That certainly wasn't a signal that I wished to be dragged back into this nonsense. Rather, I was questioning why the discussion is still continuing. DingoJones and Terrapin, both of whom have been continuing the argument, are sensible enough guys, and funnily enough they both seem to strongly disagree with you. Like I said, the problem seems to lie with you here. The rest of us are in broad agreement.

Boredom.

I know the feeling. It's dead here at work so we had a game of trowel ball. It's a bit like table tennis, only without the table, and with trowels instead of bats.

Lol, amazing.
I more meant bored in the context of this forum. There is nothing much that interests me currently, and this Tim Wood guy is perfectly representative of the vastly sub par interactions common here so Im here, trying in vain to get something past the wall of hubris and dim understanding. I feel like if I can get through that thick skull, something like peace in the middle east or convincing the worlds corporate masters to chill the fuck out will be childs play.

Like I said, the problem seems to lie with you here. The rest of us are in broad agreement. — S

Thank you for the straight line; I'll just let it go, though.

Did you not see my invitation to you to educate me?

You are being idiotic, dont you want to learn how? — DingoJones

See? Are you waiting for the rainy season to end?

Common language is how it really works for understanding what "seeing" refers to. — Terrapin Station

Yes. Uncritically. But that isn't the question. That is and has been how you see a tree. What actually do you see? And so forth. Or, someone plays a trumpet. Of course we hear it in terms of common language. But do you suppose if folks left it at that you'd ever hear a recording of a trumpet? Certainly not; someone had to ask and answer just what it meant and what was really happening when you "heard" the trumpet. And of course at a first cut, and analogously with light, incident on your ears is a rapid succession of changes in air pressure - sound "waves," recognized somehow by your ear and turned into signals your brain then converts into that which for you corresponds to "hearing the trumpet."

Common language indeed does get a lot of the world's work done, But it's use beyond the limits of its capacity to represent reality is just an exercise in ignorance.

I write what I "mean" without beating around the bush, so when I say, "I'd be happy to continue the phil of perception discussion, but only if you answer the last post in the other thread, where I asked you a non-rhetorical question that I expected you to think about and directly respond to (via quoting something and filling in the blank)," I mean that.

It's up to you. If you're not interested enough in the discussion to do what you'd need to do for the other necessary party to continue, that's cool with me. I'm just letting you know the requirement.

""The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is ___________"

Where you're filling in the blank.

Is to take it. You take it by taking it. Is there more to this that you're looking for?

If you think that's acceptable, then you'd have no ground for saying that this isn't acceptable:

"The way that you perceive a tree, despite perception being a function of your mind is to see it. You see it by seeing it."

Is that acceptable?

If not, then we've got to fix our account of how we take a cookie.

"The way that you perceive a tree, despite perception being a function of your mind is to see it. You see it by seeing it." — Terrapin Station

I have never, if memory serves, asked how you perceive a tree. The question is how you see it. Now I am under the impression you insist that you see the tree. And I 110% agree that in common language, that's what you do. But we're not in common language. Common language does not account for the how; it just acknowledges that you do. The question to you is for what your account is of what is actually happening that leads to your reporting that you see a tree. if you can manage that, we may be able to move on.

But to be sure, you don't see the tree, and the sky isn't blue.

I have never, if memory serves, asked how you perceive a tree. — tim wood

That's fine. Just change it to:

"The way that you see a tree, despite seeing being a function of your mind, is to see it. You see it by seeing it."

Is that acceptable?

That's fine. Just change it to:
"The way that you see a tree, despite seeing being a function of your mind, is to see it. You see it by seeing it."
Is that acceptable? — Terrapin Station

How can it be, if it is uninformative in exactly the area where information is being sought. But never mind that. What is your account of how the phenomenon of seeing the tree works?

What I am driving towards here is that your division of subjective/objective crashes on this rock - as I have described already a few times.

How can it be, if it is uninformative in exactly the area where information is being sought. — tim wood

You said that the way you take a cookie is by taking it. You take it by taking it.

Isn't that what you just said above?

Is that "informative in exactly the area where information is being sought?"

Here it is, at least in one instance:

I agree with you that there is no objective truth and no need for objective truth. I don't agree with your take on what "objective" refers to. I also don't agree that objective (external to mind) things are inaccessible. — Terrapin Station

I can see that "objective truth" and "objective" are not quite the same thing, but the question raised is yet unanswered: absent "objective truth," how do you know anything is objective?

You said that the way you take a cookie is by taking it. You take it by taking it.

Isn't that what you just said above?

Is that "informative in exactly the area where information is being sought?" — Terrapin Station

I asked you for further guidance if you were looking for more - are you looking for more?

