• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do minds exist?

fromderinside said:
Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.
Click to expand...
No. You should go out sometime and see the world, interact with other people, read books, newspapers, watch television.

Scientific evidence is whatever it is and not all evidence is scientific but something is evidence even if it's not scientific evidence. Get it? I have to tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. I'm quite sure most scientists understand the distinction. They should if they don't want to look like the thought-police of 1984. This is bad, man, you should know that!
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.
Click to expand...
No. You should go out sometime and see the world, interact with other people, read books, newspapers, watch television.

Scientific evidence is whatever it is and not all evidence is scientific but something is evidence even if it's not scientific evidence. Get it? I have to tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. I'm quite sure most scientists understand the distinction. They should if they don't want to look like the thought-police of 1984. This is bad, man, you should know that!
EB
Click to expand...

Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable. If it is evidence it is science and your 'argument', insults with them, die like a swatted fly.
 
fromderinside said:
Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable. If it is evidence it is science and your 'argument', insults with them, die like a swatted fly.
Click to expand...

What you are doing is trying to wipe away the ocean with a napkin.

The subjective is not public but it is the only evidence an individual has.

Even so-called public evidence is examined by the subjective mind and pronouncements are made about it based only on the subjective experience of people viewing the evidence.

If enough people have the same subjective experience we say the evidence is objective.
 
haha good one, a consensus wouldn't convince you you are wrong. so give it up, quit trying to use big words.
 
none said:
untermensche said:
An opinion is evidence of a mind in action.
Click to expand...

here, lets start over with the part you avoid: what is a mind, the mind, and minds?
Click to expand...

You can't hear the answer that has been given several times.

There is the experience of a mind and there is the way that experience is created.

So talking about the subjective experience of the mind IS talking about what a mind is.
 
untermensche said:
none said:
here, lets start over with the part you avoid: what is a mind, the mind, and minds?
Click to expand...

You can't hear the answer that has been given several times.

There is the experience of a mind and there is the way that experience is created.

So talking about the subjective experience of the mind IS talking about what a mind is.
Click to expand...
what? what exactly do you expect to achieve by double speak and dodging the fucking question?
it is a simple question, use your brain.
what is a mind, the mind, and minds? <-- talk about that

let me guess, you get a charge out of going online and being ambiguous. I don't even feel pity for you
 
none said:
untermensche said:
You can't hear the answer that has been given several times.

There is the experience of a mind and there is the way that experience is created.

So talking about the subjective experience of the mind IS talking about what a mind is.
Click to expand...
what? what exactly do you expect to achieve by double speak and dodging the fucking question?
it is a simple question, use your brain.
what is a mind, the mind, and minds? <-- talk about that

let me guess, you get a charge out of going online and being ambiguous. I don't even feel pity for you
Click to expand...

Do you have the experience of a mind?

If you do, that is one aspect of what a mind is.
 
none said:
untermensche said:
An opinion is evidence of a mind in action.
Click to expand...
here, lets start over with the part you avoid: what is a mind, the mind, and minds?
Click to expand...

Would a definition help?

the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to * think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

I would suggest that that definition is fairly good, although I'd add the word consciously where I've inserted a *, to distinguish conscious from unconscious activity.


If you're after something a bit more academic, you could go with something more akin to Theory of Mind.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Theory+of+mind

You seem to have a certain degree of scepticism that discussion is even possible, despite this being a popular topic for the last few hundred years. Can you share what you're trying to get at with your demands for definitions?
 
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.
Click to expand...

No. You should go out sometime and see the world, interact with other people, read books, newspapers, watch television.

Scientific evidence is whatever it is and not all evidence is scientific but something is evidence even if it's not scientific evidence. Get it? I have to tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. I'm quite sure most scientists understand the distinction. They should if they don't want to look like the thought-police of 1984. This is bad, man, you should know that!
EB
Click to expand...

Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree because I have subjective evidence for the fact that evidence is understood by naive people as something objective. Sure.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.
Click to expand...

No. You should go out sometime and see the world, interact with other people, read books, newspapers, watch television.

Scientific evidence is whatever it is and not all evidence is scientific but something is evidence even if it's not scientific evidence. Get it? I have to tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. I'm quite sure most scientists understand the distinction. They should if they don't want to look like the thought-police of 1984. This is bad, man, you should know that!
EB
Click to expand...

Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree because I have subjective evidence for the fact that evidence is understood by naive people as something objective. Sure.
EB
Click to expand...

Maybe some time refreshing yourself in sampling theory might help?
 
That is not responsive.

For something to count as "evidence" it must get that label from a human or human made device that displays results in a manner a human can see it.

All evidence is subjective evidence.

What "objective" evidence means is that there is agreement from humans based on subjective evidence.
 
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree because I have subjective evidence for the fact that evidence is understood by naive people as something objective. Sure.
EB
Click to expand...
Maybe some time refreshing yourself in sampling theory might help?
Click to expand...
It would be wholly irrelevant here.

I could try to understand what might be the biological basis for your obtuseness but that would require subjective evi-dence I don't have and will never have. But again it might well be that you actually don't have any kind of subjective experience. That would be a fascinating condition. Wouldn't stop you from living your life. Wouldn't stop you from arguing hard-core materialism. Talking to you would be like talking to a machine. You would pass the Turing test. Unfortunately, this is not a plausible explanation once you accept a physical universe along the line that we believe it to exist. So, either you are proof that reality isn't at all like we think it is, or you are being obdurate, for reasons only known to you.

Then again maybe it's Google or the U.S. government testing a new Internet interface assuming the personality of an obdurate sciency guy. Hello there!
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Evidence is defined as being public and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree because I have subjective evidence for the fact that evidence is understood by naive people as something objective. Sure.
EB
Click to expand...
Maybe some time refreshing yourself in sampling theory might help?
Click to expand...
It would be wholly irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

Not really. You haven't put the period on the distinction between subjective and objective. I'm pretty sure, having read summaries of the last 2500 years of philosophy, you can't.

Look. Statisticians have found ways to approximate objective with subjective without requiring constraints on subjective re objective. All that need be done is use two independent sets of subjective categories of data and relate them with some objective (mathematical) measure.

The Dimensional Representationand the Metric Structure of Similarity Data http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/32692/0000059.pdf?sequence=1

So here we are stuck between the subjective and the real place. No wonder philosophy is declining so agonizingly.
 
fromderinside said:
Not really. You haven't put the period on the distinction between subjective and objective. I'm pretty sure, having read summaries of the last 2500 years of philosophy, you can't...
Click to expand...

One merely needs to be honest. There is no need for philosophy.

There is the chair I see and there is the chair.

There is the subject and the object.

And there is no doubt there is the subject and the object.

To doubt proves one is a subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom