Mww

“…. The schema of substance is the permanence of the real in time….. ……The schema of possibility is the determination of the representation of a thing...

That’s fine. Until the Enlightenment space and time were considered by the majority of thinkers as constituents of reality, and never as a priori cond...

Primitive, yes, but….in a phenomenal sense? What is meant by a phenomenal sense? Space and time are merely irreducible forms of sensuous intuition, so...

I would, yes. While they may be pure primitive intuitions with respect to their use, they are pure primitive conceptions as regards their origin.

I’m ok with that; word-resistant just means the concept is difficult to represent for the use of expression, and prior to language just means the conc...

I dunno. Can the pure and absolutely simple have an ontological accounting? If the primitive and unanalyzable concept is so, insofar as it has no obje...

Are there pure and unanalyzable concepts? Put me in the affirmative/similar view column, re: the categories of transcendental philosophy. “Pure and ab...

Interesting dialogue. I picture ol’ Rene, nodding in knowing agreement with his notion of “…. discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason...

Well, you’re just too smart for me.

I judge it to be an insult to proper philosophy. It’s exactly like that, insofar as if I say yes, I believe a query has been made, than my knowledge o...

I said I know a thing. Why would you ask if I believe the very same thing I said I know? The only way to answer you question is if I’d said I believe ...

Oh. Well, damn. So if you have the power to tell me what I must have believed, does that mean you know what it is that I must have believed? What do y...

I can’t think of an example of knowledge of a statement requiring belief of a statement, no. Obviously I experienced, hence now possess the knowledge,...

Examples that I disagree with the claim that knowledge requires belief? How would I illustrate, given something I know, that there necessarily exists ...

I understand your claim, but disagree that knowledge requires belief.

So lemme get this straight. We’re talking belief/knowledge, you bring in experience/language….yet I’m the one committing strawman/red herring dialecti...

Somebody was talking to. You should know; you commented right after, a day ago. Nope. I know the thread topic major premise has the form, “Knowledge i...

Maybe, but more like an appeal to extremes, I would think. I mean…beyond imagination? How can we go beyond imagination except by using it? Ok, fine. A...

Yet, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly what appears to be the case. If we are what the brain does, and we have a rather unlimited imaginat...

If the human can think whatever he wants, where is the controlling limits by the brain on the content of his thought? All that’s left is to say the br...

Hey. Once again, for no particular reason while agreeing in a rhetorical fashion….. If such were the case, it reduces to belief being a necessary cond...

How would the scientist test the philosopher’s logically valid statements, the subject and predicate of which are merely abstract conceptions? At bott...

If the differences between the two hold, one cannot be switched with the other. So, first, it would have to be shown how they are not, in order to sho...

What is the difference between philosophy and science: The short list, and assuming the human condition alone…. …..no science is ever done purely a pr...

Perhaps not commonly conceived, but common is so boring, innit? At the end of the day, each comes by and thereby possesses his own anyway, so…. A judg...

As do I, but if there is a distinction, putting belief and knowledge in the same class kinda invalidates it. But I get what you’re saying, I think, in...

So be it.

Take all the exception you like; you compound perception with experience, my presently considered pet peeve.

Ya know….it’s too bad the major reference material stipulates “perceptual experience”, so almost everyone just figures that’s the way it is. It used t...

OK. Thanks.

Anthropomorphic tautologies with respect to x aside….on the off-chance you weren’t actually going there….the coma thing won’t work, if we’re keeping w...

If it is I that thinks and given that there is thinking, then isn’t it necessary for “I” to be? Under these conditions, there is no way for “I” to be ...

Ok. Thanks. “….depends on the philosophical framework and the specific definition of these terms used in the discussion….” Can’t disagree with that, a...

Just curious. What did you ask of it, to get that statement?

Probably because on the one hand there’s no math in it and on the other, it’s socially more inviting than sports analytics.

Overall, not too bad, except for the false attributions of Kantian metaphysics. It would have been better to go your own way and leave him out of it. ...

Perhaps, of a scant few, but Everydayman couldn’t care less if he tried, unless neuroscience lowers his grocery bill.

Yikes. Talk about a loaded question……. If the conditions are limited to cognitive science and neuroscience, wouldn’t it be science of mind? Which lead...

Mine are: on the one hand all that which constitutes the representation of an object as it is perceived, which I call a phenomenon, correlated with re...

OK. I agree meaning is a result of correlations, but I prefer to allot the correlations to understanding, and the meaning thereof emerging from the co...

You said “meaningful” experience. I’m saying, first of all, every experience is meaningful, and second, if it is granted experience is an end, the cul...

To ask of a relation presupposes a content; how can that which necessarily has content be nowhere and at no time?

Of all those choices, this is provably closest to the case, but you know….that leaves us with phosphate and calcium ions, nanovolts and picometers tha...

I couldn’t remember where I found this, seems like ages ago, and your “dualism of substances” made me think of it again. So I dug it up, just to give ...

Yep, even Himself says we can think whatever we please. But honestly….what advantage is gained by affirming something as real without the possibility ...

I’m with you on that; there could be all sorts of real stuff just outside the limits of our intelligence. Still, for those things we cannot demonstrat...

I guess that’s the root of my discomfort: we have real things we can observe and we have real things we cannot even possibly observe. Seems to take so...

Can we agree from this, that experience is a stand-alone entity? Taxonomy. Hierarchal organization. Of correlations drawn between different things? In...

It does make no sense. I for one reject the very idea. ————- Of course, but neural events are not that which is given to the senses to be represented....

You’re not alone, I’m sure. But the fact I keep harping on, is that we do not think in terms of that which makes neural events real. Or, if this shoe ...