jkop

Hold it. Did you not see objects and states of affairs after all but some percept that disappears?

It is not your judgements that you perceive but objects and states of affairs. Otherwise you would never see the latter, only your own figments of min...

If the mind is required or constituitive for beliefs, statements, and perceptions, then it is just too selective and misleading to claim that the mind...

Don't you mean consolation? Talk of hope or forgiveness seems to already assume a god, yet one may find consolation in a variety of ways: e.g. in know...

So the question is not genuine.

Peer pressure, politics etc. might increase the likelihood that people make judgements based on false beliefs (or opportunism regardless of the belief...

Inequity is wrong, because that's the meaning of inequity. Merry xmas, believers, happy holidays, thinkers :))

We should not selectively look at the flying, driving, and camping when the published films produce acquaintance, knowledge and empathy towards wild a...

Nowadays we can see films of the lives of animals in their natural habitat, so the zoo has little reason to capture and lock up animals in cages just ...

It seems to me that an elementary particle is also a compound of the particle plus some property that it has. Or is that just a property of language i...

What is an example of an existing object which is anything and simple, not compound?

What is an example of an existing object without parts?

Universals are properties and relations of things. For example, when you identify three things, you may also identify a fourth, such as the sum of the...

We'd vote for a destroyer of the world if it meant more titties and beer prior destruction.

Applied logic made more sense to me than symbolic, but they're both formal. Informal logic seems to be a controversial term: https://en.wikipedia.org/...

Skepticism arises from the dubious assumption that we'd never see the real world, only our own impressions, ideas, or sensed "data". Too many thinkers...

What is there to understand, by way of reasoning, in the many unreasonable injustices which partly characterize the human condition?

I don't know whether the ability to recognise something requires intuition or insight. To intuit, or see, are modes of perception, and what sets the i...

Well, I suppose one could identify entailment (say, as a recognizable pattern, possibility, or state of affairs) regardless of insight on what entails...

Insight, or rhetorical reason, which precedes the argument that entails. Like a skill that one acquires which enables identification of entailment.

Yeah I thought the same, the "ingredients" seem to be there: e.g. an all-encompassing assertion, a lack of argument, the misuse of scientific terminol...

The human condition is partly characterized by hypocrisy, irrational beliefs, and misapplied logic. How could something alogical be a logical entity?

They first seem to assume that life should have one primary or all-encompassing meaning, and since there can be no such monstrosity some get stuck ask...

It seems clear that thought about things in a manner of signs and signified is presupposed in representation. Yet an overwhelming amount of the things...

Here's an example of signs and realism. A photograph of Ghandi signifies its object, the man, by resemblance between some of his visual features and s...

It's the perception of the photo which is direct, neither more nor less. Likewise, one perceives the light of a distant star directly despite that the...

There is no good reason to exclusively adhere to the terminology of a 19th century theory of signs. It is fairly easy to see that representation is an...

Any picture can represent the person, but then it is used as a symbol, regardless of its resemblance. A caricature, for instance, seldom resembles yet...

While it seems fairly clear that conventional symbols represent I don't think resemblance represents. Resemblance is symmetric, i.e. one thing resembl...

Bullshit disguised as logic is worse than bullshit, it's fraud.

In what sense is the human body independently existing from its visual field? What is left of a visual field if you remove the body which constitutes ...

Spot on!

"Merely"? What do you expect? Ability to be someone else?

What's active is what's constituitive for sensing: e.g. sense organs interacting with physical force, radiation, synaptic events in the brain etc. But...

Evidently we can, for example, when we talk about the mind, and share insights into the minds of different speakers. Therefore, the mind is not isolat...

I agree. I would amend that slightly ;). Sensing is hardly passive but it is passively identifying what is sensed, for example, the cat.

Pretty clear analogy, but... unlike the boy who must kick the ball to break the window the cat does not really act to produce the observer's visual ex...

The visual experience of seeing a cat is obviously caused by the presence of a cat in your visual field. Otherwise you'd be hallucinating. The biology...

That's an obvious fallacy. The fact that some "parameters" like electrical firing rates are sufficient for photosynthesis to work in plants does not m...

Lol did you ever stop rejecting naive realism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaD8y-CGhMw

Yet you wrote this: It seems fairly clear to me that you suggest to position the cat within the sensing being since we were talking about a cat that y...

Seeming incoherences tend to arise from fallacies of ambiguity. For example, when using of the word 'see' in two different senses: for what constitute...

You're not correcting anyone by "positioning the referred" cat "to activity, seeing" within the sensing being, because then you'd neither refer nor se...

The act is the sensation/seeing, the act cannot produce the cat that you see, only its presence in your visual field can.

I suppose you could describe the intentionality of perception as a "gaze" which goes out from your body towards the object that you see. Unlike electr...

Since I perceive the world directly there is no reason for me to doubt whether my experiences right now when I'm awake might be real or dreams. No, af...

Yes, do you mean that the existence of dreams, or dreams of saying things, would somehow show that we never know whether we dream or not?

You're not making sense. Would you care to explain?

Nothing is literally said in the dream.