make truth?

[RCSaunders]

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Almost! It should be, "nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

Of course there is the entire epistemological existence of all knowledge, including all knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), all literature, science, history, geography, philosophy, and religion, emotions, and perceptions, which all exist only in human consciousness and have no independent material (perceivable) existence.

[henry quirk]

trusting your perception is fine... claiming your perception is more than your perception is an error

-Imp

I'm a direct realist (with, mebbe, a touch of George Boree's quality realism for color).

The disintergratin' heat of the lava isn't in my head. No, it's conducted to me, apprehended by me. It's real and I am literally touchin' it, bein' burned up by it.

I'm not contructin' the world in my head from processed information; I'm directly apprehendin' it.

I perceive the lava directly, and quite painfully.

The error, then is the thing in itself is beyond perception.

As I say: I only access a slice of the world, much of it is, in effect, invisible to me, but that slice, what I apprehend, is real, I navigate it, touch it, enjoy it, am harmed by it, claim sustenance from it, defend parts of it...and all this navigatin', touchin', enjoyin', injury, sustainin', and defense occurs becuz I am in contact with the world, becuz I'm in the world.

Nuthin' is beyond perception, we simply lack the natural capacity to perceive it all.

evil demons be damned...

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Don't know where that's comin' from. I never said the world or it's contents were dependent on me noticin' them. Quite the opposite.

The world is real and I interact with it directly.

The apple on my table is real. It exists whether I take note of it or not.

i'm finite. I can't see or touch or hear or smell everything, but everything I can't see or touch or hear or smell in any moment exists just as well as what I can. Talkin', here, about what is real (the apple, the table, you, Smokin' Joe Biden etc.)

Unicorns and other fictions don't measure up.

-----

"nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

What?

[commonsense]

the thing in itself is beyond perception

-Imp

This, "thing in itself," you say is, "beyond perception," how is it, if it cannot be perceived, that you know about it?

If this, "thing in itself, is not detected in any way, directly or indirectly by human perception, how did you become conscious of it. Is this some kind of mystic insight only you have by which you are aware of these, "things in themselves," or is it just your faith in Platonic forms or some other religious teaching?

Please explain how anyone can know these, "things in themselves," so we can put aside our mistaken notion that the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, live and work in, and have all our experience in, is the real and only world.

RC, I took “beyond perception” to mean “more than perception”, I.e. including perception and something more.

[RCSaunders]

the thing in itself is beyond perception

-Imp

This, "thing in itself," you say is, "beyond perception," how is it, if it cannot be perceived, that you know about it?

If this, "thing in itself, is not detected in any way, directly or indirectly by human perception, how did you become conscious of it. Is this some kind of mystic insight only you have by which you are aware of these, "things in themselves," or is it just your faith in Platonic forms or some other religious teaching?

Please explain how anyone can know these, "things in themselves," so we can put aside our mistaken notion that the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, live and work in, and have all our experience in, is the real and only world.

RC, I took “beyond perception” to mean “more than perception”, I.e. including perception and something more.

That's what I thought you meant. My question is, what is that, "something more?"

[commonsense]

This, "thing in itself," you say is, "beyond perception," how is it, if it cannot be perceived, that you know about it?

If this, "thing in itself, is not detected in any way, directly or indirectly by human perception, how did you become conscious of it. Is this some kind of mystic insight only you have by which you are aware of these, "things in themselves," or is it just your faith in Platonic forms or some other religious teaching?

Please explain how anyone can know these, "things in themselves," so we can put aside our mistaken notion that the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, live and work in, and have all our experience in, is the real and only world.

RC, I took “beyond perception” to mean “more than perception”, I.e. including perception and something more.

That's what I thought you meant. My question is, what is that, "something more?"

Good question. Let’s see what he says.

[RCSaunders]

RC, I took “beyond perception” to mean “more than perception”, I.e. including perception and something more.

That's what I thought you meant. My question is, what is that, "something more?"

Good question. Let’s see what he says.

Well, I think I got that wrong. I should have said, "That's what I thought he meant," of course. I'd like to see what he says too.

[Impenitent]

the thing in itself is beyond perception

-Imp

This, "thing in itself," you say is, "beyond perception," how is it, if it cannot be perceived, that you know about it?

If this, "thing in itself, is not detected in any way, directly or indirectly by human perception, how did you become conscious of it. Is this some kind of mystic insight only you have by which you are aware of these, "things in themselves," or is it just your faith in Platonic forms or some other religious teaching?

Please explain how anyone can know these, "things in themselves," so we can put aside our mistaken notion that the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, live and work in, and have all our experience in, is the real and only world.

not my line, it's from the professor of Königsberg...

I "know" nothing...

I only have access to my perceptions, nothing more... the linguistic representations of anything are illusory and not exactly representative of the precise perception i.e. if the representation even has an apparent physical manifestation...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Almost! It should be, "nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

Of course there is the entire epistemological existence of all knowledge, including all knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), all literature, science, history, geography, philosophy, and religion, emotions, and perceptions, which all exist only in human consciousness and have no independent material (perceivable) existence.

as an aside, if human consciousness wasn't material, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Almost! It should be, "nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

Of course there is the entire epistemological existence of all knowledge, including all knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), all literature, science, history, geography, philosophy, and religion, emotions, and perceptions, which all exist only in human consciousness and have no independent material (perceivable) existence.

as an aside, if human consciousness wasn't material, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

They don't! Work, that is. They do not eliminiate consciousness, they only compromise the neurological system consciousness uses. It's like cutting off one's foot. The fact the foot is can no longer be felt is not a problem with consciousness, but simply the fact the foot is not their for one to be conscious of.

