I have problems with goons stalking me over the internet among other things and sometimes boards like this one don't allow people to delete accounts, and it's not possible to get an anonymous internet connection, I've asked in person and called (and plus) the police, so then you should just "delete" (mod) each message one by one. And there's quite a huge problem with unidentified millionaires or people that identify themselves as "we" react with a white card if they detect something, just catching anything with their machines, like websites that identify machines then send airplanes 12 times per day at somebody's house for 5 years or so and such, among other things, if you get the picture.

Maybe this can advance you guys: I went to a conference by the head researcher of Caen university about the brain using scans and research I think, and he said nobody has a memory before 8 years old. Somebody asked in the audience: then what is it that happens before then, he answered: souvenir fabrication. So memory is probably about stocking and accesinng stored information.

Jane: I know x happened because I have a memory of x. — TheMadFool

Highly unlikely, you know it really happened, compared to your imagination.

My take is that it is the same principle with souvenirs vs memory, it's not about one being more real or reliable than the other, but about memory being more shelled and less prone to modification/diformation, older evolutionarily.

First time I hear that Catholics argue that their sacraments come from God: Where do sacraments come from? André KÉRYGME, Curé de Port Saint Nicolas: from Christ and the Church; it is from Christ and his apostle that come the initiative of these gestures and the words that accompany them; the Chruch intends to prolong them faithfully... in a celebration.

I felt like posting a new tread: I got baited: this isn't a philosophy forum.

I was told in a college that philosophy, in the ancient greek way it was practiced, was about philosophers going among the people and freely engaging in discussions with them, about nothing and everything.

My dictionary says: Philosophy: Domain of culture that consists in a whole of interogations, reflexions and research having a rational character and led since greek antiquity on the being, causes, values etc. and puting in play, in the diversity of ways employed and retained answers, man's relation with the world and his own knowledge.

Whatever you guys are doing here, it's not philosophy.

This forum is all compartimented and with fixed ideas and fixed starting points and clearly like a pop culture (for lack of a better term) media center. Philosophers in principle meet people freely, which is what I'm desperatly trying to do here and there on the internet, but philosophers don't run the place or host forums, the society is not open enough, this internet thing is like an anglo-saxon militarised and governmentalised jack pot with a negative net result. In college they encouraged philosophy for a better, open society (it's on the obligatoy curriculum in Québec province).

I think I'll just leave, I'm very disapointed that my ideas did not catch interest.

I did propose a biological interpretation of phenomena but I don't know if its a priori or a posteriori. — Gregory

A priori, it's just an interpretation, a proposition. How can you ask such a ridiculous question?

I'm not into all these concepts, and I don't use the concept of sin, I don't think into that frame at all. I don't think there is such a thing as Catholisism, where did you get that term from? There can be materialism, as you can engage in material endeavours, but there's not such thing as a Catholic endeavour when talking about a sacrament. There can be Catholicism when speaking of engaging into the charitative activities of the church maybe, but in fact what you are talking about is a Confession. I'm no expert on the matter, all I know is there is Catechism, not Catholicism: such a term is derogatory and illogical.

But even when I'm a materialist I still believe in mortal and venial sins. — Gregory

Would you say that this is a biological interpretation of the diformation of something real a posteriori?

No need to drag the discussion if there is no interest, maybe others will respond too, maybe... Good day.

Maybe you went to a protestant church? I don't go to confession, I don't think the Catholic church has that either, it has the "recounciliation sacrament".
Often we think we are right, we know we are right and believe it in our heart, yet we are wrong. What is good about a religious organisation like the Catholic church that places charity above all is that it prevents human mistakes on humans in principle, like not furnishing bare minimum to the jobless because they should work and we think they protest needlesly, like in the u.s., and it is voluntary adherance. The reason they ran things back in the days in France was also the dime, when a politician suggested taxes should take the form of a monetary tax, he was guillotined.

Malebranche would have told me in the confessional that it's a sin to doubt God. — Gregory

Unlikely: a priest is an itermediate, as writen by Thomas D'Aquin: he prays with (for) you or gives you guidance the way the Church tells him, towards an higher ideal that is not human intuition or arrogance; he doesn't tell you this or that is a sin or rule society. Priest were responsible for education as a charitable organisation of literates, as writing was for religious purposes to begin with.

An approach such as you guys have is typical of the military-industrial Anglo-Saxon system. French is more refined, it doesn't just get down to buzz words or individual concepts, it is more fluent than english and lends itself well to multiple meanings.

And this is what you call idealism, from a strictly material basis. Where do you derive morals from in such a system?

