it follows that, contrary to your claims, we do have reliable knowledge of distal objects. — Janus

It does not. Though, your point is a good one for less-discursive IRists.

e have reliable, certain in the relative but not certain in the artificial "absolute" sense, knowledge of external objects. — Janus

This seems to betray the idea that we have some 'direct' relationship with those objects, no?

I thank you, at least, for making this one easy to respond to:

Suffice to say, in response to your clear implications, nothing you've provided gives me anything new. It may be worth stepping back from the constant internal accusations you throw at people, which undergird many of your responses :) — AmadeusD

It's a farm hand specific stud horse programmes, to my knowledge.

Imagine a universe where not only is everything possible, but that all possibilities must be fulfilled before its natural conclusion. — Benj96

Is the Universe not existing a possibility, in this universe? ;)

I take this to be irrelevant. AS was the initial comment. Hence, hoping it was Jest given how loaded it was. No one denies the disabled can function, per se.

Suffice to say, in response to your clear implications, nothing you've provided gives me anything new. It may be worth stepping back from the constant internal accusations you throw at people, which undergird many of your responses :)

Blind, illiterate mutes can herd cows. You account seems a bit ableist... — Banno

I very much hope this is pure jest.

Can you not see that these are both wrong? We use the word "see" in both ways. — Banno

It is obvious neither are 'wrong'. They are unhelpful, when used in both ways. That's the entire incoherence of your account/s. You are attempting to use a concept to represent both opposing versions of that element of the account to which it could refer.

"to look" cannot be hte same thing as "to see". And using those phrases as they actually occur viz. looking is turning one's eyes to an object, and seeing is experiencing the mental representation caused by the light reflected from it - solves the disagreement. You have to just accept that your objection doesn't lie in the facts, but the form you prefer to use to describe it.

Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat through a reduction of fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. Despite claiming to assent to the scientific evidence, delayers tend to downplay the climate change threat by assuming unrealistic, low-end projections of climate change, denying the reality of key climate change effects, and employing lowball estimates of the costs of those impacts.

This is a really smart way to make it quite clear that you have no patience for disagreement, and prefer alarmist 'I'm right' type arguments to enforce actions that make you personally feel better.
Weird way to approach science.

However, with food, every now and then someone serves up something that is rancid. In such cases, we are no longer talking about different combinations of taste buds or brain chemicals - such food is almost universally foul to almost anyone's taste buds. — jasonm

This isn't really distinguishable from events lower down the spectrum. Some people can't be in the same room as fish. There's nothing per se that separates these two examples, and so the thrust of the OP seems a bit misguided.
I'd say you've correctly summarized ethics, and shied away from giving us your moral framework into which that might feed. It's hard to know whether there's something to be objected to in your post.

Is anyone truly positing that the screen infront of me is part of my experience?

This went somewhere weird.

Can someone explain why the level of political discussion, generally, in America, is akin to Twitter users making up funny names for their teachers?

Imaginary friends aren't perceived. — Pierre-Normand

Then nothing is perceived.

I believe i understand what you're trying to point out, but this is not shown by what you claim to be showing support for the claim in that comment, though. It's not even partially relevant.
That some people have bad eyesight does nothing for the previous, lets call it 'layer of indirectness' posited by the IRist. A bad camera also receives bad data, and constructs a bad image. It does not perceive anything.

An indirect realist would argue that imaginary friends are directly perceived but real friends are only indirectly perceived. — Luke

Because that's clearly true.

That we see illusions shows that we do not see the world exactly as it is; but it does not show that we never see the world. Nor does it show that what we see is not the world, but something else caused by the world.

That is those who advocate for indirect realism on this basis are grasping more than the situation will allow. That we sometimes see the world as other than it actually is does not imply that we never see the world as it is. — Banno

Its pretty astounding that these two utterances are included in the same person's account. If A is true, B is not possible. We cannot see the world as it is, if "we do not see the world exactly as it is". Your use of 'exactly' is doing 100% of the lifting. And nothing's off the ground.

How do you deal with that problem? — frank

I Simply see no problem.
They are all inferences. Its hte best description. It may not have an actual answer.

We see the tree by constructing a representation of the tree. Hence, we see the tree. — Banno

Can you think of any other circumstance in which this (imo, quite squarely incoherent) claim could be held?

Indirect realism is the prevailing view of our time. I think the contemporary direct realist is trying to steer clear of the problems associated with it? — frank

Im not sure that's true - and I was to quote the Phil Survey response Banno did, so there we go. Banno's explanation of why seems convenience to me, but it's better than anything else put forward in here, imo.

If that is what they modern DRist is trying to do... ha..hah?

According to you, all we have direct access to and thus direct knowledge about is mental representations. — creativesoul

This is, patently, true. This is the crux, and the thing no one has even attempted to surmount, in their attempt to explain 'direct' realism. It then turns out that the conception is in fact, that we receive light directly from the outside of our body.
Sure. That does nothing for the competing theories. Hence, certain levels of "wtf bro".

substitute whatever metaphor you’d like :) the idea being merely “below the surface; oft ignored”

I certainly do not. But this is not a surprising response, at all. Aligns with my understanding of you entirely :)

I like you, though.

