I really appreciate you putting in the time and effort for this response!! Thorough, despite some of my views below. Good stuff Constance :)

Hmm, It feels like you have explained this as if you're talking to a fellow-Continental who already takes most of these premises (and the pedastal-ing of language above reality). If that is not the case, I apologise as some of this will seem dismissive (but that would make sense if the above is true!)
In that case, I would hazard a suggestion that it's possible your grasp on these things is less clear than you feel it is - being unable to clarify it for another. Please also note that the types of responses I am likely to pen here are not new. These ideas have been around a lot time, and people much, much smarter, better read, and better-spoken that I have made similar points. Rejecting these kinds of approaches is not new, and I am not in bad company doing so. I would appreciate some charity here. I will try my best to reply as I go through with reference, as best as I can keep it, to your actual writing here.

1. Make a qualified Cartesian move. One is not affirming the cogito as the ground for all possible affirmations. In fact, Descartes made a fundamentally bad move: there is no thinking unless there is thinking about something. So the indubitability of the cogito extends to the world of objects. — Constance

This doesn't bode well. You've opened what should be a fairly clear unpacking of a single phrase with a lot of theorizing (much of which appears to be linguistically muddled?) As an example, I asked you to explain an esoteric and apparently nonsensical line. You have returned the underlined. Which requires the same treatment i've asked for. I have bolded words you can swap out for something simpler, assuming you understand the concepts well enough to do so. As a result of however you've decided to answer this, it is completely opaque as to what I've asked you explain. Onward..

Think of the world as an event. Is perception a mirror of the world?(assume the rest of the point is included.. just don't want to clutter the reply) — Constance

I am sorry to say, but this entire paragraph comes through illogical, baseless and essentially just an assertion using words wrong (i will quote one passage at the end of this chunk to treat). "the basic science of what this is about" is a total misnomer, and leapfrogs several un-settled philosophical problems by hand-waving away the idea that the mind cannot apprehend objects in the world. This is clearly a jump-to-conclusion, because your preferred position requires it. I think you would need to be committed to a form of absolute idealism for that particular problem to obtain and be an obstacle in the science of perception.

it is not even remotely possible that this in my head (and this is a physicalist's science, the kind of thing we are educated to understand) reaches out to apprehend that tree out there. — Constance

This, ironically, embodies precisely the language games that result in intractable problems in philosophy. No, it is not "not even remotely possible" that "this in my head"(what are you even referring to here? Are you going homonculus? That'll need explaining) reaches out to apprehend X object. That is the nature of consciousness whether or not we understand how, that clearly is what is happening (unless you're Dennett and deny qualia). Even if we're in a simulation, that is what the consciousness code is doing - picking out items rom the environment for internal reflection, whether accurate or not (though, if we get into Noumena, we're fucked lmao).

that observation is part of the constitution of what is witnessed. This is a very old ide — Constance

Yes, this is empirically true. Not a philosophical point.

I simply cannot even imagine anything more opaque than a brai — Constance

Thats a ridiculous position that seems designed to make people laugh at you. I am sorry for that, but that's how it comes across. It's click-bait for philosophers.

an honest account of what stands before me reveals the ordinary perceptual conditions of things being outside of myself, apart from me, at a distance over there, is not something that can be dismissed — Constance

What? You seem to be using less clear and far more complex ideas to try to explain what was relatively simply, but unclear idea. I'm lost on how you're thinking here has worked...

Because the whole point is to understand the world, and the the world is simply given to us with these divisions and differences. — Constance

The 'whole' point of what? If that is the 'whole point' of something, I have to say you're making it extremely difficult to even begin to get onto a reasonable train of thought about it. It seems like your premise is just "this shit is hard, to lets throw some big words into vaguely coherent sentences lifted from thinkers I admire aesthetically". Again, I apologise - that's what comes across. Not "How i read you". I really am trying to glean things from your writing - I appreciate the time an effort. I guess one problem is nothing you've said is new to me. It's slightly more 'garbled' versions of the writers you're aping - Witty, Heidegger, Schop etc..

So all this critical thought — Constance

I would disagree that's what it is (though, i realise it is intended, and acts, as a critique).

the relation between ourselves and the world to understand the "what it is" that is there — Constance

Again, you would need to explain this to me like i'm five, with no words above a .20c benchmark, tbh. As it's written, this is a non sequitur that I have to ignore to get through the para.

