I'm quite unconvinced we can make any kind of claim like this, and is principally why I can't get on too much with Kant (along with his boiling-down to God for his fundamental conclusions, in terms of regression). — AmadeusD

Good point. This article on Causality of Hume and Kant has a through explanation on the concept.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

The OP's point was to explore the claim from Hume and Kant, our perception need external objects or excitement from the objects on our minds to operate. The OP is trying to argue that this claim is not necessarily true. Because there are cases that human perception operates even without external objects existing or external excitement on the mind (like Kant's claim). We perceive non-existence objects at times without any objects existing in front of us.

The OP's purpose of argument is to prove a possibility of another mechanism of mind which operates behind the scene being able to perceive the non-existence objects, which can offer explanation of the workings of causality, space and time and other metaphysical entities.

I don't think we can make this claim, because sans experience of an object without human perception, we have nothing to go on. It may be (as I think I lean) that human minds are literally empty at inception. We learn concepts through having them foisted on the mind. There's no reason to thinkt he mind is incapable of assenting to a concept like space, given it could not function without it, in the world (this, obviously, assumes space as a facet of reality outside of minds - which I think is uncontroversial, myself). — AmadeusD

I was trying to understand points in the passage here, but I couldn't. I am not sure if it is linguistic structure or the philosophical point which are complex and abstract.

What do you mean by "sans experience of an object without human perception, we have nothing going on"?

Human perception is always operational even in sleep according to the posters' and my own experiences. The only time human perception stops is when mind falls into unconsciousness, and when the body dies.

I am not sure if mind keeps working after death of the body, but no one alive had been dead, hence no one can certify on the mystery of mind after death.

It may be (as I think I lean) that human minds are literally empty at inception. We learn concepts through having them foisted on the mind. There's no reason to thinkt he mind is incapable of assenting to a concept like space, given it could not function without it, in the world (this, obviously, assumes space as a facet of reality outside of minds - which I think is uncontroversial, myself). — AmadeusD

Aren't some perceptions direct, and some indirect? It depends on the situations and also the objects of perception. Not all perceptions are direct, and not all are indirect. They are confused in thinking there are only one type of perception.

There are perceptions that we perceive the objects as they are (such as the objects which are accessible and possible to interact with, in which case perceptions of this kind could be described as direct), and there are objects that we perceive as our brain interprets from the sense data (which are not directly accessible and impossible to interact with), then perceptions on these objects are indirect.

Depending on the nature of the objects, we perceive and experience them in different way, not just direct realist way, or not just indirect realist way only.

The OP is trying to argue that this claim is not necessarily true. Because there are cases that human perception operates even without external objects existing or external excitement on the mind (like Kant's claim). We perceive non-existence objects at times without any objects existing in front of us. — Corvus

I understand/understood hte claim, and based on my own parochial understanding of Kant, my replies flowed. My responses (you'll perhaps see after this) are direct responses to that position). I think the premise is wrong and so the argument unneeded.

What do you mean by "sans experience of an object without human perception, we have nothing going on"? — Corvus

If we could, somehow, access an object in some way other than via the means of human perception (this appears metaphysically impossible - implicit in my wording), then we could compare the workings of both. But, we don't have that, so we can't make any 'a priori' claims. Though, it seems i meant "nothing to go on" apologies for that mis-step.

The only time human perception stops is when mind falls into unconsciousness — Corvus

Sleep is defined as a state of unconsciousness, making these claims a bit dubious to me. We lose consciousness every day, multiple times for most of us. If perception continues in this situation, we need to delineate between unconsciousness, and non-consciousness, which is what I think you mean to address, based on "unconsciousness" not doing the work you're wanting.

I think the final line of that post of yours is apt for the current convo too. No one knows what its like to be unable to perceive. That would be a perception. We are, therefore, unable to make claims about a prioris or hte nature of non-consciousness. I think...

