Terrapin Station

Right, so the point is that properties of objects vary at different spatio-temporal locations, including spatio-temporal locations on/in/etc. the obje...

I don't want to get into the issues re "explanations" again. Personally, I don't think that Kant explains anything, by the way.

This is the sort of thing that Zappa's cohorts were doing on Lumpy Gravy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pSpWbGnwMM

That's all correct. To finish the above, it's knowable, for one, from perception, which isn't theoretical. But in cases where perception isn't possibl...

Okay, so first, you're applying a concept that you've constructed. Do you agree with that? It's not as if you're perceiving concepts or anything like ...

I hope you're not thinking that "Knowledge is awareness of present what-we-grasp-in-knowing" is any less gobbledygooky. Objects can be "understood" in...

Why would spatio-temporal locations imply eyes and a brain to you? It's frustrating that so much interaction here is people not even understanding wha...

It depends on the points, obviously. You can't give a single answer that applies to all cases. For example, Mars and the Eiffel Tower would have very ...

Sure, but I'm not at all endorsing representationalism, idealism, etc. Those require theoretical moves just like any other stance does. That was the p...

As it shouldn't be. Now if everyone would just agree with it so I wouldn't have to point it out in contradistinction to other ideas. There's no such t...

I agree with that, because I believe that we're beings with bodies situated in a world, in relationships with things that are not us, where our percep...

Knowledge is awareness of present intelligibility. Intelligibility is grasping. Grasping is being aware. So Knowledge is awareness of present awarenes...

Grasped in what sense? "Intelligible" conventionally refers to understanding. How are you conflating understanding with experience or perception? Unde...

What in the world is that supposed to refer to? It seems extremely gobbledygooky to me, probably because it's resting on theoretical views that I don'...

One thing that's going to make this confusing, by the way, is that a lot of people are going to read comments from a Kantian perspective, when not eve...

What is that supposed to mean? It seems kind of nonsensical to me. What's the difference between "content of an experience" and "an experience"?

I'm not sure what post that was from (I just saw it because Harry Hindu was responding to it). The question I was asking Dfpolis was about phenomena o...

Remember that I'm a realist, but a relativist/"perspectivalist." There is only one reality, but it's not identical at any two different reference poin...

I don't know why this is so hard, but I'm not asking you anything about that. This is what I'm asking you about. So your answer to "Isn't there (for y...

This sounds more like an "I'm really high conundrum." Just like the conundrum, the answer to it would depend on what fantasy scenario you want to make...

The changes/motion that are happening, versus the changes/motion that happened already or the changes/motion that have yet to happen, from the referen...

But this is the very question I'm asking you. Isn't it ever just that there's the tree, and not the phenomenon of "the tree in relation to me." If I'm...

I never said otherwise. Idealists pretend it's not the case and that idealism is clearly the default however. What's important to realize is that we h...

Again, anyone with a decent science or philosophy of science education is going to know that empirical claims aren't provable, and we're no longer doi...

A common connotation of "perception" is that it's referring information obtained via one's senses--via your eyes, ears, nose, mouth, or via touch.

How would that follow, exactly?

Now there's a phrase that'll make one's eyes roll back in one's head.

That would have nothing to do with anything I was talking about, but it doesn't follow. Realists don't believe that we can't have false beliefs, that ...

First, you're missing the point that if you're positing an "out there" (versus an "in here") you're a realist.

The context was a discussion about values and whether they're changeable via argumentation. For some reason you wanted to agree on what philosophy was...

To convince me of this, we'd need an argument for it, and because of what it's claiming, the argument would have to appeal to empirical evidence as we...

This makes no sense to me. The first is just a tree. That's all it is phenomenally. The second is phenomenally the tree plus phenomenally the notion o...

One of the most important things to learn when doing philosophy (or anything, really), is that something isn't correct just because someone (including...

No problem. Does it make sense to you that "(Just a) tree" is different than "I am perceiving a tree"? So the experience (again, I was trying to avoid...

You're arguing that normative ethics is most of philosophy? This is a good illustration that you're not reading others' comments very closely. I said ...

That was a lot to type that shows nothing at all as to whether you now understand what I was asking you. All I'm interested in is whether my post made...

What would you say this has to do with the comment of mine you're quoting? You seem to be presenting it as if you're disagreeing with something I wrot...

Well, the "if I know something I don't believe it" sense of "believe" is just stupid, yeah. So I don't think it's very useful, either, aside from unde...

Sure. I hadn't said anything about that, by the way. I just said that you can't change someone's values via argumentation. Most of philosophy isn't ab...

Yes I'm asking for an actual world example of that if that's the part of my post that you're disagreeing with. Note that I'm not saying that folks' va...

If you're just disagreeing with the notion that you can't argue someone to different values, show me an actual world example of doing so.

The issue isn't that. The issue is that the common Internet religion discussion sense of belief (at least as promoted by some atheists) is that belief...

Mattering is subjective though. No fact can imply that anything matters or doesn't matter. It's an issue of what an individual values. The things they...

Not in epistemology when we're talking about knowledge in terms of justified true belief for example. So it turns out that you are using the sense of ...

The reason I brought it up is that if one is curious, one might read " I certainly wouldn't use 'creating the possibility of harm' as a moral hinge," ...

As I just wrote " faith (where that's being separated from empirical evidence, logic, etc.), "

I'm guessing you're reading "belief" in a sense that it often appears in Internet religion debates, where you'll run into atheists who want to say tha...

So something wasn't understood about the question I'm asking. First, just to clarify, I was referring to phenomena that are present in general. Whethe...

Exactly. I say that plenty of things are true because there is supporting evidence, but I wouldn't say that any empirical claim is provable.

So, if we have two arbitrary things, the only way for them to not be individual(s) is for them to somehow literally be the same thing in some respect....