This is the phenomenological approach. E.g, you see a brain and witness a patient undergoing a fully conscious surgical procedure so the scalpel does not remove important tissue. — Constance

I realise you didn't finish this though, so charitably, this is three things that don't cohere into a point, though I can see a few ways they could.

things turn up that were entirely unseen — Constance

This is the case on the physicalist's understanding of perception also. Several obvious examples like shadow perception (real shadows, not internal ones).

If my faculties, call them, actually constitute the relation of a knowledge event, then what is the most visible feature if this? — Constance

As best I can tell, this is not a grammatically coherent question. Your 'faculties' are repped by what? "the relation of a knowledge event"... What? "a knowledge event" is? "relation of" that is??
You need to boil these things down about eight levels lower than you're currently talking about them to explain them to a five year old. I would reiterate not using constant expensive words, and using plain language instead. It feels like you're lifting half-understood phrases from those writers and then attempting to elaborate, and so losing whatever meager point was there to begin with as it is.

I look at my cat, and all sorts of knowledge claims are implicit, "claims" not explicit in the looking, but are there, stabilizing the event, creating a general familiarity, and this stabilizing feature is time, and time's phenomenological analysis reveals issues about the present in the past-future dynamic of theevent of perceiving. — Constance

This is the exact kind of meaningless word salad that I've been dismissive of. This does not explain anything at all other than to illustrate that perhaps you have trouble assimilating your thoughts when looking at your cat. There are claims on claims on claims on claims on claims that you seem to think are clear to others. They are not. I have asked for hte simplest possible version of these points (apologies if the "like i'm five" meme didn't land that way for you - that was what I wanted).

Long story short, the present SHOULD NOT exist, is one way to put this. — Constance

Seems a rather extreme non sequitur - might be the result of you barely touching what needed to be explained to me.

Every time I look up and take on the world in this way or that, I am informed by "the potentiality of possiblities" that my enculturated self carries with it into various environments, as when I walk into someone's kitchen and already know everything about knives, sinks, cabinets, etc. THIS is what constitutes the knowing of the world, this potentiality of possibilities that spontaneously rises to identify the world! — Constance

Wheres the heads, where's the tails? It's just circular word games. I can even understand exactly what's being gotten at here, and still note that its circular, only carries weight in and of itself, linguistically. It does nothing in terms of clarifying any other claims. Again, this may be a failure of simplicity on your part, making it very hard to connect this to earlier points.

This presence of the world is the foundation of our existence and that of all things, and yet the perceiving of this presence is impossible. — Constance

This is utter garbage, sorry. There is literally nothing that be done with this line that isn't pulling it apart.

Yet there it is, in full color and intensity, and this goes to ethics and value. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus for the inspired insight that ethics and aesthetics is transcendental. — Constance

Non sequitur. Reference to book that is horribly written, and worse-conceived (on my view) - and is in my bag right now. Just to be clear, I know where these things come from. The original was bad - I was hoping a clarification would ensure, but it seems you're just using reference to explain your references. Odd.

Because they reveal something in the events of the events of our lives that is outside of the knowledge grid of our existence. — Constance

Once again, not sufficiently clear or simple. I also thing they don't do a thing close to what Witty suggests. But that's another disagreement..

This is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence. — Constance

Suffice to say I am less clear now as to what you're referring to.

(the world is mystical, says Witt — Constance

And this is exactly why his writings are confused, psychobabble. He doesn't understand much, and proceeds from there. "mystical" is a placeholder for "I don't get it". Hegel has this same problem.

It seems to me that the distinction between direct and indirect realism is useless. Would you say that you have direct or indirect access to your mental phenomenon? — Harry Hindu

Direct - there is nothing between my mind and itself. That's the nature of the distinction. I have direct access to my experiences. Not their causes.
It might not 'mean much' out there in the world, but in terms of the discussion we're having its the central, crucial thing to be understood. So, I reject your opener on those grounds. But i acknowledge that for a certain kind of philosopher, this is going to look like a couple of guys around a pub table arguing over the blue/white black/gold dress. I disagree is all :)

How did scientists come to realize how pain works and that our experience of it is incorrect if all they have to go by is their own observations which you are calling into question? — Harry Hindu

By noticing that pain doesn't exist outside the mind. We can acknowledge things exist outside the mind - I am not an idealist. Inference is good, but not good enough for this type of thing. Banno's "there is a red pen" claims are experience-bound, so pose no issue for this account. Your point, though, might.

I think the response is something along the lines of, well that's what science does. Eliminates possibilities. If pain exists sans any injury (or even limb!!) then it would seem it is a referent, which can experience aberration. I think that's right, and tracks with both my experience, and the apparent observations of physiologists and pain researchers(nociplastic pain is a great exemplar of where this throws spanners in the works of traditional treatment for pain, but opens up avenues for solving other chronic pain issues with novel, psychological approaches - results may vary!)

I interpret the pain as being located in my foot because most, if not all, of the other times the pain was located in my foot I had an injury on my foot. — Harry Hindu

This seems right.

s I said before, we have more than one sense for fault tolerance - to check what one sense is telling us, and we have the ability to reason, to compare past experiences with current ones, and to predict what experiences we can have. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I also agree with this. You're describing the mechanism by which our mind successfully, in most cases, has us attend to our injuries. I see no issues.

Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? — praxis

Have you been reading this and the Trump thread? Not only are mainly democrats partial to this thinking, its a pick-and-choose situation. Though, remove the partisan remark - and just the question - and my incredulity remains :P

If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided. — Eros1982

True. And true for both - Trump would normally be one of the worst Republican candidates. Its just the conflict aspect that has him preferred (and, possibly not preferred, just a better choice that Harris to many Reps). Neither had a shot in hell of being a Good President™

and AmadeusD claiming to be unable to tell colour from pain — Banno

No. You do not have this.
It may be helpful that where you clearly do not understand what someone is saying, you simply ask for clarification. This seems to be somewhat hard for you, as opposed to assuming and putting words in people's mouths. If you have to make genuinely stupid assertions like this to get around things people put in front of you, that's something to reflect on :)

you must explain how a science fact is not science. — ucarr

Science is a method for ascertaining facts about hte world. Facts about science are plainly different things? I'm not sure what's missed there so I'm sorry if this seems rude. Facts about science are ones which pertain to science, the method of inquiry. Scientific facts are ones which are gleaned from that process. Pure observations about states of affairs. "There is a book on shelf" is not a scientific fact, i'm sure you'd agree. Likewise "We ran test x. We ran it y times. We got a range of s-t values which allows us to conclude ABC". Running test X is a fact about the process of science being employed. ABC is a scientific fact as a result of hte scientific method having been carried out.

Perhaps this will illuminate what i'm saying:

the process of — ucarr

That's a science fact — ucarr

No. THe process of electrolysis is a fact about science. The measurements are 'science facts'. The method and the results are not the same kind of fact. I do not understand how you're confusing the two, and so perhaps my responses are inapt.

How is it not the case that your argument above is not pettifogging en route to word muddle? — ucarr

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but there is precisely zero muddle or problems witht eh words in my account. They are straight-forward, easy to understand and delineate, and adequately refer to the two distinct things I am referring to.

Here I think you insert an artificial partition; the Tony Awards would be meaningless without the dramatic performances that precede it. — ucarr

This is a non sequitur that does not relate to the discussion. No, Tony awards would not be possible without a performance, but they are plainly irrelevant to each other per se. Picking up the award is not acting a play out. Presenting your findings at a conference is not carrying out experiments under controlled conditions.

Here you distill the war between science and art: successful navigation of right and wrong facts and right and wrong logic leads to the science and technology that produces nuclear bombs. — ucarr

I don't recognize anything in the above in my account. I think you've jumped some massive guns here and landed somewhere entirely alien to both what I've said, and what I intended to convey.

Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr

No, not at all. I don't actually see how what you've said is at all illustrative of this point, ignoring that I think the point is extremely weak and bordering on nonsensical. Neither of these accounts makes any sense prima facie which presents an issue for the conclusions being drawn. They need grounding principles to become apt for any context of discussion. I do, however, note that yes, "good and bad" are different from "right and wrong". Something "right" can be "bad" for someone (i don't know an ethical account that doesn't acknowledge this). I'm not quite sure the point, there, unless you're saying that "science facts" and "facts about science" can be put into the respective boxes there? If so, could you be a little clearer about those thoughts? I might be able to get on that train, depending how you're thinking of it...

