(Il)Literacy Problem in the West

[Wizard22]

The causal theory of perception with light moving from an object to an eye and then through the brain into the mind?

Why did you post Fodor & Pylyshyn?

You're arguing on behalf of what somebody else interpreted him as??? And this is proof of your literachy??

[Wizard22]

I am NOT and WAS NOT EXPECTING you to. But ANSWERING just SOME would be HELPFUL.

I do answer 'some'. You're being redundant.

BUT you do NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I POSE, and ASK you.

you may give responses to SOME, but you do NOT ANSWER, the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED.

Unless, OF COURSE, you want to PROVE me WRONG, and if you do, then all you have to do is provide some example of WHERE and WHEN you have ACTUALLY ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTION/S ASKED.

Also, what we SEE here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER EXCUSE being made. Which was a VERY COMMON practice among the adult population, in the days when this was being written.

What "we" are you speaking of?

'Us' who ARE reading 'this' and RECOGNIZING 'the EXCUSE' that you are MAKING here.

Is your mom and dad looking over your shoulder? Do you mean your family? Do you mean others on this forum?

Who is "we"?

The EXACT SAME 'ones' as I JUST INFORMED you, WHEN you FIRST ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, the 'readers' who can, VERY CLEARLY, SEE your, (VERY WEAK) EXCUSE here for NOT just ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS POSED and ASKED, TO you.

Which is ALL VERY SUBJECTIVE, right?

Sometimes it's subjective; other times it's objective.

Like WHERE and WHEN, for example?

YET, you TOLD EVERY one in what age range I am IN.

Correct.

So, I AM A CHILD, right?

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ANOTHER example of VIEWING and SEEING 'the world' FROM one's OWN VERY TINY and VERY SPECIFIC LITTLE cultural upbringing.

So-called 'CLOSED-MINDEDNESS', or, MORE SIMPLY, just BEING CLOSED is NOT, and I will repeat, IS NOT, 'critical in life' AT ALL.

In fact BEING CLOSED is DETRIMENTAL to one's OWN life. As you are CLEARLY PROVING True here.

In order to Act, you have to close your mind.

LOL
LOL
LOL

1. 'you' do NOT 'have a mind'.

2. In order to Act, the Mind does NOT 'have to be' CLOSED.

3. WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that for 'you' 'to Act', you HAVE TO CLOSE 'your mind'?

Are you doing philosophy while running away from a tiger in the jungle, or swimming away from a shark in the sea? No, you're not.

YES I AM.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'you' ARE NOT?

Philosophy, thought, meditation, all of these represent privilege, security, safety, comfort.

'Privilege' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'philosophy' word MEAN or REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY?

You cannot do philosophy in Nature.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that there is NO OTHER PLACE, OTHER THAN Nature, by your very OWN "logic" here, 'you' NEVER DO 'philosophy', correct?

I answer some of your questions, some of the time. Just because you don't accept my answers, doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means you ignore answers and selectively recognize what other people tell you.

This is a large part of your illiteracy, selective biasness.

It's why you have difficulty listening/reading.

[Age]

I do answer 'some'. You're being redundant.

BUT you do NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I POSE, and ASK you.

you may give responses to SOME, but you do NOT ANSWER, the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED.

Unless, OF COURSE, you want to PROVE me WRONG, and if you do, then all you have to do is provide some example of WHERE and WHEN you have ACTUALLY ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTION/S ASKED.

What "we" are you speaking of?

'Us' who ARE reading 'this' and RECOGNIZING 'the EXCUSE' that you are MAKING here.

Is your mom and dad looking over your shoulder? Do you mean your family? Do you mean others on this forum?

Who is "we"?

The EXACT SAME 'ones' as I JUST INFORMED you, WHEN you FIRST ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, the 'readers' who can, VERY CLEARLY, SEE your, (VERY WEAK) EXCUSE here for NOT just ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS POSED and ASKED, TO you.

Sometimes it's subjective; other times it's objective.

Like WHERE and WHEN, for example?

Correct.

So, I AM A CHILD, right?

In order to Act, you have to close your mind.

LOL
LOL
LOL

1. 'you' do NOT 'have a mind'.

2. In order to Act, the Mind does NOT 'have to be' CLOSED.

3. WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that for 'you' 'to Act', you HAVE TO CLOSE 'your mind'?

Are you doing philosophy while running away from a tiger in the jungle, or swimming away from a shark in the sea? No, you're not.

YES I AM.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'you' ARE NOT?

Philosophy, thought, meditation, all of these represent privilege, security, safety, comfort.

'Privilege' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'philosophy' word MEAN or REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY?

You cannot do philosophy in Nature.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that there is NO OTHER PLACE, OTHER THAN Nature, by your very OWN "logic" here, 'you' NEVER DO 'philosophy', correct?

I answer some of your questions, some of the time. Just because you don't accept my answers, doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means you ignore answers and selectively recognize what other people tell you.

If you really do BELIEVE that you have ANSWERED some of my QUESTIONS, then are you BRAVE ENOUGH to provide ANY examples?

