Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:13 am
I stated ALL people [normal human beings] not 'most'.
I am referring to the perception of ALL possible empirical evidences.
Your point is you [implied all normal human] can perceive without concepts which is ridiculous. You have not explained you claim yet.
The evidence you're using?
You are getting blur.
It is common knowledge at present.
I have already linked this;
Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.[4][5] Sensory input is a process that transforms this low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition).[5]
The process that follows connects a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge), restorative and selective mechanisms (such as attention) that influence perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception.
In other words, absolutely zero evidence.
And by the way, what you're quoting from Wikipedia, aside from not being evidence of what you're claiming, actually supports what I said. "Not only the passive receipt of these signals"--in other words, it includes that (which is what I claimed about my own perception as a way that it is at times), but not only that.
Can anything be rationally deduced and concluded to be true without empirical evidence?
There are various meanings of 'true'.
1. One is conformance with reality, i.e. real.
2. The other is accurate and exact, e.g. in pure mathematics, logic,
Can anything be rationally deduced and concluded to be true without empirical evidence?
There are various meanings of 'true'.
1. One is conformance with reality, i.e. real.
2. The other is accurate and exact, e.g. in pure mathematics, logic,
The second do not need empirical evidence.
You are peddling stuff you claim is category 1, not 2.
But you seem to lack the rigour demanded by conformance with reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:52 am
Point is all normal people perceived things with concepts [of nature and nurture] embedded in the brain as 'Angelo' had implied and I agreed with that.
What empirical evidence are you appealing to re how most people perceive? (And why would how most people perceive be relevant here?)
(Why) Would empirical evidence be necessary in explaining how people perceive? Couldn’t such a description be derived by means of logic?
While it’s correct that how most people perceive might not be relevant, wouldn’t how all (normal) people perceive be relevant?
Can anything be rationally deduced and concluded to be true without empirical evidence?
There are various meanings of 'true'.
1. One is conformance with reality, i.e. real.
2. The other is accurate and exact, e.g. in pure mathematics, logic,
The second do not need empirical evidence.
You are peddling stuff you claim is category 1, not 2.
But you seem to lack the rigour demanded by conformance with reality.
While 1 is not necessarily inclusive of 2, doesn’t 2 include 1?
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:46 pm
(Why) Would empirical evidence be necessary in explaining how people perceive? Couldn’t such a description be derived by means of logic?
Means of logic? We're talking about what actually happens when people perceive. That's the arbiter. How you (or whoever is doing the logic) reason, the assumptions you make with respect to reasoning, etc. wouldn't be the topic. And even aside from that, if you logically deduce that such and such must be the case, when this and such (something different) turns out to be the case, what's the case isn't at error. The logical deduction would be at error.
While it’s correct that how most people perceive might not be relevant, wouldn’t how all (normal) people perceive be relevant?
No, because it wasn't a statement about how all "normal" people perceive. It was a statement about what perception can be like, and then a curiosity query to others whether they don't ever perceive like that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:56 am
There are various meanings of 'true'.
1. One is conformance with reality, i.e. real.
2. The other is accurate and exact, e.g. in pure mathematics, logic,
The second do not need empirical evidence.
You are peddling stuff you claim is category 2, not 1
But you seem to lack the rigour demanded by conformance with reality.
While 1 is not necessarily inclusive of 2, doesn’t 2 include 1?
Not relevant since he is not in the realm of 2, he just thinks he is.
But to answer your question, no 2 is not necessarily part of 1, since it might be used to desribe reality, reality abides without this "synthetic" form of thinking.
Logic and maths is an abstraction of reality and conforms to its own rules.
You are peddling stuff you claim is category 2, not 1
But you seem to lack the rigour demanded by conformance with reality.
While 1 is not necessarily inclusive of 2, doesn’t 2 include 1?
Not relevant since he is not in the realm of 2, he just thinks he is.
But to answer your question, no 2 is not necessarily part of 1, since it might be used to desribe reality, reality abides without this "synthetic" form of thinking.
Logic and maths is an abstraction of reality and conforms to its own rules.
I see.
It seems to me that if (& only if?) VA can legitimately claim that the abstraction explains the reality, and that his logic is correct, then he would have a stronger, if not compelling, argument.
While 1 is not necessarily inclusive of 2, doesn’t 2 include 1?
Not relevant since he is not in the realm of 2, he just thinks he is.
But to answer your question, no 2 is not necessarily part of 1, since it might be used to desribe reality, reality abides without this "synthetic" form of thinking.
Logic and maths is an abstraction of reality and conforms to its own rules.
I see.
It seems to me that if (& only if?) VA can legitimately claim that the abstraction explains the reality, and that his logic is correct, then he would have a stronger, if not compelling, argument.
Yes, but there is also the small matter of evidence too.
In my view he has an insurmountable obstancle though.
Good and Evil are subjective. What can be called by each of those terms does not seem to be objective in any sense. The bottom line with morals has to do with how people feel, not how they count, or reason.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:24 am
The evidence you're using?
You are getting blur.
It is common knowledge at present.
I have already linked this;
Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.[4][5] Sensory input is a process that transforms this low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition).[5]
The process that follows connects a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge), restorative and selective mechanisms (such as attention) that influence perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception.
In other words, absolutely zero evidence.
And by the way, what you're quoting from Wikipedia, aside from not being evidence of what you're claiming, actually supports what I said. "Not only the passive receipt of these signals"--in other words, it includes that (which is what I claimed about my own perception as a way that it is at times), but not only that.
Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
Read your post again.
The above contradicts your claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:52 am
You are getting blur.
It is common knowledge at present.
I have already linked this;
In other words, absolutely zero evidence.
And by the way, what you're quoting from Wikipedia, aside from not being evidence of what you're claiming, actually supports what I said. "Not only the passive receipt of these signals"--in other words, it includes that (which is what I claimed about my own perception as a way that it is at times), but not only that.
Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
Read your post again.
The above contradicts your claim.
It doesn't entail concepts, as concepts are not a necessary part of perception. That doesn't amount to saying that no perception involves attendant concepts. Again, perception doesn't only refer to the passive receipt of "these signals," but sometimes it does refer to the passive receipt of "these signals." It simply doesn't exclusively refer to that.
And by the way, what you're quoting from Wikipedia, aside from not being evidence of what you're claiming, actually supports what I said. "Not only the passive receipt of these signals"--in other words, it includes that (which is what I claimed about my own perception as a way that it is at times), but not only that.
Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
Read your post again.
The above contradicts your claim.
It doesn't entail concepts, as concepts are not a necessary part of perception. That doesn't amount to saying that no perception involves attendant concepts. Again, perception doesn't only refer to the passive receipt of "these signals," but sometimes it does refer to the passive receipt of "these signals." It simply doesn't exclusively refer to that.
Note your claim is that your perceptions do not entail concepts.
My point is the perceptions of all things will necessitate concepts.
If you perceived a tree, there must be a pre-existing concept of tree in your brain for you to understand all the waves input into your brain represent a tree.
Show me the common examples where you claimed no concepts are involved whenever you perceive those things?