Aren't some perceptions direct, and some indirect? — Corvus

I'm not quite sure how this para is responding to the quote it seems to respond to, so my reply might seem inapt:
No. All perceptions are indirect, on my reading, and when pressed, I think "direct realists" have to assent to the facts which lead me there. We just don't want to say the same things about it. But the image of a cup in your mind is patently, inarguable, not hte cup on the table - the same way a photograph is not, literally, the thing it represents. The rest can be argued ad infinitum, though, and I think that's where the confusion comes from. The DRists that think there's no argument literally hand-wave and ignore the discussion while asserting something so obviously wrong it's hard to engage.

there are objects that we perceive as our brain interprets from the sense data — Corvus

These are all objects, hence the above. I think you're talking about perceiving our interactions with objects, which appears direct. True, and its possible we are 'directly' touching the cup. But our perception is not of that interaction. It is a representation of it. Again, this may amount to a direct realist theory, but it doesn't seem like DRists are adequately grappling with these facts. I think you're describing imagination, which would not be direct as its a recall mechanism. It's indirect, as to the relevant 'data', the same way our mental image of the cup on the table is. In this sense, we donot have direct perceptual access to the cup. I don't think there is any empirical reason to doubt this conceptualisation - but how we deal with it is up for grabs, in some sense.

Again, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist: This doesn't mean Direct Realism is doa. It means its not what Searle etc.. childishly think they can simply assert without any decent argument. I have certainly stepped back from the fairly staunch position i took in response to Banno for this reason. I can't be doing the same thing he is, and claiming some kind of humility. I just think, as has been put forward elsewhere, the distinction is one of kind and not one of 'evidence'. I do not see the process of vision to perception as direct. He probably does. But, i put to him that the page on Perception and another (possibly Indirect Realism) on the SEP conflict with each other, when he wanted to use the former's conclusion (which isn't supported by it's article) as some kind of support for his position. It was more hand-waving.

we perceive and experience them in different way, not just direct realist way, or not just indirect realist way only — Corvus

I don't think we have any grounds to say we have different modes of perception. Our mind works the way it works. We don't have two systems of data processing. We ahve one, and multiple sources of data. Though, I find it hard to say memory counts as anythign more than weak sense data from prior experience.

I understand/understood hte claim, and based on my own parochial understanding of Kant, my replies flowed. My responses (you'll perhaps see after this) are direct responses to that position). I think the premise is wrong and so the argument unneeded. — AmadeusD

You need to explain why the premise is wrong. You cannot just say something is wrong without giving out the reason why. If there is no argument on your claim, then it is not a philosophical claim.

If we could, somehow, access an object in some way other than via the means of human perception (this appears metaphysically impossible - implicit in my wording), then we could compare the workings of both. But, we don't have that, so we can't make any 'a priori' claims. Though, it seems i meant "nothing to go on" apologies for that mis-step. — AmadeusD

But why would you do that? I don't think anyone was saying to access an object in some way other than via the means of human perception. You need to explain further on this.

Sleep is defined as a state of unconsciousness, making these claims a bit dubious to me. — AmadeusD

Sleep is not a state of total unconsciousness. Your body is fully functional in the biological level while asleep. And even mentally you are not totally unconscious. If you are totally unconscious, then you wouldn't know when to get up, or hear the loud scream or shouting telling you get up time to go to work.

In sleep, you are still perceiving the part of your bodily states, so you feel comfort or discomfort, and you are perceiving your dreams in the dream world, even if you might not be able to remember what your dream was about.

These are all objects, hence the above. I think you're talking about perceiving our interactions with objects, which appears direct. True, and its possible we are 'directly' touching the cup. But our perception is not of that interaction. It is a representation of it. — AmadeusD

You are grossly misunderstanding what I said. I never said that perception is interaction. What I said was that we can interact with some objects we perceive. We can also access the perceived objects directly i.e. I can open and close the book in front of me, I can read it. If it is an apple, you can see it, but also peel it, and eat it. This is the real perception. You read the real book, peel the real apple, and eat the real apple directly. You are not seeing and reading the book in front of you indirectly, but directly because it is touchable, visible and readable i.e. accessible and interactable.

But if you are seeing a new book in Amazon, you are only seeing the image of the book with some info about it. You are seeing the book indirectly. You are still seeing the book, but it is not the real book.

