Which all require cognitive activity and you admitted that perception contains no cognitive activity.
This statement betrays your fundamental miscomprehension of how cognition and perception work. Organisms with no demonstrated cognitive ability, such as insects, still have the ability to perceive their surrounding environment. Therefore, cognition is not necessary for perception.
But you already said that sensation itself was a reaction .
With this, you've made it clear that you're arguing in terms of semantics and linguistics, rather than based on actually understanding the subject matter. And even then, your arguments are faulty. There is no reason that one reaction cannot cause a second, more complicated reaction. This is essentially what the term "chain reaction" means. Therefore, there's no reason that a stimuli can't cause a sensation, which then causes a perception.
That much is evident by now.
But detection involves cognition and perception which you have already admitted requires organization and interpretation. All cognitive activity.
This is another argument based on pure semantics, but it's still quite faulty. First off, perception does not require cognition, as I showed above. Second, detection at its heart simply means the detection of something. For example, a sensory organ detects a stimuli, which is synonymous with saying that it sensed the stimuli. I suppose you could use it some other way, but you shouldn't conflate that with the way that I'm using it, because it causes problems for you and your argument.
I am showing you huge holes in your definitions and you keep on in your obstinacy. You don’t have a theory. Just come to grips with this.
No, what you are doing is showing your poor understanding of the subject we're discussing. Your arguments essentially consist of "I've defined this a certain way, and the way you're using it doesn't match that definition, therefore your statements are wrong". That's one of the more pointless ways to argue, as it only results in people restating their same positions over and over again.
You said above,
A sensation is the reaction of an organ that has developed to detect certain things
So then a sense is an organ and a sensation is that which the sense produces. So then the sensation is not in the external object but in the organ.
This is nothing but more of your word games, and I'm frankly getting tired of them. Or did you really think I wouldn't notice your attempt - again - to conflate a sense and the sensations it produces?
So only five organs produce sensations? Could you delineate those for me and tell me which organs do not produce sensations?
I will be happy to state which organs produce senses (the eyes for vision, the ears for hearing, the nose for smell, the tongue for taste, and the skin for touch; I suppose it's possible that the inner ear that provides for balance would also be considered a sense, though I don't consider it one), but I see no point in stating all the other organs, as it would be time-consuming for no real purpose. If you have evidence of other organs which produce senses, feel free to elaborate.
We are not talking about other organisms. You didn’t answer the question.
I was demonstrating that other organisms which do not have complicated brains - or brains at all - and thus do not have any cognitive ability still have sensations and perceptions. This undercuts and contradicts your statements about detection, perception, sensation, and cognition. I can see why you might want to call foul rather than having to address this problem, given your contention that cognition is required for perception, but it's quite evident that you're only making this claim (that we're just talking about humans) as a transparent attempt to try to 'prove' your claim by fiat.
And, by the way, I did answer the question. Organisms which do not have brains still have sensations and perceptions. Therefore the brain is not necessary for them, and therefore cognition is not either. By definition, if perceptions can happen in an organism without a brain, then perception must necessarily exclude cognition, as cognition requires a brain capable of it.
Notice the OP:
“How do WE account for the existence of numbers? ”
The operation of other creatures is irrelevant and seeing that I have already shown a clear distinction between humans and other creatures in that we are the only species with grammar and dictionaries and mathematics, I am chalking this up to your obstinancy.
Do you seriously think this bit of chicanery is going to fool anyone? Frankly, every time you pull a stunt like this, you lower my opinion of your ability to argue and to reason even further. The fact that humans are different from other organisms in that we have linguistics, math, etc, has no bearing at all on things like sensation and perception. The one has nothing to do with the other.
In order for a triangle to be drawn you must locate a distinct point which I have proven impossible because you can show no distinction at in the material world.
This again? You can't use logic to disprove something that exists in the real world. Attempting to do so just makes you look silly, like King Canute trying to command the tides. No matter how often you bleat about how you've "proven something impossible" that actually exists, the fact of the matter is that reality itself contradicts your misuse of logic.
Triangularity is universal but not innate. That was created by men.
Triangularity is innate to the universe; if it was not innate, it could not be universal. Abstract ideas are not innate to the universe (nor do they have a separate existence), therefore they cannot be universal.
I know you don’t among many other things said here.
Another attempt at a "gotcha"? You arbitrarily introduced this idea of a thing's "essence", and then attempted to make a claim about how I was talking about it. Except that I wasn't, because you introduced it. That's why I don't know what you mean by it. The fact of the matter is that I have a much better understanding of the subject we're discussing than you do. Indeed, you've amply shown that your own understanding of things is tremendously flawed.
This is just another way to say what I quoted you saying above. As soon as I take you out into water too deep for you, you blame me for your incapability.
Hardly. But now it's clear why you're constantly trying to obfuscate things. It's because you believe if you can get the people you're arguing snarled up in your illogic and obtuse reasoning, then you can win any argument by default. The fact of the matter is that the only thing you're actually showing is how poor your ability to argue and understand things truly is, and thus you're losing by default.
This term does not mean what you think it means.
I'll restate what you attempted to dismiss: Logic has no independent existence. If you wish to prove otherwise, then you must demonstrate evidence to support it. Not simply concoct a logical proof.
Ad hoc. How could particular experience ever produce a universal in a mind? We are right back to the initial questions that you cannot answer.
This depends on your assertion that abstract ideas are universal, except that you have not proven that this is the case. Indeed, as you showed by attempting to use triangularity as an example of an abstract idea, it's probable that you are doing nothing more than using semantic definitions to try to 'prove' your arguments by fiat.
I will repeat: ad hoc. You rejected her not logically with any arguments but ad hoc, you justify the existence by the results thus proving the principles by the conclusion.