Gregory:
And how has your own understanding or insights advanced after these finding about Kant's beliefs? Couldn't somebody have asked him instead of having to discuss that here? Are you his disciple? I've never read Malebranche, it's not the core of what I was writing. I'm not a librarian. Did you find any usefull insights yet?

To follow up on this: the reason he was not healthy was his thought process was eronous biologically and had too much of a hold on him: his process wasn't sound biologically but intrusive and it turned against him.

I wanted to tell the story that Freud mentionned in the past: "Freud was going to his apparment on a certain floor of a building and when he wanted to open the door he found out that he did not have his keys, reflecting upon this, he realised that the reason he did not have his keys was in fact that he shouldn't go into his appartment but do something else instead, and that this had been hidden from his consciousness." This gave him the idea that there was much more to searching than what we are aware of and he set out to explore the unconscious. But my take on this is: the explanaination is that the real and not me part collapsed: the healthy part remained real and sent Freud wandering to his apartment, it is the same as when wanting to think harmfull thought or harmful things are brought up to consciousness: a dream is produced or a blockage happens, in spite of the human intuitive, representational system and if a rejoinder if not made there is death. This contradicts:

the objects of our perception, to exist, is in fact totally dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness, the bulk of which are completely unknown to us.

because it is also conscious, and yet should be discarded as a real valuable experience if taken just by itself.

Is phenomenon noumena: that was what Gregory was asking insights about if I understand well.
Noumena: "what is beyond the experience that is made of it, in the voluntarily diverted sense of Emmanuel Kant."
Phenomena: observable fact.
So is phenomenon noumena: I would say it depends on the observer.
I would add: what produces biological phenomena is best not always becoming noumena or be shared if it is in a protected biological process. That is also an argument against knowledge taken from opening things up that shouldn't be opened, like the inside of a body: it produces misleading/superfluous/harmful knowledge.

I have read the original post by Gregory at least like 10 times and feel it is like brutishness, as opposed to elaborating artistically or esthetically, yet it is very well writen and complete, which is the challenge in that context, as it is a marginal aproach, a reducto ad absurdum. I was trying to explain that esthetic judgments are a posteriori. I haven't read much, but have shifted my approach from this kind of sky abstracting self-arbitrary melting down and up brutishness to a more optimistic impetus.
It would be fun if you could explain how calling attention to the role of the percievng subject in the organisation of knowledge can be an ideal if such knowledge itself is just materialistic.

In any case you seem pretty certain of your well researched comments, just wanted to post a participation on here, I don't think I can add anything more interesting that would not be just confusing. Humanely, I find this biological or logical approach dichotomic and unconstructive or degrading: like life was nothing or calculable as a whole, enslavable.

Hardly. They're not judgments but 3 different experiences in themselves that include not only your own cousciousness or biological construct to make up reality.
Reality is transmited, not constructed.
What you construct can be called a reality, but hardly the same as physical reality on the outside.

To follow up on Malebranche:

whatever knowledge and experience I have relies on the constructive power of the mind — Wayfarer

Quite an abrupt statement: you don't control or construct every experience and knowledge that is registered as real within you or that imposes itself upon you. As with life's needs, social needs, etc. you can try to modify and construct otherwise, but it still imposes itself, and the protest, especially if habitual, results in physical deformation/ characterial rigidity / unbalance and inflexibility resulting in a criminal and confused disposition.

A judgement would rather be like: this feels esthetically right, emphatic, therefore I know it is good: a criminal looks like a criminal; a dangerous person like a dangerous person, say he blushes with a red face, you know he is prompt to anger, characterial rigidity leaves fixated traits that are recognized and influence social interactions.

You write:

Malebranche defended the theory that we don't really see material objects through perception, but instead, because our minds are so connected to the divine source — Gregory

Then you go on to write:

So there are several different forms of idealism. I think it's easy to at least understand what is being said when one is told "everything around you is really only thoughts". Materialism makes sense to me too. — Gregory

Quite a combination in historiology to arrive to that idea.
Idealism? Where did you get the idea that Malebranche was an idealist? Pop dogma? He was an Oratorian, not just a philosopher. A believer, and from experience so.
I think Malebranche and french philosophy should be seen like this: a clock does not mark time, it is spiritual power and time in which a set of gears exists for an observer, gears made up by a man; Malebranche was known for morals. There is a question about man capable of machine making socially as opposed to biological time: "Perhaps this is when time began to feel as a constraint and used to get other men to follow along?" “Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.”

Which gets me to remark:

"your consciousness is an active agent which constructs reality"-Wayfarer
"This is what reality is"-Wayfarer
Obviously false.
Something can be real and me, it can be real as me, or it can be real and not me: all 3 being different things. If real and me is rejected, there is spiritual collapse; if real and not me collapses, there is physical collapse.