Thank you Athena. I appreciate that :) Particularly as we've often bumped up against one another.

These are quite different. — Banno

No, they aren't. They refer the exact same categories of property and present hte exact same distinction, lost in common-use of hte words involvd.

You seem to note that the distinction is key in the analysis, and deny it's effect. Interesting. Then again, you miss, completely, and in a pretty cartoonish way, the difference between "look", "perceive" and "see". All discreet events which provide different elemtsn of a single process of apprehension through perception from stimulus to expereince. So, the discussion has been entirely on-point. References need not be anything deeper than reference. "Red pen" is a reference not a description. It seems to me you want to call the pen Red because it causes red experiences which is correct. But, you seem unable to accept that this si the claim being made. The pen isn't red, on any description given in this thread.

It's a misuse of your own theory to make the claims your making, even if we accept that common-use matters as much as you seem to think, in conceptual analysis (BIG hint: Common use of words has precisely zero to do with conceptual analysis until you're in the realm of analysing language which is not happening here. Seems to be your pet area - and, to that degree, go for gold. You're good at it).

And I'd like to know what a pen is other than that indescribable thing we've labeled "pen." — Hanover

Missed then why writing the above response - sorry, think it's a really, really good point. I think it is describable, but only describable by reference to our experience (aesthetically, even!). This removes any certainly outside of hte word game - but it does present the exact delineation you've aptly outlined. I just think Banno is sitting pretty on "thats nonsense. This is how we refer to things.."
Unsatisfactory indeed.

both the universe in general and organic life in particular appear defective, or suboptimal — 180 Proof

(Y) Very hard to answer this one without just claiming the opposite with empty words. Nice.

The way I put it is that the mind provides the frame within which anything we think or say about existence takes place — Wayfarer

This could be straight from the Kant's mouth. Nice.

Fair enough - I've been following the thread, but admittedly haven't read much mroe than what's been provided here. Will do.

Yeah bang on.

I find it extremely hard to think his arguments actually lead to this conclusion.
Logically, there must have been something for life to come in to. So, his position seems to be that without perceivers we couldn't know anything. Sure, but that doesn't entail a lack of anything, does it? The activity we call ESR for instance, doesn't need an observer. But, we are te observer, so we're just stuck - I don't know that we can draw conclusions from that, though, positive or negative.

Though, I found Kastrup convincing for a few days after finding his work more accessible than most idealists (and related theorists). Perhaps I just don't find Hoffman as accessible.

So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr

I can take this one:

Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values.

Art isn't even defined well enough to measure anything, additionally. Science is well-defined as a methodology of observation and measure. At any rate, science would be prior to art, if they were to be intertwined in a non-trivial way.

the foundational indeterminacy of our existence — Constance

Please explain this line to me like I am a first year phenomenology student.

Hmmm.. I think it's possible you're talking about it at a level which I am not.

that's an outcome predicted by Relativity. — ucarr

Sure, I agree that prima facie, that fact is interesting, plus part-and-parcel of talking about science. But, you'll see that in your formulation the outcome and prediction are separated. Science predicts. Outcomes are the fallout of experiments. I see a pretty relevant distinction - control.
Perhaps noting that the results are open to all for use (eg using some new discovery about how hydrogen can be broken down into water (im making this up) to solve droughts). Applications. Applied science. The methodology requires years of training and peer-review to even be taken seriously (on a high enough level, anyway. An experiment that predicts the temperature of a particuar fruit's skin under specific conditions isnt on that level, for instance). I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. Maybe that's just me.

Falsifying one's expectations is key - another apt point that seems to illustrate that outcomes come after the science. When you're done with an epic performance of a play, you aren't still performing the play when you pick up your Tony award eight months later, for instance.

Asking the right questions about the world we see around — ucarr

I fully agree here, and to me, this is purely methodology. Getting the "right answers" relies on the methodology. There is extremely little a scientist can do about the outcomes of their experiments/observations, except improve methodology if they don't make sense (or, read Kuhn).

I know one of the best ways for testing a theory is seeing if it can make correct predictions, so I don't agree that science isn't seriously concerned with outcomes. — ucarr

I think all I meant there was that the outcomes aren't hte science, they're the indicator of success. Science, as a method, doesn't care about the outcomes. It just deals with them and moves on to new methodology. It's not motivated by the outcome, per se, but by the outcome's accuracy. Unsure if that seems like a distinction without a different to some..

