untermensche
Contributor
Descartes did not understand the reflexive nature of sciatica.
-
Features
Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
Descartes did not understand the reflexive nature of sciatica.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Neither can you. Your ontology doesn't allow for it.
The very best your ontology can ever do is assert an untrustworthy, error-prone brain-generated illusion can experience an untrustworthy, error-prone brain-generated "experience package" of "MRI diagnosis says damage in back" that contradicts a previous untrustworthy, error-prone brain-generated "experience package" of "damage in left leg."
In both instances--in ALL instances--it is an untrustworthy, error-prone brain feeding the untrustworthy, error-prone brain-generated "mind" its information.
In ALL instances, the untrustworthy, error-prone brain-generated "mind" can do nothing to independently verify anything the untrustworthy, error-prone brain tells it.
untermensche
Contributor
My ontology is that I am allowed to trust my eyes in some cases if I freely choose to trust them.
The trust in the evidence of my eyes leads my to conclude that the brain that is experienced is reflexive, not contemplative.
And since I am contemplative I can conclude I am not like what a brain in somebody afflicted with what they describe as sciatica appears to be like.
Since all any other person can do is talk about how the brain appears to them they must conclude from the evidence of sciatica that the brain is reflexive as well.
And if they also claim to be making comments freely based on freely made conclusions they must conclude they have autonomy.
Not as a brain appears to be and with autonomy.
Not baseless claims.
The only claims possible based on experience.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
That's not an ontology--that's an assertion--and it is actually contradicted by your ontology, which holds as one of its foundational principles that everything is brain-dependent.
As "translated" by an untrustworthy, error-prone brain...
An objective declaration that you can't possibly derive from your first premise.
You are simply asserting that the "mind" is whatever it wants to be and knows whatever it wants to know independently of the brain that generates it and feeds it all of its information. Talk about pulling shit out of your ass!
Since your untrustworthy, error-prone brain makes you think that you are contemplative, for all you could possibly know...
You don't have that ability.
Objective declarations that cannot possibly be made according to your ontology.
Iow, you appear to be believing in appearances. All of which are generated by an untrustworthy, error-prone brain.
Objective declaration.
Which, from your ontology necessarily means what your untrustworthy, error-prone brain is telling you you are "experiencing"...
That is brain generated.
Objective declaration.
If your brain tells you that you are "experiencing" others making a claim....
Which they could not possibly do as that would require independent confirmation, not merely brain-generated "experiences."
Then they would not only be incorrect, but absolute shit at logical deconstruction.
"Experience" that your own ontology dictates is created by an untrustworthy, error-prone brain.
No matter how you desperately try to chase your tail, you won't ever be able to eat it.
untermensche
Contributor
It is not brain dependent.
It is a specific activity dependent.
The brain is just the dumb machine that creates the activity that gives rise to the autonomous contemplative active mind.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Irrelevant semantics. It is--at best--brain activity dependent, which is identical to saying it is brain-dependent. Without the activity it does not exist. Without the brain, it does not exist.
YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT.
You aren't allowed to make any objective declarations about anything. Your ontology does not allow you to do that, so, literally every single time you do you are disproving your ontology.
So which is it? A "mind" can directly experience the external world, or it cannot and is therefore reliant entirely upon the brain for its information? You don't get both.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
If you understood English, there would have be another reason for your behaviour on this forum, something much worse than that you don't understanding English. Most people here have already jumped to that conclusion, but of course, that doesn't change the fact that you also don't understand English and that you're unable to express yourself in a rational way.
EB
untermensche
Contributor
Blindness.
untermensche
Contributor
Most people here?
You mean the three stooges and mickey mouse?
Why should I care?
What you have is cognitive dissonance, not somebody giving you bad English.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Childish avoidance.
Without the brain's activity, there is no "mind."
So which is it? A "mind" can directly experience the external world, or it cannot and is therefore reliant entirely upon the brain for its information?
You don't get both.
untermensche
Contributor
Delusion.
If the mind arises from specific activity all that is needed is the activity.
A brain is not needed at all.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Specific brain activity.
Even if you could make such an objective declaration (and you can't), irrelevant. It is still dependent upon "specific" activity and does not exist independently of such activity.
And no matter how flawless the mechanism that generates such activity may be, it can't ever be 100% without error, which means, once again, you've fucked yourself.
untermensche
Contributor
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Equivocation. At best, the proper wording (as derived from the conditions of your ontology) would be: "We call the specific brain activity 'mind.'"
What you are trying to do is fiat a noun from a verb. It isn't the mathematical formula; it is the act of calculating the formula. It isn't Heat; it is the act of generating Heat.
You are petulantly asserting that it's a tea kettle--or other like object--that exists independently of the method by which it was created, which is false according to the conditions of your own ontology.
Even if you are granted distinctness (and you're not, but even if), you STILL cannot establish independence from brain the way one could of a tea kettle (or other like object).
No matter what you do--no matter how fast you dance--you cannot ever escape the fact that your ontology is brain-dependent and as such, it cannot ever know anything other than "I think."
untermensche
Contributor
You admit there is this "we" giving names to things, minds in other words, and there is brain activity. Something a mind believes in by trusting certain experiences.
Brain activity is molecules binding to proteins and the internal cellular effects of that.
And brain activity is also electricity and magnetism.
And brain activity is blood moving around.
A mind is not cellular activity. It is not electricity. It is not magnetism. It is not blood moving.
It is something that arises in some way because of some activity, but we have no idea which activity.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
"Admit"?
