You are not following what I've said. My point is only that perception is a mental construct. — Hanover

I would say that you are not following what you are doing, for your <post> in question is obviously not primarily about the thesis that perception is a mental construct. Instead of standing by your interpretation of Banno's claim and answering for it you've retreated back into your motte. I don't intend to keep chasing you back and forth.

What Kimhi adds to this, in a manner I'm still grappling with, is the unity part: the claim that "the assertion 'p is true' is the same as 'I truly think p'." — J

I think Kimhi has some good insights, but in things like this I wonder if he is pushing his point too far.

The problem is that Frag. B2 of Parmenides' poem presupposes that truth and falsity are asymmetrical, and I think this is correct. In the early pages of his book Kimhi takes for granted that they are symmetrical, and this creates problems. He assumes that in speaking of truth one can equally well speak of falsehood. For example, we can say that there is no gap between a reality and an assertion of that reality, but it does not follow that there is no gap involved in an assertion of falsehood. The proper object of an assertion of falsehood is always a proposition or representation, whereas the proper object of an assertion of truth can be reality itself.

Later in the book Kimhi seems to get a lot clearer on this asymmetricity, but at least at the beginning it looks a bit confused to me.

I have always found it interesting to read Genesis 3 in light of that aspect of Parmenides' poem, because the serpent introduces (partial) falsehood into creation for the first time, and this places Eve on a "path entirely unable to be [traveled]" (2). In Augustinian language we would say that falsehood is a privation of truth, and presupposes it in a way that truth does not presuppose falsehood. There was truth in creation before the serpent spoke, and falsehood (and doubt!) only emerged by and through his speaking.

In Judaism the messiah is not God. — BitconnectCarlos

That's right, and therefore claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy.

- Good points. :up:

To break the Law is not limited to infractions. — Fooloso4

Absolutely not! — Fooloso4

I doesn't need to be. When you claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy, that means that all breakings of the Law are blasphemy. If one can break the Law without blaspheming then your claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false. The fact that you still can't admit this basic logic just shows what a hot mess you are. Speaking with such an unserious person is an utter waste of my time, and this is also on par with the intellectually dishonest way you discuss other topics. You are now on my ignore list.

Point being, from what are likely the very earliest Christian sources Christ is seen as divine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, but Fooloso will argue against all of these sources and Tim Wood has literally claimed that the Christians of the Council of Nicea did not even affirm that God exists. I don't see that any amount of evidence is going to overcome this level of post hoc rationalization.

I thought that that 'issue' had been long since resolved. — creativesoul

I think the reason Michael's threads never get fully resolved is because Michael refuses the transparency that is a prerequisite for such resolution. In this thread the refusal was in place from the start: instead of making arguments for his position he would only ultimately make arguments from authority from "the science." He was never willing to try to explain how his conclusions followed from "the science." If you don't set out your argument you cannot be critiqued, and if you cannot be critiqued then you can never be wrong.

Fair interpretation — Hanover

Okay, well I have no idea how (2) is supposed to follow from (1).

Why would I demand that language not be a factor in how we interpret the world? — Hanover

No one has said you would. The question is why you think (2) follows from (1).

As to Banno's statement, you fully ignored the heart of it, "Things in the world [...] also have a say in what colours we see."

At this point it seems like you are trying to continue agreeing with Michael despite not agreeing with him on much of anything.

- Is this your argument?

1. The people around us have a say in what colors we see.
2. Therefore, language is necessary for perception.
3. Therefore, babies do not see, color or otherwise.

If that is not the reasoning that takes you from Banno's statement to your inference, then what is the reasoning that takes you from Banno's statement to your inference?

This past 30 minutes of conversation arose from this comment of Banno's:

'Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see." — Hanover

Yes, and I gave my interpretation of Banno's statement here, which included a critique of your interpretation:

This seems like the same equivocation between determination and influence that Banno pointed out to begin the exchange.

The claim seems to be that things in the world influence what we see, and our linguistic community influences the names of what we see and the aspects we pay attention to. It does not follow from this that babies do not see. — Leontiskos

You responded with a question. Would it help if I added that it neither follows from this that babies do not see color?

How do you get from Banno's statement to your inference that, "babies can't see, color or otherwise"? What is your reasoning?

You indicated language was a necessary element in the formulation of a perception — Hanover

Where did I indicate that? This thread has been running on poor reasoning for dozens of pages, so I think it's time to address the reasoning itself. Where did I say or imply that language is a necessary element for perception? Where is your reasoning coming from?

so I asked why my example was inapplicable — Hanover

Where do you believe you did that?