I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine. — praxis

Well as one, that's how they come across. I couldn't give a squirt of piss who wins - I'm just calling it like I see it. They come across as cartoonishly saccharine and dishonestly bubbly.

You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? — praxis

Probably not in the sense that they've strategised in those terms, no(though, who knows - more brazen political horseshit has happened). But I didn't suggest that. I suggested that what comes across. I am not alone, and ths is not an unreasonable reading of such twaddle as they've used for their talking points imo. It boils down to this:

They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense. — AmadeusD

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. Unsure why this wouldn't apply to the ticket who had to pick up on a race they(i.e Biden/Harris) were sorely losing.

oppressive atmosphere for anyone who is not in a car — Jamal

I find this a very, very weird take. Why would it oppressive to not be in a car? I didn't drive until I was about 26 and have never in my life felt that being in a metropolitan city was oppressive. Do you not think this is more to do with your disposition than anything about the infrastructure?

But we can tell when we are dreaming. — Banno

No, not always - retrospect isn't all that relevant here. If we can only tell the difference by dry comparison, then the events themselves are not phenomenally distinguishable. I think that's more important for the point... But yours is taken, nonetheless.

Use is determined by... well, what we do. Not by what we say we do. — Banno

Clearly untrue. We are told what to do with language all the time. Institutions and systems enforce language use constantly. Sometimes under threat of force.

The essentially difference between the sciences and the humanities is cross-culturalism. Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes.

Everything in the humanities is culture-bound (in the general sense) and outcomes are the policy-driving forces. These aren't problems, though.

I'm not totally sure where Kripkenstein fits in his development. — Count Timothy von Icarus

LMAO

This doesn't work unless you're already partial to it. To someone like me, who is skeptical of taking any of it seriously, they come across saccharine in a cartoonish, "we;re really trying guys, don't cancel us" kind of way. They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense.

Sure, perhaps, but this would apply to everything you can ever think or say. — Apustimelogist

People pick theories that seem to work for them. — Apustimelogist

Ain't that the truth/s :P

Religion is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence — Constance

Please explain this line as if I was a first-year ethics student.

Meaning that there is some sense in which the star is red, and another sense in which the star is not red. Since we are not violating the LNC, this must mean that the word 'red' may take on related but different meanings. My original statement. — Lionino

Sure. That is not what they discern. That's my point. You discern this difference. That is not what is happening when the average person refers to both the shirt and star. They think they are referring to the same immutable property of the two different objects. That's what I disagreed with - not that two senses are being employed.

Idk what part of the link you are referring to. — Lionino

Yeah, that's not what I linked, weirdly. Let me see if I can both figure out why that's the case,a nd provide hte page I intended to link.

This was the link I intended (if this again links to that indexical page, ignore it, and move to the below)

From the linked article:
"Pain receptors, also called nociceptors, are a group of sensory neurons with specialized nerve endings widely distributed in the skin, deep tissues (including the muscles and joints), and most of visceral organs.
....
Activation of nociceptors generates action potentials, which are propagated along the afferent nerve axons, especially unmyelinated C-fibers and thinly myelinated Aδ-fibers. At the spinal cord level, the nociceptive nerve terminals release excitatory neurotransmitters to activate their respective postsynaptic receptors on second-order neurons.
....
The nociceptive signal, encoding the quality, location, and intensity of the noxious stimuli, is then conveyed via the ascending pathway to reach various brain regions to elicit pain sensation. Physiological pain responses normally protect us from tissue damage by quickly alerting us to impending injury."

If we take this account seriously, the possibility to pain being in the injured area is not open to us. It is a mental phenomenon triggered by events in the injured area which are not mental events. Back to the interaction problem, it seems.

there is a chance they would just see white from UY Scuti, even though it is red. — Lionino

This runs into the distinction. They are wrong to think they would see Red. In THAT sense, the star is not red.

We're just arguing over who's the betterworse dictionary writer. — Hanover

And it seems to be by design.

