Stereotyping is acting on statistical analysis in a situation where a case-by-case analysis is warranted. Its profiling taken to a point of essentially bigotry (soft, and low-level, but still).

They are helpful for categorizing people and things, but they are not helpful for interacting with them. Profiling does a bit better.

War is unavoidable and theories that want it removed from human existence are full of ignorance, historical whitewashing and claims that undermine both the archaeological record and our animal nature.

War is awful. It is tragic. It is disgusting. It is essentially the worst of humanity.

Both of those things seem true. However, having a military-industrial complex of the kind seen in the USA specifically is not the above. It is hawking. Even pre-emptive strikes are justifiable. But having a system of military obsession which detriments things like education, housing, domestic law enforcement (I think here of things like white-collar investigations, uncovering large-scale fraud etc.. that take millions rather htan on-the-ground policing - although, that needs a massive injection for training too) and local governance is short-signed, unjustifiable and likely counter to the goals set for it.

That said, we're not moving toward world war three. Keep the brain in the head folks.

Further reading/listening: Jeff McMahon.

You have no argument; there is no justification for your position; and it comes from a limited view which seeks to limit itself further by pretending something mediate his contact with the world immediately outside himself. — NOS4A2

You don't even know what you're saying, let alone what the dispute is. You think your intuitions are arguments and deal with complex empirical issues that humans are not disposed to solve. Craziness.

I suggest you skip to the final, bolded line and really put your adult pants on and think hard on that question.

*sigh* mate, you're asking me to re-state things stated several times, as they've come up. That is not any of fair, reasonable or good faith. One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. I proved you wrong. Yo ignored it. There are more, and if you've reviewed the thread, then you know what im talking about.

you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks? — praxis

I didn't call it trivial - your response to it, hanging your entire thesis on it after being proven wrong in multiple other avenues and your absolute refusal to admit hte reality of it became central to my attempt to have you respond honestly about someone you didn't know, and refuse completely to engage with in anything close to good faith.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. You don't seem able. I have tried to close this off on civil comments several times, and you are incapable. I am happy to respond to you as long as you are saying things that can be coherently replied to, but I will suggest, again, that this has run its course. You sincerely believe what you believe, despite this thread. You probably think the same.

Explain to me the worth of continuing?

LOL fair enough.

I agree with Banno, except that straw man (IRists explicitly reject that we know the truth about the world, and instead respect that we know nothing of it besides its triggering tendency to our percepts), and concluding that what he says supports DR.

I also agree with Hanover, and have again, made it explicitly clear that it isn't metaphysics unless you want semantic commitment to override physics. That would be a metaphysical commitment, conceptually.

I agree with Michael about most of what he's said.

That is why it is not a definitional issue. It is one of wilfully ignoring the question in service of either comfort, or really shining Austin's shoes (its the latter - and i am Joking).

I think you may well enjoy Anthropocentric Purposivism conceptually. It's basically an attempt to account for the premise (i.e the unreasonable alignment of reason and reality (although, I personally see nothing interesting in this)) and arguing for essentially an intelligent universe, while rejecting standard theistic logic.

If anything, his ideas may work better in sustaining those who are experiencing a wounded ego or loss of pride. — Jack Cummins

That seems very much the case! I thikn his type of teaching is more of a stepping stone to being well-adjusted. It's just that bad adjustment of the ego is extremely hard overcome and tends to require a change in world-view rather than self-image.

But, of course, those with a strong sense of ego may be the aggressors who wound others' fragile egos. — Jack Cummins

That also seems quite true. Badly adjusted egos can result in narcissistic self-victimizing (think the depressive who refuses to enact solutions, so as to continue the drama of their identity) or as you say, that lashing out at weaker egos. Sensitive indeed - I think there's too much contradiction in looking outside (i.e to idols, books, 'systems' etc..) to solve an intensely internal problem (self actualization) for things like Tolle's teachings to be either main-stream or long-term.

BTW, this problem was one of the reason why I ultimately ceased to try to become a Buddhist. — boundless

Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes, despite Buddhists being some of the sweetest, lightest people I have ever met (besides generally well-adjusted children). It was extremely unattractive in practice.

Their view? Confused lol.

No, I'm joking. I've outlined it, to no objection several times in the thread: That real-world objects are constituents of first-person phenomenal experience as such.

There's no definitional problems here until you start thinking that meaning is defined by use in situations where use and meaning are either various, or have come apart. Recent responses to Hanover and Ludwig V elucidate. "the Apple" and how it functions is not in question. But the other guys seem to want that to be the question. It's a tough go..

It really, truly is not a war of definitions. One side wants it to be that when it's not, and has been explicitly, clearly spelled out in other terms.

That some of us refuse to come to the table about words doesn't reduce the level of disagreement to words.