I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.

Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though. — Chet Hawkins

I don't think you're really understanding much of what anyone is saying to you, most of the time.
You certainly haven't understood the vast majority of what I've thrown your direction.

You've not explained anything adequately.

We may be in the minority, but that is utterly absurd. LOL

We are moral agents. Animals are not. We make laws regulating our behaviors on the assumption we can rise above our primal instincts. Eating meat is probably immoral and I shouldn't do it, but I just don't get that upset about it, and I don't want to give it up. I think future generations are going to judge us harshly for how we've treated animals over the years, and if aliens came down and started eating us, we could hardly complain. — RogueAI

You may enjoy this film for a bit of fun. I disagree with you, and hte film, however.

:snicker: :snicker:

Nice.

The idea that all other animals are able to prey upon their weaker fellow animals and that Humans are especially to side-step this, is infantile nonsense to my mind.
Our higher level of understanding does nothing to this.
I have never heard even a reasonable argument for anything other than following one's internal comfort-metre when it comes to animal consumption.

The way in which animal products are sourced?? Well. That's a can of seytan I wont open.

Something about it all feels so tantalizing yet elusive and for that reason it seems also so fake. — substantivalism

Do you mean moralising in general? If so, I agree.

not some truth but another delusion through which to carve the world up once more. Something about it all feels so tantalizing yet elusive and for that reason it seems also so fake. — substantivalism

I believe this will always be hte case with moralising. It's paradigmatic.

Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion. — Chet Hawkins

THis is a neat little microcosm of hte senselessness of most of your writing. Unsure whether that reflects on your positions though, because it's so unclear.

Mary Midgely is quite the Mental Midget. — Lionino

A brief overview of what she attempted would have gleaned this apparent fact. Her protestations just make her points all the more poor, given that they are actually points which can be well-argued in the right places.
Her conceptualisation of Philosophy in general as 'the plumbing beneath ideas' is hilariously applicable to most of her views. They are bad, and when you pull up the floorboards, they aren't even sensible.

:ok:

A Catholic Hangover me thinks, for Leontiskos.

Ironic.

Or it could be considered a discontinuity: you are being destroyed and a new entity, an exact physical copy, is being produced. I tend to think there's no right answer; all answers are paradigm dependent. — Relativist

Well, as it is, that is how i conceptualise teletransportation.
My point was that the resulting person is psychologically continuous, and psychologically connected extremely strongly with you - to the point that no one but your original 'self' could be as connected.

Unless you take the Physical continuity, or further fact view, It doesn't seem like anything is being left out of the transmission. You're right that your paradigm informs how to think about the case, but it seems straight-forward to point out what is and isn't involved in these cases (branch-line case being an additional thing to ponder, and other versions). In this way, it seems clear that there are 'correct' ways to interpret the cases on each view
Parfit concludes that the above is all that matters and that 'personal identity' simply doesn't obtain, at all. He's a pretty harsh reductionist.

That they clearly either haven't, or are being pretended as not read and understood.
It's hard for people to squirm away from quotes. I've had to eat em a few times :)

Obviously, its by society. A mischievous fellow who follows your every move who transcended the plurality of the many to confine itself it to your head to critically examine every action or step taken. Perhaps with a gritty or dark monologue or two. Its obviously not you because the big "M", Morality, isn't owned by any one person? — substantivalism

I'm not really sure I'm making of all this (despite noting its probably in Jest).

If 'society' is the light, then its merely mob rule. Morality isn't owned by anyone. It's a free-floating ideal which alters person-to-person and is used internally to guide one's behaviour. Social 'morality' is just "Oh, most of us agree so here's a policy. Nice".

No. If you don't want to be the kind of person that does X, then by definition you deem X immoral. — Leontiskos

Jesus Christ. No.
There are simply things I find unbecoming, and not immoral. Aesthetic disagreement is not moral. I don't want to wear bright Orange pants, or be the kind of person who would do so. Doesn't mean anyone who does is even on my bad side.

I'm neither as cynical, or as bothered, it seems haha.

Not sure what you want me to glean from an opinion piece asserting several faulty claims... in the Guardian. Let's just cut through it:

"To date, I’ve not encountered any direct racism or sexism in academia..."

Nice.

You're both being weird.

Either quote the words, so NOS can respond to them or continue talking past each other :)

she may not be wrong about how the hegemony of the solitary white male has mislead philosophy. — Banno

She probably is, though, given this is 2024 and not 1954.

but that of the divinity which some appear to establish a relationship with. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely. Almost all non-white-male philosophy prior to 1900 was in the exact same mode as best I can tell, just different values.. All heading towards relationship with the divine.

At least Mikie keeps his unhinged insulting crap to the Lounge. Probably hte only reason there hasn't been other-mod intervention with his absolutely appalling behaviour.

I haven't even read your posting, just saw the name and ears pricked up.
Always good to see locals about :)

I agree with the final line. But i think there are ways around it - much less cynical than Du Plessis-Allan.

Rather an obscure source for this arena.

Are you a Kiwi?