Esse Quam Videri

I see what you mean, but I would say that this is a bit overly reductionistic. People choose to align themselves to religious traditions for many reas...

My analysis would actually be closer to the second than the first, and I largely agree with 's reply, though I framed it differently. The basic idea i...

Cheers. I saw your farewell in another thread and won't tether you to the forum with another reply. I wish you the best of luck with your novel. Hopef...

Indeed they do, and it's a good question. I'm guessing that Allison would concede that his affinity for Christianity is rooted in his cultural backgro...

The term "intentional object" describes a role rather than an entity. I realize that the terminology in my previous post was ambiguous, so I'll try to...

I've met similar people and even identified as one for a short time. I get the impression, though, that Allison would likely reject he NOMA label. Whi...

Again, keeping it very brief, I would say that the virtual objects are intentional objects. They are not reducible to material objects situated outsid...

Sure. Feel free to respond or not at your discretion. I don't mind seeing the conversation continue, though I suspect we'd probably end up at the same...

- I've been meaning to return to this for a while now, but just haven't had time. You're already juggling multiple interlocutors; hopefully this won't...

Presentism does not say there is only one time, it says that entities exist only at the "present" time. No, I would say that the spatial relation is n...

I am not responding on behalf of Sam26 here, but I would say that asking "why?" is not itself an epistemically "innocent" act. It assumes that there i...

Thanks for the very well-written OP. I'm curious how you think your argument would land with the historian Dale Allison. Are you familiar with his boo...

:up:

I'm familiar with the diagram you presented and with McDowell's position. Although I am heavily influenced by McDowell, I part ways with him on the qu...

I'm just trying to interpret your language, which I find to be a bit opaque. In (2) you said that colours and pain are directly "present to" something...

Yes, but none of this follows from anything else you've said so far. I don't deny the IR the right to believe these things, I only deny that they are ...

I pretty much reject all of them as stated. I'll be brief: (1) Rejected because it reifies experiential data into mental objects. (2) Rejected because...

This does not follow. You are trying to argue from epistemic limits to an ontological conclusion. Even granting the contestable claim that it is "logi...

I believe this is where we keep talking past each other. I reject the above. Out of curiosity, for the indirect realist described above, what is the r...

And once again, I disagree for reasons we have already discussed. First, I don’t categorize myself as an SDR; at least, not in the way that Robinson d...

If you respond that way then the dispute has been elevated from a question of where the visor fits into the causal chain to a dispute over what counts...

In (1), the visor is not itself the object of intentionality. It is part of the causal infrastructure that realizes intentionality. In (2), the visor ...

I don't accept this phrasing "perceiving the Sun in the mind" if it implies that perception is of some sort of mental item. Likewise, I didn't accept ...

I'm making a distinction between error and malfunction. Error is about failure relative to how the world is. Malfunction is about failure relative to ...

The criterion is normative, not causal: a system is constitutive if it fixes what perceptual correctness means for the subject, instrumental if its ou...

I think there’s a misunderstanding here about what I’m actually committed to, and it’s generating the appearance of an asymmetry that I don’t accept. ...

I think the “if and only if” formulation still overgeneralizes, and the reason is that it abstracts away from the role a system is actually playing at...

In the scenario you describe, I agree that the eyes count as part of direct perception. And more generally, I’m happy to grant this: any system—organi...

I apologize for the length of my replies. I don't feel I can do justice to your questions without going into detail. I’m not attributing intentions, p...

It turns on what kind of standard a system is answerable to. I'll try to explain what I mean by this: You’re right that Jane’s eye can be assessed aga...

I think your question here makes the issue as sharp as it can be. I'll try to clarify where I think the equivalence argument ultimately breaks down. I...

I think the remaining disagreement comes from running together three different questions: (1) how persistence through time should be understood, (2) h...

I think your equivalence argument is very helpful, because it shows exactly where the disagreement lies. I’m happy to grant that (1) and (2) are on a ...

First I want to say that I agree that it would be a mistake to say that particular wavelengths or phenomenal characters “succeed” or “fail” as present...

Thanks for laying that out so clearly — I think this makes it obvious that we’re no longer talking past one another. I agree with you on several point...

I've been there myself, a long time ago. I agree with you: I was being chertitable. The post got some facts right, but it was wrong in all the ways th...

Fair enough—I’m resisting the nudge to deny truth-value, but I’m happy to concede that Frank was a poor example either way. While I stop short of movi...

I think you’re right that we're hitting bedrock, but here are some additional thoughts for your consideration. I’m not assuming direct realism in orde...

Poor Frank leaves the lab more confused than when he came in, but that's OK — he wasn't doing any philosophical work for us, and probably won’t be inv...

Thanks, that clarification helps, and I agree with more of what you say than perhaps my earlier wording suggested. I also do not claim that perceptual...

Thanks, you've raised some good questions. I’m not claiming that the mere fact that world-directed judgments can be true or false rules out inversion ...

I agree entirely with the scientific picture you sketch: perceptual experience is realized in neural processes, and physics describes only particles, ...

I agree that concepts are involved in perception, and that classification is norm-governed and interest-relative. But concept-involvement is not the s...

Allow me to apologize if my previous replies came off as an attempt to ridicule you. That was not my intention. I see that what I've said so far has n...

That's a fair question, and I think the disagreement turns on a few distinctions that are easy to blur, so I'll try to make them explicit. By percepti...

That’s more or less the approach I take as well. On my view, hallucination involves mental imagery together with a false judgment that something mind-...

I think your slow-light apple case is a very good stress test, and it helps clarify what “direct” can and can’t mean. If we build “direct perception” ...

It is not my intention to obscure the facts. I am engaging honestly with you - and in good faith - even if it may not seem like it to you. Here are th...

Thanks — this is a very clear statement of your position, and it helps isolate where we disagree. I agree that perception is causally mediated and tem...

If you re-read my reply carefully you will see that I did not say that mathematicians do not use the word "capable", but that they use it in a differe...