Esse Quam Videri

Thanks, that’s a fair question — but I think it slightly mislocates the point I was making. I’m not claiming that the mere fact that world-directed ju...

I thought it might be interesting to interject here since I see my position as being wedged between @"Banno"'s and @"Richard B"'s on the one hand, and...

Thanks for the clarification. I think it shows how much ground we may actually agree on. But I don’t think the temporal argument you’re introducing do...

Well said.

I will attempt to clarify once more for the sake of the thread. This statement of yours is neither a theorem, nor a definition nor a logical consequen...

Exactly. "Countable" means something very specific within the formalism. The critique provided amounts to a rejection of that notion, not a derivation...

But you haven't derived your conclusion from the axiom “I exist”. You have simply defined existence itself as relation to your Window, and then ruled ...

Cheers. :up:

That's an interesting pivot. At this point, I think the disagreement is no longer about logic or indexicals. You’re explicitly adopting an ontology on...

Nice. It looks like you've noticed the pressure point, however, I don't think your proposed solution evades the problem. You’re right that relativizin...

Saying “in your reality only your perspective is first-person” is exactly the token-indexical point, not a denial of it. Once you relativize first-per...

Fair enough. However, I must say that as I look through your conversation with Gemini I see the familiar pattern playing out where (in my opinion) the...

Interesting. I think this nicely illustrates why we should not uncritically accept the output of LLMs when discussing philosophical topics (or anythin...

You keep sliding from token uniqueness (“only one perspective is this one”) to global uniqueness (“only one perspective exists”). From the fact that I...

I still think the argument equivocates between the necessity of first-person reference for asking questions and the existence of a unique, world-level...

I’m afraid it’s not, and I’ll try to clarify why. All you’ve claimed so far is that mathematicians are working with a notion of infinity that you don’...

Neat puzzle. I think the apparent contradiction hinges on the fact that the puzzle quietly slides between two different levels of description: imperso...

I think this is a helpful clarification, but I want to push back on one point. The inference you’re calling “logical” is not on the same footing as th...

It looks like we've circled back to the starting point again, which is fine. I think this shows that we still have a disconnect at the level of founda...

Sorry, Magnus, but your "proof" merely begs the question. All you have done at this point is: asserted impossibility without derivation treated defini...

I think this makes the disagreement very clear, and it turns on a specific claim you’re making: that it is logically impossible for the human mind to ...

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I now see fairly clearly where we diverge, and it’s not at the level of physiology, causal mediation, or even s...

I’d say neither the look nor the feel of shape as such is identical to the mind-independent shape of an object. Shape is a structural property that ca...

Sorry, missed this somehow. I don’t think there’s a non sequitur here once my notion of “directness” is kept in view. On my view, “direct” and “indire...

That’s an interesting scenario to consider. Here is how I would answer your questions: (1) Is the scenario logically plausible? Yes. There’s no contra...

Identity is not comparison. What I mean is that causal mediation does not by itself settle what perception is of. Science tells us that perception is ...

That’s a fair question, and the short answer is: no, I wouldn’t treat shape and orientation in exactly the same way as colour — but I would reject naï...

When I contrast mirroring with a judgment’s being correct or incorrect, I’m not redescribing the same relation. Mirroring posits a relation between me...

I've granted that "blueness" is not a property of the sky, yet I maintain that "the sky is blue" is true. This sounds like a contradiction, but I don'...

If you agree that phenomenal experience cannot be correct or incorrect, then the hypothesis that phenomenal experience is "what is directly seen" no l...

I see what you're saying, but I think that the distinction you're making here is more terminological than substantive. As I understand your account, i...

Yes, I think this makes the divergence fully explicit now. You’re treating phenomenal character as that which is assessed for correctness in the act o...

I think this is where we finally reach the deepest point of disagreement. I reject the assumption that for veridical perception and hallucination to b...

@"Metaphysician Undercover" @"Magnus Anderson" It seems to me that this discussion keeps looping because the objection is being framed as an internal ...

It could be the case for a bionic eye — nothing I’ve said rules that out. Simply replacing rods and cones with silicon does not by itself introduce an...

I agree entirely that judgment and reasoning depend on sensation in the sense you’re emphasizing. Without sensory experience, there would be nothing t...

I think what’s really at issue here is how we understand truth and directness. On my view, truth doesn’t consist in a resemblance or mirroring between...

I would say that there is no relevant difference of the kind you are asking for — because the distinction I’m drawing is not about the material or bio...

I would say that the change doesn’t affect the point I was making. Moving the interface from a screen to direct stimulation of the optic nerve changes...

Yes — in ordinary language, “normative” is often used for moral norms. But that is not the sense in play here. By epistemic normativity I do not mean ...

I would say that words are essentially representational: to be a word is to be a bearer of meaning or reference. And while I agree that context is req...

Cheers. Enjoy the weather.

I largely agree with the position you've been defending on this thread. The only significant divergence we have is the one we've discussed on another ...

Thanks for clarifying! Here is how I would approach each of the three propositions. I’ll try to reuse your examples so that we can better observe how ...

I don’t dispute either of the points you raise. Yes, we experience phenomenal character, and yes, the looks, sounds, smells, and feels involved in per...

Thanks for contributing to the discussion with a thoughtful reply. I thought I would chime in since this overlaps with so many of the same issues I've...

I think there’s a subtle but important shift in your reply that ends up missing the point I was making. My claim was not that single judgments are rel...

Yes — that’s a good way of putting it, and I agree. I didn’t mean to suggest bijection is foreign to finite counting, only that when we move to infini...

This is where I think a crucial distinction is getting lost. The normativity I’m talking about is not a property of the content judged, but of the act...

Thanks for laying this out so clearly. Unfortunately, I think a couple of confusions have arisen regarding my position. Let me try to clarify. First, ...