RegularGuy

Of course. I was talking about whether reference points are inherent in the world absent minds or not.

Perception is about the things causing the perception. One doesn’t directly apprehend the thing in itself. One perceives things. A lot is lost in perc...

Consider this. Everything is in constant motion. I suppose that my wife sitting on the couch and me sitting in the recliner are both at rest relative ...

Oranges do not emit light like galaxies do. There would be no blue or red shift.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

The properties of the orange do not change at different reference points. The perception of the orange changes at different reference points.

In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently ba...

In other words, a la Kant, if there were no minds it would be incoherent to have spatio-temporal reference points. Is that a good reading of Kant, @"M...

I guess. The way I interpret Kant is that the spatio-temporal reference points you were talking about as real things of nature only exist in minds.

Whatever narcissism and a pathological need for recognition tastes like. I think it tastes like ham, personally. He tasted like ham. Some people taste...

What exactly then is your position re Kant about what is inherent to the mind as laid out in Critique of Pure Reason? Is space and time at least parti...

Ok. That’s the tough work. Has anyone explained that in this thread? If so, I missed it. Kant doesn’t explain how theories are created. His is a metap...

But you understand that transcendental idealism a la Kant is more than just idealism a la Berkeley or @"leo"? And how do you personally explain how th...

@"Dfpolis"@"Mww"@"Harry Hindu"@"Michael"@"leo" Does anyone here really understand one another? Are we using words differently or are there really diff...

It’s strange, no?

That seems like common sense, but I’m not sure that that would necessarily be metaphysically coherent with the rest of human knowledge. It remains to ...

Yes. It was sarcasm. I’m not always good at sarcasm. It seemed like it was an unnecessary point.

:clap:

Likewise. I haven’t made up my mind on the hard problem. I don’t think there is an easy solution. It’s unknown.

I think Kant would call himself a transcendental idealist and an empirical realist. Is this your view @"Mww"?

The quantum vacuum is real. How we perceive it (if only through our instruments) is partly projected from reality (the four forces of nature) and part...

They’re just plain wrong.

I agree with all of this. The mind doesn’t just construct time, space, and frames of reference, but also draws borders and delineates objects, so that...

I first said “directly perceive” but I think “directly apprehend” is more accurate.

The idealism part is that time, space, and points or frames of reference are mental constructs. We do not directly apprehend these things. We create t...

Yeah, I’m a transcendental idealist which includes realism, I think?

:grin: I think we philosophers just confuse ourselves with our different uses of language.

That’s fine with me, too. Tomaytoe. Tomahtoe.

I guess I don’t really understand what Dfpolis means exactly by “projection.” I assumed he meant something like electromagnetic fields and the like, h...

I don’t know what realism is.

My point being that space and time are just as much a projection from without as a mental construct? Oh, wait. Now I’m not sure. Maybe I’m still Kanti...

Of course that’s my take on Dfpolis’s theory. He might not have meant that at all.

It’s projection from without and reception from within, while the mind makes sense of this bombardment through mental constructs, drawing borders betw...

:razz: :razz: :wink:

That’s an electric field projected from certain objects. Duh!

Thought I was dumb, huh?

Such as?

The eyes receive the light radiated or projected off of objects. The ears receive sound waves that moving and colliding objects create through the air...

Light?

That’s also a good point that I don’t immediately have a retort to.

To me, “scientism” means having a certain attitude about science, an attitude that it is the best kind of knowledge, and sometimes that one’s attitude...

@"Dfpolis" Terrapin, if I understand him, believes that there is a direct apprehension of the physical world. There is nothing lost in perceiving. He ...

Can you explain this, though?

I actually think this might be a better model than Kant’s from Critique of Pure Reason. Df’s model isn’t saying that time and space are mental constru...

This is a good point, and I think @"Wayfarer" would agree.

I suppose an interesting topic of discussion might be whether spirituality is purely mystical or whether it includes religious fundamentalism?

I granted you this. Why couldn’t this be spiritual? Emotion can be spiritual, especially as consciousness to me is inherently spiritual. It is a categ...

That is the philosopher’s excuse. With that line of thinking, no one would change for the better.

I agree. Scientism seems to rest on how one justifies a belief. That said, I still think a lot of people fall for the consumer products sold by self-i...

I tend to agree. It’s difficult to look in the mirror.