No. — Banno

You can't possibly be lacking this much in humour.
Ah well. I prefer human interactions anyway ;)

Do they understand the difference between the cause of red and the experience of red? Likely not, but that doesn't mean that they are not talking about a different thing as when they say the shirt is red, when they say UY Scuti is red (a scientifically correct statement). — Lionino

I don't think this is really apt. They don't know they are saying different things. They think that the colour of the star matches the colour of the shirt. IFF they could see the start, it would match their experience of hte red shirt. The different uses are there, but I don't think they are acknowledged as different uses. I just don't think people make these distinctions. Barely anyone takes Red to be anything but a property of some objects that they cannot escape, when their eyes are open.

"Well we have less philosophical problems with this stance so I am taking this stance" arguments. — Lionino

This is one of my biggest pet-peeves. It is the reason things like Austin and Searle make me laugh so much. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away. Just like ignoring that I've made a distinction between 'red objects' and 'the colour red', spoken about the former - Results in Banno responding to both at once which would be a reasonable response, had i confused the two uses.

A child learns to differentiate between dreaming and being awake — Banno

They largely differentiate being asleep to being awake. Not dreaming. These can be confused all the way through life and indeed, are.

That is one way of getting around the possibility you missed it. Perhaps we are destined to throw this at each other forever :)

Try going into a shop and asking for the red pens that are not red and see how far you get. — Banno

Ironically, you've missed my point completely - and it was a linguistic one. Haha, i suppose. We'll see around this corner again, i'm sure :)

There is nothing wrong with 'red' meaning both the experience of red and the usual cause of red, and that is what it means. — Lionino

I think there is, but it's going on in this thread, not the world. My most recent reply to Banno (which he responded to in the quote above) points out this difference. It has been missed. Which is why, earlier, I was suggesting we do away with using the same term to refer to things that aren't in the same categories. No one, in every-day life, understands the difference of refering to Red, the colour, and referring to things as red-causing things.

So something happens in the brain, as a consequence of signals sent from the body, that equates to a mental feeling. — Lionino

I'd say this is right, though, im unsure how a neurophysiologist would respond lol.

In other words, the body is a sufficient but not necessary condition of pain. — Lionino

I think this is reversed. The body is not necessary. You can even feel bodily pain without hte body sending signals to the mind. That's how powerful the illusion can be. You may not even have the body part indicated by the pain.

do worms — who lack a central nervous system but still react to stimulus — feel pain, and thus suffer? — Lionino

My understanding is "no", but hten, are we also talking 'emotional' pain? I still think no, lol. But yes, interesting questions for sure.

just my brain, which correlates, through induction, some sensations to some points in space? — Lionino

This, imo. A fairly simple explanation can be gleaned here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sensation-of-pain

I think, as philosophers, we would do well not to tread on ground for which we are not quite prepared.

If you wish to present a case that there are no red pens, be my guest. — Banno

I've not argued that. I've argued that 'red pens' are not 'Red'.

Perhaps you've twisted yourself up in the language hehe. Reference is tricky when you think things consist in their symbols.

And I take it you're an asshole, full stop. — apokrisis

Ah, you're one of those. Possibly this isn't the site for you if this is how you respond to people you don't know about htings you've got no understanding of (i.e my experience). Maybe just re-read these exchanges, cringe a little, and review how quickly you descending into emotional whittering.

So why live there? — apokrisis

I am legally obliged from two angles (my son and step-son). I am Irish, and born in England.

Nothing you have said makes any sense. — apokrisis

You've seemed to respond adequately to most of it. Maybe just don't purposefully be a dick lmao.

"we should deny the pen itself is red". There are red pens. — Banno

You've done absolutely nothing to support this. You just assert it - maybe because you can't think past your visual field ;)

Motorneurons.

There is a cause, and an effect. Contact with C-fibers at a sufficient level is the cause. Pain is the effect. They cannot be the same thing, right? So, we're off to a racing start.
Now, we already understand that pain signals travel through the body via the spinal cord to the brain, where the brain receives the data (think Chinese Room) and looks up the appropriate sensation to deploy to the perceiving mind. And, again, for some reason this isn't landing: it is often completely wrong in what it deploys, making it quite obvious pain is not in the effected area. It is caused by the affected area, but hte pain itself need not actually correlate with the injury. Or a part of the body at all, it seems.

There is no room here for a position other htan that pain is a sensation subsequent to an event in the area it is supposed to draw our attention to. Its almost regular failure to do so accurately is clear enough to me.

I did. You are continually incapable of exchanging ideas. Ignorance is not a virtue, Constance. Just say you don't understand, or haven't read into something. It's much easier for everyone.