Oh my fucking God, you guys are parrotting the Russian nonsense now?

It's going to be exquisite coming back in another two years.

The point about the "direct realist" being a straw man — Banno

you are not seeing some mental phantasm of the tennis. — Banno

Lol. Okay bud.

*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. — EnPassant

We live in entirely different worlds. I suggest yours is a bit unfortunate. Take care mate.

I suggest this is either closed or move to the Lounge for both content reasons, and to avoid the inevitably adversarial exchanges if people respond.

Again, with respect, that is utterly absurd. An aggregate of more than 1000 first-hand experiences trumps yours. Sorry.

Absolutely indefensible verdict acquitting Palestinian Action 'protesters' of aggravated burglary and GBH which the judge should have thrown out immediately. This better get challenged and reversed - there is no possible way to have acquitted people who were filmed carrying out the offense they are on trial for. Juries can do this because of bias - but the judicial system is bound to correct this. It is legally untenable.

Further, disgusting that Jeremy Corbyn called this is a triumph for Palestinian action: If that's the case, you support terrorism and political violence. Full stop. Absolutely abhorrent stuff.

You posted a propaganda site.

I posted three peer-reviewed studies that you did not read.

You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems.

these women have become like men — Questioner

I do not want women to act like men. — Questioner

I hope it's at least clear to you, based on two other poster's replies now, that you should probably be re-thinking the rather reductive and sexist way you're approaching women. It gives a fairly distinct feeling that you are not so much trying to support women, as trying to push an agenda of some kind.

t any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. — EnPassant

You're not actually engaging with that which is being said to you.

In any case, no one said religion was evil. So this is incoherent.

With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/?utm_
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/?utm_
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38280572/

You are peddling long-debunked myths in support of I know not what. This exchange is pointless. But suffice to say, you should be humble and admit you don't know what you don't know, and that you now have that information.

The language seems quite happy to accommodate both IR and DR without hesitation. — Ludwig V

I would just agree, but I think you went wrong prior to this statement:

In one way, that's what we see if/when it gets into our eyes. In another way, of course, it is nothing of the sort - I see the sun. — Ludwig V

I agree. But the way I'm seeing things, the former is how things actually are, and the latter is intuition without analysis in the way "vulgar" was used in 18th/19thC philosophy. That's why I say that use isn't problematic, it just isn't all that relevant to us here.

But doesn't it follow that we should not equate the light streaming from the sun with a recording either? — Ludwig V

The difference seems to be that the light from the Sun has been in contact with the Sun. The light in the recording (of the game, just to clear away the wife's voice thing) does the same job for you. But the light never reflected off the ball field (or whereever). It was generated by a machine, which was interpreting electrical signals transmuted from light which did touch the ball field. So the difference doesn't have anything to do with your experience - they function the same in each example. If you watched the game on a five-minute delay (common, even for "live" broadcasts) you would be seeing something older when you looked at the window at the Sun. This does not sit well with the idea that the Sun is the direct one, and not the other. But I reject both, so that's cool.

The light arriving on earth shows us the sun as of eight minutes ago. So what? That still seems to simplest solution to me. — Ludwig V

"So what?" is definitely the simplest, easiest and least analytical conclusion. I also think it's true - so what? I don't care that my perception of hte Sun is indirect. This can cut both ways.

in a proper way that makes sense — Ludwig V

I don't really understand what you could mean by this. Plenty of definitions are flying about and we seem to be operating from stable definitions? Direct perception is the concept that first-personal experience is constituted by objects in the world.
IR is that this experience is constituted by mental images derived from sense data.

These both make sense and can be discussed. Could you say more about the issue you see?

But if you think about, our visual experience of the phenomena is perfectly compatible with both stories. — Ludwig V

Oh yes. If it wasn't as clear as I thought, this was one central tenet of that long reply. The stories we tell don't answer anything, which is why relying on semantics or word use to sort this particular issue out to me is quite unattractive. Possibly dysfunctional.

It's not a sovereign cure for all our ills. But it would help, I think, if it were more widely recognized. — Ludwig V

I certainly agree with this, but I do think you're giving less weight to the fact that people often actually do see literally different things. How we adjudicate about that sort of thing is always quite interesting, but I've had several experiences where someone I know to be totally sane remembers something completely different to me (a species of animal, for instance, as between a dog and a flightless bird, in one example I can recall). These are disagreements of interpretation - they are differing representations. Again, whether that's a malfunction is a jury issue and they're not back, to me.

No-one doubts that we hear the starting gun even though we only hear it some time after the race has started. — Ludwig V

I would respond the same way as when you mentioned the genral response to visual stimuli. That we don't usually think about it isn't all that interesting. People often do bring this up when timing thunder strikes.

Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage. — EnPassant

Well, no. What you call 'corruption' are logical inferences from texts. It's worth noting "religion" is not a monolith. Early Christian teachings were barbaric. Current islamic ones are (and were, tbf). They aren't the same thing in practice, so I understand what you're saying - but you again, missed the point. Supernatural beliefs motivate behaviour. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest.

Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind. — EnPassant

I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling.

Your next response doesn't begin to come close to answering the question asked. Syd Barrett is not a psychic reality. You seem to not know anything about that which you speak.

They are like siblings or cousins to us. — javi2541997

That's fair. I don't think this is going to be quite the joyride you do, but fair.

Our health care system is already very screwed. It is not their fault. — javi2541997

LOL no, that's not the concern though. Making worse is surely not ideal.

They can only enter the voter rolls if they get the nationality and there is a reciprocal agreement — javi2541997

This appears to go for State and Regional elections, not Municipal elections (given my next sentence). I noted that after a year, they will meet the required residency time. I mean, I could still be wrong but clarifying what I understood.

may vote in municipal elections in Spain — javi2541997

Colombia is one of the most common countries of origin for this group? Seems to me they will be able to vote. Thanks very much for the elucidation.

Then stop reading. It's unlikely to be representing reality.

I'm not clear what "it" refers to in "it is not 'the object' in any sense". — Ludwig V

I am sorry if it was unclear - even on re-reading I can't see ambiguity.
The "it" is the image the said light provides you with. It isn't the object, one AU away from Earth, as it is. It is highly mediated, and actually isn't an object, but an experience (on my view, obviously).

Under normal circumstances, we have no hesitation about saying that we see the computer screen on which we are typing. And yet, there is a time lag between light leaving the screen and it arriving at our eyes. — Ludwig V

Yes. I have been over this several times now: idealization. I am unsure how much more lifting I can do on this exact matter.

But when we find cases where the time lag is longer, we don't quite know what to say. — Ludwig V

As far as I can tell, they behave exactly the same way - but the proximity gives less room for discussing any kind of 'error' in DR terms, whereas accepting that the light has gone through x space and time can leave open, prima facie, reason to think maybe something has gotten in that process and altered what's received (speculatively. That's not even in the IR position per se). I think the intuition most people feel is that the distance is merely a niggle on the farside of their metaphysical grapevine, but is slightly closer(i.e a more perceptible niggle) for the Sun example vs a computer screen a foot away. That is, unless one is discussing these things lol.

So far that the star has usually disappeared by the time we see it. — Ludwig V

Yeah, nice. That's largely the crux of why the initial account doesn't work for me. Hopefully there's some common ground to come.. .

I prefer to work the other way. — Ludwig V

Yes, and in practical terms, that's fine. There are many things we idealize in this way. The concept of "perfection" is an example. Its incoherent really, but we use it to describe many things without noting that we're not really calling x perfect. I don't think there's appreciable difference between that and our examples other than psychology.

There's no right way to go here. — Ludwig V

I'm unsure this is hte correct conclusion, but i massively appreciate your clarifications. I understand where we're askance, I think.
For me, we can simply alter the language (this is the semantic part!!) to actually reflect what happens. I've previously suggested these terms I think, even to you (I am not mentally reviewing htem for consistency right now, so feel free)

To look at: cast one's eyes toward an object (this doesn't require that we know what we're doing)
To see: To have a first-person phenomenal experience of that object (i guess.. whatever object).

I actually use these, most of the time because they far better capture what I'm trying to say at various times. I've responded to some objections to this thus:

"I have my objections, but the position, i take it, is that the mediation is not manipulative or deceptive so gives a 'direct' indication of that object one has cast their eyes too.

I don't quite have an issue with this other than calling it direct."

So, I think you have actually in a previous thread hit on something that speaks to me quite loudly. You said something like: indirect and direct at not apt for a discussion of perception.

I now take that to boil down to the "choice" issue above, meaning it does boil down to semantics. I see the attraction, but I still maintain metaphysics is trying to violate physics there and so its extremely uncomfortable and misleading to me. When I take the DR position to heart, I cannot make sense of what we empirically know about perception.

Many errors are errors of interpretation and so do not require positing any kind of intermediary object. That's what is left out of this debate. — Ludwig V

I don't quite know what you mean here - interpretation meaning the psychological reaction to the (let's call it, for my benefit) image presented in the mind? Or interpretation being what your eyes/brain does with the light? I can understand the former and not the latter just so clarifying. On thebasis it's the former, I think it's left out becuase its like saying a blindfold has much to do with perceptual directness. It's not the same question. Yes, we can misinterpret things we see, but whether this is the apparatus "malfunctioning" in a DRist way, or whether that's evidence of the mediation required to support an IR position seems jury's out to me. So, I can get on with that. Not the latter, though, as that would directly contravene the concept of DR as I understand.

