Totally understandable.

I understand that most 'evidence's for physicalism amount to mainly evidence that mental states are 'intertwined' with, or 'closely related to' neural activity. — AmadeusD

So, this began my little line here. If there was some previous that was relevant, I'm, unsure what that was. I came in and noted the comment i've quoted from there was unrelated to previous discussions - but what's quoted is the crux of what I was getting at.

From what I understand, all of the pieces of evidence put forward for Physicalism are actually bits of evidence against other positions. And yes, in terms of probability, that necessarily increases the likelihood of Physicalism obtaining - the same way my Raffle example works. Meaning, those pieces of evidence are not for physicalism but against other positions.

And, in terms of the specifics such as the close, but not particularly great, neural correlates to certain mind-states, those pieces of evidence seem to function better, and more relevantly as evidence precluding Absolute Idealism (well, that's what I was positing, anyway. Doesn't have to be restricted to that conclusion).

I'm not really trying to notice any benchmark for evidence - more that the function of the particular information used in this way seems to not quite be 'evidence for'.

Yep, Audio Visual Link.

I've been slack, too, so this isnt' set up but I promise I will get to it and drop the deets in here shortly. I have not forgotten!!

Do you get deism? I may be missing something but it seems a banal position. "Yes, I think there is a creator, but we have no knowledge of this being and it has taken no interest in us, so all we can say is..." Deism seems like a soft-core response to the argument from contingency. What is the point of it? — Tom Storm

My understanding - which may be incomplete or not well-aligned with actual Deists claims - is that Deism is basically just Theism, but an impersonal God (of nature, the universe, 'Love' or whatever). I don't think it, as a term, indicates whether someone is pro- anti- or 'agnostic'.
My issue was that an 'agnostic Deist' is incoherent, as a Deist believes we can discover God in nature.. This necessarily precludes 'agnostic' as a type of Deism. Agnostics reject that we can discover/know of/about God. In fact, I think the main discussion here where I've gone over these positions was someone claiming to be an agnostic Deist. It made no sense - so I had to conclude the gentleman was a Deist - he got stuck on that, where I was actually trying to illustrate the inadequacy of the terms - hence, suggesting that set in the comment you quoted so solve the 'agnostic Deist' problem.

You think the finding is unrelated? The finding in question seems very very related to me. — flannel jesus

Yeah, I actually literally woke up in the middle of the night and answered this better than I did before...

What I was trying to illustrate was that evidence against someone else's "something" simply not being evidence against your 'something' is, I don't think, claimable by your 'something' as relevant to its legitimacy.

a large section of the electorate who generally hate politics and politicians and feel that he represents them and who for various reasons buy into his delusions — Wayfarer

I think this can be adequately explained by what my wife and I have termed the 60/40 rule. 60% of people don't think either:

1. The way you do; or
2. As well as you do.

In either case, it's going to be hard to parse - and in the latter (the one we prefer in the case of Trump, based on empirical evidence) it is a hard pill to swallow. Most people are dumb. Given that their grievances (to my mind, anyway) are large legitimate, falling for someone like Trump makes the whole of sense.

Nope. There is nothing funny anymore about what's happening to the US and the world. — Vera Mont

I disagree, but that also wasn't quite what i was asking. I am happy to say that If you genuinely think that characterisation is accurate, you are not on top of things. I found it fairly funny tbh..

:ok: Lets hope

It doesn't matter. If T***p gets back in the oval office, no education or any other "policy" will be implemented. The entire regime will be focused on purging his opponents. — Vera Mont

One word answer:

Was this is at least partial jest?

Then, you'll want to have just asked, rather than make cryptic, slightly underhanded comments about my utterances (as such).

If that's not how you'd characterize this, and the previous comment, let me know directly and boldly as i'll take it into account going forward. People communicate differently..

In my immediate defense, citing that atheist institutions reject that formulation is, to me, an argument. In this case, appeal to authority seems quite apt ;)

In any case, to re-iterate, this is how, on my account, these words work:

Theism: Theism, yes, I have evidence and so believe.
Atheism: Theism, Maybe, but i'm not convinced so do not believe.
Anti-theist: Theism, No. I have evidence against.
Agnostic: Theism, Maybe, and I cannot have evidence — AmadeusD

I then suggested this, below, set as a way of fixing the apparent problems people are having using words with obvious etymologically-sound uses as it seems the above set cannot apply to deism without becoming convoluted and half-arsed.