If you see apples in your neighbor's garden apple tree distance away, then you see the apples, but not quite sure what type of apples they are. They could be cooking apple, or could be red delicious. You don't know if they have bugs eaten the apple from the distance. You only have prehension of the apple. Then you would add some of your imagination on your perception of the apples, and perceive them. This could be called indirect realist's account of perception.

But I feel this division of DR or IDR arguments in perception is pointless and fruitless. Because as I said already there are different types of perception depending on the situation, the types of objects perceived, and human mind can be fed with the perceptual info in different ways via different sensory organs.

You read time from your watch or clocks, but you also perceive time via your stomach when you feel hungry in the mid afternoon, you know it is lunch time etc. Anyhow, I could go on with a plethora of examples, but I hope you get the point.

I don't think we have any grounds to say we have different modes of perception. — AmadeusD

I think we do. There are a plethora of different types of objects in the world for our perception. And our perception works in different ways for different objects in different situations. Sometimes we have to use microscopes, telescopes, radars, computers in order to perceive objects. Sometimes we just need a pair of bare eyes and ears to perceive. Sometimes we concentrate on the objects while perceiving, and other times we have flashing passing ideas and images for some new ideas, while walking or even in sleeping. It is a very rich and complicated system.

You need to explain why the premise is wrong. You cannot just say something is wrong without giving out the reason why. If there is no argument on your claim, then it is not a philosophical claim. — Corvus

I reject that this is what has happened. I've made some quite detailed posts about why the premise is wrong (on my view). If you reject those arguments, sure. But this charge is unwarranted as best I can tell.

You need to explain further on this. — Corvus

No, I don't. It's not an argument. It was a quip about the possibility of assessing whether certain claims can be settled, and the resulting position that they can't. This isn't something that needs debating. It's simply me pointing out that perceiving things in any other way is not possible. Unless you're suggesting it is....?

Sleep is not a state of total unconsciousness. — Corvus

It is defined as a state of unconsciousness. I have specifically delineated why this is unsatisfactory and given the term "non-conscious" to make sure we're clear on which type of "unconsciousness" we're referring to.

In sleep, you are still perceiving the part of your bodily states, so you feel comfort or discomfort, and you are perceiving your dreams in the dream world — Corvus

THis is hard to argue for. Plenty of times when we sleep its as if we blink. There are no intervening perceptions (unless you're saying that all un/subconscious activity is a perception?) To me perception relates to conscious perception, which, yes, is possible in sleep obviously, but need not be present. That said, I don't stand strongly behind this. It's more a technique for sorting out muddle concepts in this area.

If you are totally unconscious, then you wouldn't know when to get up, or hear the loud scream or shouting telling you get up time to go to work. — Corvus

"total" unconsciousness would be death, or what I've termed "non" consciousness, on these formulations. Maybe we're just talking past each other..

I never said that perception is interaction. — Corvus

I didn't intimate you did, and I'm having to do some serious work to figure out what assumptions got you there. Forgive if response seems inapt for that reason - its really confusing.

What I said was that we can interact with some objects we perceive. — Corvus

Yes, I very specifically accepted this.

We can also access the perceived objects directly i.e. I can open and close the book in front of me, I can read it. — Corvus

That is an interaction. Sorry bud. The touch, the sense of 'reading' etc... are sensory representations of those interactions (which could be direct). Perhaps you're not adequately applying what i'm saying to your view...

But if you are seeing a new book in Amazon, you are only seeing the image of the book with some info about it. You are seeing the book indirectly. You are still seeing the book, but it is not the real book. — Corvus

This is, seems maybe a naive way to describe this situation. The entire debate is about the fact that this probably isn't true, but some like to claim so. The book never touches your brain or mind. There is literally no direct access, in the usual sense of hte word direct, from your mind to the objects your mind presents to your consciousness. So, is 'direct' being used in a different way? Probably, and it's one that lends itself to those contradictory SEP articles running together and probbaly not contradicting each other, other than in terms.