But I think most people will differentiate between watching the game live and watching a recording. They will likely not talk of "direct" or "indirect", but still... — Ludwig V

Ok, good and I think I agree, but I doubt people will do this unless asked about it. At any rate, yes, good - I am simply extending this to all time-lag (using your early time) type experiences. The Sun is a good once because while its "immediate" in the sense of it not being recorded, it is eight minutes ago when you get it (the image, the Sun, the light, whatever you'd like to call it). The recording is data while results in light traveling to your eyes with x,y,z properties and presents you with the game which was played, let's say for fun, eight minutes ago. Same for the Sun.

Okay, so I'll step back and explain because I really don't mean to be obscure or confusing. — Hanover

I'm not taking you that way - but very appreciate any elucidations! Onward..

The problem arises when these two questions get conflated. — Hanover

Yes, I think probably for disparate reasons, I agree!

"Apple means having an experience of an apple." That ties meaning either to (a) the apple itself or (b) the experience you have of the apple. Considering you cannot tell me (a) what the apple itself is without referring to some sort of perceptual state (i.e. it is round, weighs 3 ounces, is red, etc.), and (b) you cannot open your mind and show me your perception, telling me the "apple" is (a) or (b) offers me nothing. You'll also note that (a) and (b) are metaphysical questions, not physical questions. As in, I want to know what the apple itself is if that's what you're using to tie it to meaning. — Hanover

This is confused ( to me), and possibly misleading(your a's and b's dont align so it's hard to respond directly). The phrase would not be "Apple is..." (again, to me. If you're referring to some third party arguing something I wouldn't, i prefer to not take that up).
The phrase would be "Seeing an Apple is...". That leaves an ability to describe that experience in terms of shape, weight, colour and all the rest without trouble and call that "the apple" meaning "the apple I see" or "the apple in my experience". But it leaves out the commitment that the Apple is either nowhere, or included in the experience. Now, I can see an objectin being that this intimates all of our experiences of what we want to call the same apple, are in fact, not hte same apple. I bite this bullet. They are caused by the same apple. I see no issue but discomfort/trying to idealize this into every-day language which I have no issue with either. But it is idealizing this concept (again, and always, in my view).

I agree, saying anything about "the apple" is meaningless if you mean to say anything about the actual object, out there in the world (other than what it causes in your perception - you could say "to the best of my knowledge, it causes *insert apt description based on experience*). We, in my view, do not have a word for it - just the concept - ding-en-sich.

I think can, and just did tell you (a.) I just don't think you want what I'm offering and you've given your reasons. My response is that the experience of *i know not what* is "the apple" I want to talk about. I don't talk about the other possible 'object', because I have no access to it. This seems totally coherent to me. You want to give a name to the cause, which I don't try to do and lean toward it not being reasonable to attempt. I tihnk we're at cross purposes in this moment.

Meaning is use, not meaning is the thing or the experience. — Hanover

Well, it has to be something - otherwise words would not have any meaning whatsoever - it's either tied to something we're describing in our experience, or outside our experience (logically - otherwise its describing nothing). I chose the former for many reasons. Use has no utility unless we know what we're doing. Which is, i content, describing our experience and for ease, or maybe just efficiency, we don't bother mentioning that its an experience of something. Which is wild, because we do use that phrase constantly to describe "my experience of going to the DMV" or whatever.

I find no discomfort it this epistemic gap. I am content to be motivated, moved and lead by what appears in my experience and not feel any need to look beyond it for that which, I contend, caused it. It's extremely interesting to me, and in places like TRP I will do so - but day-to-day and in general use, I wouldn't. I would say "I see an apple". It should be sufficiently clear that the semantics do nothing for the disagreement I'm seeing other than to clarify what each of us is trying to say. Your "the Apple" is not the same as mine, in this thread. But whether IR or DR, in general use they amount to the same thing but the commitment is silent (i.e you will say the same thing, and it will be meaningful, whether you take IR or DR on board). I think that does what the Searle types want to do right back to them and solves the problem with words. THe problem was the claim that the problem is with the words. Hahahaha.

When you say "I saw an apple" if you start to delve into what is the apple "really" and what part of your sensation was the apple and what wasn't, or if there even was an apple "out there," you've lost your way. You're talking in unanswerable and incohrent circles. — Hanover

If you say so. I think its pretty interesting to talk of these things - but one would not do this if they wanted the apple from the other side of the table. The above should speak to how this can be on either conception. I, personally, will, in passing, consider those things when I speak.

