NOS4A2

Do you think we confuse the act of perceiving with the object of perception? Maybe our language doesn't permit us to do otherwise. I honestly do not k...

True, that's what I meant. Anything that is incapable of perceiving would not be able to perceive us.

I'm not sure it is the case that we perceive perceptions any more than we see seeings or hear hearings or digest digestions.

It seems obvious to me that I perceive a tree. It doesn't seem obvious to me that I perceive perceptions, representations, sense-data, or any other su...

What’s wrong with it? that most people, including yourself, believe otherwise?

Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. I don’t think your point ap...

Call yourself what you want, but both apples and oranges are fruit. So applying your “reasoning”, discriminating between both light and dark-skinned p...

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. So what exactly are you acknowledging? That it has been used to propel fa...

Apples and oranges are different species.

To classify is to discriminate by definition.

Slavery was once considered in a similar manner. Nowadays we could never think about going back to it.

Yes. The belief in and proliferation of bad ideas can be held by anyone, regardless of what they look like.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy ...

I’m not sure any man can occupy a higher position over and above others if there is no such position. The failure of egalitarian causes is that they w...

Except Dilbert never mentioned the inferiority or superiority of any race, at least according to the article. Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is th...

Race-thinking is the problem to begin with. The poll, the question, the answer, Dilbert’s reaction, his cancellation, is all racist. Not only that but...

If only 53% of white people polled believe it is ok to be black, would a black man be justified in saying that blacks people should stay away from whi...

The self is always in reference to a particular living organism. It cannot be otherwise.

I suppose there is a parallel, but I don’t think it is says anything about the listener, who has semantics.

I don’t think anything is encoded in the sentence. All of it is encoded in the interlocutors, so to speak. It seems to me the interlocutors, and not t...

I think I would be differentiating between meaning and information.

The words do cause confusion. The idea that nature or God confers rights is untenable. Only men confer rights. As a play on words, it is man’s natural...

I’m not sure. I’m asleep. My eyes do not point inward so I am unable to verify what goes on behind them. Supposing that it is possible, my only hope w...

Fine; I dream things in my dreams. I cannot say I see them.

@"Dfpolis" has published papers, given lectures, and written a book. By chance I happened upon his work long before I became a member on this forum. I...

I dream dreams, certainly, but I couldn’t say I see them because my eyes are closed.

Yes. Where does this visual representation of a tree appear? Who or what is looking at it?

We have a fairly accurate account of the biology. We can simply look into the eyes and determine numerous visual impairments, for example.

How are we unable to perceive neural activity, but we’re able to perceive visible representations? Couldn’t the same thing that views representations ...

The difference is in individual bodies. If we want to explain the difference between the way a man sees and the way a bat sees we explain the body. We...

It’s direct because there is nothing between perceiver and perceived. The transformation and interpretation of “nervous activity” is indistinguishable...

Again, “the perceived” is necessarily anything found within our periphery, including the tree, the tree’s “impact on light”. We can also perceive it t...

3). I’m not sure it has any implications worth worrying about and I don’t think it should inform our day-to-day behaviors. It’s supposed to be occurri...

Even if I accept that we don’t perceive trees, only light, I’m still directly perceiving the environment, which includes trees, leaves, stars, teacups...

No matter which intermediary you choose, all of it is a part of the environment, which is directly accessible and perceived directly.

What model or prediction of giggling do you propose we are learning from?

The intermediaries you speak of are in the environment, which is still directly accessible, and therefor still entails direct realism. You seem to be ...

Barriers to what? Intermediaries to what? What is the perceiver interfering with? itself? With light? My fovea is in my own way? I am unable to percei...

There is no mitigating factor or intermediary between perceiver and perceived, therefor the perception is not indirect. The contact between perceiver ...

The transformations you listed are transformations of the perceiver, not the perceived. Until perceivers no longer have nerves and nerve signals, it c...

It inevitably heads in the direction of a homunculus argument, which fails. It tries to account for phenomena in terms of the very phenomenon that it ...

Great. So we agree on the “who”. Let’s see if we can discover the “what”. If you’re not using eyes, how are you witness to the end result of this proc...

Such is the case with legal rights as well. Someone believes they should have a legal right to do X. Rather than appeal to nature, though, they appeal...

Another word for a collection of human organs and processes is a human being. This is the perceiver and can be confirmed to perceive. Any thing less, ...

I want to know what perceives and what is it perceiving. The only thing I can glean from your posts is that the brain is viewing a configured tree.

Neither your configured tree or your perceiver can be instantiated. You are beginning to speak of things that either do not exist or do not perceive.

Everything standing in the way of our direct perception disappears. There is nothing between perceiver and perceived.

Anything that is the “mechanics of human vision” is itself the perceiving, and not the perceived. If indirect realism accepts this it is redundant.

But there are more organs and more biology involved in perceiving.

Exactly.