The question here is how you interpreted Banno's claim in order to impute to Banno the conclusion that, "babies can't see, color or otherwise." What sort of strawman is intervening to produce such an incredible conclusion? If it doesn't follow from what Banno said, then what is happening, here?

- And should I answer your question with a different question?

You made an argument, I pointed out why it was a bad argument, and then instead of responding you asked a question. Was your argument a good argument or a bad argument? Does your conclusion follow?

- Ok. Whatever you say, Hanover.

I assume babies can't see color because "Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see." Since babies don't know words and words determine what we see, babies can't see, color or otherwise. — Hanover

This seems like the same equivocation between determination and influence that Banno pointed out to begin the exchange.

The claim seems to be that things in the world influence what we see, and our linguistic community influences the names of what we see and the aspects we pay attention to. It does not follow from this that babies do not see.

Would it help if we noticed that Wittgenstein is acknowledging uses of "know" that he subsequently argues are illegitimate? — Banno

Sure I can see that, but I am wondering if he would be able to provide a legitimate use of "know."

No. It is a prompt towards seeking justification - "Can't you see it?. Look closer". — Banno

But as I understand it looking closer could never provide Wittgenstein with justification for knowledge, and thus it is odd to say that "looking closer" will somehow yield justification.

Wittgenstein takes it as read that knowing requires justification, and hence were there is no proposition to supply the justification, one cannot be properly said to know. — Banno

The oddity is that the ultimate justification for empirical knowledge is usually thought to be sense data, and so for Wittgenstein to say that sense data does not count as a justification seems to commit him to the view that knowledge of this kind does not exist at all. If nothing is self-justifying then how can anything be justified?

The question of foundationalism is here the elephant in the room, is it not? With Sam, I don't see how it can be avoided. Does Wittgenstein believe that knowledge exists at all? And if so, what would be an example of knowledge and its attendant justification?

I have given textual evidence that speaking against the Law is regarded by the accusers as blasphemy. — Fooloso4

You said this:

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

I asked you to defend it and you gave a non sequitur argument. Now you are finally admitting, albeit quietly, that you were wrong:

It is not simply a matter of breaking the Law, as it every offense however minor would be a blasphemous offense. What is at issue destroying or abolishing the Law. — Fooloso4

So we agree: your earlier claim that breaking the Law is blasphemy is false.

Again, you make my point. A son of man is a human being. — Fooloso4

What is your conclusion here supposed to be? That Jesus is claiming that anyone who is human can forgive sins? Do you even believe yourself when you make these sorts of points, like Aristotle's boxer who swings without knowing what he is doing? Can you see anything at all through the foggy polemicism of your glasses?

It requires no discernment to understand that what is being spoken of is not a mere human being:

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed. — Daniel 7, RSV

If you like:

'One like a human being' receives the kingdom from the 'Ancient One'. Is this second figure a symbol of the nation that will exercise the dominion (the Jewish people), depicted as a human rather than an animal? Or is he a divine figure (such figures represented as in human form, Dan 8:15; 10:5)? If so, is he Michael, who 'stands' for the Jews in 12:1? — The Oxford Bible Commentary, Daniel

Acts, as quoted and referenced, says that Stephen spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God. To speak blasphemous words against Moses means to speak against the Laws of Moses. — Fooloso4

Here is your argument:

• Speaking against the Law is blasphemy.
• Therefore, To break the Law is blasphemy.

I can explain why this is a non sequitur if you need me to.

Breaking the Law is not blasphemy, but the one who claims to have power over the Law blasphemes if they are not above the Law (as God is above the Law):

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” — Matthew 12:6-8

Jesus gets accused of blasphemy for doing things like placing himself above the temple, or calling himself lord of the sabbath, or teaching and reinterpreting the Law "with authority," or forgiving sins. These are all the unique prerogatives of God, and not of lesser divine beings. Jesus and his accusers both know this.

The accusation of blasphemy, according to this story was false. — Fooloso4

You are missing the subtlety of the writings entirely. The subtlety of the Gospels and the Jewish mind is characterized by a verse like John 11:51. The charge of blasphemy is both correct and incorrect. It is correct in that it is not a conspiracy theory spun up out of nowhere; it is incorrect in that God's Son has God's prerogatives. What is blasphemous for others is not blasphemous for him.