How do we use the term "apple"? Through
correction (“no, that’s not an apple”), mistake, teaching, rule-following. That's what I mean by "apple. — Hanover

Yep, and that's fine (although wholly incomplete, nothing turns on what's missing imo). It does not mean our use faithfully represents what's going on in the world or that could suggest it does beyond intuition. It rarely, if ever, does in practice. I do not know why this is so uncomfortable as a concept, when use dictates this type of idealization with plenty of words we routinely use. I guess I understand it, but don't know why. I get no discomfort from the concept that I can never access the world as-it-is. Why would i? It doesn't come up for me(joke, to be clear).

What explanatory power does it have to say it is the stuff that causes stuff when we can't know anything about the stuff. — Hanover

What does this have to do with truth? DR has no explanatory power to me. None. It explains how people get away with ignoring the empirical in service of a metaphysical commitment. If IR is the case, DRist will be saying exactly the same things. Their theory does nothing but reduce what there is to explain - without explanation. Which is why i would simply return to what I have just now gone back and bolded.

The indirect realist makes the ridiculous claim that even when you are at the Rod Laver Arena, you do not see the tennis — Banno

That is a fair charge, but the problem I see is you've said nothing that makes this ridiculous or what makes it ridiculous, other than that you're incredulous - which is fine and understandable as it violates intuition. But yeah, you do not see "the tennis" tout court, no. I don't think that's coherent, its just practical. As such, I think you are playing hide the ball with the term "the tennis" treated at length above under "the Apple". The semantics need work, but are not the problem.

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran... — EnPassant

I think you may, for whatever reason, be disposed to misread these questions. I presume you're a theist?

The question asked was why is it this experience

Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God. — EnPassant

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. You may disagree, and that's fine, but his position isn't one of anger - quite clearly. He just has a rather reasonable gripe with supernatural beliefs because beliefs encourage/motivate behaviours. Many of which, from the religious impulse, are negative in his view (and mine, and millions of others).

What kind of damage are they measuring? — EnPassant

Physical, psychological, social, economic.

All of them. There's nothing missing that could matter.

These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. — EnPassant

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. I also suggest you do not have a visual line on that bloke's mind. That is absurd.

1. We do not have direct visual perception of apples, only indirect visual perception of apples
2. We have direct visual perception of mental phenomena — Michael

Good point @NOS4A2 add that clarification to my recent reply. It is extremely succinct, thank you Michael.

So, first off, I used to be a huge Tolle fan. I had both Power of Now and A New Earth and read both several times. First: He is a terrible writer. I don't recall the vast majority of those works because they were badly organised and didn't provide much by way of systematic information. That's just technical, but may explain gaps in things I'm saying.

Tolle looks at the way ego involves formsof identification... — Jack Cummins

I thikn is his biggest error (ironically). He seems to operate from the premise that ego need be overcome. I mean, if that's your goal, sure, but for most practical goals a human could want, overcoming hte ego is extremely context bound: surrendering some autonomy in order to learn adequately, surrendering self-interest to raise children or a family more generally, setting aside one's ideological commitments in order to assimilate another intimate partner into one's life etc.. etc.. etc..

So, the error is not that Ego causes problems and must be overcome in some sense. But his thesis consistently returns to the idea that, as a species, we must transcend the concept of "i" to avoid suffering. Its repackaged Buddhism, but that side, it doesn't actually work unless you're at least semi-ascetic. Most people can't do this, including his fans.

For instance, "we are right, they are wrong" is factually true most of the time. It's just perhaps unclear who is who. But that doesn't mean we should forego attempts to arrange our selves in service of hte fact.

I feel that Tolle's ideas are important for thinking about human values and the future. — Jack Cummins

Probably true - but they are not en vogue any longer and I don't see a return to a mainstream meditative practice any time soon.

Is ego a stumbling block in philosophy? — Jack Cummins

I think the artificial shedding of 'ego' has lead to the modern phenomenon of absolute bullshit being published constantly. But humility is important - i just seriously doubt shedding humility is analogous to shedding ego.

Haha, fair enough.

What are you suggesting with this thread? It seems like its a bit of a conspiracy, which I have no problem with - but let's say its all legit - what then?

It is just that these persons are now documented to be hired legally in the labour marke — javi2541997

Its not just that though is it? There are concerns about an immediate influx of 500,000 legitimate names on voter rolls (Municipal - the ones that matter), health care registers, tax obligations (welfare, I guess) and in a social-democratic milieu that could be disastrous. They only need a year to meet what I understand to be the thresholds for these entitlements. There's also the potential for cultural clash, but I don't put as much into that as much who have reacted to it globally.

