Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:05 am
Your claim re 'indirect perception' was all over the place.
If I cannot grasp your points, the failure is on your communication and the need to understand the position of your opponent.
Suggest you organize your thoughts and present a more systematic argument in a separate thread so that it can be discussed rationally. Don't be a coward, if it that easy for you, you should be able to raise a new thread on it.
It's not my "failure" that you are uneducated in science and psychology and have no idea about basic related philosophical issues.
Your sort of response is really of the uneducated kind.
Raise a new thread with clear arguments to support your claim re indirect perception.
In addition, do not pepper your response with insults [becoming animal] which is one reason why your opponents are unable to grasp your intended points.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:05 am
Your claim re 'indirect perception' was all over the place.
If I cannot grasp your points, the failure is on your communication and the need to understand the position of your opponent.
Suggest you organize your thoughts and present a more systematic argument in a separate thread so that it can be discussed rationally. Don't be a coward, if it that easy for you, you should be able to raise a new thread on it.
It's not my "failure" that you are uneducated in science and psychology and have no idea about basic related philosophical issues.
Your sort of response is really of the uneducated kind.
Raise a new thread with clear arguments to support your claim re indirect perception.
In addition, do not pepper your response with insults [becoming animal] which is one reason why your opponents are unable to grasp your intended points.
I already made the arguments again and again, I already wrote more than should be necessary in such a debate. You are free to read back and respond if you are able. I won't do even more work for you, until then I consider the debate to be over.
And it's rich that YOU are telling me to not pepper my responses with insults, when I'm just mirroring your behaviour.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:09 am
It's not my "failure" that you are uneducated in science and psychology and have no idea about basic related philosophical issues.
Your sort of response is really of the uneducated kind.
Raise a new thread with clear arguments to support your claim re indirect perception.
In addition, do not pepper your response with insults [becoming animal] which is one reason why your opponents are unable to grasp your intended points.
I already made the arguments again and again, I already wrote more than should be necessary in such a debate. You are free to read back and respond if you are able. I won't do even more work for you, until then I consider the debate to be over.
And it's rich that YOU are telling me to not pepper my responses with insults, when I'm just mirroring your behaviour.
That is a good excuse to avoid presenting your argument systematically.
Surely you can give a quick summary to your argument as I had done regularly when arguments are tangled and messed up all over with various rubbish in a thread.
I don't insult like you do, the most I do is to critique your philosophical competence and you can do the same.
The advantage of creating a new thread is that all our discussion in the specific issue will be confined to one thread and references can easily be made to that thread especially trying to find needles in so many haystacks.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:20 am
Your sort of response is really of the uneducated kind.
Raise a new thread with clear arguments to support your claim re indirect perception.
In addition, do not pepper your response with insults [becoming animal] which is one reason why your opponents are unable to grasp your intended points.
I already made the arguments again and again, I already wrote more than should be necessary in such a debate. You are free to read back and respond if you are able. I won't do even more work for you, until then I consider the debate to be over.
And it's rich that YOU are telling me to not pepper my responses with insults, when I'm just mirroring your behaviour.
That is a good excuse to avoid presenting your argument systematically.
Surely you can give a quick summary to your argument as I had done regularly when arguments are tangled and messed up all over with various rubbish in a thread.
I don't insult like you do, the most I do is to critique your philosophical competence and you can do the same.
You can find the summaries by reading back, looks like so far you haven't understood any of them. Where should I even start at this point?
And you do far more than critique philosophical competence (which is in itself very insulting when untrue).
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:26 am
I already made the arguments again and again, I already wrote more than should be necessary in such a debate. You are free to read back and respond if you are able. I won't do even more work for you, until then I consider the debate to be over.
And it's rich that YOU are telling me to not pepper my responses with insults, when I'm just mirroring your behaviour.
That is a good excuse to avoid presenting your argument systematically.
Surely you can give a quick summary to your argument as I had done regularly when arguments are tangled and messed up all over with various rubbish in a thread.
I don't insult like you do, the most I do is to critique your philosophical competence and you can do the same.
You can find the summaries by reading back, looks like so far you haven't understood any of them. Where should I even start at this point?
And you do far more than critique philosophical competence (which is in itself very insulting when untrue).