Word 1: Deism, Yes. I have evidence
Word 2: Deism, No. Have evidence against
Word 3: Deism, Maybe and I believe I can know.
Word 4: Deism, cannot know.

I don't really understand the above to be an argument, per se, but I would defend those definitions and did so for pages before and after the post these two sets came from.

While I don't actually grasp any contradiction in what you've just said (likely because i don't understand it) it is plain to me there is absolutely no contradiction in positing the following:

1. We have sense data which is not the objects which is presents;
2. Those objects are inaccessible; and
3. The sense data initiates/induces/informs/whatevers our internally-derived externally-delusional experience.

I am not positing anywhere that the sense data we receive give us anything at all of their objects.

What I am a bit stuck on in your objection is this line:

our senses give reliable access to the organs of sense — Janus

I can't grok what you're trying, technically, ask of my position here - our 'sense' is the direct, unmitigated action of our sense organs in experience. I don't understand that quote line, other than to suggest that I want access to... eg my eyes? Is it to posit that somehow, our organs themselves are what we are relying on? If there's some disconnect between the 'initiation' and our 'sense data' then our organs are faulty, in that way, and that's allowable on my account - in fact, it explains it well.

If it doesn't constitute access to external objects, however limited, then what do you think it does gain access to? — Janus

Sense data. On my account, we do not have anything but. So, I can't really understand how, for an example, a shadow is access to it's object - or that the now-empty part of an ocean misplaced by some tidal activity elsewhere, gives us access to that activity elsewhere.

even if it does just rule out <one thing that isn't physicalism>, that's still loosely evidence for physicalism. It would be evidence for everything that's not pure idealism, which physicalism isn't. — flannel jesus

That's probably true, but I would think it inaccurate to claim that as evidence for Physicalism. Its just information that doesn't negate it - whereas, it has specific application in negating whatever criteria that constitute the conditions in whcih Absolute Idealism could be true.

Like, if there's nine of waiting for a draw of some kind, and it goes from 10-1 with the last-pulled winning a prize - as each number is pulled, and they are all the other guy's number/s up to (2)...It doesn't say anything about whether yours will be pulled as the prize-winner. It only means those guys can't win now. It doesn't mean you're more likely to win when the winning number is pulled.

You could say "well, no, less systems in the running ipso facto make the remaining systems more likely true" to which I would just say, why? THey could be wrong.

You're running with MUs line because you and he share a conclusion, or because you like what he has to say about evidence? — flannel jesus

I like that he seems to grok my issue with using unrelated findings to go toward confirming physicalism to some degree or another.

In that case what Bob and the kids "know" as "butterfly" are different things. — Lionino

I would agree, and I ..think.. this is probably hte issue I was esoterically wanting to highlight. They know its a 'butterfly'. But what does that mean Peabody? Heh.

Your argument seem to be either that both parties have a mental content at all for the word "butterfly" regardless of whether those contents are alike, or that there is some essential property of "butterfly" you didn't specify that both parties know of regardless of the accidents (shape colour etc) of a butterfly. — Lionino

It relies on neither. Both Bob and the Dumb Children would be justified in seeing the Butterfly emerge and confidently proclaim "That's a butterfly!" additionally,. they would both be correct - and this is as a result of their wildly divergent 'knowledge' of a butterfly.

By the mental content of butterfly to Bob, that would be redundant. — Lionino

Not in the case that Bob is declaring it a butterfly. It really, truly matters that his knowledge, despite diverging from say yours or the Dumb Kid's, correctly has him identifying the butterfly in question. As to pre-visual confirmation... yeah, i'd agree. That is what a butterfly is for Bob. But knowledge is redundant in that case... It's not verified, exchanged, understood or anything else.

"Bob will become ∅" — Lionino

But the proposition, in either case IS "Bob will become President". The empty concept is not really relevant. Bob will (lets say you also know this..), in 38 days, become President.

In 39 days you can, with justification, claim that Bob is now president. But you don't know much, if anything, about it. I'm just not sure what hte issue is here.. I agree with all the daylight you're identifying existing between these notions. But they all converge, correctly, in certain claims.