[Impenitent]

I'm a direct realist (with, mebbe, a touch of George Boree's quality realism for color).

The disintergratin' heat of the lava isn't in my head. No, it's conducted to me, apprehended by me. It's real and I am literally touchin' it, bein' burned up by it.

I'm not contructin' the world in my head from processed information; I'm directly apprehendin' it.

I perceive the lava directly, and quite painfully.

The error, then is the thing in itself is beyond perception.

As I say: I only access a slice of the world, much of it is, in effect, invisible to me, but that slice, what I apprehend, is real, I navigate it, touch it, enjoy it, am harmed by it, claim sustenance from it, defend parts of it...and all this navigatin', touchin', enjoyin', injury, sustainin', and defense occurs becuz I am in contact with the world, becuz I'm in the world.

Nuthin' is beyond perception, we simply lack the natural capacity to perceive it all.

evil demons be damned...

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Don't know where that's comin' from. I never said the world or it's contents were dependent on me noticin' them. Quite the opposite.

The world is real and I interact with it directly.

The apple on my table is real. It exists whether I take note of it or not.

i'm finite. I can't see or touch or hear or smell everything, but everything I can't see or touch or hear or smell in any moment exists just as well as what I can. Talkin', here, about what is real (the apple, the table, you, Smokin' Joe Biden etc.)

Unicorns and other fictions don't measure up.

-----

"nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

What?

seeing is believing...

(Hume was correct)

you can believe that the car you have parked outside of your immediate perception, exists

until you directly sense it, it has as much existence as god...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

Almost! It should be, "nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

Of course there is the entire epistemological existence of all knowledge, including all knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), all literature, science, history, geography, philosophy, and religion, emotions, and perceptions, which all exist only in human consciousness and have no independent material (perceivable) existence.

as an aside, if human consciousness wasn't material, lobotomies wouldn't work...

-Imp

They don't! Work, that is. They do not eliminiate consciousness, they only compromise the neurological system consciousness uses. It's like cutting off one's foot. The fact the foot is can no longer be felt is not a problem with consciousness, but simply the fact the foot is not their for one to be conscious of.

which is it? do they or do they not "compromise the neurological system"?

dain bramage is a tricky thing

-Imp

[henry quirk]

evil demons be damned...

then nothing exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

-Imp

Don't know where that's comin' from. I never said the world or it's contents were dependent on me noticin' them. Quite the opposite.

The world is real and I interact with it directly.

The apple on my table is real. It exists whether I take note of it or not.

i'm finite. I can't see or touch or hear or smell everything, but everything I can't see or touch or hear or smell in any moment exists just as well as what I can. Talkin', here, about what is real (the apple, the table, you, Smokin' Joe Biden etc.)

Unicorns and other fictions don't measure up.

-----

"nothing material exists outside the immediate perception in the moment?

What?

seeing is believing...

(Hume was correct)

*you can believe that the car you have parked outside of your immediate perception, exists

until you directly sense it, it has as much existence as god...

-Imp

*I do, cuz it does.

[RCSaunders]

which is it? do they or do they not "compromise the neurological system"?

The neurological system, like all other physical aspects, are neither life or consciousness.

[Skepdick]

When 100% of the world believed the world was flat, was the world flat?

Just about everybody operating at the every-day human scale still safely assumes the world is flat.

Unless there's adverse consequences to being wrong you go about your daily life NOT accounting for the Earth's curvature in your every day decision making.

Not that it makes any difference. In 2021 everyone believes Earth is an oblate spheroid. Some scientists insist that the shape of the earth is best described my the WGS84 geodesic model. Various other descriptions, representations and approximations exist too - much more accurate than "oblate spheroid" for sure.

When 100% of the world believed the world was flat - it wasn't.
When 100% of the world believes the world is an oblate spheroid - it won't be.
When 100% of the world believes the world is some precise digital representation of Earth itself - it won't be.

The one thing they all have in common is this: they are all approximately right but precisely wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

When 100% of the world believed the world was flat, was the world flat?

Just about everybody operating at the every-day human scale still safely assumes the world is flat.

But they're wrong. And we know they're wrong. They were always wrong.

So, as you say,

When 100% of the world believed the world was flat - it wasn't.
When 100% of the world believes the world is an oblate spheroid - it won't be.
When 100% of the world believes the world is some precise digital representation of Earth itself - it won't be.

The one thing they all have in common is this: they are all approximately right but precisely wrong.

Well, my point was this: not that thinking the earth is flat would hurt anybody in a local and practical way (unless they were planning to sail to the edge of it, or something, in which case, they would be disappointed ) The problem is that at that time every single person in the world though the same wrong thing...and it still wasn't right.

In other words, consensus does not make for truth. It may increase the odds that a belief is likely to be true, but not at all guarantee that. In fact, 100% of the people can be 100% wrong. Furthermore, people's perception that the earth was flat had zero effect on the reality that the earth was spherical.

Facts don't care about beliefs or perceptions. Many of our beliefs do, in fact, turn out to be true (at least approximately). But some turn out to be totally false. The flat earth theory is not the only example of such.

My interlocutor of the moment was putting a lot of emphasis on perception, as if perception could "make" reality. It cannot. It can produce delusions, or it can be reflective of reality; but it cannot change reality itself. It is a postmodern prejudice many of us nowadays have to valourize "perception" as if it is some great achievement or some great change-producer. I suggest that's a prejudice of which we need to be skeptical.