You seem spectacularly uninformed about the country you live in. Talkback radio level. Why would your views deserve respect when they are so lacking in content? — apokrisis

I take it you're an asshole cyclist then? Hehehe. Showing your hand rather obviously here, given what I said was an anecdote, not a political essay.

NZ could have just got on with its big infrastructure investments like Auckland light rail, Lake Onslow pumped hydro, the new Cook Strait ferries it had already ordered. — apokrisis

No it couldn't. Obviously.

Do you know anything about NZ's actual past or present, let alone how badly it is handling its future? — apokrisis

Yes, but it appears perhaps you dont? FTR, I hate New Zealand. It's an awful country in almost all ways except landscape. You wont get me to care.

You think roads and carparks are cheap national investments? — apokrisis

This makes no sense in response to what I've said.

You want public infrastructure as good as it used to be? — apokrisis

I said nothing of hte kid. WTF?

Not the current story of both centralising the decision and then pushing the cost and delivery back onto local government. — apokrisis

This is the only efficient way to get large projects done in a country so devoid of intelligence and sense-making leadership.

Then there will be accidents and delays to public transport — Ludwig V

Our public transport is a laughing stock and large for this reason - I've been stuck behind cyclists and been alte for work many, many times on a bus, but we're not allowed to blame cyclists because there's an utterly bewildering number of uneducated weirdos who think that regulating anything is genocidal.

That siad, our trains fucking suck too.

Yet we made symbols or writing systems to help them understand what is red. — javi2541997

Because the experience is not in the objects viewed. It is in the mind. This is why a Blind person can adequately assent to an audio symbolic representation of 'red'. And, to the degree they can, they are almost certainly wrong. We could never know, though.

If the best scientific description of an object places color as a brain construct, then we should deny the pen itself is red if we want to side with the educated community as opposed to those who've not truly considered the issue. — Hanover

:ok:

given up their own freedom of movement in favour of that of machines they have created. — unenlightened

I can't grasp what you're saying. This is plainly not true.

they just convey the idea that something, its exact nature unspecified, is happening when I am not looking — Apustimelogist

I have probably misapprehended you then, but this seems like more a comforting thought than something which can be 'objectively known'. Banno's cups notwithstanding.

if the pain happens exclusively in the mind, how does a burn on your finger hurt your finger and not your foot? — Lionino

I have directly answered this, here and elsewhere. If it is not landing, I apologise. But restating a question I have answered doesn't help me much.

You can't know. Your brain creates the illusion because it has to, for evolutionary reasons, to ensure you see to the injury - and is often wrong in quite obvious ways. The pain is not in the injured area. This isn't even a controversial take. It is how pain works, empirically. The idea that the pain is in the injured area suggests that it would hurt whether there was a mind or not. That is plainly dumber than a doornail. If this isn't your suggestion, you're not being sufficiently clear for me to response adequately, i don't think.

We know this is not a language perception, this red-qua-red, and no one will gainsay this. — Constance

False. Plenty are colour realists and believe the colour red exists outside the qualia Red. We are having this exact discussion elsewhere.

It would help if you didn't erroneously decide that Continental Philosophy is worthwhile, and Analytical not, if you're going to take up analytical discussions. The Continentals have nothing but disdain for taking thinking seriously.

Yes, that may be true.

I think something we could probably agree on though is that your description of the last lets say 10 weeks indicates that Trump's voters rely on spectacle. The election cycle is not one (in this sense). So, either he pulls a Jan 6 (don't bother arguing with this, but to clarify, I do not think he incited anything on that occassion) properly, or he doesn't get a look in. And even in the former case, I think he'd just be arrested for it given he isn't in office.

I think it's going to be quite clear that Trump cannot run again in '28. He'll be in his 80s, and the hypocrisy would be too much, if nothing else. I also just htink he's run his course (speculatively). He's declining even among those who try to take the 'view from nowhere' and give hte devil his due. I was essentially in that position, but it's now clear with Biden out of hte running that Trump is simply not an electable character once octogenerial. You can kind of get away with what he's doing as the more spritely candidate - and he doesn't have the wit of Regan to pull it back in his favour. His actual politics don't seem to matter that much to that group voting for him.

Also, fucking hell. Discussing the elections of the '20s (as oppsoed to 90s/00s/2010s) is spinning my head.