None of these are citations my friend. These are excerpts from spiritual texts.

Authentic Chinese civilization considers prophet books a comprehensive 'Citation', integral to history, other prophet books, and nature & social science. The Prophet books offer 'Keywords' for understanding ancient civilizations, making it easy to find similar teachings across cultures. In Taiwan and China's K12 schools, 50% of daily learning over 12 years is dedicated to understanding ancient prophet books. — YiRu Li

That may explain the lack of efficacy and acceptance. I have no issue with being a bit of a Western Chauvinist when it comes to medicine.

You are right insofar as one could know that Bob will become something, of which all one is aware of is that it is called ‘presidency’, and thusly one does not completely understand nor know what it means for Bob to become president (without knowing what presidency is). — Bob Ross

That's basically what I was getting at. The knowledge of what a President is just plum isn't required to have a justified belief one will become one. If it is also 'true' regardless of whether you know that, you'd be JTFing it all the way along. But that does necessarily mean knowledge and we're back to that old chestnut..

AmadeusD was arguing, in their OP, that agnostic atheism is nonsensical (or irrational) because an analysis of the two words conjoined (i.e., agnostic + atheism) reveals that anyone subscribing to it claims no knowledge of whether gods exist while not believing it; and this argument rests on the assumption, or perhaps defended principle, that one must know what they believe—i.e., they must know X to believe X. — Bob Ross

I'm unsure if this is an elucidate for me or a description, for someone else, of my position.

if the latter, that is not my position.
My position is that 'agnostic atheism' makes full sense. Its merely an agnostic who does not believe in God, as opposed to one who does.
Neither claim knowledge of God, and so there's no overlap or toe-treading.

The issue with that, on the face of it, an Atheist retains the position that we can know - but have no evidence. The Agnostic rejects that.

Best of luck, my friend! — Bob Ross

Appreciate it :)

Because,

Happy to go over it again, but It probably doesn't actually mattter :sweat: — AmadeusD

If you are saying we don't have access to external objects except insofar as we can sense them, then I would agree. — Janus

That, to me, does not constitute access to them - but, it sounds like we agree, just not on terminology.

Hey :) Thanks for coming back!

That is perfect. Isn't there an argument for not having a name for the God of Abraham? The word "god" is generic, isn't it? The idea that God is beyond our comprehension is not mine. I think the God of Abraham religions deal with the problem of creating a god in our own image. The problem is a personal god meets our human needs better than a force that is not made in our image. — Athena

The Tetragrammaton. YHWH. Definitely discussions/disagreements around that particular thing - but it doesn't touch what i'm trying to ask. How could you conceptulise something beyond comprehension? If that's the definition of a God, it's necessarily useless.

Absolutely agreed, on the reason for that, though. I think the conceptions of God used throughout religions are necessarily formulaic in that they must meet some image parity, or else be redundant for the above reason.

logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. — Athena

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

Okay, chi isjust another word for energy — Athena

(to the underlined): To my understanding, it is clear that: absolutely not. Qi is conceptualised as a substance which makes up the practical notion of the body in TCM, and functions in supernatural ways. It's understood as a basic, all-defining mechanism of the body which can cause or cure disease, allows for motion, and is the psychologically-motivating life-force in humans. It is definitely not analogous with Western (or even Middle Eastern) concepts of energy. I think it is very misleading to assess it as 'just another word for energy". It is closer to a wide-ranging use of hte Western term 'consciousness' with less strict limitations in action.

Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem. — Athena

I would suggest that if you don't understand a point of view, no argument will be truly relevant - but it can be a lot of fun!

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect. — Athena

I don't think these are coherent leaps in discussion. I'm unsure how any of the following three items relate enough to Qi to be relevant as "Along with..".
Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

the only education my father wanted me to have was home economics — Athena

Absolute bollocks, and I'm sorry that was the case.

Do you want to go there? — Athena

Sure. The quotes don't support your contention. Those quotes shows that the AMA accepts that TMC practictioners merely believe that those things are the case (i.e that Qi exists, acupuncture deals in it, etc..). The claims are all hedged in the language of the claim, and nothing there suggests the MA thinks Acupucture, or meridians, are legitimate medical practices. Even integrative health doesn't take it.. that.. seriously:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=There%20is%20evidence%20that%20acupuncture,shown%20to%20improve%20lung%20function.