If yes, then GREAT, we WILL THEN BE ABLE TO SEE if 'they' ACTUALLY ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION/S, or if 'they' are just some sort of RESPONSE, ONLY.

But if no, then WHAT are you SO SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

This is a large part of your illiteracy, selective biasness.

REALLY?

We are WAITING to SEE the ACTUAL PROOF, FIRST.

It's why you have difficulty listening/reading.

LOL

COMING FROM the one here who has CLEARLY SHOWN to NOT BE COMPREHENDING and NOT UNDERSTANDING what "others" have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here.

[Wizard22]

You can use any example of my responses to you over the last 3 days.

You keep pretending like I don't answer your questions, even though I literally just did.

This is exactly the Western Illiteracy problem I talked about in the OP! You can't even read and accept what is being written to you!

[FlashDangerpants]

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

The causal theory of perception with light moving from an object to an eye and then through the brain into the mind?

Why did you post Fodor & Pylyshyn?

You're arguing on behalf of what somebody else interpreted him as??? And this is proof of your literachy??

The thing you describe liking about Berkeley isn't Berkeley, it's Locke. Berkeley was arguing against that thing.

So let's just deal with facts now. You didn't read the Berkeley book, but you probably did read about it. What you actually read was most likely one of those histories of western philosophy. Sadly you got confused at the Empiricism chapter, which is why you attributed the empiricist sense-perception theory to it's earliest critic by mistake.

You can stop lying now.

[Age]

You can use any example of my responses to you over the last 3 days.

LOL

But there is ABSOLUTELY NONE, which you would be BRAVE ENOUGH to BRING FORWARD and SHOW here is there?

You keep pretending like I don't answer your questions, even though I literally just did.

I do NOT keep PRETENDING ANY 'thing' here. I am just CHALLENGING you on what you SAY and CLAIM here.

you CLAIMED and KEEP CLAIMING you have done some 'thing' here, I am just CHALLENGING you to PROVE 'it'. So far you have FAILED, COMPLETELY.

This is exactly the Western Illiteracy problem I talked about in the OP!

And here we have one who is ONLY 'seeing', what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You can't even read and accept what is being written to you!

Here we have ANOTHER example of when one is completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES what they, currently, BELIEVE is true. Their OWN 'confirmation biases' TAKE OVER 'them', to ABSURD LEVELS. As this one is PROVING ABSOLUTELY True here.

[Wizard22]

The thing you describe liking about Berkeley isn't Berkeley, it's Locke. Berkeley was arguing against that thing.

So let's just deal with facts now. You didn't read the Berkeley book, but you probably did read about it. What you actually read was most likely one of those histories of western philosophy. Sadly you got confused at the Empiricism chapter, which is why you attributed the empiricist sense-perception theory to it's earliest critic by mistake.

You can stop lying now.

LOL, you just used Fodor & Pylyshyn's interpretation of Berkeley as ideas attributed to him?!

Thank you for providing examples of your illiteracy, Dopey!

[Wizard22]

You can use any example of my responses to you over the last 3 days.

LOL

But there is ABSOLUTELY NONE, which you would be BRAVE ENOUGH to BRING FORWARD and SHOW here is there?

You keep pretending like I don't answer your questions, even though I literally just did.

I do NOT keep PRETENDING ANY 'thing' here. I am just CHALLENGING you on what you SAY and CLAIM here.

you CLAIMED and KEEP CLAIMING you have done some 'thing' here, I am just CHALLENGING you to PROVE 'it'. So far you have FAILED, COMPLETELY.

This is exactly the Western Illiteracy problem I talked about in the OP!

And here we have one who is ONLY 'seeing', what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You can't even read and accept what is being written to you!

Here we have ANOTHER example of when one is completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES what they, currently, BELIEVE is true. Their OWN 'confirmation biases' TAKE OVER 'them', to ABSURD LEVELS. As this one is PROVING ABSOLUTELY True here.

You're just upset that you contradicted yourself.

You asked questions. I answered some of them. You claim that I "absolutely" did not, which is observably false to anybody else.

So you're being illiterate. You should pay more attention to what other people tell you, and their answers to your questions.

[Harbal]

You can stop lying now.

If only he could.

[FlashDangerpants]

The thing you describe liking about Berkeley isn't Berkeley, it's Locke. Berkeley was arguing against that thing.

So let's just deal with facts now. You didn't read the Berkeley book, but you probably did read about it. What you actually read was most likely one of those histories of western philosophy. Sadly you got confused at the Empiricism chapter, which is why you attributed the empiricist sense-perception theory to it's earliest critic by mistake.

You can stop lying now.

LOL, you just used Fodor & Pylyshyn's interpretation of Berkeley as ideas attributed to him?!

Thank you for providing examples of your illiteracy, Dopey!

You seem to be very confused. Berkeley's argument is one of the most famous in all of philosophy, as such it gets referenced fairly often, including when other philosophers use some variant for some other purpose. I saw such a reference in the book I was reading, so, kismet, right? So I gave you a helpful little screenshot.

