LOL yeah - a pyhrric victory at best.

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.

100% It was very compelling in Parfit, for me. It moved me from expecting to find something akin to the Soul as an explanation for identity, to not really looking for it. I think even if the TA fails in some sense (i.e, the replacement of those neurons negates the identity they hold) it would still negate the idea that a soul is present and more than likely a stricter (i.e one tied to identity rather than general consciousness) version of emergentism... emerges.

Ironic. I wasn't arguing.

But the intention for doing either is the same: destroying someone, acting in a way so that someone would not exist. — baker

I don't think so. This formulation doesn't apply to murder. "would not exist" applies to a fetus, when you do not consider it an extant person. Perhaps this is purely a wording problem in your comment, but this illustrates, to me, the fundamental difference. Ending the potential for an adult life is not hte same as ending an adult life. Maybe that's neither here nor there for the debate? It seems reasonable to consider it to me.

precisely because it has the potential of becoming a person — baker

I do not think this is a reasonable way to talk about motivations for abortion. Abortion is generally sought to avoid everything else about hte situation - not avoiding a human coming into existence, per se. Again, the difference is illustrated to me in this. If the woman seeking an abortion could simply flick a switch and have a ten year old, most I have known (including several intimate partners) would have done so. It wasn't avoiding the person that matter. It was avoiding the externalities of that eventuality. Again, this may not weight much for you - but it does for me :)

and a belief that Trump will fix it — Fooloso4

I think, for worse or better, this is it. There's no inherent bigotry or biases to people involved. Its to types of information, and styles of presentation.

I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. They care she's a hypocrite, panders and has next to nothing to offer in the current climate (in their view).

The reason Dems didn't vote for Harris is simply: She did not inspire their vote. Adding in some form of bigotry is a fully-on cope.

No.

Keep a professional distance. There is a duty of care, a duty of justice, and fair and equal treatment, and these would be compromised by such a relationship. It would compromise your teacher, threaten their career, and undermine your achievements as a student. — unenlightened

Correct. Transfer to another teacher. Then get the coffee.

Why would you? — RogueAI

Why, or why not, is the entire question.

It may be that different neurons (in terms of identity) precludes your conclusion. We don't know. That's why I say good luck..

I said fundamentally, which means that they have the same effect of terminating life. — Hyper

Oh. Well, fair. Sorry. I would say there's a fundamental difference between ending a clump of cell's life and an adult human's life. They are plainly not hte same thing.
As to your last position, i'd agree. It is not hte brain that matters, but psychological continuity. If it were the case that replacing every neuron, one by one, with an artificial one could maintain the same consciousness as the brain they, collectively, replace, sure. I think this does nothing to your identity.

If by “how”, you mean ontologically how it would work; then that is an irrelevant question. If by “how”, you mean why it is a necessary precondition for possibility of human experience; then that is elaborated in depth in the Critique. — Bob Ross

I have addressed this point. I shall not labour it, but he does not provide any reason for necessity at birth. Merely necessity for the more developed mind to have certain concepts in place. May just be that there is nothing which requires them in the mind of a newborn baby.

my point is that the (sufficiently) incoherent experience is still in space and time. — Bob Ross

I understand. But again, I am fairly sure you must be confusing your experience with theirs. There is no reason to think they have experiences of anything, really. I've used the term incoherent to meet you half way in that sentence.

One can have a spatiotemporal experience which the aftermath of the one’s brain butchering how to represent objects properly. — Bob Ross

One can also have the opposite (as tends to happen with some psychedelic experiences). We simply couldn't know if one or other was 'necessary' or 'not needed'. I think that's a fair place to land on this.

how does a baby’s brain learn to represent objects in space and time? — Bob Ross

Again, separate exercise. I don't have a good answer, because I've not really thought about it. And as i say, you might, in the event, be right. But i can't in good conscience take a 'hmmm' as a 'it must be X' as I think Kant is doing. That's not to discount it, entirely. That's for another discussion. But this particular position, imo, is not particularly strong. A similar question could be put to Kant (or you): How could these a priori concepts occur, and in what form could they possibly be 'built in'? Without an adequate account of that, its mystical, really.

Schizophrenic people experience in space and time: the disorder is that they experience things which are not there in space and time. — Bob Ross

This is a claim which i reject, wholesale. as arrogance.

True, but it wouldn’t be human experience anything like all experience human’s have ever had that they had introspective access to—can we agree on that? — Bob Ross

Perhaps - but if that's what newborns have, then that's what newborns have. No harm, no foul (until the question above, of how the transition occurs). It doesn't lead to any other position to accept this. So, we agree, i suppose.

PZs are impossible — Bob Ross

You think. I don't. Many don't. You make many claims about htings that aren't known, rather than claiming positions. I get that's your position. Fine. Not mine. I respect your position.

