independently of the universe itself (including atoms and what-not), it's widely understood that the Earth did exist independently of and prior to the emergence of human beings. Are people in some sense mistaken about that? If so, perhaps you could provide your criteria (or the metaphysical authority implied by "In metaphysical talk") for saying that that talk is incorrect/misguided.

Are people in some sense mistaken about that? If so, perhaps you could provide your criteria (or the metaphysical authority implied by "In metaphysical talk") for saying that that talk is incorrect/misguided. — Andrew M

Let me tell you what my criteria is, for the writing I do about my metaphysical persuasion, which I classify as perception metaphysics. I stay away from logic as much as possible since I believe logic cannot reach or board realness, and realness is my main interest therefore my audience should not expect any scientific corroboration of my claims.
Testable hypotheses are ruled out because I do not conduct experiments that would be scientifically testable in a physical way or present logical arguments that would be proven with logical outcomes resulting in exact science. Basically what the audience could get are claims based on what I assert as correct, the way things are or where.
From there you need to determine what the consequences would be should I be right, and for this enterprise to be successful, you must take my claims as correct for a suitable period of time carefully considering significant consequences and ramifications. If you do that, find no way to significantly disprove my claims, and as a result you end up either liking or fearing the consequences foreseen by your figuring out, you will respect me as metaphysician and could become a member of my persuasion.
If on another hand, you convincingly disprove my claims, come to think I do not know what I am talking about and should think about occupying myself in something other than metaphysics or philosophy of mind, I wish you good luck and apologize in advance for the time you’ve lost taking my rhetoric into consideration.
Clear enough?

Some information seems relative to the observer — Cheshire

Don't give any examples, 'cause that won't help.

Like a fine honey glazed reality that necessitates conjecture. Spoiler Alert ID

Clear enough? — Nelson E Garcia

Perhaps you could briefly present the problem that you're attempting to solve, and why the conventional (and scientific) language that most people find eminently useful is not up to the task.

Have you read Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin and other ordinary language philosophers? That will give you a sense of where I'm coming from. A quote of Austin's that I find instructive in this context is:

Ordinary language is not the last word: in principle it can everywhere be supplemented and improved upon and superseded. Only remember, it is the first word. — J. L. Austin

Perhaps you could briefly present the problem that you're attempting to solve, and why the conventional (and scientific) language that most people find eminently useful is not up to the task. — Andrew M

Rather than solving a problem, my task is to define fundamentals and after I define some fundamentals the results themselves offer guidance that could help preventing problems. Language that is expressed is a cultural matter, but awareness itself includes language fundamentals. The issue of realness, which is my main interest, is not boarded, penetrated, or even significantly reach by the cultural use of language, not even by specialty uses of language of writers such as Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, etcetera because what is handled by them is logic. There is a large difference between logical schemes and materiality. Talking about materiality does not board, penetrate, or even significantly reach it. So if you have a prejudice against dualities, if you think all things are set in a single plane, the plane of language, or the plane of nuclear elements, or the plane of logic, or mathematics, you are somehow handicapped for the totality of reality.

There is a large difference between logical schemes and materiality. Talking about materiality does not board, penetrate, or even significantly reach it. So if you have a prejudice against dualities, if you think all things are set in a single plane, the plane of language, or the plane of nuclear elements, or the plane of logic, or mathematics, you are somehow handicapped for the totality of reality. — Nelson E Garcia

So, for the sake coherence could I summarize the position as a belief that if the right mind 'percepts' the intended target the truth about the target will be manifest. And one ought expect it may deviate from information gained by other means.

Putting it in my own words in hope of bridging this communication canyon.

So, for the sake coherence could I summarize the position as a belief that if the right mind 'percepts' the intended target the truth about the target will be manifest. And one ought expect it may deviate from information gained by other means. — Cheshire

You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration. You need to wait until my exchange with Andrew M gives you more clues because you are too far away from what I mean.

You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration. You need to wait until my exchange with Andrew M gives you more clues because you are too far away from what I mean. — Nelson E Garcia

I'm pretty sure his patience ran out like mine did, but I could be wrong. People don't like being frustrated and then condescended to, so there's a limit. Just tell us what you've invested your entire ego into and we'll let you know it's horribly mistaken. Trust me they are good at; keeps you fresh.

