Music played well is an emotional full body experience; cerebral, physical and emotional. No technical job can possibly engage a person more.
I think it would be highly unusual, if not impossible to fail to find enjoyment it that.

And as a miracle, it's basically one more clue for existence of God. — Henri

ROTFLMFHO

With respect, my interlocutor is trying to refute the necessary claim I made that the source of all knowledge is from perception.
Even knowledge of the mechanism has to be perceived as evidence. By saying that there are OTHER sources of knowledge has to be false.

There just is no "simple looking and seeing what is out there". — apokrisis

I never even implied that. I said what I said, that the source of all our knowledge is from what we perceive. There is simply no avoiding this.
But I even gave exceptions contra Locke, that we have limited instinctual "knowledge".
The problem is 'simple looking' is not a problem for me, as accepting the limits of perception is the only clear way to begin to over come them.

I'm not ignoring it, but you are misunderstanding it.

We have no knowledge without perceiving the world. The mechanism is irrelevant to the argument, about the content of knowledge.

And nothing can be perceived without cognition. Remove a newborn baby's neocortex and see what knowledge they will learn. — Marchesk

You are making my case for me, if you would but know it.

That sort of scientific theory, like natural selection in biology, goes very much farther beyond noticing similar behavior among particulars over time. — Marchesk

Not really. All science is based on evidence. We are just getting better at it. Newton gives way to Einstein, who in turn may well be shown to be inadequate. Einstein's work is observable. If not then its not valid.

You are just being ridiculous. Nothing can be conceived unless perceived.
Put a new born baby in a sensory deprivation chamber and see what you get.
You have not really used joined up thinking.

So you accept radical empiricism like me?
OR - you could answer my question "Tell me the non perceptual source of knowledge of which you speak!"

Algorithms randomised but written by humans do not imply any creativity on the part of the machine, no matter how unexpected the results.
A machine knows nothing, and so is not acting with volition required by the art of artistic creation.

Tell me the non perceptual source of knowledge of which you speak!

Since you believe your friend's observation that you have a loose grip on reality, there might be a reason that you do.
MDMA is not psychotropic in the way LSD or heroin is, however, but simply increases your empathy. I do not consider an increase in reality as a challenge to a conception of reality, but a emotional response to people around you.
I'm not going to recommend it to you if you think that about yourself, nonetheless, as I don't know you personally. But I still think the drug is relatively harmless against, say, valium, oxycodeine, or many other prescription drugs. The only other question is, since not regulated, would you actually be taking the real stuff, being cooked up by persons unknown?

What drugs do you take, and how do they affect you?

Humean causation undermines that, which was Kant's concern. — Marchesk

Not at all. Explain how? Show what Kant says.

`You are talking and saying nothing.

So they are planned! So what?
Another thing I have noticed is that they all involve guns never imagined by the people writing the constitution at the time of writing.
I also note that automatics are "illegal" but a kit to turn a gun into an automatic can be legally bought at exactly the same time as the gun.
I also note the high yield of morons in the USA generally, and in the gun lobby in particular.
Any thing else you want to say?

No I have first hand experience, and testimonies from dozens of people of my acquaintance. Drop a tab and you will know immediately. This is a complete no brainer.

But cosmologists do ask and attempt to answer the question as to why the observable universe exists, and how it came to be the way it is. — Marchesk

Yes and no. They do not ask why, they DO ask how.
If you want to know why ask a priest, as they have all the answers ready made.

You are mistaking what I am saying. I don't know if deliberately . but your objection is a complete non sequitur.
Obviously you have to conceptualise, but you can only conceptualise FROM sensory information which is the source of ALL knowledge - quite obviously.
Locke suggests we start as a Tabula Rasa, I do not exactly agree with that, yet without the sensations we have nothing to work on.
The knowledge we start with is very basic; such as where to find milk from a nipple, what is up and down, and hot and cold, maybe. But without experiencing those things even those primitive instincts fail us.
I have no idea what your objection or solution to this rather obvious reality is.

The worry here expressed by both Plato and Kant is that skepticism is the result, not knowledge. Sensory impressions alone can't give us knowledge — Marchesk

The truth is that ONLY sensory impressions give us all the knowledge we will ever have. If that leads you to skepticism you'll just have to lump it.
The only exception to this is Kant's idea that we are structured to understand space and time, but nothing about that predicts what the universe is actually like - for all of it we have to build on what we can perceive.

Please read what I said Dude! That is EXACTLY the statement I am attacking FFS.
Please have the decency to read what I am saying, and not just pick out one sentence.

The individuals are society. The statement is an utter tautology. There is no society without them, so it does not exist as and of itself, no more than the "migrant problem" exists unless the establishment decide they do not like migrants. The actors are the existence and the essence of society.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why the sun would rise hundreds of billions of times in a row. — Marchesk

It's not even a question. There is no more reason 'why' the "sun rises" than why there is a universe in the first place!

However what the Enlightenment of philosophy and science has provided us with is the answer "HOW is it that the sun appears to rise each morning." For the answer to that is; it does not! The earth goes round!!! Please consult Isaac Newton for more information; all sought by induction non fingo hypothesis. If you don't like it there is nothing I can do for you. I'm interested in facts. What you want is a church I think. If you are more satisfied with the answe "god did it", you are welcome to it.

It is not at ANY 'odds" with scientific explanation. You seem to misunderstand what science does.

MDMA Xtasy really does that. After a course of E's I found myself more understanding of others emotional position months and years after I stopped taking it.

