bongo fury

Not that you'll ever be in a position to know it.

Yes. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/416251 Does she see mental images of the things in front of her?

"Methodological solipsism" is an oxymoron that fairly makes its own point. In spite of its polysyllables. Solipsism is an absurd parlour game, or intr...

I wonder, am trying to make out, if this answer uses the same lighting metaphor as the question. Because I'm fascinated by the metaphor. I think the q...

Solipsism is very often in invisible scare quotes, and called methodological - as opposed to metaphysical. As such it was the method of the earliest e...

Quite possibly presented to, not by. Just saying.

Good, if that problem assumes we see and hear internal imagery. ... not "talking past each other", suddenly? If you mean disputing what elements of fo...

Well that hardly needs a hazard warning. I hear, am witness to, the sound event involving the drill. The room, vibrating. Either of the two phrases is...

Or it's all learnt classification of the external stimuli. Types of illumination event, types of sound event, types of chemical diffusion event, types...

Sure, especially given the inscrutability and all. But then how could that ever be a mistake? Is this a chair problem?

But neither is there any historical certainty about past usage, or even about uses of a word on particular occasions. (See inscrutability of reference...

But objects are events. I think the current phrase is "time worm". (Get it?)

No, dreams and hallucinations are us exercising our imagery circuits without succeeding in seeing anything. Illusions covers a multitude, obviously.

Do what?

Oh. Well my point is,

Yes. By learning to compare and classify appearances.

I'm trying my best to make sense of "recognise" without implying language use. Agreed.

Hence my edit: it wouldn't make sense to say they discriminated according to colour, without their associating according to a background classificatio...

It's everything to do with comparing and classifying, whether or not using word-pointing so to do. Not without associating those two objects with all ...

And didn't he say something about cutting and pasting large chunks of text from the, er, realm of ideas, with cursory changes and no attribution? (I w...

It was apparent, on the assumption that you were being deliberate in your use or omission of quote marks, but not on the assumption that you understoo...

What I quoted clearly concerns both, but I'm grateful for reassurance that you appreciate the difference between the two. Notice how W puts quote mark...

No, I asked what you meant by and offered a reasonable paraphrase consistent with the text in question, where the author / translators / editors used ...

No, W does that perfectly well. Using quote marks in the usual way to clarify between use and mention.

Semantically. Make sense of it. For example,

What, then? How are we to parse, ? Is "aRb" being used or mentioned (in your sentence)? Hence, I.e. in the isomorphism shown between the fact and a ce...

It means that we reach for different pictures and exemplars. You reach for uncontroversially white and gold pictures and exemplars, I reach for uncont...

I don't know exactly which other squabble you're alluding to, but bear in mind that when someone opposes "world" to "language" they often mean the les...

Do you mean ? Just trying to follow. Yes. Fact = state of affairs = relation. A proposition, for W, is any such entity (by whatever of those names) wh...

Maybe I chose the wrong bit to make the point about indirectness. Not that "the visual and auditory imagery is causally covariant with" isn't much bet...

"Why is it the words and not the events that inform us?" ? Or "why are the words still about the events?" ?

No worries.

He's straw but intellectual? Why the denial about the Cartesian theatre? Or, better denial, please.

Ah good, you added more. Yes that's much better than But then what's indirect about it? You say the homunculus is straw, but don't you need him, for i...

Logic, hopefully. Do you mean, they notice an apple (shape) in their mental picture? You're not being serious. Ok.

Oh, so it's a picture, after all? But you just did: Literally, they obviously don't. They 'see and hear things'.

That's my question. Prompted by, What kind of thing is it, if not an actual voice, and now apparently not a mental image either?

Obviously the point for me is the usual one, of whether or not seeing an apple is a case of seeing a picture of the apple.

But the book itself: is it directly about the historical events, or only indirectly?

So the true factual literature "my dog has fleas" isn't about an actual dog? Or is it that actual things are the same kind of things as made-up things...

And, I suppose: the kind of thing that we read about in true factual literature is the same kind of thing that we read about in fiction?

At a stretch. Ok. If mental entities include linguistic conventions, then no one counseled dispensing with them.

Not an entity, that's the thing. A linguistic regularity. A pattern.

Convention?

The structure facts, definitely. The top being 330m from the bottom. The iron molecules being roughly 40 times as numerous as the carbon, thank you Wi...

Language, art, music, etc. https://monoskop.org/images/1/1b/Goodman_Nelson_Languages_of_Art.pdf

That depends on how you look at it, as W points out in the case of sentence tokens: Curious that you want to downplay the relational/factual/structura...

Never mind then. Back to words and music.