As above,
The advantage of creating a new thread is that all our discussion in the specific issue will be confined to one thread and references can easily be made to that thread especially trying to find needles in so many haystacks.
Then you don't have this problem?
"Where should I even start at this point?"
You are not even clear of your problem re indirect perception?
Start by defining indirect perception [this is critical] and take it from there?
Where is your supporting evidences and references that Kant and Hume did not deal with indirect perception [or by any other name] in their philosophies.
Why is the noumenal linked or not linked to indirect perception.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:01 am
That is a good excuse to avoid presenting your argument systematically.
Surely you can give a quick summary to your argument as I had done regularly when arguments are tangled and messed up all over with various rubbish in a thread.
I don't insult like you do, the most I do is to critique your philosophical competence and you can do the same.
You can find the summaries by reading back, looks like so far you haven't understood any of them. Where should I even start at this point?
And you do far more than critique philosophical competence (which is in itself very insulting when untrue).
As above,
The advantage of creating a new thread is that all our discussion in the specific issue will be confined to one thread and references can easily be made to that thread especially trying to find needles in so many haystacks.
Then you don't have this problem?
"Where should I even start at this point?"
You are not even clear of your problem re indirect perception?
Start by defining indirect perception [this is critical] and take it from there?
Where is your supporting evidences and references that Kant and Hume did not deal with indirect perception [or by any other name] in their philosophies.
Why is the noumenal linked or not linked to indirect perception.
I won't start new threads about the same issues, you're already flooding this forum with them. You're one of the few people who should be banned imo.
If you don't know what indirect perception is then we have nothing to talk about. Come back in a few weeks when you have processed it. The information is readily available everywhere. Here's a cartoon for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
If Hume and Kant have dealt with the problem then WHY haven't you been able to show how?
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:19 am
You can find the summaries by reading back, looks like so far you haven't understood any of them. Where should I even start at this point?
And you do far more than critique philosophical competence (which is in itself very insulting when untrue).
As above,
The advantage of creating a new thread is that all our discussion in the specific issue will be confined to one thread and references can easily be made to that thread especially trying to find needles in so many haystacks.
Then you don't have this problem?
"Where should I even start at this point?"
You are not even clear of your problem re indirect perception?
Start by defining indirect perception [this is critical] and take it from there?
Where is your supporting evidences and references that Kant and Hume did not deal with indirect perception [or by any other name] in their philosophies.
Why is the noumenal linked or not linked to indirect perception.
I won't start new threads about the same issues, you're already flooding this forum with them. You're one of the few people who should be banned imo.
If you don't know what indirect perception is then we have nothing to talk about. Come back in a few weeks when you have processed it. The information is readily available everywhere. Here's a cartoon for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
If Hume and Kant have dealt with the problem then WHY haven't you been able to show how?
Don't give silly excuses.
Anyway, you are not a moderator in this forum; if it is not allowed then I won't do it.
To be neat and not messed up threads, it is necessary to open up separate threads on the specific topic. I keep track of all the threads I opened as a sort of Bibliography and references.
Note my ability to refer to points quickly by referencing to my threads when I counter certain views.
In your case, your points are all messed up and lost in as needles in various haystacks all over the place.
Have you ever refer back to posts in that thread with 582 pages at present?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:24 am
As above,
The advantage of creating a new thread is that all our discussion in the specific issue will be confined to one thread and references can easily be made to that thread especially trying to find needles in so many haystacks.
Then you don't have this problem?
"Where should I even start at this point?"
You are not even clear of your problem re indirect perception?
Start by defining indirect perception [this is critical] and take it from there?
Where is your supporting evidences and references that Kant and Hume did not deal with indirect perception [or by any other name] in their philosophies.
Why is the noumenal linked or not linked to indirect perception.
I won't start new threads about the same issues, you're already flooding this forum with them. You're one of the few people who should be banned imo.
If you don't know what indirect perception is then we have nothing to talk about. Come back in a few weeks when you have processed it. The information is readily available everywhere. Here's a cartoon for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
If Hume and Kant have dealt with the problem then WHY haven't you been able to show how?
Don't give silly excuses.
Anyway, you are not a moderator in this forum; if it is not allowed then I won't do it.