Then, a newborn does experience—just not in terms of qualia. That non-qualia experience would still be in the forms of space and time. — Bob Ross

Without qualia, that's nonsensical to me. There is no experience. Plain and simple. If you disagree that's the case, that's fine. But your claim here is counter engaging with the position. Thought, I take your point that on your view this would be some form of rebuttal. It does nothing for me, unfortunately. I would want you to describe an experience without qualia, please.

Neither of those links you sent described an experience a human had that didn’t take the forms of space and time — Bob Ross

They do. And i gave you a phrase from the second one which aptly describes how that can be conceptualised. I understand if you're not seeing it that way, though. But, I think that may come from two places:
Biased towards your own conceptual schema, and lack of familiarity with psychedelic lit. That's fine too. I point you to this, to be brief:

"The more the subject experiences such characteristics of mystical experience as unity (with all of existence), noetic quality (knowingness and a sense of reality), sacredness,transcendence of time and space, ineffability, sense of awe, etc., the richer may be the rewards. In summary, not only do psychedelic substances sometimes bring therapeutic benefit, but there is definite evidence that such benefit depends upon the discernible richness of the experience’s ‘mystical’ qualities."

It is a literal parameter of measuring these experiences.

I want to hear a specific example from you to gauge better what you are saying. — Bob Ross

I've been over why you are asking for something impossible. If i am right (that I have had an experience which transcends time or space) it would not be possible to elaborate. Ineffability is a key concept in this discussion. Unless you wholesale reject that notion, please respect this since you have asked.

I think you are confusing — Bob Ross

Simply: No. I am not.

I remember what it is like to perceive being beyond time; and I was not beyond time — Bob Ross

To use your technique: This is conclusive proof you are importing your own, current, perceptual schema, into ones which are ncessarily outside your ambit. So be it :)

No, that's just plain untrue. There are lots of arguments for the soul - philosophy is full of them - and no good one against the view. — Clearbury

Absolute nonsense.

if the mind is the brain, then when we gradually remove the brain parts and reassemble them, then the mind would 'be' the reassembled brain. — Clearbury

No. You're confusing several positions with one where the brain physically is hte mind. Emergentism might be a better avenue to attack here.

we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness — Clearbury

Good luck.

here are no good ones for the idea that the mind is the brain, it's just a working hypothesis. — Clearbury

That is not the position. There are extremely good reasons to think the mind is confined to, or arises from the brain,. If you reject htem, so be it.

But given this thread is about abortion, how does it bear on the matter? — Clearbury

If there is no Soul, then any argument from a religious perspective fails and any discussion about personhood can proceed unhindered.

I believe in the soul, yet it seems to me that the evidence indicates (but does not establish) that that fetuses do not have souls. — Clearbury

Sorry to say, I find this absurd to a point that I have to assume you've made some assumptions that are terminal. Such as "there's good evidence for the soul" when there is literally zero.

murder isn't fundamentally different from abortion. — Hyper

Murder is a legal term. It is fundamentally a different species of concept from abortion.

Kant does not argue for space and time being a prior as a matter of being supernatural—quite the contrary. — Bob Ross

I didn't claim that was the case. But God is the fundamental parameter for his entire system. Nothing works without it, on his account, and unfortunately, he only reveals this in the Method. Which leads most readers to assume its not important. I understand that.

The fact that they move at all towards or away from things annihilates this hypothesis in concreto — Bob Ross

No. No it doesn't. I need say no more.

When, then, does the human brain develop enough to construct an experience in space and time? The brain doesn’t fully develop until adulthood. — Bob Ross

This is a ridiculous question in light of what we're taking about. Crawl before you sprint, my guy. As a catch-all response to the underlying objection: It doesn't matter, because we could never answer this question even if you agreed with me. At some point from the development of sense organs to the abstract, non-language-based thought of "Over there" let's say. That's all we can give. In your system, there's some pre-determined access to concepts that exist in the empirical, physical world. This has no support. Kant's system simply doesn't tell us why this is needed. He just says its the grounds of possible experience. No. It's the grounds of experience in time and space. If he's going to give us the ding-en-sich, then he's got to accept that this in an inacessible 'fact' of our lives. We cannot know whether those concepts are a prior, and it seems, based on experience with actual, real-life humans, that its not correct. Feel free to just disagree with those empirical considerations - but they defeat Kant, if true.

you are conflating them as one ‘faculty of reason’. — Bob Ross

I am not. BUt this explains why you're so resistant.

This solidifies to me that you are, in fact, thinking of self-reflective concepts as opposed to transcendental concepts. — Bob Ross

You are wrong. Not sure where to take that...

