Oh, I see where you've come from now.

Hmmm, I do not think that is the case. I don't think Europe will actually tolerate what underlies your point there (which is a valid one).
"no tolerance for intolerance no more". We have enough (and dare I speak vaguely semi-almost positively here..) hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. And most of them love guns!

Most governments outside the West are acceptable to me and generally meet my requirements. — Tarskian

No, they don't. The majority of governments outside of the west violate either (1) via religious/sex-specific regulation or violates the underlying deception in your response to tax questions. For example, interest on capital is against Sharia - but if a Sharia country asked you to 'donate' you'd be doing the same thing as paying a tax. It should be clear though, that tax is not illegal under Sharia - it is just worded in esoteric terms (you can have a read here - pay attention to statements such as "The State achieves this by imposing taxes upon the Muslims such that these needs and interests are met without being exceeded. These taxes should only be taken from people’s surplus wealth." and its inferences.

The problem there, then, even if you are find with the interest-less tax system, is swallowing theocracy dedicated to a clearly illogical, unsubstantiated story about pedophile warlord.

Emergent consciousness is certainly a fact psychologically. We develope in stages thru life. The philosophical aspect is different for me. — Gregory

Yes, I think this is a fairly clear take on how the difference obtains - your underlined doesn't relate to the philosophical issues much. But in practical terms, this is what we're trying to explain.

I think these other ideas are fertile, but incomplete (as to concepts) the way you've put them forward. An eg:

The self is certainly a substance in that the human body is a substance. — Gregory

This seems to require mind-body dualism, or a solution to the interaction problem immediately. So, to get around this, I would say lets be a bit more careful:

The body is an object. The 'self' is a being (ontologically) but consists in something over-and-above the body. Again, I don't accept this theory - But i think this formulation gives you room to clarify what you are taking to be "the self" aside from the physical body - acknowledging we are more than the body. (that's a thinly veiled question to you! LOL).

Wittgenstein enthralled himself with ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ain't that the truth. I think this makes a lot of commentary on him redundant, too. Russell obviously had some insight, and the original translators too but overall, so much murkiness due to his ambiguous language (ironic, lol) as to what's being discussed.

Can you see something (relatively simple 'something') that could be a difference between pain and colour as sensations? Or a way in whcih one is not a sensation the way the other is and therefore supporting Witty's endless assurances that our language is hte problem, and not hte problems. LOL.

West meets Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel is on the fringes of 'the West' to be fair, though. It's not as if the we're going to scramble to her defence in a religious conflict. I think this is partially why many have just stayed out of it and commented only on aid efforts.

Could it be that both have more than "meets the eye"? — Gregory

Certainly could., and I personally don't quite have positions on those. "The self" to me needs to align with identity, which i essentially do not think is coherent (in terms of 'persons'). Tricky to say...

LMAOOOO. Fair enough

There's a bit of an identity crisis here. — creativesoul

Ah, no (after reading your response), this is my bad. "any given red pen" should have been the phrase, because it matters not what instance we're talking about. Either pens can be red, whether or not we know they are, or they can only be red in virtue of our experiencing them as red. One must trump the other, save for lower-level disagreements.

So, yes. — creativesoul

Okay. This may clarify some of what I was confused about in your different phrasings and descriptions.

I wouldn't say that. — creativesoul

What do you take the pen to be when it isn't being perceived. Red? Or Red-causing? What element of it is red, when not being perceived? This is what I am not able to ascertain in any of these realist accounts. What makes the pen red "out there" (we know that 'use' is what makes it a pen, so I'm halfway in understanding the position).

the real world issue of why transport planning is in a bind. — apokrisis

I see this as an intractable problem. I think 'your' side, as it were takes the "just get on board already" take. If not, fair enough - it feels as if your solution would be to (legislate?) regulate against either single-user or less-than-five-user motor transport, so that cycling and hte like can flourish. I think this is misguided and a bit of a reversion, in terms of historical development (note: that does not make it bad).

But in the end, I had the choice. That makes a big difference. — apokrisis

This is likely relevant, but when i did have the choice I had actually saved a fund to leave (unexpected child as spanner, in this story).

But since the late 1990's, we've begun to resemble the US in as much as we borrow their identity politics and right wing tropes. — Tom Storm

The left in Australia has taken after the US far more than the right.

Ok, right, so then there's a Yes/No answer here:

Are you suggesting the Red Pen is actually out there, in the world, whether or not it is perceived?

And that the mind merely does the perceiving of a mind-independent red pen? Yes? No?

Above pls LOL

This skips over what I am asking you to point out - which is how that actually is the case if we're saying "red pen" is a phenomena of the mind.