In your words. This is an indictment of your ontology. I can use whatever words I fucking want to. You can't. You are restricted to and constrained by your ontology. If you ever once deviate from the conditions of your ontology, you have proved it false.
Granted for the sake of argument. Though, again, your ontology doesn't allow "you" (the "mind") to know this (i.e., directly experience this), other than the particular activity that would generate or otherwise constitute such an alleged manifestation.
Incoherent. You would need to exhaustively define "mind"--exactly how brain activity generates it--and then exhaustively define how such activity can in turn "believe in" anything, let along "trusting certain experiences."
You are, once again, making objective declarations that your ontology does not allow you to make. Do you understand what I mean by "objective declarations"? You are asserting that something is as you demand it to be, but "you" (according to your ontology) are a "mind" and can only ever get your information from an untrustworthy, error-prone brain.
"You" can't possibly make any declarations that purport to establish anything as an objectively true condition. Every single time you attempt to do so, all you are doing is disproving your ontology. The very fact that you keep repeating your ontology as if it were an objectively true condition disproves your ontology.
This is why you are perpetually fucked. Any attempt to establish any kind of objectively true condition axiomatically disproves your ontology.
Aside from the fact that, once again your ontology does not allow you to know any of that and once again you are making an objective declaration (thereby disproving your ontology), those are merely some activities of the brain, not all activities of the brain as you impossibly affirm in your next series of objective declarations, which I'm going to just insert commentary into to save formatting time:
And, finally, the closest thing to what you--the mind--can know according to your ontology (with one addendum):
That's it. That is the sum total of what you--the "mind" of your ontology--can ever know. Full stop.
untermensche
Contributor
A mind can only trust that something is behind experience or doubt if something is behind it.
There is nothing else available to a mind.
You cannot give the mind more than this.
And the mind is just a catch-all phrase for "that which experiences" and all it experiences and all it can do.
What it is exactly is not known by anyone.
But a mind is not a brain.
That is a worthless irrational idea.
It is stupidity.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Such is your ontology, though exactly how what is at best an illusion of activity can do any such things you have yet to explain and cannot explain--i.e., objectively establish--according to your ontology, so, once again, you're fucked.
So, a brain iow.
Then ALL of this has been nothing more than shit pulled out of your ass, which would have been fine had you not constantly behaved like a petulant child demanding that everyone just accept your self-contradictory shit.
Like this:
A) You JUST stated a "mind" is "just a catch-all phrase for 'that which experiences'" (brain) and "all it experiences" (brain) and "all it can do" (brain).
And B) You. Can't. Know. That.
And the only support you provide is petulance:
Those are not arguments.
You want--but cannot prove or establish--"mind" to be a distinct, independent organ all on its own; a tea kettle that the brain creates on an assembly line from bits and pieces and then at the end of the assembly (the end of the activity), there stands on its own a shiny "mind" that has all of these unique qualities that it can do.
No. That is evidently not the case. Whatever it may be, it cannot be a noun; it must be a verb, i.e., "the act of experiencing" instead of "that which experiences." This is where you keep making the same category error over and over and over.
That's not an opinion, unter. That's self-evident. And you stomping your little foot whenever it's pointed out to you, claiming something to be "stupidity" or "worthless" and "irrational" just keeps fucking you over, not me or anyone else.
Here's your problem (mankind's problem): you can't establish any conditions to be objectively true. For any of your assertions to obtain, however, they must reflect objectively true conditions. You tried to get there with "beliefs," but beliefs are prone to error and are unreliable AND there is no capacity for a "mind" to hold any such thing, let alone hold something that is independent of the brain.
Then you tried distinctness and we all saw what a mess that was. And even if you could somehow establish distinctness, you're still fucked by the problem of independence. Just because something may be distinct, it does not automatically follow that it is independent. Again, a character in a film is distinct, but it is by no means independent of the film (or projector).
Whatever the case may be, if we are to believe the available evidence, the phantoms of "mind" are generated by the brain, animated by the brain, imbued by the brain with whatever attributes the brain chooses, which by no means indicates a "dumb" or merely "reflexive" brain, but then that's probably due to the fact that we keep using a collective term to refer to something that is actually made up of many different interactive parts.
There is also one avenue of "dumbness" I guess that could explain all of it--the "prime directive" of our existence--survival. If you consider the body as a whole in much the same way we have been considering the brain without acknowledging it, then ALL of the parts serve the prime directive of survival and in that sense, everything that we have evolved into serves that singular, "dumb" purpose.
Which in turn would mean that brain is the processor and the "mind" is its process. Noun and verb in harmony, but it does not require (or petulantly demand) that "mind" is in any way independent or even, necessarily, distinct any more than noun and verb. It's like insisting that the act of calculating is independent of the mathematical formula you are calculating.
In the most trivial sense. the concepts of "Math" and "Calculating" are distinct, but the phenomenon under discussion would not be the differences between two concepts; the phenom we are discussing is what happens in the brain when it is in the act of calculating a particular mathematical formula.
You keep trying to separate and discard the act that creates the phenomenon in the first place. Why? What does that get you?
In short, your insistence on a two-dimensional, binary approach to the problem is what keeps fucking you over, so why you keep limiting yourself like that is what is "stupidity" and a "worthless irrational idea."
untermensche
Contributor
Just tell me what is there besides experience?
I can't if we ignore reason and think the heat is the same thing as the machine that creates it.
Or if we are even stupider and think this is saying the mind is like heat.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
You done little boy? Got that off your chest, did you? Good, because you’re still fucked no matter how many times you pathetically try to misconstrue what I said to avoid dealing with the fact that your ontology fails.