For example, Luke 5:24 does not say, as you seem to think it does, "Oh, I'm not God but I can forgive sins anyway." Instead he says, "I, in my uniqueness as the Son of man,* can forgive sins, and to prove it I will cure this paralytic." The premise that only God can forgive sins is left untouched, significantly. The center of that text is the forgiveness of sins, and the healing is meant to support Jesus' authority to forgive sins.

* Cf. Daniel 7

Most of the time this neural activity is a response to sensory stimulation of biological sense organs, but sometimes it is a response to other things, whether those be artificial sensory aids, drugs, sleep, or mental illness. — Michael

Does the same hold of color?

--

The reason color is not a percept is because humans know that there are things which alter our percepts without altering the external objects of our percepts, and because of this the most common use of the word 'color' has a super-perceptual referent. For example:

This would be a neat argument for why colors and percepts are not the same thing. The percept of the ball changed, but its color stayed the same. — Leontiskos

When a shadow falls over a ball we do not say that the color of the ball has changed, because we differentiate our visual perception of the ball from the ball's color. We know that things like paint change the ball's color whereas shadows do not. This is just like the indirect realism argument regarding perspective (i.e. the way that distant objects appear smaller).

"Color is a percept" is a false statement, just as, "Objects are percepts" is a false statement. Nevertheless, there is a manner in which color is more "perceptual"/subjective than shape. Color is more one-dimensional than shape given that it cannot be perceived by any other sense, and it is interpreted by the brain in a more idiosyncratic manner than shape is (i.e. it is more dependent on the particularly human cognitive apparatus than something like shape). But it is incorrect to take these subtle differences and turn them into crass statements like, "Science has proved that color does not exist!"

They are seeing in the sense of having a visual experience but not seeing in the sense of responding to and being made aware of some appropriate external stimulus — Michael

Okay good, and this is true even if their percepts are identical, yes? Therefore to see an external object is not merely a matter of percepts, yes? — Leontiskos

Note that just as one can have a visual experience of an object without seeing an external object, so too one can have a visual experience of a colored object without seeing an external colored object. I can hallucinate a horse and I can hallucinate the horse's brownness, and this is different from seeing a real horse and seeing its real brownness. The distinction you are making applies equally well to color.

But other mechanisms such as a cortical visual prosthesis can help. Much like a cochlear implant helps where an ear trumpet can't. — Michael

There are cases where nothing will help. Again:

Of everyone with a brain, there are some blind and deaf people who can be helped by aids to sight or hearing, and others who cannot. To understand the difference between the two is to understand why sight and hearing are not reducible to [the subject]. — Leontiskos

They are seeing in the sense of having a visual experience but not seeing in the sense of responding to and being made aware of some appropriate external stimulus, much like the schizophrenic is hearing in the sense of having an auditory experience but not hearing in the sense of responding to and being made aware of some appropriate external stimulus. — Michael

Okay good, and this is true even if their percepts are identical, yes? Therefore to see an external object is not merely a matter of percepts, yes?

@Michael

So when the blind dream are they seeing? They are obviously interacting with percepts, and you think percepts are seeing, so apparently the blind are seeing when they sleep.

Sleeping pills are not a cure for blindness. — Leontiskos

I'm not confusing myself because I haven't claim that "hearing voices" isn't a euphemism for "hallucinate". — Michael

You've claimed that the "hears" in "hears voices" is just like the "hears" in ordinary predications about hearing, which is false, because "hears voices" is a euphemism for hallucination.

No one is arguing brains can hear without input of any sort. The argument is that no can hear without a brain. — Hanover

But who is arguing that persons can hear without brains?

It's not equivocation to say that the schizoprenic hears voices. That's just the ordinary way of describing the phenomenon. — Michael

No, "hears voices" is a euphemism for "hallucinates." You are confusing yourself.

What distinguishes the dream with the electrode example is the claim "there is a chair" does not correspond with reality in the dream, but it does with the electrode. — Hanover

Does the "electrode" result in sight or a hallucination? (And why is this question important?)

Why does that matter? It is still normal to describe someone with a cochlear implant as hearing things, and the same for those with an auditory brainstem implant.

If you only want to use the words “see” and “hear” for those with normally functioning sense organs then you do you, but it’s not wrong for the rest of us to be more inclusive with such language. — Michael

Of everyone with a brain, there are some blind and deaf people who can be helped by aids to sight or hearing, and others who cannot. To understand the difference between the two is to understand why sight and hearing are not reducible to the brain. If they were reducible to the brain then everyone with a brain would be able to see and hear, and everyone who is blind or deaf would be helped by brain-based aids.