Semantics references meaning. The words chosen, syntax. Are we not asking what I mean when I say "apple"? You say no. I say yes. — Hanover

While I (think) fully understand why you're asking, no, not in this context unless you're arguing that you cannot use your perceptual experience to align your dictionary with mine - if that's the case, much more to be said But i didn't take that to be the case. Presuming we both know we're talking about the extremely similar experience as between us which can be gleaned from casting ones eyes toward an object (of a kind) which causes the experience we term 'seeing an apple'. I understand a lot of that will sound superfluous to you, but even on a DRist theory, this works as far as I can tell. You just think much of it is redundant. So far, so fair.

You ask "what causes the sense data that causes my brain to swirl so I end up with an apple qualia." — Hanover

I did not ask this. I offer an opportunity clarify, but I'll not respond because I'm bound to say something to doesn't make sense because I don't get it.

You want to know what the stuff is, but you can't provide it any attribute because attributes are qualia. — Hanover

I don't know what you're talking about here. I've not discussed this at all. What the object is which causes my apple experience isn't particularly interesting to me(in this thread, anyway).

The photon can't be brightness per your view, nor can the molecule have scent. That would be direct realism. — Hanover

Correct. And I answered in the negative when you asked if it was. So i'm a bit lost...

No, that's not it at all. The emperor wears clothes. — Hanover

Well, an abject failure to adequately grasp the argument is in play. From both you and Banno it seems. So I'm going to maintain that suspicion for now.

You act as if science answers metaphysics. Then is physics and metaphysics the same thing? — Hanover

While I get that this might be frustrating, you seem to be suggesting that metaphysics can violate physics and be valid. I don't agree.

Your desire to subtract semantics from "apple" — Hanover

Again, nowhere did I do this. I have explained, categorically, what hte meaning of Apple is to me on IRist grounds. I return to my suspicion.

that the Light is a data medium between the object and your eyes. That would be data derived from your sensual apparati (not a real word lol) - sense data”.

Yeah, sense-data is a mental thing. Light isn’t. Do you get it now? — NOS4A2

The quoted is true (on my view, of course). THe response isn't apt. We are not directly aware of light. We are aware that it is the only consistent conjunct to our visual apparatus even engaging with the world around ust. We call that light, because that works. We also call it "photons" when talking in some other way. You have gone to far in my view. The semantic puddle grows larger.

So yes, I get it and you haven't adequately addressed what I'm saying. You still want the light to be what you are aware instead of the (seems above, anyway) admitted sense data.

Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God. — EnPassant

I can't argue without asking: What do you mean by 'best'? It seems to be the least reliable, the least amenable to interrogation, the least presentable and the least-strong in terms of any logical deduction. It can be explained in many ways besides an actual communion with a hypothetical God.

So what do you mean by 'best'?

Why anyone be unable to commune with God? — EnPassant

Well, God doesn't appear to exist for one - but you're also simply ignoring the argument. It doesn't matter why. The concept is that if people are unable to, you've said you wouldn't use the term defective - so, what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily?

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented. — EnPassant

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

Popular reporting, to be sure, but hte sources are reported statistical realities. I understand being resistant due to being ill-informed, but you are wrong on this count. Paddle boats do more damage.

I have been watching a documentary on the Children of God cult and pretty much everything would apply to the cult of capitalism/materialism that the West loves so much. — unimportant

I would simply disagree. There's a quote about tradition, that I don't quite 'believe' but it seems to apply to many things you're taking issue with: Tradition is experiment which worked.

Again, not a heuristic even, but the tradition of Christmas is such that all comers seems to get involved, even those with alter religious affiliations. I don't quite see what you do.

What is the light? Brightness? — Hanover

Photons which react to/arrange themselves in light of (heheh) the objects they bounce off until they hit our eyes, as I understand. But I don't know. I've not seen any photons in any sense we could be using here (from memory, anyway).

What is smell? Molecules in your nose receptors? Does the scent of the flower live in the molecule? — Hanover

No. It's an experience (that may or may not be termed a brainstate).

Does the scent of the flower live in the molecule? — Hanover

Um, no. That is my point and the fundamental problem DRist face, from my perspective: that hte answer to this unequivocally no.

Does it make sense to speak of anything that causes the magic except to say it causes the magic? — Hanover

I don't quite know what you're getting at so I'll just clarify that when i said 'magic' i was referring to the technical process of light being transmuted to an electrical signal which travels to the brain, where it is essentially arranged and constructed into an experience. So, I'm not sure what this question does..

So, what is the flower, the light, or the molecule I speak of? Let's say it's "really" a cat. Does that mean a flower is a cat? How can we know it's "really" a cat if I see flower, and how can I know you see a cat when I see a flower? — Hanover

You have fallen back onto the semantic argument, entirely missing the one being made here. What words we use are irrelevant to the question at hand, although it is quite important we at least think we're talking about hte same thing - and we aren't here.
If you want to call a flower a cat, that's fine. That doesn't change the ontological status of the object to which you refer, or our epistemic relationship to it. I think i adequately answered the conclusory question: You can't. We can simply compare our notes and see what works. That appears to be what actually happens, and how science runs.