You aren't adequately addressing the question. It is not plain or clear what you mean, because your claim relies on several things i am wanting clarity on.

If I am entirely misapprehending you, and you actually hold the position that "A red pen" exists out there, on the table, regardless of any facts of perception then my response is entirely inapt, and this goes back a few pages... That seems plainly wrong to me. But you're holding that there is a red pen in one instance, and not the other two. I want to know why you think that... not jus reassert it?

NB: The I responded when all you had said was "Too bad". That certainly seemed like bad faith, no?

So are there countries where you would be sure that you would hate them less? — apokrisis

I can't be sure, obviously (i'm sure from without, i'd think this about NZ! My family certainly did). But, on best-estimations: Ireland, Italy, USA(parts thereof), Canada (parts thereof), Japan (parts thereof), Hong Kong, and many others.

Again, public transport is not a particularly large factor. You seem to be thinking that it is, and then assuming I have some utopia in mind. I don't. I just hate living in NZ. The rest can be ignored, it seems. Their travel habits don't matter to me, other than noting things like getting around NYC was infinitely easier, more fun and fulfilling than is getting around AKL (or WGT when im there). My opinions on public travel (which, in this case was specifically about the bad attitudes of cyclists who think they are paragons of morally-informed social justice or something to the point of being routinely abusive) aren't all that relevant to my hating NZ, or preferring elsewhere. Clearly, this is no longer apt for this thread. If you care, feel free to PM with any questions, but I assume its uninteresting in the extreme to you. FAir enough too.

We already drew and maintained the distinctions between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming?

Those still hold. — creativesoul

Am I am asking for a justification. Intuitively, I am (and have been) agreeing with you. They are clearly different experiences. My point in these last two comments has been to tease out what you see as different between them, if what we're happy to say is that all three obtain in the mind.

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof. — creativesoul

I think this is incorrect, depending on your response to what the difference would be between these and the "seeing" instance. That's all I'm asking... I would call it incorrect if we cannot pick out a feature of hte 'actual' seeing of a Red pen in contrast to the other two. I hve to say, this seemed clear to me rereading the exchange.

The other things you've replied seem to assume something other htan the above, so ill wait for a response here before approaching them, if the seem relevant at that point :)

Hmmm, what would that have to do with what I've said? The claim is, roughly: Whether or not one takes the media seriously is based on whether it supports their current pet point-to-be-made".
The source is irrelevant unless you want to talk about bias in picking one's sources (even more obvious there, in the main as Ground News shows with statistical analysis of most articles it posts as to who is publishing/reading those stories/takes).

Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in general? I have given an example (which more starkly illustrates this, as the source doesn't align, but the content does, with expectation).

Heres another
And another
Another
More

This seems a fairly obvious phenomena no? I'm not using this to impugn anyone in particular.

When 'you' have biological machinery close enough to our own. — creativesoul

This is unfortunately, quite unhelpful. That obtains in all three cases and provides no basis to delineate.

What difference are you drawing/maintaining? If it's unacceptably weak, then why mention it? — creativesoul

None. This is literally something I am asking you to address. You drew the distinction. I would like a conceptual analysis of the difference between the three cases. If that distinction is unacceptably weak (I am questioning whether it is and asking for clarity)) why did you mention it?

I see the distinction you made as weak - I am trying to have you explain what it is in your mind, so we can talk about it.

Never said it was; — Mww

self’s consciousness of it, which just is the quality of his state. — Mww

This is a circle my guy. Not uncommon in Kant, it seems. Onward..

So a cat born in a barn is not a cow? Curious. Food for thought. — Lionino

LMAO, nice.

I blame your utter insanity. — unenlightened

unenlightened it is :P

Don't be ungrateful to the country that allows you to reside there. — javi2541997

Are you joking, or just being weird again? This country doesn't "allow" me to reside here. It is legally obligated to accept me here.

you cannot have that animosity with New Zealand — javi2541997

Yes. Yes I can.

Do your kids feel insecure when they come back from school, for example? Is the system so corrupt that it is impossible to manage things with public administration? — javi2541997

I don't know why, or what exactly you're asking. It has nothing to do with me disliking, very strongly, living in New Zealand. It is not, in any way, relevant, to you find other faults with a different place. Dislike my attitude all you want mate.

Cars are a trap to make people feel the fallacy of 'freedom' — javi2541997

Right-o mate. Can't get on board with this type of attitude :P

So, don't be ungrateful to NZ. — javi2541997

This is inappropriate. This entire exchange is bizarre. It is not on others to influence or inform how i feel about the country in which i've lived in for 28 years.