Reducing pain can be physically understood as an externality of the practice, unrelated to the spiritual aspect supposed to be inherent in acupuncture (from a TCM perspective). Just as aligning hte spine can be nice and very helpful for eg Athletes, it wont cure a disease (the analogy being chiropractic).

FTR, I've only read to the bottom of this page (29) and no further in the ensuing exchange.

I think I'm running with MU's line - I understand that what you're saying is that the evidence isn't 100%. Sure. No evidence is, really. My point was that, even if the evidence available points to 'mind being closely intertwined with neural activity' which would satisfy current "physicalist" accounts, surely all this rules out entirely is pure idealism (i.e, no connection between mind and (physical)brain). I'm trying to sort out how the 'evidence for physicalism' is actually for physicalism, and not just evidence against pure idealism.

That's not how criminal law works though. — Benkei

While I see where you're going, you cannot read across from Criminal law (which is messier than you make it sound - and as a direct analogy, Palestine is hte aggressor here, without any debate and 'criminally' speaking would be the only party liable to be charged - until we look at proportionality).

International Law and Rules of Engagement are not analogous. In criminal law self-defense is both a variable, and messy set of rules. But, there is no occasion (barring a Charles Whitman scenario) on which a court would not find you responsibility for your actions.
We're not arguing about responsibility for death, but actions. If you want to argue about whether or not a particular act comes under 'self-defense'., particularly in war, you're going to need far more specific language and context to make a call than that "self-defense' applies, in any given instance. Which is what I take you to be trying to do here. But you can't.

no it’s not.

Every actor is responsible for their own acts.

someone else is trying to compete, or show them up, or better them, then they automatically feel defensive, but then this makes the other person feel defensive in return, — Beverley

This may apply to you, abs explain your attitude. I don’t get that feeling from many forum meme bets and certainly don’t feel that myself.

Errors are inevitable. I have no idea why you would conceptualise that as combative tbh.

I think in these exchanges, I was trying to find a common ground, to see if we could work together to find a way to make the universe ‘matter’, — Beverley

I think that is misguided. We disagree. There’s nothing wrong witn that and no reason or need to force”common ground” imo. I just can’t grasp why this is an issue…

Sorry for that — Beverley

I cannot understand why you would apologise for discussing ideas. I find it quite bizarre that the fact we’re going back and forth is an obstacle. That’s what philosophy is.

And I agree with wonder - you’ve brought up good points that I’ve had to address. I’m having a good time and appreciate you interacting. Perhaps it’s high time you reassess your personal formulation. I don’t think anyone sees you disagree as anything but good.

et. I, on the other hand, live my life in the clouds, or floating around the universe mystically! — Beverley

Well there we go! Nothing wrong with that. But it will come up :)

given your response here I’m not interested in discussing further. Take care and see you around the forum :)

Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of. — Chet Hawkins

No it isn’t. If you don’t see the difference I cannot help, nor would I try to.

I bothered to explain my position. It might be best if you did the same. — Chet Hawkins

No. You absolutely did not. You have done absolutely nothing except assert an objective morality and go from there. So, no. You’ve prevaricated. Everything proceeding this statement is just your opinion on some stuff you’ve seen. It’s not even a coherent position.

You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal. — Chet Hawkins

No. We all have to go back to our posts to respond. If you’re not across your own views enough to know what’s going on I’m not sure what to say.

explained mine. You did not. — Chet Hawkins

The opposite of what’s happened.

I'd have to keep referring back. — Chet Hawkins

Then do it. If you’ve not been doing this, that explains the lack of coherence. I suggest doing it.

I have offered reasons as to why this is so — Chet Hawkins

You have not. You have asserted “the good” and “happiness” as somehow related and a matrix of measurement. You have failed to illustrate what either is or why it has something to do with morality - OR why any of that is “objective”

Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not). — Chet Hawkins

That’s one way of shifting the burden of supporting your own contentions…

I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality — Chet Hawkins

Then your entire contention is baseless, unknowable and we can’t talk about it. Wtf dude lol

his thread assumes the one and discusses how indeed happiness is related. I do believe that this relationship is objective, just like morality itself. — Chet Hawkins

You have absolutely refused to address the crux of your claim here. That’s not on me…

Objectivity is impossible, therefore you are wrong. — Chet Hawkins

Then you are talking literal nonsense. It’s absolutely nonsensical to claim an objective morality while rejecting objectivity. W…t…f.

objectivity is needed to obtain anything, — Chet Hawkins

Do you not know what “obtain” means in this context? Cause this makes no sense at all.