How is it that we in fact speak easily of flowers all the time yet I have no idea what we're talking about here. — Hanover

Because we're trying not to idealize. I have been over this. I am beginning to think that this argument is so thin that two of the better posters can't quite wrap themselves around it adequately.

The point here is that meaning isn't dictated by cause. It's by use. — Hanover

Which has precisely nothing to do with whether we are directly aware of objects or not.

I think i'm answering both here:

The light itself is not sense data - the electrical impulses your eyes send to your brain is. This explains why light does not need a medium. It literally, physically, enters the eye. There is where the 'magic' happens.

In your rush to be domineering — Questioner

That you see being held to the fire on you views, being told unequivocally where you are going wrong(on hte empirical points - your opinions are your own) and being given well-sourced correctives as 'domineering' tells me quite a lot that I doubt you intended to say. That's ironic. If you had made an attempt to support this assertion, i'd give a very polite and direct response. But you did not. So here we are.

you seem to be rebutting things that I never said, or intended to intimate. I in no way mean to disparage or diminish the role of motherhood. — Questioner

I never said anything remotely close to this. You will need to quote me to continue that charge please. I responded exactly to what you said, with quotes - you have done the opposite, generally. That is incredibly ironic, that you have done exactly what this quote purports to charge me with.

What I think you have failed to understand is that one of my main points is that we need more of the feminine, nurturing, maternal instinct in our society. If we want a fair and just society, we need more of that. — Questioner

I have not failed to understand this (it was in plain English for one), or anything else you've said. You are consistently refusing to engage with responses to your clearly inaccurate claims. You could simply address those responses - but you do not. I'd have thought that you post here, as most of us to, to be challenged and discuss the topics we're passionate about in the realm of philosophy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, attitudes, genders or anything but that you are factually incorrect to a degree that makes these specifics essentially unable to be adequately discussed (this rests on that, generally, i enjoy interacting with you. Otherwise I wouldn't care about this problem). If you refuse to accept that, it is not on me(or Ecurb). It is also a complete lie to say anything that intimates it's somehow me causing your refusal. You may choose not to engage. And that is fine. It's between you and no one else. But to suggest that because I've pushed back I haven't understood is intellectually bankrupt.

There are several misunderstandings in your reply, and I am not inclined to answer each one specifically. — Questioner

All but guaranteed to be because there aren't any substantial misunderstandings, and you are unable to respond adequately to challenges to your views. This is not an attack. It is an observation as it fits with all of your responses on substantive issues since we began interacting. I see absolutely no reason to trust that this is anything but a dodge, given the lengthy, substantive replies, including sources, I have taken the time to put together for you. You have put in extremely little effort and instead retreated into ad hominem. If I am wrong, please (genuinely, please) prove me wrong.

And you continue to post condescending, lecturing attacks. — Questioner

Again, if you think that what I've done is an attack, that suggests you are not ready to engage with challenges to your views. That also fits with your general tenor - extremely defensive with no substantive response. The reason for this, I couldn't know.

You remind me of the way MAGA treats Greta Thunberg. They tear her apart. Your reaction to me, and their reaction to her, is telling. In New York in 2019, Greta said - — Questioner

This is irrelevant, and an extremely bad-faith attempt to lump me in with some group you don't like, for reasons that are wholly divorced from anything happening here.
You continue to give other people's thoughts instead of your own.

If you continue to refuse to engage in anything that could be considered substantive, philosophical, honest or not-sexist you will be treated as such. I assume you'd do the same to anyone who came into a space you enjoy throwing shit at the walls and telling you it's a painting.

It's not her words, but what they represent - an idealist expressing her truth - that I want to point out. — Questioner

This is not a 'MAGA' thing. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/dkcjoa/cmv_greta_thunbergs_un_speech_was_poorly_executed/?

"Greta is not helpful or productive to the cause… a young girl from a wealthy family who skips school and galavants the world on a private yacht meeting with celebrities… will not convince anybody who’s not already on board"

Bhaskar Sunkara, Naomi Klein and several other prominent thinkers on "her side" also critiqued her speech because it was ridiculous. It was out of touch, performative, ineffective and structurally irrelevant - not because she's female (not to mention hypocritical and plain stupid, in terms of PR). Refusing to accept that critique of your idols can be made in good faith is extremely damaging. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out an idealist being a petulant child publicly. Any comments focusing on her sex are abhorrent. I've not seen them, though, I'm just wholesale agreeing. Otherwise, nothing suggests there's anything wrong with multiple people coming to the same conclusion on a fairly cartoonish public performance. That You see this differently doesn't support your assertions about other people.