This could be called indirect realist's account of perception. — Corvus

It couldn't, and it's not what any indirect realist I have ever read or interacted with would say, so again, I think you are plain wrong about what's being argued for here. The IRist is claiming that all sensory experience is secondary to the objects which have reflected the light which excited our visual system to provide data to our brain which decodes and creates an image. This (essentially inarguable) process puts a massive spanner in your account (though, that being to do with the positions, not really hte conclusions, for reasons outlined above).

ecause as I said already there are different types of perception depending on the situation — Corvus

I have gone over how this is patently not hte case, ignoring the IR/DR problem. I cannot see how you haven't simply ignored all of that here?

You read time from your watch or clocks, but you also perceive time via your stomach when you feel hungry in the mid afternoon, you know it is lunch time etc. Anyhow, I could go on with a plethora of examples, but I hope you get the point. — Corvus

I think this is entirely not supporting your point. Which I do get.

I think this is entirely not supporting your point. Which I do get. — AmadeusD

Again, your replies are just your personal claims saying my points are wrong, or you think it is not supporting my points. I am not seeing any philosophical arguments why my points are wrong and why not supported.

You need to give out your counter arguments on my points with some reasoning and evidence with your claims. If not, I cannot accept your claims as legitimate philosophical arguments.

You need to give out your counter arguments on my points with some reasoning and evidence with your claims. If not, I cannot accept your claims as legitimate philosophical arguments. — Corvus

This isn't my problem. If you utter something in defense of a position, and it does nothing for hte position, I have naught to do but point that out, if it is how I see it.
Maybe that is unsatisfying, but if your initial point was unsatisfying to me, we are at the same impasse. It is not for one of us to take a higher ground.

This isn't my problem. If you utter something in defense of a position, and it does nothing for hte position, I have naught to do but point that out, if it is how I see it. — AmadeusD

I wasn't saying anything is problem. I was just suggesting if you say some point is wrong in philosophical discussion, you need to supply good arguments with reasoning and evidence supporting your disapproval. I didn't see much of that from your replies apart from just you think the point is wrong. Hence I cannot further continue my arguments against your disapproval.

Not a problem for me. My points in the thread are inspired by a textbook called "Phenomenology and Logic" by R. S. Tragesser.

you need to supply good arguments with reasoning and evidence supporting your disapproval — Corvus

I really don't, though. You have an argument which, on my view, does not support your point. You're asking me to 'prove a negative' as it were. That wont be doable, even if you want it to be.

Your arguments did not go toward supporting your point. You need to do the work to connect htem, if you wish to.

I really don't, though. You have an argument which, on my view, does not support your point. You're asking me to 'prove a negative' as it were. That wont be doable, even if you want it to be. — AmadeusD

What are they? Exactly where do you mean? The OP and many of my posts are exploratory on the topic i.e. trying to learn about the topic and concepts, not really claiming one particular point. But now you say my arguments don't support my point. What was my point, and which of my argument did not support the point? and Why?

I am sorry if this comes off rude, but It feels like I have to explain this like you're a child (i really do not feel that you are, I just can't figure out what's being missed).

You read time from your watch or clocks, but you also perceive time via your stomach when you feel hungry in the mid afternoon, you know it is lunch time etc. Anyhow, I could go on with a plethora of examples, but I hope you get the point. — Corvus

I said this, particular argument, does not support your point. You claimed somehow the onus was on me to show that. It isn't. But neverhteless..

You then extended the charge to your entire post (which is silly, because I responded to other parts of it discreetly). I pointed out that I don't have to explain myself in pointing out your passage does not support your point. I see you to be now probably understand this could be the case, and want to know what you've missed. That's fair. But the onus isn't on me. I hope the below helps..

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell.

Further in support of why the above (your passage) might make sense, you're maintaining that because we have 'different types' of perception, that some are direct and some indirect. Unfortunately, this is really hard to respond to because it is, on it's face, ridiculous, and on inspection risible. Given that hte only example you have provided is obviously wrong, I don't think there's any space to push this back on me. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and I'm not seeing any of it. The distinction, theoretically, between IRists and DRists is clear, and not something that can be read-across by just assigning labels to things that don't come under those descriptions.