Our language is in direct unmediated contact with the world, and not separated from it by some conceptual scheme. — Banno

Then how is it possible that some people know things better than others and yet all knowledge is equally true by standing definition. Seems we would have to be wrong in order to improve knowledge.

That must be a worry for you. You've previously shown some confusion about JTB accounts, which don't admit of degrees. One cannot know things that are not true; althogh one might believe them.

Have you read Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin and other ordinary language philosophers? — Andrew M

...specialty uses of language of writers such as Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin — Nelson E Garcia

He hasn't read them, it seems, since that's exactly wrong. But he's written a book on it, and so nailed his colours to the mast. .

That must be a worry for you. You've previously shown some confusion about JTB accounts, which don't admit of degrees. One cannot know things that are not true; althogh one might believe them. — Banno

It is certainly interesting. Considering there are literal pieces of paper called degrees which denote a level of knowledge. If the JTB is a conceptual scheme that misrepresents the world then it contradicts your assertion below.

Our language is in direct unmediated contact with the world, and not separated from it by some conceptual scheme. — Banno

One of these concepts doesn't fit well. It's odd to find such a glaring hole in the JTB schema while not really looking for one.

What is cognized is representation of that which is in the external world — Mww

Wouldn't it be more parsimonious (and more accurate and less misleading) to simply say that cognition is presentation?

There are problems with JTB...

But go ahead and see if you can articulate exactly what the issue is. Here's the JTB account: A statement counts as knowledge if and only if it is justified, true and believed.

Tell us exactly what you see as the problem.

But go ahead and see if you can articulate exactly what the issue is. Here's the JTB account: A statement counts as knowledge if and only if it is justified, true and believed.

Tell us exactly what you see as the problem. — Banno

A belief can be true or false
Knowledge is a belief
Knowledge can only be true

I couldn't figure out how to apply the account. I'll look again and repost there. Thanks.

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived) — George Berkeley

First off, this is a tautology because existence is defined as that perceived and "to be is to be perceived" is actually the statement, to exist (to be) is to exist (be perceived). Basically, the tautology boils down to the circular definition: existence is existence. We haven't made an inch of progress.

Secondly, it leads to a paradox vis-à-vis God, a necessary component of Berkeley's idealism I'm told for reasons you can Google. Since theism is part of idealism, it must include an act of creation - the universe and everything in it must come into being through God's perception as it were. That means, there's a point in time when God is alone. God, if esse est percipi, can exist because God perceives faerself. However, to perceive, God must first exist but to exist, God must first perceive. Round and round in a circle we go. God can't exist. If so, idealism collapses like a house of cards!

A belief can be true or false
Knowledge is a belief
Knowledge can only be true — Cheshire

Yep. That's why there's a "T" in JTB.

First off, this is a tautology because existence is defined as that perceived — TheMadFool

That's not right. There are things that have not been perceived.

That's not right. There are things that have not been perceived. — Banno

As per idealism, God is reportedly the all-seeing eye! Nothing escapes God's notice. Panopticon. See also CCTV and Police, to name a few possible means of keeping an eye out on the universe.

Panopticon. — TheMadFool

You think of God as a gaoler? Fair call.

SO you need god in order that the cup still exist when you put it back in the cupboard. That's a bit of overkill.

You think of God as a gaoler? Fair call.

SO you need god in order that the cup still exist when you put it back in the cupboard. That's a bit of overkill. — Banno

Ignoratio elenchi!

I don't need God. Idealism does!

Yep. That's why there's a "T" in JTB. — Banno

IIF a belief can be true or false, then a true belief is not a belief, because a belief can be true or false.

IIF a belief can be true or false, then a true belief is not a belief, because a belief can be true or false. — Cheshire

:grin:

Think that's an end to this discussion.

SO help me here - are you agreeing with your version of idealism, or not?

SO help me here - are you agreeing with your version of idealism, or not? — Banno

I followed the trail as best as I could.

So... yes or no? Or maybe?

Wouldn't it be more parsimonious (....) to simply say that cognition is presentation? — Janus

Depends. Presentation of what, to what?

So... yes or no? Or maybe? — Banno

You ask as if I have a choice! Mu!

Ok