But this is becoming nonsensical. Answer straight. Common language allows that you "see" a tree: is that in fact an accurate account of what happens?

absent "objective truth," how do you know anything is objective? — tim wood

Two things here. One, re the general discussion, I'm not going to have it with you if you don't systemically go through the deal with the taking etc. analogies. I'm bringing that up for a reason (that I also can't just give, because it won't work for the purposes I have if we don't go through it a la a Socratic dialogue).

Aside from that, re the question in relation to me saying I agree that there is no objective truth, I already wrote a response to you about this earlier in the other thread. It was a response that you didn't respond to in turn. Here's a link to it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/301585

But this is becoming nonsensical, Terrapin. Answer straight. Common language allows that you "see" a tree: is that in fact an accurate account of what happens? — tim wood

As to the cookie, I simply have no idea what you're looking for, and I have given you the most accurate answer I can think of. I have asked you twice for clarification - apparently that doesn't interest you. And maybe you'll answer the question to you outstanding now for about three pages, two threads, and that you have not paid attention to, other than to dismiss.

Answer straight. Common language allows that you "see" a tree: is that in fact an accurate account of what happens?

And maybe you'll answer the question to you outstanding now for about three pages, two threads, and that you have not paid attention to, other than to dismiss. — tim wood

This is the way I'm answering it. Either you play along or I don't participate.

First, if what you gave me is "the most accurate answer you can think of," then you should be fine with "The way you see a tree is that you see a tree. You see it by seeing it," if that's the most "accurate" answer that someone can think of.

But at any rate, I explained in more detail. I'll do so again. With a simpler question to follow.

When you take a cookie, it's something that your arm/hand does. Does that mean that taking a cookie is actually just your arm/hand, and it doesn't involve something that's not your arm/hand?

I don't participate. — Terrapin Station

Then don't participate.

Did you not see my invitation to you to educate me? — tim wood

You have already had it explained, the problem is you aren’t getting it. Do you admit you might be confused here? am I wasting my time trying to tell you how?

You have already had it explained, — DingoJones

What is it with you people? You dance around and dance around and never get to it, but after dancing around for a while you claim you did, but you never did. I invited you to educate twice, now a third time, and you haven't paid that "the cold respect of a passing glance."

By example consider Terrapin's most recent.

When you take a cookie, it's something that your arm/hand does. Does that mean that taking a cookie is actually just your arm/hand, and it doesn't involve something that's not your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station

If he had bothered to read he could have found this in my original answer:

"The way." I shall take that to mean how. Pace, neurobiologists: my brain, processing a lot of perceptions and internal states, orders my muscles to move in certain ways the result of which language easily describes as taking, yes? — tim wood

See the last part in italics, my brain? That's what I think he's looking for, but he cannot be bothered to either read or clarify, on three requests.

There are some things you-all are wrong about, even as to consistency in your own thinking. Did you-all think to harass me into agreeing you were right? Too much mendacity in the world already!

So it's a game. Never reply, just be as annoying and as dense as possible. Well, I remind myself that even at my age I have a life, and it's not to waste with uncivil, willfully ignorant whatever-you-all-are. Go read some Kant, Go read some Hume, Go read some Berkeley, go read some commentaries, do a little research and googling. Bye.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

I invited you to educate twice, now a third time, — tim wood

And that I'd do, but a requirement, as a student, is that you do the assignments. Otherwise you get an F.

See the last part in italics, my brain? That's what I think he's looking for, — tim wood

Nope. I'm literally asking you a question about whether taking a cookie is actually just your arm/hand, since it's something your arm/hand are doing, and whether it thus doesn't involve something that's not your arm/hand (namely, a cookie, where the cookie is different than your arm/hand)?

An answer to that is that in your view, it actually IS something that's only your arm/hand--there's no "cookie" that's different than your arm hand, or it isn't something that's only your arm/hand--there actually is a cookie that's different than your arm/hand.

I am truly glad to see the defense of illegal drug use has gone in a such a creative and abstruse direction. And that wasn't me being facetious.

It is immoral as it is not in keeping with accepted standards of social behavior. I don't think that it is unethical, though. A person's own depravity can only become unethical when it has an effect on others. There is nothing wrong with doing illegal drugs. There is only something that can be wrong with what people do because they use illegal drugs. Erowid ought to be more sincere, and, the drug community should consider that people should be more responsible with illicit substances. There is nothing inherently wrong with having "vices", there is only that having them hazards that a person may be more inclined to do wrong. People really shouldn't let themselves go by the way of narcotics. Doing them is fine, however. Everyone ought to be able to injest whatever they so please.