To be neat and not messed up threads, it is necessary to open up separate threads on the specific topic. I keep track of all the threads I opened as a sort of Bibliography and references.
Note my ability to refer to points quickly by referencing to my threads when I counter certain views.
In your case, your points are all messed up and lost in as needles in various haystacks all over the place.
Have you ever refer back to posts in that thread with 582 pages at present?
Bla bla bla your points were refuted in their topics
Summary: if we assume direct perception (and maybe also some hidden dualism and some kind of idealism with many minds), then maybe one can wiggle out of the claim of solipsism, looks like this is what Kant did.
But today we know that direct perception is wrong, hidden dualism is also wrong, looks like we have to treat everything beyond our personal experiences as 100% unknowable noumena. So we end up in solipsism. The argument doesn't really work with modern science.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:30 am
I won't start new threads about the same issues, you're already flooding this forum with them. You're one of the few people who should be banned imo.
If you don't know what indirect perception is then we have nothing to talk about. Come back in a few weeks when you have processed it. The information is readily available everywhere. Here's a cartoon for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-jJMTjHoo
If Hume and Kant have dealt with the problem then WHY haven't you been able to show how?
Don't give silly excuses.
Anyway, you are not a moderator in this forum; if it is not allowed then I won't do it.
To be neat and not messed up threads, it is necessary to open up separate threads on the specific topic. I keep track of all the threads I opened as a sort of Bibliography and references.
Note my ability to refer to points quickly by referencing to my threads when I counter certain views.
In your case, your points are all messed up and lost in as needles in various haystacks all over the place.
Have you ever refer back to posts in that thread with 582 pages at present?
Bla bla bla your points were refuted in their topics
Summary: if we assume direct perception (and maybe also some hidden dualism and some kind of idealism with many minds), then maybe one can wiggle out of the claim of solipsism, looks like this is what Kant did.
But today we know that direct perception is wrong, hidden dualism is also wrong, looks like we have to treat everything beyond our personal experiences as 100% unknowable noumena. So we end up in solipsism. The argument doesn't really work with modern science.
The above is neither head nor tail and is such an entangled mess.
Note we are dealing with deeper and more complicated philosophical issues here, so rigor is necessary.
Since you are such a coward, I have raised a new thread for you to present your arguments against mine.
see viewtopic.php?t=40868
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:34 am
Don't give silly excuses.
Anyway, you are not a moderator in this forum; if it is not allowed then I won't do it.
To be neat and not messed up threads, it is necessary to open up separate threads on the specific topic. I keep track of all the threads I opened as a sort of Bibliography and references.
Note my ability to refer to points quickly by referencing to my threads when I counter certain views.
In your case, your points are all messed up and lost in as needles in various haystacks all over the place.
Have you ever refer back to posts in that thread with 582 pages at present?
Bla bla bla your points were refuted in their topics
Summary: if we assume direct perception (and maybe also some hidden dualism and some kind of idealism with many minds), then maybe one can wiggle out of the claim of solipsism, looks like this is what Kant did.
But today we know that direct perception is wrong, hidden dualism is also wrong, looks like we have to treat everything beyond our personal experiences as 100% unknowable noumena. So we end up in solipsism. The argument doesn't really work with modern science.
The above is neither head nor tail and is such an entangled mess.
Note we are dealing with deeper and more complicated philosophical issues here, so rigor is necessary.
Since you are such a coward, I have raised a new thread for you to present your arguments against mine.
see viewtopic.php?t=40868
Entangled mess to you maybe, because you lack the ability to see the whole picture.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:39 am
Bla bla bla your points were refuted in their topics
Summary: if we assume direct perception (and maybe also some hidden dualism and some kind of idealism with many minds), then maybe one can wiggle out of the claim of solipsism, looks like this is what Kant did.
But today we know that direct perception is wrong, hidden dualism is also wrong, looks like we have to treat everything beyond our personal experiences as 100% unknowable noumena. So we end up in solipsism. The argument doesn't really work with modern science.
The above is neither head nor tail and is such an entangled mess.
Note we are dealing with deeper and more complicated philosophical issues here, so rigor is necessary.
Since you are such a coward, I have raised a new thread for you to present your arguments against mine.
see viewtopic.php?t=40868
Entangled mess to you maybe, because you lack the ability to see the whole picture.
