On Feb 6, 12:04 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

You obviously allowed your mind to fool your eyes and then blamed your
eyes for being fooled, which is typical Kantian behaviour, i.e.
according to Kantian subjective diatribe, your eyes haven't seen what
they've seen until your mind says what they have.

The silly Kantians clowns call that an example of subjective reality,
or rather they use examples like that to say their eyes have been
fooled (indeed, even you said that your eyes can fool you didn't you
zinc?) and therefore they've named it the oxymoronic crap, "
subjective reality".

The idea that the mind instructs the eyes what they see, is what the
mystics use to make their claims of seeing their lord before their
very own eyes.

Its a very handy tool to create your own reality, which again is what
Kantians will say, that reality is what it is to you andyour eyes an
not independent of you and your eyes.

On Feb 7, 1:06 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

I guess you are addressing me. It is hard to tell because your
response is so irrelevant to the topic.

On Feb 8, 2:47 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

According to the Kantian, colour is subjective and that IS the mind IS
instructing the eyes, AND you're trying to tell me there's two
triangles where in reality there are NONE, got that NONE, AND that
sunshine, IS the mind instructing the eyes what they are seeing.

HINT; the eyes see what they seee, your mind must then process that
data.

NO, check your premises, you've just told me that Kant says the mind
does NOT instruct the eyes and next thing you are claiming there's
only two images, I only counted 18 and ONLY 18, the rest is utterly
totally MIND DEPENDENT, the mind instructing the eyes too see whats
not there in reality, Kantians love that sort of crap and then deny
that is what they are doing.

Michael Gordge

On Feb 7, 2:44 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:01 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
...

I don't see it as the mind being capable of two
temporally separated interpretations anymore than
it can instruct the eyes. It is the brain that
changes state when you experience the rabbit or
duck, face profile or vase or one of the Necker
cube views.

On Feb 8, 7:01 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

Your question implies thats a problem of philosophy, and reality, its
not. Its mind dependent garbage.

My philosophy is underpinned by the epistemology of reason, therefore
starts with sensory reality, matter, therefore INDEPENDENT OF THE
MIND, in reality there is only matter, its the stuff your mind can do
fuck all with except to identify it and to do so without contradiction
in that process.

If you want me to answer a question about your silly circles, then
make them as real as possible, e.g. three dimensional, e.g. carve them
out of stone. I deal in philosophy not whim worshipping and guess
work.

The nature of your mind is to deal with sensory reality, why allow it
to be even bothered with this idiotic crap?

On Feb 7, 4:25 pm, casey yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Mindless eyes register, they do not 'see'.

On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

On Feb 8, 10:19 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

Ok. It takes a while to get a belief profile of the
regulars on a forum :)

JC

On Feb 8, 8:40 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

Oh so now you're getting really desperate and appealing to a higher
authority.

Why dont these neuroscientists just do as I suggested, carve their
circles and their silly utterly mind dependent shapes and squiggles
out of stone or timber, so as to make them objects of reality which
the mind is able to deal with much easier?

Better still why dont they and you spend some time in a Montessori
prep school? The triangles rectangles oblongs cubes balls, ovals all
sorts of shapes, at a Montessori prep school, are all made from timber
and other real sensory materials.

The mind thinks better when the sensory evidence is able to be touched
felt handled bounced broken smelt burnt bitten rebuilt etc etc as well
as seen.