I honestly think that people don't really care to do as many illegal drugs as they believes themselves to. You only want to shoot heroin once. You would prefer to smoke opium with a little bit of hash, and, so, should wait until you find yourself in the situation in order to do so. You don't care to drink vodka, and, would prefer to drink gin and tonics when you go out. You should drink Miller High Life in the glass bottle at the bar if you drink cheap beer. It's a better drunk than anything else. The Spaten will have been there for too long. You only want to get high once a week or so. You'd prefer to drink tea to coffee, but, no one ever makes the switch. You don't really need to put pot in your tea. It just makes you suspect that there is dope in the pot. You only want to do ecstasy a couple of times when you're younger. You should just do it at the few raves and make sure to chew gum and drink water. The social ecology of coke users is what makes the substance so problematic. The culture of cocaine is just terrible and no person wants to be a part of it. You also only want to do coke a couple of times. You should just wait until it's around and someone else wants to share. If you're going to buy coke, you should only buy good cocaine. There is no reason to do poor cocaine. It just makes people irritable. You should prepare if you're going to use LSD. I would do it in a field and be sure to have the whole day. You only care to do that a couple of times. The same goes for mushrooms. Meth is just unpleasant. Meth is just what you don't want in your ecstasy. There is no reason to do meth. By your late mid-20s you will have become bored with drugs. You will only want to drink craft beer and smoke pot on occasion by then. Four beers is really enough beers. Smoking pot once a week is all that any person really cares to do. As tempting as they might be, you probably don't really care to venture into pills or experimental drugs unless you know someone who is really like Alexander Shulgin. It is unlikely that any person does. As feeble as it may sound, there really is nothing that feels better than a real runner's high. The purpose of doing drugs is to better experience the world. You really don't need them. If you do want to do them then you should keep that in mind. I feel like if everyone considers all of these things than there would be no real issue with doing drugs at all. Narcotics ought to be legalized and people ought to use them responsibly. Having sense about a substance does not need to make doing it boring. People should take drugs for the experience and to have fun. There is no reason to do them otherwise.

You can drink White Russians and Moscow Mules on occasion. You probably don't want to buy bourbon and should just wait to throw down for some decent scotch. I just take a shot of Jameson to celebrate. You just don't really need to drink hard liquor. You do probably want to quit smoking, but, who knows when that will happen. I smoke Marlboro Reds in the soft pack because I tend to smoke less of them. I would just buy expensive cigarettes. There is no reason to buy Pall Malls. That's how you end up smoking two packs a day instead of one. Pulling the filter off of a Pall Mall is not like smoking a Lucky Strike. Smoking a Lucky Strike is like smoking a Lucky Strike. I still don't see why they don't sell Lucky Strike filters in the States. I would probably smoke those if they offered them here. The blue pack of the Turkish 555's are probably the best cigarettes that you will find. Good luck finding the right ones, though. I think that you can only get them in Turkey. If you smoke in the bar, you should try to go outside for a cigarette when you smoke one. It really does help to cut down on chain smoking and keeps the bar less filled with smoke. Being cognisant of others while smoking actually really helps to cut down on it. I'd like to smoke 10 a day instead of 15 or so, but, who knows when I will get to that point. I'll probably cut back once I get a car and start walking again. Activities also help to cut back. If you already don't smoke, don't pick it up. Do turn down the cigarette at the party. Smoking the cigarette at the party is how everyone starts smoking. You might get away with smoking a Djarum Black, but, it's pointless to now that they banned the cloves. It's really not the same.

Sorry to triple post, again. I just think that this is good advice.

I would recommend just also drinking High Life in the glass bottle, but, you could be prone to buy 12 of them. I think that Red Stripe and Fat Tire are pretty good. Just get a six pack if you're drinking by yourself. You might really want to save those two or three beers for later. Dogfish head 60 minute is really better than the 90 minute, but, I'm not much of an IPA guy. You've gotta get the IPA from the craft brewery on draft. There's no real reason to drink IPAs otherwise. You really don't need the extra 2-3%.

Pilsner Urquell is pretty good, but, I can't see throwing down for it on the reg. If you really want to drink good beer, you'll have to go to a place that serves them on tap. I think that I remember having an Einbecker that I really liked. It might have been the Pilsner. The brewery had another beer that I really liked, but, can't remember the name of. I actually kind of like Chimay Bleue if you feel like dropping 9-10 dollars on a beer and aren't around an independent brewery.

Craft brews can be fun to try as well. You honestly really do only want to get two of them unless you're out with friends.

I've just begun to ramble and apologize for this. Anyone can respond to whatever.