I am sorry if this comes off rude, but It feels like I have to explain this like you're a child (i really do not feel that you are, I just can't figure out what's being missed). — AmadeusD

Well, you are forgiven for going into Ad Hominem before even beginning your counter argument. I don't feel it is necessary in any decent philosophical discussions. Discussions can be undertaken without throwing yourself into the muddy dirt of getting into Ad Hominem, but some folks just can't help doing it as some sort of naughty juvenile habit.

I will go over your points, and will get back to them when I have some free time.

I said this, particular argument, does not support your point. You claimed somehow the onus was on me to show that. It isn't. But neverhteless..

You then extended the charge to your entire post (which is silly, because I responded to other parts of it discreetly). I pointed out that I don't have to explain myself in pointing out your passage does not support your point. I see you to be now probably understand this could be the case, and want to know what you've missed. That's fair. But the onus isn't on me. I hope the below helps.. — AmadeusD

Here again, you fail to explain why the examples don't support my point, but just keep repeating yourself that it doesn't support, and the onus isn't on you. I only asked to explain, because you claimed that those examples don't support my point. I wouldn't have asked you to explain, if you hadn't made the claim. It was just the way of the interaction. I was not demanding impossible tasks from you.

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell. — AmadeusD

Here, your arguments are just repeated negations instead of arguing why the examples don't support my point. I am still not seeing your argument, why those examples are not the type of perception.

Further in support of why the above (your passage) might make sense, you're maintaining that because we have 'different types' of perception, that some are direct and some indirect. Unfortunately, this is really hard to respond to because it is, on it's face, ridiculous, and on inspection risible. Given that hte only example you have provided is obviously wrong, I don't think there's any space to push this back on me. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and I'm not seeing any of it. The distinction, theoretically, between IRists and DRists is clear, and not something that can be read-across by just assigning labels to things that don't come under those descriptions. — AmadeusD

I was not pushing the points to you, but just telling you my opinion on the IR DRists arguments, because from my point of view, there are different type of perceptual situations, objects, modes and the way perception works for us. It is pointless to stipulate that perception works only for one way i.e. either IR or DR, because it is not the case when one reflects on the workings and the various different types of objects in the world we perceive.

So, no you are still not even one step closer to offering me a worthwhile counter argument against my point. As before you just repeated the groundless negations on my point with the ad hominem. I thought there might be some interesting counter arguments from your end this time, but it didn't take me even a minute to find out it is not the case.

You've responded in bad faith. That's to an extremely unfair version of what I've done/said. I pointed out to you that I see a need to communicate in a certain way because you are not understanding certain things (by your own admission), and that I don't actually think this reflects on you, and apologised ahead of time for how that may come across. I reject entirely your statement there and it seems to me that perhaps you are playing the man. Onward..

Here again, you fail to explain why the examples don't support my point — Corvus

You should probably read an entire post before responding. This looks, sorry to say, utterly preposterous now, given the below failures.

I was not demanding impossible tasks from you. — Corvus

Onerous tasks. Again, please stick with what's being said.

I am still not seeing your argument, — Corvus

I cannot understand how that has happened. Let me attempt to make this even clearer for you:

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell. — AmadeusD

This is an assertion to the contrary of your supporting point. That is an argument in response to a bare assertion that was obviously wrong. I then explain directly that the rest of the point can't even begin to support your point because you didn't provide anything (this, I hope, is not controversial. You literaaly refrained from giving anything further). Clear so far? So let's do even more grunt work.. As tied to the first bold, is the second and third bold. These are arguments. If you don't like them, that's fine and you're open to responding to them, but all three of these points directly go against your assertion. Given that you did not provide anything whatsoever to support the assertion beyond a bare claim that somehow hunger pangs are a perception of time (which I have directly addressed.. please do not ignore it). That assertion has no merit, and I've still addressed it directly. I am unsure what is being missed here, but it isn't on my part. I've provided a sound explanation for why what you've asserted isn't the case. Albeit, the three bolds are only coherent in their surrounding context - they represent nubs.

because it is not the case when one reflects on the workings and the various different types of objects in the world we perceive. — Corvus

It is, and your assertion otherwise is not credible. YOU need to do the work to give it credibility. That isn't my job in responding to you.