So it decided to just plunge in and get it done how it could. — apokrisis

Which is not the worst thing in the world. (not that you've suggested this..) I've not intimated NZ is the worst country in the world. I just hate it here. That's all. Various reason, largely biases and personal disposition. Not sure what's controversial getting you lot up in arms.

Now the elegant villa in the tree lined street can suddenly find two three storey apartment blocks - made of shit panelling and with a concrete pad for half a dozen cars - looming over it within a year. — apokrisis

This seems to illustrate you're operating from the same place as i am. That's fine. You like NZ and see hopeful ways forward. I would prefer to let this country stew in its predictable small-pondedness and go elsewhere for better pasture (in many ways - public transport is low on the list - its just the subject of the thread).

Amadeus complained about New Zealand public transport, but how many people in Teruel or Jaén would give for some of it! — javi2541997

This is exactly whataboutism.

Are implying that there is a world beyond appearances that can somehow be known? — SophistiCat

A "world beyond appearances" in this case, is just the world. It is not veridical to claim the stars and Sun orbit the Earth. It is a cheap and cheerful heuristic - probably to ensure correct directionality when reading stars. We now have telescopes, and better thinking. Does this mean it was true then, but not now?

Hmm. I agree prima facie with your formulation. But, this presents a bit of an issue to me.
When do you actually 'see' a Red pen?
Given that we only call the pen 'red' by convention, can this particular difference (realistically, the proximity to the trigger (whereas dreaming is far askance)) really do much lifting?
In all three cases we're experiencing the event of 'looking at an object we apprehend as a pen which will write with red ink", right? We're trying to delineate between them with levels of 'world-aptness' to ascertain whether colour obtains within, or without.

(Aside: deception also causes an issue with Banno's account quite directly - hand me that red pen. *hands you a "blue pen' which is coloured Red externally* - can you see the muddle here? Not rhetorical - if I'm missing or overthinking, please help! lol)

If the result of all this is that we never 'actually' see a red pen, when contrasting several obviously different experiences I'm unsure where that would leave us.. Uncomfortable, no doubt lol. And the question is no longer open to us. Some of this is linguistic though. When I say "see" I only mean to say that I currrently "mentally apprehend that which I have come to believe is X". Beyond this, I can't say i'm "seeing" any objects. Looking at them, sure.

LOL fair enough then mate.

The US is not the democracy it defended in world wars. Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. — Athena

Yes, I see this. But there is a tenuous, speculative connection to fascism involved in the analysis. Is there something deeper being indicated here?

I'd love to think myself so clever that I pierced this complex philosophy, but I find that hard to believe. — Hanover

Witty's? You need only be about a 16 year old who is not on Tik Tok to understand that he is full of it, most of hte time, and wants to upend things because its fun. Clever is what he was. I would want to be clear. Something he seemed entirely incapable of.

Phenomenally, there isn't. But I don't think he picked up what you were asking. Which is, cause (otherwise, his answer is a complete one and presents no issues). The cause differs in the three cases (the second two, its possible they don't at-base, but they are related experiences anyway).

And I am sorry you wasted your money on a vacuous education in a field that has all but been abandoned. — Constance

You seem to be ignorant to the entire world of philosophy. And a dick.

https://againstprofphil.org/author/z/
https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org/person/robert-hanna

This is the company you're keeping. Reflect.

This is what hierarchies ought aim for? — Moliere

I think what's being said is that, unless hijacked from without, this is what hierarchies do as a matter of course, rather htan an aim of them. It is their function. I - in a rough and ready sense - would agree. Though, it's a flimsy agreement LOL

With respect, this is an obviously wrong, and obviously biased interpretation of what is going on in these scenarios (acknowledging many of those 'types' DO do what you've suggested.

Entertaining possibilities is not an appeal to ignorance. Point blank period. Entertaining possibilities is how we figure out what goes in the gaps. That you are apparently reticent to admit yourself to a discussion of (what currently appear to be) super/supranatural explanations for phenomena we simply have no clue about is a similar type of commitment to thinking that something science cannot explain will fill the gap - as that is an appeal to ignorance quite directly. What Wayfarer is doing is canvassing options that may eventually fall to science to explain but are currently not in it's gaze. If what you are trying to get at is that certain options under the light are not logically possible and so would require an epistemic supernaturality, I can't see how this is what's being discussed, but accept all you say in that light. Good stuff.