I am correct that you have not read Berkely, but rather some history of philosophy that mentions him aren't I?

All these lies aren't helping you, they just make you look weird, bitter, small and mad.

[Age]

You can use any example of my responses to you over the last 3 days.

LOL

But there is ABSOLUTELY NONE, which you would be BRAVE ENOUGH to BRING FORWARD and SHOW here is there?

You keep pretending like I don't answer your questions, even though I literally just did.

I do NOT keep PRETENDING ANY 'thing' here. I am just CHALLENGING you on what you SAY and CLAIM here.

you CLAIMED and KEEP CLAIMING you have done some 'thing' here, I am just CHALLENGING you to PROVE 'it'. So far you have FAILED, COMPLETELY.

This is exactly the Western Illiteracy problem I talked about in the OP!

And here we have one who is ONLY 'seeing', what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You can't even read and accept what is being written to you!

Here we have ANOTHER example of when one is completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES what they, currently, BELIEVE is true. Their OWN 'confirmation biases' TAKE OVER 'them', to ABSURD LEVELS. As this one is PROVING ABSOLUTELY True here.

You're just upset that you contradicted yourself.

LOL Here, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER CLAIM, but which, according to the past WILL NEVER provide absolutely ANY 'thing' to back up and support this CLAIM.


You asked questions. I answered some of them. You claim that I "absolutely" did not, which is observably false to anybody else.[/quote]

LOL ANOTHER CLAIM.

WHERE have I SAID absolutely ANY 'thing' like, 'you have ABSOLUTELY NOT ANSWERED ANY QUESTION I have ASKED'?

And, WHY will you NOT provide absolutely ANY PROOF that you ACTUALLY HAVE?

What are you SO, SO SCARED of here "wizard22"?

So you're being illiterate.

LOL

you say 'this' like it has ANY ACTUAL BEARING or RELEVANCE here.

You should pay more attention to what other people tell you, and their answers to your questions.

you are SO ILLITERATE here that you do NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that in a philosophy forum if you are going to MAKE CLAIMS, then WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF what you SAY and CLAIM could be partly or COMPLETELY False, Wrong, OR Incorrect.

And, it does NOT matter how MANY TIMES you CLAIM some 'thing', WITHOUT PROOF your words are, literally, YOUR OWN.

[Wizard22]

You seem to be very confused. Berkeley's argument is one of the most famous in all of philosophy, as such it gets referenced fairly often, including when other philosophers use some variant for some other purpose. I saw such a reference in the book I was reading, so, kismet, right? So I gave you a helpful little screenshot.

I am correct that you have not read Berkely, but rather some history of philosophy that mentions him aren't I?

All these lies aren't helping you, they just make you look weird, bitter, small and mad.

How am I confused?

Am I the one in a Literacy thread quoting 2nd hand sources as attributes of what an author originally said?

Oh, wait... that's you!

[Wizard22]

LOL Here, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER CLAIM, but which, according to the past WILL NEVER provide absolutely ANY 'thing' to back up and support this CLAIM.


You asked questions. I answered some of them. You claim that I "absolutely" did not, which is observably false to anybody else.

LOL ANOTHER CLAIM.

WHERE have I SAID absolutely ANY 'thing' like, 'you have ABSOLUTELY NOT ANSWERED ANY QUESTION I have ASKED'?

And, WHY will you NOT provide absolutely ANY PROOF that you ACTUALLY HAVE?

What are you SO, SO SCARED of here "wizard22"?

So you're being illiterate.

LOL

you say 'this' like it has ANY ACTUAL BEARING or RELEVANCE here.

You should pay more attention to what other people tell you, and their answers to your questions.

you are SO ILLITERATE here that you do NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that in a philosophy forum if you are going to MAKE CLAIMS, then WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF what you SAY and CLAIM could be partly or COMPLETELY False, Wrong, OR Incorrect.

And, it does NOT matter how MANY TIMES you CLAIM some 'thing', WITHOUT PROOF your words are, literally, YOUR OWN.

Ah yes... I'm sooo "scared" to answer your question, which is what this is, which contradicts your main argument.

Why are you so scared of being literate??

[FlashDangerpants]

You seem to be very confused. Berkeley's argument is one of the most famous in all of philosophy, as such it gets referenced fairly often, including when other philosophers use some variant for some other purpose. I saw such a reference in the book I was reading, so, kismet, right? So I gave you a helpful little screenshot.

I am correct that you have not read Berkely, but rather some history of philosophy that mentions him aren't I?

All these lies aren't helping you, they just make you look weird, bitter, small and mad.

How am I confused?

Am I the one in a Literacy thread quoting 2nd hand sources as attributes of what an author originally said?

Oh, wait... that's you!

I guess it's time for you to educate us. Tell us what Berkeley's argument against Locke was?

[Wizard22]

I guess it's time for you to educate us. Tell us what Berkeley's argument against Locke was?

Why would I indulge your bad habits?

You should read Berkeley...you just might learn something. But that's obviously beyond you.