Mww

Agreed, which means this..... ....is wrong, and is only corrected by shortening it to “I am”, which immediately reconciles the contradiction stated he...

Be that as it may, it only goes to sustain my opinion for the superfluousness of qualia, in that the Kantian categories adhere to that very same crite...

Remember the times. Pierce, 1866, inflicted “quale” on the metaphysical world for one reason only: Kant didn’t elaborate on his infliction of “pure ae...

Nahhhh....I can’t. Reeks of reification. Misplaced concreteness. But you can if you like. I’ll wait for the peer review.

Finally. As if an abstract non-entity can be a force.

Point: Counterpoint: “....No image could ever be adequate to our conception of a triangle in general. For the generalness of the conception it never c...

Thought is cognition by means of conceptions. Thinking (rationally), then, is the conscious act of synthesis of a diversity of conceptions in a logica...

Right, and I don’t think any epistemological science or metaphysics should concern itself with pre-teen individuals. We want to know the rules, after ...

Depends on the premises of the theory, I guess. Empirical theories are justified by correspondence with natural law; metaphysical theories are justifi...

I only used the compounded terminology because that was how it was originally presented. All experience is subjective, in that any experience belongs ...

He would, with the caveat that Kant is talking about the rational side of human mentality, but the brain having no representation of a visual scene, i...

Because this: representation is necessarily the case, and because neurons are the only possible source of representations as such, therefore neural re...

Been that way for millennia, so...this: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~pthagard/Articles/metaphors.pdf

Agreed, both. Reason always seeks the unconditioned, something to use as an irreducible bottom line, for which mind seres the purpose. After the conce...

All good. With reference to..... ....do you think the attacks are legitimate, or is it just the human proclivity for arguing with each other?

Yep, seeing as how the first snippet was from the beginning of the article, and the second from about half-way through it. But, yeah, I did skim over ...

That’s ok. If you understand why you agree with then you’ll be closer to understanding me.

Yes, and Para 54 of Principles is prefaced with just that qualification, re: ”...each substance has one principle attribute...”, which is the same as ...

If it is such a small part, how then does it concern all those things you listed? The subject matter has to do with accountability, which is to say, i...

The article stipulates, “...Mind-brain dualism is the view that brain and mind are derived from entirely different kinds of things—physical stuff and ...

In a generally civilized society, the members of it are already held accountable, by means of the tenets of an agreed upon administrative code. Such c...

Yeah, busted, for sure. Pretty presumptuous of me to declare a demographic doesn’t care about something, then appoint myself to represent them on exac...

Hey..... The three I’s.....interesting, informative and intelligent. This discussion over the last few days. In the back of the room, taking notes, si...

This exercise is merely another edition of the first antinomy of pure reason, the inverse of which is just as logically sound, in which is found we sh...

By sheer accident.

I’ll see your 2 cents, and raise you a nickel. While this seems to be the case, it means that somewhere buried in the depths of the phenomenology lite...

Interesting read. So...thanks for the link.

No, I was just responding to the queries, not the statements. ....to which my response was directed. That’s a different question altogether, which I g...

Thanks for the add-on. I was wondering what I was supposed to do with the original. I can see how it might seem that way. The content of dreams is of ...

Yeah? And......?

Yes, but we’re disentangling parts, not aspects. Brain and eye can be aspects of something common to both without being parts of each other. As a yank...

Ehhh.....I don’t have much use for the concept of time. I can get all I want from the usefulness of it with a clock. I can defend his theory, but it i...

Then why isn’t the eye problem you have, a brain problem? What part of the brain got fixed when the eye did?

I don’t think we worry so much about the soundness of logic, as we do for its proofs. The only proofs for logic lay in experience, whether or not the ...

Time is nothing but the condition by which things are successive to, or coexistence with, each other. We don’t perceive time; we perceive things in re...

If we’re dreaming we wouldn’t be in a public domain, so we can say the question isn’t dubious, right? At least for that reason anyway. My answer is no...

It is now, but was it always?

Best I can figure.....The conception of it means we can eliminate infinite regress. Gotta start somewhere, right? I don’t personally attribute anythin...

No, actually it isn’t. My fault. Guess I didn’t make myself clear. No worries. It was fun anyway.

If that’s what you got out of it, far be from me to say otherwise.

No, it doesn’t. But it can suggest too much included in the process.

I have, and used it as reference. It has its good parts.

As each human is a replica of any other, in a general sense, why not? I think Arthur just wants to say all of us cognize, judge, and experience, the s...

Pretty close, if you’re going from this, in WWR, 1.3., 1844, in Haldane/Kemp, 1909: “...We shall consider these abstract ideas by themselves later, bu...

That which employs a method to understand, cannot itself be subjected to that same method. Map/territory dilemma. It can only be given as an irreducib...

I agree organization of all sensory information is the function of the brain. From both an empiricist’s and a rationalist’s point of view. Certain fla...

Cool. I had fun with it. Just because we take our philosophy seriously doesn't mean we need to take ourselves as much. Just what I’d hoped. Would you ...

That would be whatever says perception means a thing of its own and not a brain function. In taking exception to your rendering, it is not incumbent o...

Not exactly. I’m saying that if perception is a brain function, then it has lost its established meaning, hence become a non-entity with respect to it...

Believe it or not, I was about to butt in to yours and Janus’ dialogue with, “the senses don’t think and cognition doesn’t sense”, but I figured he’d ...