Kant is noting that we have concepts built into our brain for cognizing objects — Bob Ross

And, for me, he's entirely wrong and bares on no explanation for how that could possibly be the case. Just that he can't think of anything else (ironically). Same as god of the gaps. Also, ironically (in the modern, inaccurate sense of that word albeit).

you mean — Bob Ross

I don't. And you need to stop pretending you can read my mind, if you want a discussion.

Kant means “reason” in the sense of our brain’s cognition for cognizing reality into a coherent experience. — Bob Ross

My position, and this is based on a lot of experience, is that babies do not have a 'coherent' experience at birth. They are, at best, mildly overwhelmed by that fact, and usually, VERY overwhelmed. As they learn concepts of space and time, they become more comfortable and less schizophrenic in their reactions to the world. This is not self-reflective reason at all. Schizophrenic people have a similar problem - but I assume you'd say schizophrenics who cannot perceive time 'accurately' have unlearned an a priori structural concept. Which is .. to put it mildly, absurd, to me. If the concepts are a priori, built in concepts, this is not an available option to explain it.

That's exactly what I'm explaining to you is my view - which is why all your above contentions are explicitly incorrect, as to my position. Babies do not have a coherent experience. They may not even have an experience, at birth. WE experience them existing and make assumptions from our projections. That's about all we can say (though, like two of the important points about, this is because we are precluded from knowing - not because its certainly false). Again, if you disagree with this (on grounds other than wholesale accepting Kant's position, anyway) that's fine and you'll have good points im sure, and they can be discussed. BUt you have my position wrong and that needs to be corrected.

to represent objects within space and time which constitute the baby’s experience of the world; — Bob Ross

This

takes time to learn. — Bob Ross

The rest of it too (i.e aspects of reflective reason). But without the ability to make those representations, whcih I contend a bare newborn does not, it takes time to learn from your, developed perspective. From theirs, there is no time at birth and for some short period after. I'm unsure there's any kind of sound argument against this, other than what you're doing: simply asserting that there's something else to it. I don't think there is. With respect, this is the prime "agree to disagree" situation for the reason set out above - we could not know whether this is true. I think it is. You don't. That's fine. But I am not misunderstanding anything here, as you posit (or, conversely, you're open tot he same criticism from my perspective, and that's fine too). There is no disrespect here. You have had my position wrong for this whole exchange, it seems.

You are not arguing that the brain doesn’t order the objects properly in space and time: you are arguing that the baby’s brain has a super-human power to cognize in different forms of sensibility—viz., to experience objects ordered in some other forms than space and time. — Bob Ross

I am not, and I would really appreciate you not trying to read minds, or putting words in my mouth Bob. Ask questions instead. You'd probably get more satisfactory answers.

Nothing in this passage is needed. I am not positing that. I am positing that newborn babies (for, let's be clear: a very short period) do not have concepts of time and space. This seems obvious to me. What kind of experience babies do have is not relevant to this disagreement, if I were to be 'right'. I do not need to clothe the emperor at this stage. I have some ideas there, but they are off-topic for this discussion of Kant's failures (in my view). At this stage, all I need do is present hte plausible (i htink it is) notion that babies dont experience space and time. They experience a jumble of sensation and instinct. Nothing coherent about it (again, if you disagree - that's fine! That's what we're trying to get to).

You are saying that the baby that is trying to eat that toy block, that doesn’t really know what it is, isn’t experiencing that toy block with any extension nor in any temporal succession—so it is an experience akin to some higher dimensional being. Imagine being able to experience things outside of time….that’s what you are saying a baby can do. — Bob Ross

Sort of. But, please, stop putting words in my mouth or articulating my arguments for me. Just ask me to clarify. AM i saying that? Well...
The baby does not experience. It acts. YOU experience the baby chewing a block. It (plausibly) doesn't. This is not complicated or difficult to understand. It gains experience once it can perceive difference. I have gone over this, and if it has missed you I am sorry for either being inadequately clear, or perhaps not addressing it in the right place of my replies. The one caveat I'd add here, is that it's entirely possible your example its beyond the point at which my position would apply. New born babies cannot do what you've just said, at birth. Perhaps babies even five days old can. I don't know - I've not tried to tie that down. That's a secondary exercise, though.

so it is an experience akin to some higher dimensional being — Bob Ross

Or, get this Bob - lower. Hehe. Flatlander.