From this point it’s hard to know if you’re drunk or trolling or what…

They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels. — Chet Hawkins

Case in point.

You do not say why it is incoherent — Chet Hawkins

Because you’d need to be coherent for another response to make sense.

That is what I said and you quoted it. What precisely is incoherent about any of that? — Chet Hawkins

It isn’t, which we can see from the quote. And that is all, still, incoherent. I have no idea what you expect.

Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious — Chet Hawkins

Your entire presence is weird glib nonsense. I take this as another example.

It is explained more properly in the Bob Ross thread. — Chet Hawkins

That’s not an answer. If you don’t want to explain how morality is objective we have nothing. You have no theory and I have nothing to respond to.

I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it. — Chet Hawkins

This quite clearly illustrates an emotivist version of morality. It’s your emotional response to things and that’s all.

ead the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread — Chet Hawkins

Or just lay it out…

I don't think its a reasonable argument to blame anyone but the actor for their actions, whether it's a state or not. And that goes for both sides (in relation to the two of you trying to vie for each).

The influence cannot be denied, so there's the part of me that likes the history of philosophy and charting the lineages of ideas. — Moliere

Yeah, absolutely. I definitely want to know about Hegel and his influence (and his actual, rather htan interpreted, response to Kant).

It just always feels too mystical, despite Greg's protestations in the episode in whcih is protests the Mystic label.

I gave up after ep. 08. I do not think I enjoy anything Hegel has to say 0 but ill still read Phenomenology and Logic.

As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real. — Chet Hawkins

Yeah, but you've totally avoided ever (I mean, over multiple threads now) letting us know what your formulation for objective morality is.
What's it grounded in? How is it measured (Happiness, already having been rejected by you as a measure)?

and I do, so we can — Chet Hawkins

Ah. Feel free to not respond to me if I seem too combative :P I'm unsure we can get anywhere.

I have been over this many times in this thread, But i do not think this is accurate at all, and many atheist institutions reject that formulation. Happy to go over it again, but It probably doesn't actually mattter :sweat:

Agreed, but it would certainly put in question some of his swing-voters who might return to Patriotism™ as their guiding light

I think the plausible account is that we have access to external objects insofar as they can appear to us via our senses, but no access to understanding their natures beyond that. — Janus

Ok, fair enough. I would then assume this:

Could your account be coming down to a position that the External Object and the cognition of it are adequately the same as queried above? If so, I can accept that account - but I just can't find good reason to believe it other than shared cognitions (i.e, an apple looks like an apple to 99.9% of people). — AmadeusD

Is a fair, if rough-and-ready, way to say that I can't really disagree, but i see the degree of mediation(provided by the senses) as enough to say we don't have access to the External Objects.

If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer. — Chet Hawkins

I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case.

So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :)

I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. — Chet Hawkins

Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above).

Morality is objective. — Chet Hawkins

No it isn't. *shrug*.

Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant. — Chet Hawkins

It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange.

And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! ..... You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it! — Chet Hawkins

I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me.

But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all. — Chet Hawkins

Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts.

So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all. — Chet Hawkins

If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify!

So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem. — Chet Hawkins

This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations.

How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game! — Chet Hawkins

Its utterly impossible, in fact.

Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...). — Chet Hawkins

Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk:

EQ? What is EI? — Chet Hawkins

Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol).

But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering. — Chet Hawkins

This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there.

You missed it. — Chet Hawkins

I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here...

objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD. — Chet Hawkins

But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it.

Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to. — Chet Hawkins

I would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P

I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:

How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view.

