Incorrect. Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation
Which all require cognitive activity and you admitted that perception contains no cognitive activity.
It's clear by now that your definitions are faulty, to say the least. Stimuli produces a sensation, which produces a perception. Or, to put it another way, perceptions are reactions to sensations
But you already said that sensation itself was a reaction .
which are reactions to stimuli. Have I made this clear enough now?
Hardly. It should have been clear from context that I was saying that detection and sensation were synonymous, while perception was something else.
But detection involves cognition and perception which you have already admitted requires organization and interpretation. All cognitive activity.
Given that the last so-called "conflation" you accused me of was due to your misunderstanding, I think it is a fair statement that this one is as well. Perhaps you should stop trying to play word games with my statements in what has so far proven a futile effort to negate them without having to actually rebut them.
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.
A sensation is not a sense. Sensations are produced by the senses.
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.
There are only five known senses
So only five organs produce sensations? Could you delineate those for me and tell me which organs do not produce sensations?
By the way, organisms which do not have brains (and therefore do not have cognitive ability) can still have perceptions based on sensations.
We are not talking about other organisms. You didn’t answer the question.
No, we're talking about sensation and perception, which are not limited to humans.
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.
Triangles (and triangularity) are hardly abstract. We can concretely define triangularity whereas we cannot concretely define an abstract idea.
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.
Not at all. The problem is that for an abstract idea to be universal, it must be innate.
Triangularity is universal but not innate. That was created by men.
I don't even know what you mean by that.
I know you don’t among many other things said here.
This is a nonsensical attempt by you to try to obfuscate things.
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.
The plain and simple fact is that logic has no independent existence. It is dependent on the "chronological physical world", as you put it. So is abstraction; abstract ideas do not exist in some separate realm besides the physical.
Abstract ideas are created by minds which have developed enough to conceive of them, and without those minds (and the brains which produce those minds), they could not exist at all.
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.
Given how you just attempted to quote-mine my statement to pretend I meant something other than what I actually did, it is utterly dishonest for you to try to accuse me of "shady behavior". My full statement was, "Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists; we are using it to communicate with each other right now. If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible." It should have been evident that I rejected Gill's statement from the get-go.
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.
In other words, it's circular logic.
No it is not because an axiom is not a conclusion.
Given that there is no such difference, your point is invalid. Abstraction is produced by the physical world, the same as the mind is produced by the brain.
Without the physical structure to support it, you cannot have a mind (or abstraction).
Ad hoc. You have yet to explain how something physical could produce abstraction.
Universal ideas (such as triangles/triangularity) are natural consequences of a universe with spatial dimensions.
Ad hoc. I have already shown that you have no definition of space and you cannot individuate anything. You just assert it.
A triangle, for example, is meaningless if you cannot have straight lines and angles between those lines that add up to 180 degrees.
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.
And science does not do that.
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 the way, this is exactly what you're doing with coherence theory. You're affirming the conclusion
I have already answered this. An axiom is not a conclusion.
Scientific laws are nothing more than mathematical expressions to begin with. Thermodynamics, motion, gravity, whatever, they're just mathematical expressions of how those forces work, as seen from the "inside" (that is, we're affected by them too). It's not perfect, but going into science expecting perfection is silly.
If the possibilities are infinite, then not only is science not perfect, its theories carry the probability of 1/infinity which equals zero.
It seems that you don't understand what scientific laws are to begin with.
Your catalog is of your misunderstandings and obfuscations, as I've shown.
As I have shown, the reader may substitute your use of “obfuscation” with “I don’t have the ability to follow”.
This presupposes that abstractions have a separate existence from physicality.
Which you have only asserted ad hoc.
You must show evidence to support this, otherwise you are using circular logic to justify your position. And, by the way, not an assertion. It is based on the fact that you can't assert a conclusion and then validate the premise with that conclusion.
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).
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: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/eighteen-theses-against-behaviorism-by-drake/
As I am not talking about operations (that was your assertion, you never gave any evidence to show that it was the case), that doesn't matter.
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.
As it happens to be the conclusion of coherence theory, you will have to excuse my skepticism as to your claim that it's nothing more than an axiom/postulate. Frankly, I don't buy it.
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.
This has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.
Asserting a confusion is not the same thing as explaining it. Notice how I consistently explain your conflations all throughout this dialogue.
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.