So, no you are still not even one step closer to offering me a worthwhile counter argument against my point. As before you just repeated the groundless negations on my point with the ad hominem. I thought there might be some interesting counter arguments from your end this time, but it didn't take me even a minute to find out it is not the case. — Corvus

It seems you're just ignoring most of what's being said. I am sorry if I have been genuinely unclear, but having used my own words without any addition to clarify in the above passages, I am extremely reticent to think that is the case.

You've responded in bad faith. That's to an extremely unfair version of what I've done/said. I pointed out to you that I see a need to communicate in a certain way because you are not understanding certain things (by your own admission), and that I don't actually think this reflects on you, and apologised ahead of time for how that may come across. I reject entirely your statement there and it seems to me that perhaps you are playing the man. Onward.. — AmadeusD

It sounds like a court or legal document rather than philosophical argument. I am not sure why anyone needs to read ad hominem filled with the groundless accusatory blames.

You should probably read an entire post before responding. This looks, sorry to say, utterly preposterous now, given the below failures. — AmadeusD

If you just write on the topic in the discussions faithfully based on reasoning, then you would have more chance of understanding the points.

This is an assertion to the contrary of your supporting point. That is an argument in response to a bare assertion that was obviously wrong. — AmadeusD

From the Phenomenological point, your whole body is the sensory organ. Even the Psychologist William James supports the point, but especially Samuel Todes and Hubert L. Dreyfus suggest the point as well in the book "Body and World".

Obviously you seem have read none of phenomenology, and just have the narrow view on perception believing that perception only works via seeing something.

I have given out a simple example with folks being able to tell rough time via feeling hunger pain when it is lunch time to suggest that your whole body is the sensory organ for your perception, and perception works with the whole of your body e.g. the skin feels hot and cold of the external temperature, as well as pains, itches.

Your stomach sends the neurological signal to your brain for its emptiness when it is time for the next meal, and brain can tell it is lunch or dinner time.

It is not just time which can be perceived via the bodily organs, but also space as well. If you put your hand into a hole, you can feel, and perceive the space in the hole. You don't need to see the emptiness of the space to feel, notice or perceive its existence. These were just simple examples of bodily perception which takes place via the bodily parts rather than just eyes and ears, which you seem to restrict yourself in understanding the way perception works.

It is, and your assertion otherwise is not credible. YOU need to do the work to give it credibility. That isn't my job in responding to you. — AmadeusD

It was such simple and clear examples with no much depth on its claim, hence if you extended your imagination and reasoning a little more, I would have thought you would understand and resonate what it meant.

It seems you're just ignoring most of what's being said. I am sorry if I have been genuinely unclear, but having used my own words without any addition to clarify in the above passages, I am extremely reticent to think that is the case. — AmadeusD

If you could be conscious of your writing style avoiding to sound like court or legal document, or a frustrated grumpy old folk telling off someone insisting the points are wrong or not supported without providing any reasons or ground, but just concentrate on giving out the philosophical arguments which clarify your points and grounds for your claims, then it would help coming to the conclusions and mutual agreements on the points.

Iam not sure why anyone needs to read ad hominem filled with the groundless accusatory blames. — Corvus

If you could be conscious of your writing style avoiding to sound like court or legal document, or a frustrated grumpy old folk telling off someone insisting the points are wrong or not supported without providing any reasons or ground, — Corvus

I am a legal professional. You will not be policing my 'style'. I am not going to engage further, because the underlined is utterly ridiculous. The bold, further, is both hypocritical, and an obviously bad-faith reading to detract from the fact I have actually made entirely substantial poitns that you have plainly missed. I even ran them back for you, in great detail, with direct links to your own words. Your ignorance abounds, in that regard. That is simply not my problem. It is yours, squarely. Take care.

I am not going to engage further, because the underlined is utterly ridiculous. — AmadeusD

It was just a metaphor or a literary expression. I hope you didn't misunderstand the expression was a statement against you.

Well, I was just suggesting you to bring more philosophical arguments rather than sounding like a court injunction with ad hominem. But obviously you seem to have taken the suggestion too personally. Not a problem. All the best.