LOL
LOL
LOL
Talk about MISSING the point, AGAIN.
Lol who is saying the 'real color' of an apple is 'red'?
LOL
OF COURSE it IS.bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 4:21 pmThat is just a claim.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT ABLE TO clarify, further explain,NOR elaborate on your BELIEFS.
LOL
I am ignoring this post since there is nothing to discuss.Age wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 8:12 amOF COURSE it IS.
It is ALSO a PROVED Fact. Therefore, it IS , a claim that can NOT be refuted by ANY one.
So, that CLAIM IS an IRREFUTABLE True, Right, Accurate, or Correct Fact.Understood?
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT ABLE TO clarify, further explain,NOR elaborate on your BELIEFS.
This is a good sign that you do NOT YET REALLY understand NOR know the subject which you speak of.LOL
Do you NOT understand the english language, NOT understand what is being asked, or just do NOT understand?
Or, are you PURPOSELY just 'trying to' DEFLECT?
What 'you' are arguing for here is correct, but what 'you' are saying here is NOT correct.
It is this SIMPLE, human beings will NEVER know if what one experiences as 'red', for example, is not "another's" 'blue', for example. This can NEVER be KNOWN. What can be KNOWN, however, is what is AGREED, or DISAGREED, UPON. And, for information, it is actually AGREEMENT, which makes up what is True, Right, or Correct in Life.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:46 pm You might be able to describe them is similar ways, even use exactly the same words. Yet for each of us even the words we use have individuals connotations, and relate to our unique experiences in our lives.
We can agree that an apple is red, but we can never know if my experience is like that of another person.
Does EVERY child know this?
There is NO 'other mind', NOR 'a mind' of a DIFFERENT 'individual', nor 'a mind' of 'another person'. But the rest of what you write here is correct.
You wrote: We are not sure whether the world is real or not.
But there is PLENTY to discuss. You just do NOT want to discuss BECAUSE you will end up CONTRADICTING "yoursef'", and thus be PROVED Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 5:00 pmI am ignoring this post since there is nothing to discuss.Age wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 8:12 amOF COURSE it IS.
It is ALSO a PROVED Fact. Therefore, it IS , a claim that can NOT be refuted by ANY one.
So, that CLAIM IS an IRREFUTABLE True, Right, Accurate, or Correct Fact.Understood?
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT ABLE TO clarify, further explain,NOR elaborate on your BELIEFS.
This is a good sign that you do NOT YET REALLY understand NOR know the subject which you speak of.LOL
Do you NOT understand the english language, NOT understand what is being asked, or just do NOT understand?
Or, are you PURPOSELY just 'trying to' DEFLECT?
But nothing is not "whatever" without a relation with a brain. This is OBVIOUS. Did this REALLY need to be SAID?
That is correct but that is another point.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:46 pm The whole point about the argument about qualia is that they are unique events for each of us.
No one can have the same experiences that I have.
You might be able to describe them is similar ways, even use exactly the same words. Yet for each of us even the words we use have individuals connotations, and relate to our unique experiences in our lives.
We can agree that an apple is red, but we can never know if my experience is like that of another person. A child knows this and may remark that when I see red you see what I see when I see blue and verse versa, but since we may never share the mind of another person are agreement about a colour is actually the agreement of a word to describe that colour.
It is one that you missed (above).bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 2:03 pmThat is correct but that is another point.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:46 pm The whole point about the argument about qualia is that they are unique events for each of us.
No one can have the same experiences that I have.
You might be able to describe them is similar ways, even use exactly the same words. Yet for each of us even the words we use have individuals connotations, and relate to our unique experiences in our lives.
We can agree that an apple is red, but we can never know if my experience is like that of another person. A child knows this and may remark that when I see red you see what I see when I see blue and verse versa, but since we may never share the mind of another person are agreement about a colour is actually the agreement of a word to describe that colour.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:37 am The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.
*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.
**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
Do you have any argument against simulating world or Matrix?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:37 am The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.
It is not.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:20 pm *If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.
No.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:20 pm **Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
About the comments on the picture: 1) Wrong, 2) Wrong, 3) Wrong, 4) Prove that they really exist (we not living in a Matrix).