That's not true. You can see it. You may or may not understand or agree with it, but you can definitely see that I addressed something you said. I quoted it verbatim.

In fact, I quoted you twice and complimented the clarity of the second quote.

:smile:

I would recommend Being You by Anil Seth. The best book I have read in this area.

↪Janus


That's not true. You can see it. You may or may not understand or agree with it, but you can definitely see that I addressed something you said. I quoted it verbatim.

In fact, I quoted you twice and complimented the clarity of the second quote. — creativesoul

Here's the "compliment:

If I say "This car is made of steel" this assertion can be publicly checked and confirmed or disconfirmed. If I say " This thought I'm having is about a car made of steel" this assertion is not publicly checkable and cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. — Janus


If that's all you meant, it's much more helpful - to me anyway - to understand you by saying that rather than the other stuff you said leading up to it. The above is easily understood.

That's one reason why I disagree with the position you're arguing for. — creativesoul

You haven't identified what "other stuff" I said and precisely what parts you disagree with. And then in this I've quoted above you say "it's much more helpful" and then go on to say "that's one reason why I disagree with the position you're arguing for" but it's not clear what you disagree with or what your reason for disagreement is. Murky!

A tree does not consist of sense. — creativesoul

This is the one clear disagreement, and it's not with anything I said. I referred to objects of sense, meaning publicly available objects which may be seen, examined and their characteristics described by anyone. A tree is an example of such an objects, but I nowhere said or implied that such objects "consist of sense".