What does that mean? What would objects look like unorganized outside of space and time? — Bob Ross

They may not 'look' like anything. Think of philosophical zombies. Newborns may be just that, in terms of behaviour.
But you've already restricted the possibilities to your existing mode of perception which is not unreasonable, but I think misleading. I am saying, multiple times at length, we couldn't know. We are not babies, and people who are no longer babies are unable to recall, in 100% of cases. Which gives some extremely bare and minimal credence to what i'm getting at, conceptually. You might be right in that restriction, and you might be right about the idea of a priori concepts of space and time, but I see no good reason for it at this point other than simplicity - but then I'd need to take on Kant's system, which is quite complicated and imo very much wanting.. So, not only do i see no good reason, that conclusion also goes against my intuitions and experience.

What you experience on psychedelics is still in space and time—if you have experienced hallucinations that did not take those forms, then I would be interested to hear you elaborate on it specifically. — Bob Ross

Other than adhering to Kant, what authority are you relying on when making the bolded statement? It seems you're describing your perception of someone on psychedelics. I think you're doing the same with the babies. I assume you'd feel the same about meditators. Nevertheless...

Millions of people have. I'll give a couple of examples of discussions in the lit on this: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=dissertations
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1061 this one has a great phrase "valueless category of human experience". I would say that describes my experiences quite well. They are ineffable because to describe them requires concepts that don't exist in the experience itself. So, take it or leave it - the point is that those experiences transcend elaboration because that would occur in space and time (to be deathly clear: I take these experiences as almost certainly of the mind. Not of some mystical or divine reality).

You can use words/phrases like "I fell into the light" but this does not to describe the experience. It gives you, the listener, a watered-down, pale imitation within your limits of perception, to understand the direction and nothing more. There is no light. There is no falling. They are just best-estimates at values to represent non-values. These experiences are ineffable for good reason: You cannot describe them. They are outside that mode of perception ;)

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 see where you sit.

I wonder if anyone has the guts to just say the Dems are shit politicians.

can’t argue with that.
I would just suggest to you that if morality is objective, this is plainly false to claim.
If it is subjective, that’s a strange framework I’d think. Heh

ah I wish you’d said the first up top.
I can’t see what you’re seeing because I don’t think there is evidence for a soul. He wasn’t seeing evidence of anything - he was trying to answer a question. The soul is just the easiest, and one of the least-plausible accounts he canvasses imo

Hume and Kant were correct in saying that the principle of causality, space and time exist in mind rather than in the external world. — Corvus

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). 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).

This all said, I don't think it bears on the direct/indirect debate other than to say a Direct realist would be committed to the view I put here above. Otherwise, the perception is necessarily indirect, having been mingled with the pre (or sub)-conscious mind's a priori concepts before presentation to the conscious mind

Some very interesting, and much calmer takes here, than prior to the election. Interesting stuff.

if people are ok with it, then it is morally acceptable — Metaphysician Undercover

HUGE yikes.

LOL yes, that's more than likely hte better option.

Just because a baby does not understand well enough, e.g., the difference between themselves and other things and space and time does not entail in the slightest that they do not experience in space and time. — Bob Ross

It really does. They have no experience of difference - which is what is entailed by space and time. They denote difference. Babies do not have a concept of difference. This is particularly obvious when you note that a baby's 'intellect' begins in utero - where they couldn't have those concepts. They are clearly (in my view) learned, and not innate. That 'space and time' are innate is somewhat implausible to me. These seem to be arguments that would need to come down to some supernatural conclusion. Which, you'll note, Kant does.

Let me ask for clarification: are you saying that a baby does not experience in space and time despite lacking the thinking power know that they are experiencing in space and time? — Bob Ross

This is a really quite confused way of approaching a clarification imo, and that is not to be rude. I can't quite figure what to 'straighten out' as to why you'd ask this - but let me try: What's at issue here is that you experience a baby in space and time. I think your question words on that level. But that's not to do with the baby, and their ability (as it were). They simply don't access those concepts (to a point, obvs, from our perspective). And so, "experience in space and time" is a third party observation. It comes from you, not the baby. The baby doesn't have a concept of either. (again, my view.. not some scientific claim). The baby probably doesn't have a concept of experience. Automata. The baby lack's the thinking power to apprehend those concepts at all to begin with. I understand the reliance on the claim to 'possibility' but that possibility, even on a reading of Kant's claims, does not preclude having an experience without those frame works available. But this, then, asks the question about whether time and space inhere in objects and so a baby simply learns to access concepts which make certain thoughts possible. This certainly seems to happen to adults in a more esoteric way.