If you are not open to this game, why bothering commenting on the players? Let them have their game.

consciousness is nothing more than the qualitative state of the human subject — Mww

Hmm. It seems to me consciousness is not a quality and cannot be conceptualised as a quality (so, in turn, a "qualitative state" is also inapt. It is the basis for quality to enter into experience). Consciousness is a quantity which instantiates qualities (it seems), so while your approach is logically pragmatic it seems to both not capture what we understand about htese phrases for ourselves, and doesn't deliver us any clarity.

if taken literally, perfectly true, as anyone can attest*. — SophistiCat

I can't see the * comment, but this is plainly a misuse of 'literally'. If taken 'literally' it is, after investigation, entirely false. If taken as a description of appearances (i.e not to be taken literally) then it goes through.

The basic point I would make is that colour is not entirely in the mind of an individual, but also functions at a social level. I think that pretty well undeniable. — Banno

Apparently, you read about a 10/10000 of what anyone on the opposite side wrote. This has been attended and move past multiple times. You trying to drag this back is what's mucked up the flow. The discussion otherwise was interesting.

are difficult to maintain on close examination — Banno

Perhaps for you. That would explain why you cannot move past a distinction that doesn't touch on the conflict being worked out.

As always your arguments are non sequiturs. — Michael

Not quite. He's trying to argue for a point neither of us(I don't think) would deny, and applying to a different problem. Standard for him, but not a non sequitur I wouldn't say.

:up: Seems a few of these around at the moment here on TPF.

I'm sorry, but at this stage I am pretty sure you are incapable of rational discourse with another person.

I have read two/three of those books. I have called your bluff on Tractatus, and I have treated your writing with dedicated time, patience and thorough analysis. If your only response is an appeal to the texts I have already read, with a view that I must not have read them if I do not agree with you is honestly pathetic. That is a clear indication you do not understand what you are talking about and do not respect the discursive process.

You clearly have a bent, and one you are unable to look beyond. I say you are trapped in a room. The door is waiting for you to walk through it. Perhaps reading some analytical philosophy will help (i am joking).

Go well.

Above.

a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, — ucarr

Unfortunately, this seems to have ignored the vast majority of what I've said, and run right into the same confusion i teased apart earlier (agreement/disagreement notwithstanding).

Electrolysis is a method for achieving the aim of (usually) electroplating metals. The resulting object would be a fact about the world (or, just to give related examples " X is currently electrolysing Y". A description of the process would be "science about science" where the fact that the process does what it does would be a "science fact". So, you can tease this into:
Electrolysis can destroy follicles achieving an aesthetic hairlessness - A fact about science. In this case, the science of aesthetic electrolysis. It can be gleaned from the basic observation of watching hte process happen.

However, "electrolysis(in this context) is the process of destroying hair follicles by running a charge through a tiny wire under the skin (and all the rest)... " is science fact. It's a description of a scientific process not apprehendable by bare observation. It requires the scientific method to deduce. THe former does not(though, you can argue that both are simply the same thing at different levels - I think we know what we're talking about. If not, Okay - we have more work to do between us :P )

We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not? — ucarr

Sure. My point is to say that some facts in science are 'theoretical' not instantiated anywhere in-and-of themselves. The speed of light would be one. Whereas, "light takes x time from Sun to Earth" is fact, borne from the scientific method, that stands alone, instantiated "perfectly" in an aspect of the world.

the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? — ucarr

I think this is a slight misstatement, but overall, yes, I'd agree. The hair curler is not an object of science, as eg. But how it works, is (well, assuming that's a relatively settled description lol... I don't know it).

How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion? — ucarr

Not so. What you brought up was the "meaningless"ness of the Tony Awards, without the performances they are given. This seems both incoherent (they are interdependent - teh awards are not given for no performance) and a non sequitur, because I made no comment at all abouthe meaningfulness of something. "The Tony Awards" still means "The Tony Awards" if no performances have been considered. They just will not be awarded to anyone. And so you can (hopefully) now see, that you brought in something I did not intend to be spoken about. My intention was to point out that The Tony Awards do not consist in the performances in any respect. They simple are not given sans performances. "meaningful"ness isn't relevant, as best I can tell. It's confusing meaning with meaningful.

How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance.How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to? — ucarr

You are not responding to what I've said. Obviously the award relates to the performance for which it is given. My saying "I am a legal executive" relates to my legal training. They are not, in any way, overlapping elements of the world. A baseball cap is related to the manufacture process, but they are not at all the same thing. I think its possible you are confusing identity and relevance - yet reversing the onus of clarity. It certainly feels that way in your posts. For hte bolded above, I think I'll need to you pedantically explain how you got to that question. I dont assent to it, because it doesn't relate to what I've said, on my terms. I cannot answer, because it appears irrelevant and asks me to defend something I did not say.

Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content — ucarr

No. This is not correct(not quite relevant here), nor the right extrapolation of what i've said. What I've said relates to the fact that you cannot, as an artist or otherwise, call a piece of art "right or wrong". You can only indicate whether, by your subjective lights, its "good or bad". This distinction does not remove moral content. It removes the ability to judge art morally. They are very separate things.
You can, as a scientist or otherwise, call a scientific proposition "right or wrong" (i suppose this is getting to t vs T, so maybe if so we should shut it down there for another time to avoid getting weedy). You cannot call it "good or bad". Where that happens, people are using art criticism to impugn scientific validity (think Charles Murray. His actual robustness isn't relevant. the Bell Curve was judged like an exegesis). And then where people proclaim art is "bad art" they are trying to use scientific judgment schemes such as "correct" or "accurate" which is not apt.

So, with this clarity, I see that what i wrote means precisely what I had intended it to :)

Things are ⇒
⇒
facts, or truth. — ucarr

I'm unsure I agree to this. Some things are feelings. Some things are ranges. Some things are variations. Some things are multiply realized. There are pieces of art which contain scientific facts as a basis for their aesthetic quality. But only on analysis would this become obvious, and you'd assess that basis with scientific rigour, but hte piece of art overall with a critic's scheme. Truth isn't relevant to the overall picture, but it may be that the truth of the included science fact is relevant to the aesthetic of the wider piece. This changes nought here, just quite an interesting little conceptual russian doll.

How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. — ucarr

I outright reject this, unless what you're getting at is that somehow we can inherently tell shit from shinola. I don't think that's the case, and I think morals mainly come from reacting to events and feelings that follow them. Sometimes they are assented to on a social basis, rather than an analysis of any kind - but mostly, truth isn't relevant to morality Imo unless you're after an objective morality, which I reject.

I'm unsure of the meaning of "cross-culturalism" in this context. — ucarr

Science, the method, transcends culture. No, it is not a 'Western' idea, it is not 'chauvanistic' to think careful observation and measurement is how we come to robust conclusions about hte world. It works wherever it is carried out, and in whatever context.

The social sciences do not respond this way to the world. Carrying out an analysis of, let's say, gender divisions, will require different methodologies among the Objibwe, in Mali, in Dublin, in Tehran etc.. etc... You can't carry the same assumptions around with you to get accurate data. But you can with 'science'. Publishing though - ooof. The same compartmentalisation and disagreements occur there.

It's not the case simplicity of theory is a strategy for achieving the best outcomes? — ucarr

Of course. You're, again, conflating two quite different inferences. The outcomes don't matter. The method for getting there does. But carrying out hte method correctly means "so be it" as regards the outcome. You seem to be confusing relevance and identity *wink wink*.

I don't think the outcomes of cancer research are matters of indifference to the researchers. — ucarr

as researchers they, at least, should be. You cannot aim at an outcome. You do the work. THe outcome is as it is. Researchers are human though, so obviously they're going to care. This is conflation, again.

Are the plays of Shakespeare culture bound? — ucarr

100% they are culture bound - but I'm unsure I get what you're asking, because this seems silly and you're not. They are based in 16th century Europe. Written in Middle English and refer to humour, politics (geo as well as local), social interactions and institutions of the time. They are completely culture-bound. That other cultures enjoy Shakespeare is a different fact with different interpretations. It could simply be the force of colonialism has hoodwinked other cultures into giving a toss. Who knows. A different conversation. (I suppose what one might want to say here, is that those plays are culture-bound but the themes are not. But then, they will exist in some cultures and not others, so still culture-bound but if a different way).

The culture-bound, policy-driving forces of Mein Kampf aren't a problem? — ucarr

You're confusing a political (practical) problem with an accounting problem. My descriptions of those two modes of (lets just say) are not problematic. Mein Kampf, ironically, instantiates perfectly what I mean by the distinction - the Bell Curve vs Mein Kampf.

Pseudo-intellectualism is looking like the most probably explanation of this person's writing. — I like sushi

That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this.

I really appreciate you putting in the time and effort for this response!! Thorough, despite some of my views below. Good stuff Constance :)

Hmm, It feels like you have explained this as if you're talking to a fellow-Continental who already takes most of these premises (and the pedastal-ing of language above reality). If that is not the case, I apologise as some of this will seem dismissive (but that would make sense if the above is true!)
In that case, I would hazard a suggestion that it's possible your grasp on these things is less clear than you feel it is - being unable to clarify it for another. Please also note that the types of responses I am likely to pen here are not new. These ideas have been around a lot time, and people much, much smarter, better read, and better-spoken that I have made similar points. Rejecting these kinds of approaches is not new, and I am not in bad company doing so. I would appreciate some charity here. I will try my best to reply as I go through with reference, as best as I can keep it, to your actual writing here.