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! — Questioner

That's probably one of the better responses I've seen to it. And I dislike most things Trump has to say about most things. This one was pretty tempered. Although, I suggest if you are taken to believe Trump is a pedophile you will (reasonably) read a lot more into anything he says about minors. I don't (based on evidence).

Virtually none of these types of exchanges ring with any credibility, given that each time you are proven to be factually incorrect, you simply ignore it and move on to ad hominem. I'll continue to engage you as long as you continue to engage me, but i'm not going to treat you like the toddler you seem to want to be treated as. I'll pushback where something is demonstrably untrue, and I will essentially call your bluff when you retreat into ad hominem. An honest interlocutor would welcome this. I suggest, again, to have a think about why your threads of this kind get very little engagement.

That's exactly what it implies: that the Light is a data medium between the object and your eyes. That would be data derived from your sensual apparati (not a real word lol) - sense data. This doesn't mean you have to accept this description, but that is what it implies quite plainly. Others avoid this problem in fun ways.

That this is being missed is odd to me. Is it the case that you accept the facts and prefer to call them a description of Direct Realism (i.e that it doesn't amount to a "sense data" story)? That's fine, I just want to be clear.

Haven't read the thread, but this doesn't seem interesting or controversial. There's two answers:

The institutional degree; or
An image purposefully made by applying paint to a medium.

Seems to capture everything. What obviousness have I missed?

The landlord had a paternalistic relationship with the people living on the land, which traces back to Rome and the importance of the Father, and is related to our Father in heaven. — Athena

I think this is probably an unfinished analysis. The desire for paternal connection (and protection, let's not forget) appears inherent in any culture, because it must remain stable. This then get abused in situations of coercive control (even some modern work arrangements fit this bill). But I don't think it's fair to lay the human desire shown in that type of arrangement contextually derives from the concept of God. Perhaps, the other way around makes more sense as at some point, there are no men who can protect you from certain beasts or hostile out-tribes.

But it certainly seems like at times, this was a motivating factor in thinking it was some benevolent activity for sure!

LOL wondered how the Notifications were working.

I had in mind the ordinary ways in which we realize we didn't see what we thought we saw. — Ludwig V

Right. I've been considering exactly this is recent days - I think there's a profound difference between, say, glancing quickly, and having the incoming data run-together because it was received so fast (and you see, for instance, a blur that indicates a situation which doesn't persist once your eyes are trained on the object/s) - which I think you're describing (or, this type of 'error') and one where your mind functionally cannot distinguish between the object and a suggestion about it. That famous image with colour lines, but is black-and-white is a good example. Even if we're going to admit "redness" is inherent in an object somehow, that example shows us that our experience of redness does not rely on an object outside of us to obtain, but on our internal interpretive processes. I am sorry if this isn't directly on point, but it seems clear to me "error" comes in different kinds, and the one I mean (related to the latter example) cannot be adjudicated by further looking at the object: It can change from red to grey as I see fit, in some sense. I am not bound by the object to see it as a certain colour in that case.

I'm seeing light from the sun that carries information about it as it was eight minutes ago. — Ludwig V

Right, right. Ok fair enough to further sharpen - I think this, for me, is a fairly smoking gun concession. That isn't "the Sun" besides the idealized use of "the Sun" which we tend to use. Which leads me to something from another exchange:

...and yet you saw the tennis. Thank you for such an apt example. The indirect realist is the one insisting that you never saw the tennis, — Banno

This is 100% semantic and doesn't touch the problem. I think its possible your description of hte Sun there lands us in the same position: If that, to you, is 'direct awareness' I don't understand the claim. It is not "the object" in any sense - it is light ferried across one AU, bringing with it information about the Sun. We call this 'seeing the sun' because its easier and better for "getting on with it".

We don't argue about whether "watching the game" on recording is direct awareness of the game, or the recording (well, it seems to me we dont?). I don't quite see a difference here.

Well, perhaps I over-stated the point. I can see the reason for doubt but don't think that it carries much weight. — Ludwig V

Ok, ok, fair enough. I definitely overstated my repsonse, so sorry about that. This seems fine to me.

Hahaha, definitely agree there - but that is why the Golden Rule has never seemed practically coherent to me. It induces one to violate other's wishes, on it's face.

That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real. — EnPassant

It is not anything remotely close to that. It is exactly what it says: The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning - but that wasn't my suggestion there.

I would not use the word defective. — EnPassant

Then the suggestion that that experience is somehow real can be dismissed. If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense.

You clearly have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are referring to when it comes to psychedelic experience. Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. And that's just a random comparison. You're simply making claims that are unsupported.