Banno

If colours are no more than mental phenomena, how is it that we agree that clear skys are blue? How is it that we agree that an ache is not a sting? T...

No single thread runs through the whole rope - that sort of thing.

Cool. So this is something you learned to do? You learned not to see the cow, but to see the colour, shade, shape and so on? I'm not seeing what we ar...

So a further point, about language use, perhaps: Is it clearer, better, to say that you see the cow, or that you see the model or image or representat...

So Does that make sense to you? You experience the cow by your neural nets building some sort of model or image or representation of the cow. Add to t...

Not sure that's a good plan. I don't see that self will be any simpler than sight - that seems very unlikely. Well, no, it doesn't. It is in a state o...

Not sure why you have posted this. Is it by way of agreeing wiht what I have said? Well, where are those representations? If you are interacting with ...

In a way, yes, since it is oneself that does the perceiving. Is the "self" seeing the tree or the representation of the tree? I say one sees the tree,...

:smile: So it seems. It's a rejection of the homunculus. Indirect realism has you sitting inside your head, seeing and touching what is constructed by...

I would not take Aristotle as an idealist. Direct realism has trees and cups and stuff that we see. Indirect realism falls short of that, since we nev...

Here's the point, again; one does not see the representation; seeing is constructing the representation.

It's all footnotes to Aristotle. It seems she agrees with you.

There's a practicality to Midgley's writing that is endearing. Her rejection of scientism is especially needed at a time when engineers and physicist ...

Cobblers. One can see the word inexactly. That's why some need glasses.

I think you are right that direct realism is the beginning position. I doubt that many folk think they see the world "exactly as it is". Rather folk r...

Cool. Indirect realism is the view that what we see is the representation. The alternate is that what we see is the tree, and that we see the tree by ...

Well, for instance, it's hard to see how disjunctivism could be indirect. That a veridical viewing of, say, a tree, could be an instance of viewing a ...

Try using other sense as paradigmatic, rather than sight. It's much harder to maintain that one touches something indirectly - to "infer" that the sur...

Indeed, which is where you err. See the word "by"? It's important. We do not see the representation; we see by constructing the representation. Indeed...

Hear, hear. Most especially, "Attempting to use purportedly reliable scientific knowledge to support a claim that we have no reliable knowledge of dis...

Well, generally speaking, on realist accounts, statements are either true or false. What admits to degree is not truth value, but belief. And what we ...

@"Janus" has consistently taken a more restricted view of "belief" than that which I think more typically found in philosophical discussion. I'd chara...

Well, it's from Gillian Russell, so I'll take it as legit. But I went too quickly, and lost you. Russell's approach is to highlight cases where what a...

There's a short bio in Philosophy Now. The (women) are presently receiving quite a bit of attention: ...a worthy antithesis to the crap that occupies ...

:up: . Neoliberalism explains everything... for mental midgets. What is outstanding, and ongoing, is that over eight pages these three men have manage...

Well, part of it; right after she mentions how the great philosophers were kind to their cats. Perhaps her facetiousness jokes were missed. Not so sma...

:rofl:

Not selective at all.

Indeed, things have been so much better since the patriarchy was dismantled.

, so you back away from your defence of Descartes only to be oddly antagonistic towards Midgley. At the least, there might be some philosophical merit...

Oh, I agree. I don't see that @"Fooloso4" has carried his case. Yet even if he had, it does not count against Midgley.

Even if Midgley has misconstrued Descartes, her misconstrual is shared by others. So I'll go back to a point I made earlier, that even if she is wrong...

So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?

I hope you don't lump me in with Corvus, who's understanding of logic is... problematic. It seems to me that you do here what you claim to be unable t...

But see this argument for logical nihilism: and I'll go with logical pluralism. Logic itself depends on what one is doing. It's the grammatical struct...

Moved to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/896568

With the exception of your posts, I'm afraid I haven't been following this thread. Folk engaged so closely with Cartesian views may have difficulty wi...

Yep. The rest is dross.

As for anger, well, take a look at this search. I've not been able to follow what is going on. There is something a bit unbalanced here.

Yep. It's the relativism of the right wing. If there is only belief, then no situation is better than any other. Consider the criticism as against Fey...

Cheers. The ideas she expresses were also found in others of that period. There was a general realisation that doubt cannot be the whole of philosophi...

Yes, to an extent. @"Chet Hawkins" sets up an absurd standard only to complain that it cannot be met. He is forced by this ideology to ignore the very...

Well, is the following a tautology? It depends on what one is doing. What of this: Which Intuitionist logic denies; or this: which paraconsistent logi...

I'm not reading that the way you are. I take the use of "measurement" rather than "observer" to be quite deliberate. See. https://www.youtube.com/watc...

I couldn't find anything of that sort in the interview... "observer" does not come up in the transcript. This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGwdUC...

Well, that's the point at issue. If you know how to use the word "being", and related words such as "exist", "is", and so on - what more is there to t...

Failure to commit? No, rather "absolutely true" is like "solicitous chalk" or "oligarchic sandwich"; putting two words together doesn't necessitate th...

You are asking: "what is true?"

...happens to the beast of us.

Well, thank you for your continuing contribution.