In cognition or perception, we encounter things which appear to be external to our bodies. For examples, we see animals, trees, mountains, clouds we don;t see sensations. We infer that these things are presented to us via sensations, but we are conscious only of the things, not of the sensations that we infer preoduced our awareness of the things, — Janus

Very much disagree with this(other than the bolded) but I thin its possible terms are getting muddled. So, up top let me say the "object" is two things on my accout - the External Object (whcih i use in this reply) and the object of our cognition.
I don't think there is an arguable case that the 'tree' you are experiencing the view of is "the tree" in an External Object. It's your mind projecting its interpretation of (assumably - key) external data into whatever arena our consciousness gets its visuals from. I don't think it can be another way... Which has some heavy lifting to do further down my reply.. I've just thought of a potentially helpful metaphor..

When you put a DVD into a DVD player you're not looking at a DVD. You're looking at data interpreted by the machine, projected in such a way that you can cognise it. You are not looking at an actual *insert movie scene description*, or a plastic disc with magnetic stripping on it. Merely interpreted data. I see our sense organs as the Laser Disc Reader, and our mind as the Television producing the 'film' that you watch. Obviously, the pre-recorded nature diminishes the helpfulness of hte metaphor somewhat, but hopefully it illuminates what im saying somewhat too.

not of the sensations that we infer preoduced our awareness of the things, — Janus

Now, I can, at the least, not object to this. But the 'things' are you talking about aren't external objects. Nor could they be (as above, though, that's my contention - not an absolute claim). They are the objects that result from your brain/mind interpreting the data which (assumably - again, key) is derived from actual external objects interacting with sense organs.

Again, my view is that we are presented with objects, not with "sensuous data", the latter idea is an after the fact interpretation, so I don't think we are agreeing. — Janus

Well, maybe to make clearer why I thought were agreeing there, as a semi-visual rep i'm trying to post:
1. External Thing --> 2. ET interacts with sense organ --> sense organ conveys sensuous data to the brain/mind complex --> the brain/mind complex spits out a visual/smell/feeling whatever as a result of interpreting the data. The External Thing is never, and can never be, present to the mind. If you don't agree, fair enough, I got that wrong. I'm guess here you would think the underlined are the same thing?

I think all our experience makes plausible the idea that our perceptions are caused by the actions of things and environmental conditions on our senses. — Janus

I agree with this (and was the basis of claiming, tepidly, agreement between us earlier in the piece).

The actions themselves never appear to us in vivo — Janus

I agree with this (but as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't be possible for the objects and not the actions to appear to us).

the external objects do — Janus

Again, I don't think this is a possible claim. How are you accounting for the mediation our sense organs provide between the object an our idea/cognition of it? I can't see away to reverse through that mediation to the object, without losing either the object, or at least seriously fidelity.

Could your account be coming down to a position that the External Object and the cognition of it are adequately the same as queried above? If so, I can accept that account - but I just can't find good reason to believe it other than shared cognitions (i.e, an apple looks like an apple to 99.9% of people).

how it is we could have an idea of an external world/ external objects if we had "zero access to them"? — Janus

Because we can assume we wouldn't get any cognition of objects without their being 'actual' objects, given how we understand our sense organs to work. We can't get cognitions out of nowhere.. so we infer (and, rightly, imo) that there simply must be something 'out there' bumping against our sense organs to produce the data which is interpreted to give us our cognitions.

No need to apologize, we are both just presenting ideas. — Janus

Appreciate that. Not always the way it goes :)

The same way, like a magician, you are trying to convince me that, in calculating that the eggs are four, your brain has done nothing! Who decided that they are four then? — Angelo Cannata

I didn't even mention that process, and in any case its your brain. I don't think this discussion is to go anywhere worth going.

:smirk:

Appreciate you continuing to engage - It's a weird position, I know.

Under the notion that a fish experiences the universe through the water it swims in. — wonderer1

This seems bizarre and untrue to me. It experiences the water it swims in, along with a number of other discreet elements of it's world (plankton, sharks, coral, whatever..). But, that's a digression and another thing to talk about. Is the idea here that anything within the Universe 'experiences the Universe'? I can't understand that, if so, and that might be the issue.