1. Make a qualified Cartesian move. One is not affirming the cogito as the ground for all possible affirmations. In fact, Descartes made a fundamentally bad move: there is no thinking unless there is thinking about something. So the indubitability of the cogito extends to the world of objects. — Constance

This doesn't bode well. You've opened what should be a fairly clear unpacking of a single phrase with a lot of theorizing (much of which appears to be linguistically muddled?) As an example, I asked you to explain an esoteric and apparently nonsensical line. You have returned the underlined. Which requires the same treatment i've asked for. I have bolded words you can swap out for something simpler, assuming you understand the concepts well enough to do so. As a result of however you've decided to answer this, it is completely opaque as to what I've asked you explain. Onward..

Think of the world as an event. Is perception a mirror of the world?(assume the rest of the point is included.. just don't want to clutter the reply) — Constance

I am sorry to say, but this entire paragraph comes through illogical, baseless and essentially just an assertion using words wrong (i will quote one passage at the end of this chunk to treat). "the basic science of what this is about" is a total misnomer, and leapfrogs several un-settled philosophical problems by hand-waving away the idea that the mind cannot apprehend objects in the world. This is clearly a jump-to-conclusion, because your preferred position requires it. I think you would need to be committed to a form of absolute idealism for that particular problem to obtain and be an obstacle in the science of perception.

it is not even remotely possible that this in my head (and this is a physicalist's science, the kind of thing we are educated to understand) reaches out to apprehend that tree out there. — Constance

This, ironically, embodies precisely the language games that result in intractable problems in philosophy. No, it is not "not even remotely possible" that "this in my head"(what are you even referring to here? Are you going homonculus? That'll need explaining) reaches out to apprehend X object. That is the nature of consciousness whether or not we understand how, that clearly is what is happening (unless you're Dennett and deny qualia). Even if we're in a simulation, that is what the consciousness code is doing - picking out items rom the environment for internal reflection, whether accurate or not (though, if we get into Noumena, we're fucked lmao).

that observation is part of the constitution of what is witnessed. This is a very old ide — Constance

Yes, this is empirically true. Not a philosophical point.

I simply cannot even imagine anything more opaque than a brai — Constance

Thats a ridiculous position that seems designed to make people laugh at you. I am sorry for that, but that's how it comes across. It's click-bait for philosophers.

an honest account of what stands before me reveals the ordinary perceptual conditions of things being outside of myself, apart from me, at a distance over there, is not something that can be dismissed — Constance

What? You seem to be using less clear and far more complex ideas to try to explain what was relatively simply, but unclear idea. I'm lost on how you're thinking here has worked...

Because the whole point is to understand the world, and the the world is simply given to us with these divisions and differences. — Constance

The 'whole' point of what? If that is the 'whole point' of something, I have to say you're making it extremely difficult to even begin to get onto a reasonable train of thought about it. It seems like your premise is just "this shit is hard, to lets throw some big words into vaguely coherent sentences lifted from thinkers I admire aesthetically". Again, I apologise - that's what comes across. Not "How i read you". I really am trying to glean things from your writing - I appreciate the time an effort. I guess one problem is nothing you've said is new to me. It's slightly more 'garbled' versions of the writers you're aping - Witty, Heidegger, Schop etc..

So all this critical thought — Constance

I would disagree that's what it is (though, i realise it is intended, and acts, as a critique).

the relation between ourselves and the world to understand the "what it is" that is there — Constance

Again, you would need to explain this to me like i'm five, with no words above a .20c benchmark, tbh. As it's written, this is a non sequitur that I have to ignore to get through the para.

This is the phenomenological approach. E.g, you see a brain and witness a patient undergoing a fully conscious surgical procedure so the scalpel does not remove important tissue. — Constance

I realise you didn't finish this though, so charitably, this is three things that don't cohere into a point, though I can see a few ways they could.

things turn up that were entirely unseen — Constance

This is the case on the physicalist's understanding of perception also. Several obvious examples like shadow perception (real shadows, not internal ones).

If my faculties, call them, actually constitute the relation of a knowledge event, then what is the most visible feature if this? — Constance

As best I can tell, this is not a grammatically coherent question. Your 'faculties' are repped by what? "the relation of a knowledge event"... What? "a knowledge event" is? "relation of" that is??
You need to boil these things down about eight levels lower than you're currently talking about them to explain them to a five year old. I would reiterate not using constant expensive words, and using plain language instead. It feels like you're lifting half-understood phrases from those writers and then attempting to elaborate, and so losing whatever meager point was there to begin with as it is.