You'll note from the above, that, with respect, this is nonsense.
Your terms don't align with mine, for one thing. Secondly, your claim about

hat there is a part of human development which is not human experience in any meaningful sense — Bob Ross

This is an utter non sequitur that borders on idolizing Kant and his vision. It could simply not be true that he had a handle on much, beyond the logical form of human reason. Babies don't have reason. SO, unless that, to you, removes humanity, then i simply reject, wholesale your entire conjecture here.

toto genere — Bob Ross

Yes. THis seems inarguable, on an empirical reading before we even get to 'our' disagreement on Kant.

doesn't have extension nor is it placed in succession within that baby's consciousness — Bob Ross

In the baby's perception, this also seems inarguable. Not quite sure what the pushback on this is. If you have an intellect that doesn't correctly order your spatiotemporal categories, you do not cease to be human or cease to experience.

what, then — Bob Ross

bare experience, unorganised and automatically responded to. This, also, doesn't seem a problem. Adults have this experience also. Take mushrooms my guy. Space and time are not as hard-and-fast as you seem to think, in human experience.

I got a ping... Just confirming it was accidentally tagging me rather htan Banno for that quote above your post?

Definitely - and one far more nuanced than even this one, imo. Thank you for that.

Your opinion of my attitude is not really of interest to me. — T Clark

A clear reading of my post would illustrate this is not what's being put forward. I refer to the Democratic party and their abysmal failures throughout. IF you read it this way, that explains a huge amount. I am not trying to be rude - this literally clears up some misapprehensions, from my position, you've engaged in. Not a disparagement.

it's that it continues. — T Clark

You have to be suggesting that slavery, or systematic (i.e open, and admitted) racism is extant. It isn't. Plainly (please don't be silly - obviously there are racist individuals, but the hyper-vigilance of your kind of thinking violates any sense of reason). So, unless you're suggesting the above, your position is nonsense. You're right, it's not worth arguing about. Either you notice reality, or you don't. This one is a direct disparagement, though.

But the issue with a religious belief is that there is no clear way to identify what's valid and what's not. — Tom Storm

I disagree with this, but it is fact-specific to any particular claim so probably not worth following up in this context. Appreciate it :)

not just some dead shit who likes the sound of a particular word — Tom Storm

Are you entirely sure these are mutually exclusive? hehe.

"you" being purposefully vague. "one" could suffice.

My response to that question, is the quote you've used. I think that quote describes the behaviour in that question you wanted an answer to :)

epublicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach.

This is not a republican position, per se. I also highlight something which seems to be missed by all and sundry trying to advocate for various schemes. They are historical grievances. They literally not in issue. Barely a man in the land would deny their reality and import. What to do about the historical wrongs is what's at issue. So, this formulation is entirely wrong. The historical wrongs are not an issue anymore, plainly. The same way the gross, extreme and comparable (or exceeding) wrongs visited on northern Europeans, North Africans by North Africans in the 15-18th centuries is no longer an issue.

However, the treatment of Northern Africans by other Northern Africans today is an issue that no one seems to want to talk about, in this context. Its a pretty telling issue, though, that America abandoned slavery and Northern Africa has not.

we have no way of knowing whether there are further truths that are unknowable. — Janus

Not only this, even if we had a way - that further knowledge would constitute a truth, defeating the claim it is meant to support.

When Kant speaks of intuition, he is talking about the innate capacity our sensibility and reason has for attributing spatio-temporal properties to phenomena—not ‘intuition’ in the sense of what our higher-order thinking abilities does. — Bob Ross

I, also, am referring to these. Babies cannot determine depth and do not see themselves as separate to things around them. They, obviously, have no concept of time or duration. They can't note 'difference'. I am using the philosophical term 'intuition' here (though, admittedly, used the other sense at the end of that post so sorry for the confusion).

this doesn’t even address what Kant is talking about — Bob Ross

It does. Your response says to me you aren't engaging with it sufficiently to understand what's being said. Babies do not have concepts of space and time at birth . These are developed from experience. IF TRUE (which I contend, it is) then Kant's system fails on that fact. It is not an inherent ability. It is not something built-in to human reason. It is something discovered, by virtue of, I contend likely, the inherence of those concepts in the world around us. I think Kant's dumbest claim is that without perception time and space are either useless, or do not exist. That is such an insane speculation, as with the gulf between perception and ding-en-sich, that I've had to re-read the CRP specifically to see if there's anything whatsoever that makes it less insane. There doesn't seem to be..

TO be clear: We experience babies in space and time. You are, it seems, rather confused as between this and the baby's experience. I have raised two. I can be fairly sure of this confusion.

The space and time which are the forms of your sensibility are not in reality — Bob Ross

Yes, that is the claim. I reject it on several grounds already canvassed. Though, I suggest, most likely, we have evolved to mirror them in sensibility. Again, assuming the kind of gap between things and our perception as would support the position you take from Kant is simply speculative nonsense to me. Absence is not evidence.

is a wholly separate question. — Bob Ross

Per above, I do not think this is a tenable position to take. We may simply have to disagree here.

I think you are just misunderstanding Kant’s view — Bob Ross

If this is the case, his view is not in line with yours :D

This answers the OP's quesion. — Tom Storm

I claim to be Christian. Never read the bible.