Again, I'm finding it really, really hard to connect these objections (that I don't out-right disagree with, though i have comments) with my contention so I'm refraining from responding in that vein. I understand this probably comes across as a smug "You just don't get it" which I don't intend at all. Here's an attempt to clarify: it seems to me as if you're both conflating these two

A. Experience of the entire universe (requires being everywhere all at once - which is plainly not open to humans)

B. Experiencing the universe in it's entirety (having any empirical concept of the total scale and dimension of the Universe as an object - which is plainly not open to humans)

It seems to me that both of your sets of objections have to do with (A.). I am not suggesting that (A.) is a problem (though, it is clearly impossible). I am arguing that the lack of (B.)'s possibility is the problem for us in so far as we cannot 'experience' the Universe. I am not seeing any objections playing with this notion, and rather all of them appear to be playing with (A.). Though, I should probably at this stage point out that the Universe mattering isn't something I'm particularly hung-up on. I don't think it does, or can, but that's not like an important follow-on from the above position. It was partly a throwaway and partly while, I do actually think that, It's never occurred to me that anyone would claim otherwise.

Not the point.

Who establishes that it is not an opinion?
Saying that logic is not an opinion implies that you can validate its correctness without using your brain. — Angelo Cannata

I don't feel that's the case at all. Logic is discovered fact of our world/universe/whatever you want to call it. We didn't event logic. We invented language.

Can you give evidence that 2+2=4 without using your brain — Angelo Cannata

If i put two eggs in front of you. Indicate that you need to focus on these two eggs. Then put another two eggs infront of you, additional to those two eggs, you will see four eggs. So, that's not my brain doing anything.

Who guarantees that the final conclusion made by our brain is correct? — Angelo Cannata

This is a worth-while point to some degree - But only if you're a true sceptic. Though, again, I imagine this is service to theological ends, so i'm unsure how best to approach that fact. Perhaps your idea of 'guarantee' is something I don't need.

No, and no - that's a perplexing and genuinely odd response.

I can't see how either of these questions have anything to do with what i'm positing. Having an understanding of, let's say, gravitational laws that can be (pretty much accurately) extrapolated to other , particular and specific, parts of hte Universe which we can observe - has nothing to do with whether or not we can empirically have any grasp of the 'entire Universe'. Which is it plain and simply the case that we can't. I really don't understand what's going on in these objections... You can't experience a concept. Experience informs concepts with content - content you simply do not have to argue that your experience is of the Universe.

Under what notion are you suggesting we can experience the Universe? Gigantic eyes? ectoplasmic Universe-sized hands? Have you ever seen the Universe? Grasped it? Conceived of it's dimensions? Or are you necessarily restricted to an extremely, pathetically small sliver of potential experience which precludes you from anything in the above which might constitute 'experiencing'? Because I can't connect what either you or Beverley are saying to anything i've said - I thought it might be worth understanding what you actually contend challenges my contention

it makes all the difference. — Vera Mont

Not to humans, for whom the distinction is somewhat useless :P

If accepting logic is ultimately up to you, then logic is just an opinion. — Angelo Cannata

No. This is a completely incoherent sentence/claim.

The opinion is whether or not I want to use logic. Logic, is not an opinion. That's a really, really strange take (particularly given it arose from something i said whcih doesn't indicate this).

This seems to confirm my idea that philosophy is, or should be, art. — Angelo Cannata

This is very much a good explanation for your position. But i have a nagging/sinnking/growing suspicion that this is in service of defending the indefensible propositions of Catholicism (logically speaking) and turning History and 'the external world' into malleable ideas that can fit any damn thing into them. Far be it from me..

This way logic is just a particular way of expressing and sharing our subjective, artistic, emotions and feelings. — Angelo Cannata

Comports with the above, for sure. So that's good, i suppose.

I don’t see how. The appearances are what you’re talking about

Objecting? I'm not objecting at all. We are not in a court of law! lol I don't see this as a competition or something. — Beverley

An objection is just how philosophers discuss ideas. It's not a competition or anything. Its just a term used for when you 'push back' on a theory or position (sorry if that comes across condescending - the link will do a better job :) ) You've been pushing back quite adequately, to my mind, and that's a good thing! Objections are how we sort these things out.

It is my fault for not speaking clearly. — Beverley

It is more likely that one of us is making an error somewhere either in our position, or our responses. I don't think you are being unclear, other than using words with fairly mysterious meaning. Keep in mind:

It is entirely possible to speak clearly, concisely, and be wrong.