I look at my cat, and all sorts of knowledge claims are implicit, "claims" not explicit in the looking, but are there, stabilizing the event, creating a general familiarity, and this stabilizing feature is time, and time's phenomenological analysis reveals issues about the present in the past-future dynamic of theevent of perceiving. — Constance

This is the exact kind of meaningless word salad that I've been dismissive of. This does not explain anything at all other than to illustrate that perhaps you have trouble assimilating your thoughts when looking at your cat. There are claims on claims on claims on claims on claims that you seem to think are clear to others. They are not. I have asked for hte simplest possible version of these points (apologies if the "like i'm five" meme didn't land that way for you - that was what I wanted).

Long story short, the present SHOULD NOT exist, is one way to put this. — Constance

Seems a rather extreme non sequitur - might be the result of you barely touching what needed to be explained to me.

Every time I look up and take on the world in this way or that, I am informed by "the potentiality of possiblities" that my enculturated self carries with it into various environments, as when I walk into someone's kitchen and already know everything about knives, sinks, cabinets, etc. THIS is what constitutes the knowing of the world, this potentiality of possibilities that spontaneously rises to identify the world! — Constance

Wheres the heads, where's the tails? It's just circular word games. I can even understand exactly what's being gotten at here, and still note that its circular, only carries weight in and of itself, linguistically. It does nothing in terms of clarifying any other claims. Again, this may be a failure of simplicity on your part, making it very hard to connect this to earlier points.

This presence of the world is the foundation of our existence and that of all things, and yet the perceiving of this presence is impossible. — Constance

This is utter garbage, sorry. There is literally nothing that be done with this line that isn't pulling it apart.

Yet there it is, in full color and intensity, and this goes to ethics and value. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus for the inspired insight that ethics and aesthetics is transcendental. — Constance

Non sequitur. Reference to book that is horribly written, and worse-conceived (on my view) - and is in my bag right now. Just to be clear, I know where these things come from. The original was bad - I was hoping a clarification would ensure, but it seems you're just using reference to explain your references. Odd.

Because they reveal something in the events of the events of our lives that is outside of the knowledge grid of our existence. — Constance

Once again, not sufficiently clear or simple. I also thing they don't do a thing close to what Witty suggests. But that's another disagreement..

This is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence. — Constance

Suffice to say I am less clear now as to what you're referring to.

(the world is mystical, says Witt — Constance

And this is exactly why his writings are confused, psychobabble. He doesn't understand much, and proceeds from there. "mystical" is a placeholder for "I don't get it". Hegel has this same problem.

It seems to me that the distinction between direct and indirect realism is useless. Would you say that you have direct or indirect access to your mental phenomenon? — Harry Hindu

Direct - there is nothing between my mind and itself. That's the nature of the distinction. I have direct access to my experiences. Not their causes.
It might not 'mean much' out there in the world, but in terms of the discussion we're having its the central, crucial thing to be understood. So, I reject your opener on those grounds. But i acknowledge that for a certain kind of philosopher, this is going to look like a couple of guys around a pub table arguing over the blue/white black/gold dress. I disagree is all :)

How did scientists come to realize how pain works and that our experience of it is incorrect if all they have to go by is their own observations which you are calling into question? — Harry Hindu

By noticing that pain doesn't exist outside the mind. We can acknowledge things exist outside the mind - I am not an idealist. Inference is good, but not good enough for this type of thing. Banno's "there is a red pen" claims are experience-bound, so pose no issue for this account. Your point, though, might.

I think the response is something along the lines of, well that's what science does. Eliminates possibilities. If pain exists sans any injury (or even limb!!) then it would seem it is a referent, which can experience aberration. I think that's right, and tracks with both my experience, and the apparent observations of physiologists and pain researchers(nociplastic pain is a great exemplar of where this throws spanners in the works of traditional treatment for pain, but opens up avenues for solving other chronic pain issues with novel, psychological approaches - results may vary!)

I interpret the pain as being located in my foot because most, if not all, of the other times the pain was located in my foot I had an injury on my foot. — Harry Hindu

This seems right.

s I said before, we have more than one sense for fault tolerance - to check what one sense is telling us, and we have the ability to reason, to compare past experiences with current ones, and to predict what experiences we can have. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I also agree with this. You're describing the mechanism by which our mind successfully, in most cases, has us attend to our injuries. I see no issues.

Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? — praxis

Have you been reading this and the Trump thread? Not only are mainly democrats partial to this thinking, its a pick-and-choose situation. Though, remove the partisan remark - and just the question - and my incredulity remains :P

If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided. — Eros1982

True. And true for both - Trump would normally be one of the worst Republican candidates. Its just the conflict aspect that has him preferred (and, possibly not preferred, just a better choice that Harris to many Reps). Neither had a shot in hell of being a Good President™

and AmadeusD claiming to be unable to tell colour from pain — Banno

No. You do not have this.
It may be helpful that where you clearly do not understand what someone is saying, you simply ask for clarification. This seems to be somewhat hard for you, as opposed to assuming and putting words in people's mouths. If you have to make genuinely stupid assertions like this to get around things people put in front of you, that's something to reflect on :)

you must explain how a science fact is not science. — ucarr

Science is a method for ascertaining facts about hte world. Facts about science are plainly different things? I'm not sure what's missed there so I'm sorry if this seems rude. Facts about science are ones which pertain to science, the method of inquiry. Scientific facts are ones which are gleaned from that process. Pure observations about states of affairs. "There is a book on shelf" is not a scientific fact, i'm sure you'd agree. Likewise "We ran test x. We ran it y times. We got a range of s-t values which allows us to conclude ABC". Running test X is a fact about the process of science being employed. ABC is a scientific fact as a result of hte scientific method having been carried out.

Perhaps this will illuminate what i'm saying:

the process of — ucarr

That's a science fact — ucarr

No. THe process of electrolysis is a fact about science. The measurements are 'science facts'. The method and the results are not the same kind of fact. I do not understand how you're confusing the two, and so perhaps my responses are inapt.

How is it not the case that your argument above is not pettifogging en route to word muddle? — ucarr

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but there is precisely zero muddle or problems witht eh words in my account. They are straight-forward, easy to understand and delineate, and adequately refer to the two distinct things I am referring to.

Here I think you insert an artificial partition; the Tony Awards would be meaningless without the dramatic performances that precede it. — ucarr

This is a non sequitur that does not relate to the discussion. No, Tony awards would not be possible without a performance, but they are plainly irrelevant to each other per se. Picking up the award is not acting a play out. Presenting your findings at a conference is not carrying out experiments under controlled conditions.

Here you distill the war between science and art: successful navigation of right and wrong facts and right and wrong logic leads to the science and technology that produces nuclear bombs. — ucarr

I don't recognize anything in the above in my account. I think you've jumped some massive guns here and landed somewhere entirely alien to both what I've said, and what I intended to convey.

Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr

No, not at all. I don't actually see how what you've said is at all illustrative of this point, ignoring that I think the point is extremely weak and bordering on nonsensical. Neither of these accounts makes any sense prima facie which presents an issue for the conclusions being drawn. They need grounding principles to become apt for any context of discussion. I do, however, note that yes, "good and bad" are different from "right and wrong". Something "right" can be "bad" for someone (i don't know an ethical account that doesn't acknowledge this). I'm not quite sure the point, there, unless you're saying that "science facts" and "facts about science" can be put into the respective boxes there? If so, could you be a little clearer about those thoughts? I might be able to get on that train, depending how you're thinking of it...

Thank you Athena. I appreciate that :) Particularly as we've often bumped up against one another.

These are quite different. — Banno

No, they aren't. They refer the exact same categories of property and present hte exact same distinction, lost in common-use of hte words involvd.

You seem to note that the distinction is key in the analysis, and deny it's effect. Interesting. Then again, you miss, completely, and in a pretty cartoonish way, the difference between "look", "perceive" and "see". All discreet events which provide different elemtsn of a single process of apprehension through perception from stimulus to expereince. So, the discussion has been entirely on-point. References need not be anything deeper than reference. "Red pen" is a reference not a description. It seems to me you want to call the pen Red because it causes red experiences which is correct. But, you seem unable to accept that this si the claim being made. The pen isn't red, on any description given in this thread.

It's a misuse of your own theory to make the claims your making, even if we accept that common-use matters as much as you seem to think, in conceptual analysis (BIG hint: Common use of words has precisely zero to do with conceptual analysis until you're in the realm of analysing language which is not happening here. Seems to be your pet area - and, to that degree, go for gold. You're good at it).

And I'd like to know what a pen is other than that indescribable thing we've labeled "pen." — Hanover

Missed then why writing the above response - sorry, think it's a really, really good point. I think it is describable, but only describable by reference to our experience (aesthetically, even!). This removes any certainly outside of hte word game - but it does present the exact delineation you've aptly outlined. I just think Banno is sitting pretty on "thats nonsense. This is how we refer to things.."
Unsatisfactory indeed.