That's also false. The blind can't see anything no matter what their brains are doing. — jkop

Yep. :up:

It's odd that we even have to have these sorts of conversations.

The blind can see if their brains are directly stimulated. — Hanover

This is equivocation on "seeing." For example, a blind person does not see when they dream, as your verbiage would have it. Sleeping pills are not a cure for blindness.

This is due to the uncontroversial scientific fact that perception is created by the brain regardless of whether the stimulus enters the brain through the normal means of sensory organs or whether it is hot wired directly through a probe. — Hanover

This is an equivocation on "created." There is a lot of equivocation going on between you and Michael.

In sight the brain processes external signals, it does not create images. In that case the images require both the brain and the external stimulus. In hallucination the brain does create images, for in that case the images require no external stimulus. Your whole facade requires equivocation between these two very different cases. If there were no difference between seeing the wolf and hallucinating the wolf, then you would be right. In that case we would not even have two different words, "seeing" and "hallucinating."

I point to sources that support what you claim I made up. — Fooloso4

Then do it. Defend either of those two claims. :roll:

"To break the law is blasphemy." This is the sort of nonsense that most 10 year-old Christians or Jews could correct. To see someone with such ignorance speak with such confidence is remarkable.

If you were arguing in good faith you would admit that. — Fooloso4

The irony. :lol:

psychiatrists by comparison are more in the way of witch doctors — tim wood

They are the priestly caste, and the priestly caste is always taken seriously both by others and by themselves, in part because their function within society is seen to be so important. And of course it cannot be denied that it is important.

To break the Law is blasphemy. — Fooloso4

Fourth, related to the others, is the claim to be the Messiah. The Messiah is divine but is not God. — Fooloso4

Feel free to defend either of these two claims. The second claim is more truly <It was considered blasphemy to claim to be the messiah>.

- You are making things up left and right, and I see no reason to reply to such bizarre and unsubstantiated ideas.

- Yes, I very much like the way you set this out. A contradictory word and a contradictory intention/meaning are two different things, and a capable thinker must be able to recognize when words and meanings separate.

Psychiatric treatment is model or theory based, which may not work for a particular patient, and may even be just plain wrong for a particular patient — tim wood

Sure, but this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Psychiatry could be the Devil himself, but even so the whole system would collapse without it. So we'll need to keep the devil around until we can figure out how to do without him. Cutting off his head will only make things worse.

You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, but what alternative would you propose? — Leontiskos

it seems to me the best treatment is holistic in approach, providing what is needed: drugs if needed; counseling/therapeutic/custodial support as needed, and likely a mix. — tim wood

Okay, so you think psychiatry is too narrow of an intervention. I don't find that controversial, but I'm not sure we want the thread to devolve into an argument over psychiatry. The larger picture must be kept in mind, which is abductive. Churchill's saying about democracy could be adapted for psychiatry. If one wants to oppose psychiatry then the true task is to offer a better alternative, not to just bash psychiatry.

- What exactly are you disputing? This?:

There is definitely something wrong, that's not in dispute. — unenlightened

Mental illness is surely a problem, no? And how do we approach it? Psychologically, sociologically, medicinally...? You may not like the psychiatric approach to mental illness, but what alternative would you propose? Do you at least admit that mental illness represents a societal problem?

Is there a way to delete private messages? — Leontiskos

Outlander answered this for me privately. My Stylebot settings were hiding the option. :blush:

I figure Spinoza made short work of this. We deliberate between choices as means to achieve our ends. Whatever is making it possible for this to happen is not a copy of our nature.

If the agency we experience gives us no conception of what is happening, presuming a 'determinism' is not an argument against the reality of deliberation. — Paine

Yes, and I find the roots of this in Aristotle as well. Whereabouts in Spinoza could this be found?

It's a hypothetical example - nuance is to be avoided in making the distinction between the personal psychological analysis and the social relations analysis. — unenlightened

I suppose my point is that social approaches to mental health need not be conspiracy theories. Describing social theories with the example of, "worldwide recession engineered by financial interests he has zero knowledge of," and the need of "a new government," makes it sound a lot like a conspiracy theory.

There is a lot going on in the OP. Probably too much. The social aspect is part of it, but not an especially large part.