Answers the OP?

I claim to be an astronomer. I don;'t know what a tensor equation is. Answers the OP?

I claim to be an adherent Buddhist, but I compete in Jiu jitsu, having broken several limbs and am somewhat proud of that fact. Answers the OP?

Self identification must be the weakest defence for someone meeting a criteria which others must share.

he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. Liberal propaganda? — Tom Storm

Not propaganda, just hypocritical nonsense, I think, designed to support the emotional responses to politicians you abhor. I was guilty of doing this, as a 'democrat', for like a decade.

Nothing per se wrong with that, though. Do what makes you most comfortable. Only lying about a politician would be - in this case, I think its just jacked-up weirdos doing the exact same gymnastics they do in their day-to-day lives to cover up hypocrisies and inconsistencies. That said, there seems to me to be far more willingness to lie, or at least allow untruths, to propagate as a specifically political tool on the Left.

but I do know it isn’t to lower our standards for evidence. — Bob Ross

Even accepting an opinion that its more likely than not Trump, or whoever, committed these crimes, this is true and an inarguably important aspect of a fair judicial system. The opposite risk is so much worse. This is why the 'believe all women' campaign probably resulted in a reduction in women being taken seriously. Coupled with lower thresholds for psychological resilience (i.e, some guy brushed against me in a mosh pit, so I was assaulted is utterly insane, but not uncommon, where women are constantly being told they're at risks that they probably aren't actually at, at most times).

I note, also, that at least here and the UK, Judges are extremely live to this issue and very commonly will convict a man on "convincing hearsay" and thin probative evidence. I.e, nothing actually establishes the thing occurred, let a lone that guy did it - but judges do not want to leave a total gap for the reason Bob noted:

the real challenge for sex crime victims: there word cannot be enough to convict someone, but the nature of the crime usually means there’s no further evidence. — Bob Ross

No idea how to 'get around' this. But hte situation where 'innocent until proven guilty' is airtight, is clearly better than convicting people on vibes. Having been a victim, I'm rather comfortable telling anyone who thinks otherwise to simply shut up. Just shut up.

Now, Elon Musk with X.com has likely interfered with this election cycle. — Shawn

"interfered" is a very strong framing.

I can't really see how that could be the case, other than being an extremely visible and vocal person. That said, he certainly influenced it. This is not at all comparable to Russian assets literally trying to mess with voting locations.

Seeing involves light. — Harry Hindu

I agree with much of your post, I can foresee (and have experienced) this wording being an extremely unhelpful and confusing one.

"Ahh, i see" is a totally normal, every-day use of hte term which muddies these waters and requires some restriction. I prefer to use the term "see" to apprehend the perception and "look at" to note literally using one's eyes to receive light. This allows for looking out, without seeing - and seeing, without looking at (any given ...anything).

Just a ntoe on how I have found some success making this discussion a bit clearer on several occassions. Not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm trying!

It would be strange to claim the elected official is an effect of his constituents. — ucarr

It would not. But this is squarely because you're confusing the two senses.

the physics of a material world, beyond mentally constructed information supports something being at stake: the life of the aware subject experiencing the world. — ucarr

It does not. Material physics need not include anything on the side of experience. That meaning it doesn't 'support' anything you've said. It is capable of describing those things.

hat the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do. — Banno

:up: That's all I had to say, personally.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t like losing elections and we shouldn’t be. Democrats govern and Republicans destroy. We should be the majority party, but we’re not. Here are some suggestions about how we might go about fixing this. — T Clark

My suggestion: Do not approach the conversation as if you are the arbiter of moral truth, and the only available acceptable option. This is partially the reason Democrats constantly fail to inspire. They are authoritarian, as to people's views of them. In practice, though, there is little difference to the average person.

Your responses, over the course of months, suggest that you perhaps are not able to see this clearly. It suggests that, perhaps, you are in an ideological hole unable to even consider positions that make you uncomfortable. This has nothing to do with whether, or any specific issue, you hve the facts right. You probably do, in many cases. But to open a thread like this, the way you have, is extremely off-putting and highlights communication issues for the party. It seems you've taken on the same playbook in your own communiques.

This is why Democrats lose. There is no critical thinking. There is pandering and cowing to pressure. Sure, there is on the other side, but at least the last eight (10, i guess) years, that hasn't been a selling point or a legitimate criticism as it had been previously (and why, previously, I strongly lent democrat and on paper, probably still appear that way issue-for-issue). Republicans won this round because Democrats and the Party appear like shitty movie sets - no depth, push-over, shallow "how do we get votes" type of campaigning.


Perfect take, imo.