This is nothing more than you making an assertion that you cannot possibly prove, and repeating your tiresome attempts to claim that I'm using circular logic, even though I've rebutted them repeatedly. Simply repeating your assertion does not prove it. I rejected Gill's argument because logic which asserts something contrary to reality is nonsense. It is impossible to disprove something that can be shown to exist with logic. And trying to pretend that it does anyway is unsane, at the least.
No it is not because an axiom is not a conclusion.
This is just more word games, and thus has no relevance.
Is this your new catch-accusation? Last time, it was "asserting the consequent".
Ad hoc. You have yet to explain how something physical could produce abstraction.
I already have. The problem is that you have redefined abstraction to mean something that is different than what it actually means and thus are playing word games.
Ad hoc. I have already shown that you have no definition of space and you cannot individuate anything. You just assert it.
Really? Funny how that is completely failing to stop me from defining space and individuating things. Once again, you cannot logically disprove something that can be shown to exist anyway and expect it to actually matter.
Everything you just said depends on the existence of distinct points which you only assert exist by ad hoc. Moreover, with a line segment you need a fixed point and that does not exist. There are no such things as fixed points.
You claim that lots of things don't exist which actually do, and you claim that things which actually don't exist really do exist. Haven't you realized by now that you've only succeeded in demolishing your own credibility and made yourself look like a fool?
On the contrary: Bertrand Russell said,
“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” (The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell, page, 51)
By now, if you said that the sun would rise in the east, I would have to check to confirm that it did. I have little doubt that you can find quotes to support your beliefs, but the fact of the matter is is that you've consistently demonstrated that you believe things which are demonstrably not true, and believe that things which are demonstrably true can be proven false by logic. So all you have actually accomplished is to demonstrate exactly why your beliefs are not accepted.
I have already answered this. An axiom is not a conclusion.
Claiming that something can't be a conclusion because you've stated it is an axiom is nothing more than word games.
If the possibilities are infinite, then not only is science not perfect, its theories carry the probability of 1/infinity which equals zero.
Except that the possibilities are not infinite. Infinity does not exist in reality. And this is ample proof that you don't really understand science to begin with.
That doesn't mean what you think it means either.
As I have shown, the reader may substitute your use of “obfuscation” with “I don’t have the ability to follow”.
Incorrect. The two are not equivalent. There is a difference between deliberately making an argument hard to follow, which is what obfuscation means, and someone lacking the ability to follow an argument which is generally comprehensible. When I accuse you of obfuscation, it is disingenuous for you to claim that the problem is with me. Especially as I've shown that I do understand your arguments. When I accuse you of obfuscation, it is not because I do not understand what you are trying to say, it's because you are deliberately trying to make things difficult for other people.
Which you have only asserted ad hoc.
Actually, you're the one asserting that your "abstract realm" exists without any evidence whatsoever. All you can do is say "my beliefs are coherent, therefore they're the truth". As I've stated repeatedly, showing that something is coherent in no way shows what it's truth value is.
From my axiom, not my conclusion, that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge, I can deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts. This God created the world and human beings in his image which is essentially the rational faculty of man (Col 3:10). I can also deduce that persons can be considered outside of a physical body. (2 Cor 12:3).
This is circular logic, obfuscated to make it look superficially plausible if you don't think about it too hard. You've claimed as your axiom that the Protestant Canonical list is the embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge. So this is an assertion - not something you can prove. From there, you deduce that there is a God who thinks thoughts (and therefore represents the rational faculty of humans). How do you know this? Because he provided the Protestant Canonical list that you used as your axiom. Now, you didn't actually state as much. You left it unsaid in the hopes that it wouldn't be noticed. Nonetheless, it is part of the conclusion and thus shows that your argument is based on circular logic. Furthermore, you can in no way prove that the actual source of the Protestant Canonical list was "God", therefore this is nothing more than an assumption based on your preexisting belief that God exists. In other words, more circular logic.
Thus the arche of all knowledge, in the genus of being, are divine ideas within a divine mind and this divine mind has no physical brain. I speak to this issue in detail here:
No matter how well-spoken they are, arguments based on circular logic are necessarily invalidated.
Your view clearly sees truth as a demonstration of physical objects in the chronological/historical order. That is contrasted with my view of propositional demonstration which is what you were rejecting when I replied at #91.
Nope. You don't actually know what I see truth as. This is simply a bad assumption on your part.
The conclusion of coherency theory is yes, it is coherent or no its not. My axiom is the Protestant canonical list. Don’t confuse them.
I don't deny that you can determine whether something is or isn't coherent. What I do deny is that you can determine whether it's true based on that. Furthermore, this Protestant Canonical stuff is not coherent to begin with. It is simply cherry-picked Biblical scriptures, selected by Protestants in order to present the appearance of coherence, when in fact it is fundamentally arbitrary, nothing more than saying "I believe these scriptures are true" without any evidence to support those versus other scriptures that weren't picked. It makes the whole thing little more than a farce, a claim that one set of unsupported beliefs is true while all other sets of unsupported beliefs are false.
Asserting a confusion is not the same thing as explaining it. Notice how I consistently explain your conflations all throughout this dialogue.
The only thing you've done consistently is play word games in order to make your own arguments look good and other people's look bad. This is not convincing.
It appears we have reached a road block as I have a strong inclination that you are not able (At this time) to understand quite a number of issues here so continuing would be a waste of my time. I hope the best for you.
I understand much better than you seem to think I do. What you're actually doing here is attempting to "declare victory and withdraw", so you can continue to claim that your beliefs are correct. Kind of sad, really; for all that you claim to have the "embodiment of demonstrable human knowledge" on your side, you sure are clueless when it comes to actually arguing your case.