The paradigm at stake here is 'interactionist', and not 'entity-based': individuation (of both society and individuals) is a result of interactions, and not the other way around. — StreetlightX

You have been careful to support my statement, by pretending to refute it. The two way street that lies between the concepts of the individual and society is not well expressed by the video in the op, yet you do attempt to bring it into sharper focus. In this you give undue credit to the maker of the video, who in fact promotes the same myth that the establishment does. And that is, that social ills can be expressed which fly against individual need. There is not animmigrant problem. There are migrants with agency that the structures build by the establishment are all but powerless to resist. The result is that they invent a myth that lies outside the norm; 'Immigrant problem"; "drugs problem' and so on. In failing to see this for what it is, the maker of the video is in collusion with the establishment by pretending to have found a problem which is defined in "objective" ways.

In this way individual needs are set outside the core structure (those that comprise the ideal social unit). In this way these individuals can be more easily vilified, and the core preserved.
This might seem a reasonable view until, almost unnoticed, the Jews, the blacks, the hispanics, those deemed to be 'abusing' drugs, the irreligious start to go missing and are taken off the streets.

In pretending that 'society' and its units are clearly distinct objects of desire, the agents who actually comprise those structures can be set aside.

In short you and your video are making a political statement of intent. A statement that in essence is counter to personal freedom and in denial of the importance of agency over structure. In truth all you are saying is that we all have equal amounts of agency, but some have more agency than others, and they are those in control of the moral, political, financial and social powers.

On the other hand you might more reasonably promote a discourse which tells the truth about the simply fact that the existence of agents comes before the essence of society. That society is only and can be only the sum of the actions of social agents - be they in power or in poverty. In this way you would be democratic rather than conservative.

It's the only way forward. Race is a response to fear of the other. until we can all live as equals, as one species one race- the human race.

It's hilarious. it's enough to reassure you how harmless pot REALLY is, as you kind of loose complete faith in the government's attempts to demonise it.

Now if we came across a coin that had landed heads for hundreds of billions of days in a row (the sun rising), then we wouldn't think this was because of some incredibly low statistical event had occurred. — Marchesk

You are missing the point. First you are not comparing like for like. And this might lead to to your dissatisfaction. There are contingent reasons why the coin is 50/50, whilst the sun coming up is near certain. If a coin comes up heads a thousand times, there is still a 50/50 chance it will come up tails next. Not so with the sun. A lot would have to happen for the sun to NOT rise, for reasons we can offer in evidence. Induction tells us that the flipping of a coin is not like the dawning of the day
Wittgenstein incidentally reminds us the the sun never comes up and asks what would it look like if it was the earth moving and not the sun, as indeed it is. They might look the same, but through complex induction and observation we know better.
But the point about habit was Hume's. In observing billiard balls for the first time, we have no a priori reason to say what will happen when one ball strikes another. Will it bounce back, will the balls break; will the second ball move; or will the second ball change into a bunch of petunias??
Hume demands that we can only observe and record. The only way we can have knowledge about the universe is to see if our observations repeat, and by habitually we can come to conclusions a posteriori. That is perfectly satisfactory as in fact that is all we have ever done.
The laws we devise are consequent on this and not things that the universe is compelled to obey. It's just the way things are. Making physical laws is just a short hand to assist us to describe our understanding, and as such are contingent on the continued observations we make.

Is that why you posted it? It's risible. Hippies used to watch it for fun in the 1960s, it's like one of those Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, of Plan 9 From Outer Space turkeys. Have you actually seen it?

What's you point about the 1930s propaganda?

Drugs are many things, but they are amoral.

Recreational drugs are no more an escape than a film, comedy, or a drink down the pub.
Most people that like to moralise about drugs tend to have no experience of them.
They are not any substitute, but can be a great way to re-set your perspective; and provide a fresh outlook.

Well this is exactly what I mean by needing a Copernican turn. The social system has no volition, even if you consider it greater than the sum of its parts it can only ever be a collection of actors.
Your eyes and legs analogy does not work in the slightest.

He completely misconceives what a social system is.
He is pressing home a view that suggests the the Social System is a causative agent, when in fact it is the sum of all social action from those that comprise it.
If any one needed a Copernican turn it is this guy.
We do not participate IN a social system, but the sum of human agents IS the social system, and as agents we exploit the structures that form about us to express our volition. This is why the Wall-E ships are not credible - the participants are too passive, and seem to act with ultimate knowledge of what they are supposed to do, rather than just try to get by as they WILL.

We really need a facepalm emoticon. — TimeLine

Use it in the mirror it will do you some good.
Alternatively get a life and drop a tab of acid.

Drugs are a cheap substitute to feeling alive — Maytane Winner

So what is your drug experience?

I had my first joint in 1978. In my time I've grown it and smoked it. These days I'm not that bothered by it, though I find it helpful for chronic pain. Might have a puff once a month or so.
I my life I've tried most drugs, except heroin, and of all those drugs pot is the least addictive; tobacco the most addictive.
Pot has been a great stimulus to help consider alternative opinions. And its something I would heartily recommend those that think they are open minded on this Forum.
As an artist is has enhanced my imagination to improved my output.
As a drummer, it is crap, and a single pint of beer is the best drug to help you loosen up.

It's a cheap trick to say that drugs harm chromosomes when chromosomes are easy to harm.
Pot is basically harmless, like anything else, when used responsibly.

So when did God tell you that? LOL

No true Scotsman fallacy.
See what Christians do, not what they say.

Christians are proud to state that belief is in the majority. Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith.
But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West. And the West seems to thrive on warfare. If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it?
They prefer to support Israel and jump at any excuse to attack countries all over the world.

Like I said - what you say is absurd.

"Christian thinking" is an oxymoron.
I don't think Christians think much, but there's no doubt that Christians are locked in an ideological war with Islam.