It’s an innate capacity; not memory. — Bob Ross

I don't think you've grasped what I've said. It is an objection to that formulation of Kant's. It does not seem to me that this is the case. Babies cannot intuit time and space. They develop those concepts as best i can tell, through experience (and if true, in a rough-and-ready way, defeating Kant's position entirely - but apoditicality would be required, and im not suggesting this.)

The fact that.... — Bob Ross

I can't quite understand the question - it seems as if you're asking the question I should be asking? I'm rejecting a significant gulf between the thing-in-itself and our perception of it in terms of form and aesthetics. I would also add, that we have no reason to think time and space aren't inherent in matter, rather htan our perception of it, for hte same reasons. Perhaps you're seeing what I'm seeing, but grasping at the gap as significant in theory? Can't quite tell, i'm sorry.

hat’s true of all major philosophical movements to a large extent, — Bob Ross

I don't think so. Kant is pariticularly esoteric and counter to intuition. Several large philosophical movements have had their day - even Kant's - but it falls away when people come to the similar thoughts I've laid out here, it seems (this, also in universities, in my experience).

I think it's about the one described — Clearbury

To clarify why I think not, your conclusion requires a different question: What is the nature of consciousness? WHich is not the same as whether or not it is transitive, specifically. In your conclusion, there are several issues I can see: "if the mind stays with teh functioning" cuts across both ways. At some point, both 'items' become 'functional' as built-in to the thought experiment. In this case, it's the basic nature of consciousness, rather htan it's relationship to the brain that would be in question, I think - but I could be misconstruing.

That the consciousness was uninterrupted assures us that the mind was present there the whole time, but the consciousness is not the mind, but simply a state the mind was in. — Clearbury

I don't think we can say that an uninterrupted consciousness is required. We sleep, for instance. It's not hte same, no, but it gives us pause. It's entirely possible that consciousness can be interrupted (perhaps true NDEs are in this category) and return to it's initial state, based on it's carrier. That could support it arising from the brain, and all its unique complexity, or it could support that mind is something else (or atleast, somewhere else)

But it can't plausibly be that the consciousness was uninterrupted that explains why my mind stayed where it was — Clearbury

Similarly, I think it's entirely plausible that this is the reason. We just don't know.. My intuition is also that more than likely, the mind is not synonymous with the brain. But its extremely hard to see why...

There are no legal cases. — Fooloso4

Then your biases seem a little larger. Though, I acknowledged earlier, and do so now as a bit of a olivebranch that I am biased in the other direction, having been a victim and having been falsely accused. Fair positions; both, i'd think, if we're not talking legal benchmarks. Though, it seemed you were..

This seems a bit of a moral panic to me...

What I said is "they do not ... — Fooloso4

Correct. But, in retrospect, my comment makes more sense in this context. Apologies for the mis-quote.

I don't. The point is that it is a major reason why many victims just keep quiet. — Fooloso4

Assuming so is ... bad form. Assuming guilt is bad form. INferring guilt is bad form. Filling gaps with non-existent victims (as far as we currently know, given we're talking about non-reports essentially) is bad form. I don't do that. I wouldn't accept others doing that around me. Perhaps its the legal mind, but I can't allow it (i.e I would push back. Do whatever you want lol).

It is not a pre-determined view. — Fooloso4

Based on the following sentence (in your reply) i'm going to reiterate that it is. We can just leave that, I would think.

That is as far as all but one of these cases went. — Fooloso4

Then we have literally no reason to assume guilt, do we? Nice.

I am saying that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is a sexual assault. He claims that this is what he does. — Fooloso4

You will notice that my comments on the initial position apply (perhaps more strongly) to this one. You have nothing.

Twenty-seven is many. — Fooloso4

The context is a section of a group. 27 is several as opposed to 200 (where maybe 75+ would be 'many'). This is a dumb thing to object to anyway. It has nothing to do with the substance.

Is there any number of allegations against him that he denies that would strain his credibility for you? — Fooloso4

No. But I think this is actually the answer you want, you're just not adequate distinguishing the important part: A single provable instance would be enough to write him off in the same way even some of hte lets say less stable detractors have. That's simply not something I can get on with in any way. Accusations don't bother me, that much (particularly ones against a wealthy, older white male (i.e extremely easy target) in the context of his becoming President where half the country already wanted his head). That's a separate conversation, but just stating so it's clear.

If you'd just asked me whether I personally actually think he's sexually assaulted anyone before, I'd have said, oh almost surely. I don't know a single person who hasn't, when drilled. Its a matter of degree. And his 'degree' is likely to be far higher than the ones I'm intimating in the previous sentence. Do I believe he did any of the discreet things he's accused of? I'd be an idiot to go one way or the other.

Facts are provided in the link. I listed them. — Fooloso4

Then, I think we're done. Nothing you've presented provide any basis for your conclusions, in my view. You've doubled down on assumptions, reading words as actions, a pretense of Godly knowledge of character and a knack for inferring facts from non-facts that I'm jealous of. At least one (that other complaints went no further) tell against you. You have to fill in the gaps and assume embarrassing numbers of elements to come to any conclusion. Reiterating the above: I'd be an idiot to believe one way or the other. This is hte correct way to deal with disputed facts when you're not the Judge, God or have direct personal knowledge.

The only aspect you've brought up which has much to say is the E Jean Carroll case which is certainly concerning, and even on terms I've restricted my concerns to. However, I would refer you to the Amber Heard case in London for an example of why this says not much. It just means Trump couldn't win a defamation case. It's word-against-word, and both sides have an extremely vested interest. For several reasons, the Jury was likely disposed (particularly on a lower threshold of evidence in civ cases) to find him guilty. He very well could have raped her. He very well could have done something lesser. He very well may just be a clumsy dick that people are targeting because of his clumsy, lusty behaviour (for the avoidance of doubt, any form of SA is precluded from the description just given).

I have not defended him once. I don't know him. He seems a total goof who I wouldn't enjoy spending time with.
I have pushed back on legally dubious claims and presumptions of guilt. Might be worth focusing a little bit ;)

Why do you lose memories when you teleport and why do you posit that I have a continuous memory from birth to now? — Hanover

Please forgive any prickliness here. It seems, outright, you are not reading my entire posts. Eg, the above vs:

You're free to say you were not 'you' before, say, age 4 when clear memories coalesced. — AmadeusD

So, to be clear, I can;t answer your question because I did not make the claim it refers to. I will do my best to ignore this, as it comes up, and just respond to what I can stand behind. So, apologies if things seemed to be missed and such.

You're distinguishing your example from mine — Hanover

By the fact that, in 'my' (it's actually Derek Parfit) case, you choose to use a machine which purports to "recreate" you somewhere else. But what actually happens, is that you go into a machine, it copies you perfectly - atom for atom - then destroys you and sends the data to another machine which 3d-prints you from that data. This is clearly not like your case of simply living through life, even if this reduces to saying they're are just different cases.
Ignoring the question of whether this would preserve psychological continuity (relation R) at all (reductionists are essentially committed to saying yes, it would, by virtue of being your exact physical double at the moment of transfer) and the question of how, moments after re-creation, you couldn't be the original person as your memories now diverge sufficiently to defeat the rule of identity, the point is this:

If there is someone who recalls being you, and is physically identical do you - is this you? The reason this is an important thing to nail down about identity is presented in:

the kicker for this thought experiment is what's called the 'branch-line case" in which the machine malfunctions, and you survive several hours after the transfer and can talk to your double. You are, though, destined to die in the 'normal' way, in several hours time.

Can there be two "you"s? Uncomfortable. But seems fairly true, if relation R holds. You may simply disagree that this is the correct notion of identity and that's totally fine. I've just not come across a better one, however much this has increased my fear of death.

But if I go from Point A to Point B over 50 years and not a single same cell or single same memory exists from age 1 to age 50, then don't I have the same identity problem as you noted in the teleporting? — Hanover

I think the underlined is not quite right. This might be rectified by moving the date forward to age 4, per the above correction I've made to your initial questions. But that said, in your example - not a single cell, and not a single memory remain? You are not the same person. That seems simple. It relies on the same logic/reasoning/position as the teletransporter case. That case is simply the reverse. Can someone who does have the exact physical make-up, and psychological make-up as you.. actually be you? It seems they can. And, for me, the only issue is how to get around the possibility of two "you"s. For me, this is solved by the fact that the exact instant one becomes aware they did not die in the machine, the two have disparate memory banks. Nothing ship-of-theseus rears its head.

Here is a thought experiment - I do not think it is mine, but I cannot remember whose it is — Clearbury

Parfit outlines several versions of this in Reasons and Persons as related to humans. He uses surgeries replacing body parts, and swapping body parts to tease out the intuitions. Far too long to summarize, but that may be helpful in you find the discussion. DM me if you need further help on that...

On the other hand, if the mind stays with the functioning, then the mind stays where it is and the reassembled brain is either just a lump of meat or another mind, but it isn't the original one. — Clearbury

This is a conclusion for a different thought experiment, on my view. Yours speaks to "at what point" certain things become, or are disestablished. The whole-sale transference of matter in the sense of "Reassembling" is not the same question, I don't think. However, I think when you turn this to brains and minds, we don't know enough about functional memory and where/what in the brain houses/contributes to/eliminates memories to justly answer whether or not the "old, reassembled" brain would carry any memories with it.