Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.
Alright.
You have quit
I have?
Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.
Alright.
You have quit
The brain imbues the mind with the sensation the mind calls "pain."
It therefore creates the "experience of pain."
The brain imbues the mind with the sensation the mind calls "pain."
The mind is aware of pain.
The brain creates something for the mind to be aware of.
you said:me said:It therefore creates the "experience of pain."
No quotes needed. Do you know what they mean?
The mind is aware of pain.
Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.
The mind is aware of pain.
Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.
My ontology says the mind is that which experiences all things.
The mind experiences pain. It is aware of it.
The brain does not experience pain.
It translate signals from the periphery into the "experience of pain."
Sometimes the translation is off.
My ontology says the mind is that which experiences all things.
Incoherent.
My ontology says the mind is that which experiences all things.
Incoherent.
Pathetic dodge.
There is experience and the thing that is aware of it.
You cannot have experience without something aware of the experience.
We label that which experiences all things
AND all it can do, like move the arm and sort through ideas
To say this is incoherent
My ontology says the mind is that which experiences all things.
The mind is not limited by your narrow imagination.
.
So, prove to me that evidence is something that exists outside our heads.
EB
.
Solipsism in philosophy, is an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself. The British idealist F. H. Bradley in Appearance and Reality (1893), characterized the solipsistic view as follows:
I cannot transcend experience, and experience must be my experience. From this it follows that nothing beyond my self exists; for what is experience is the self’s states.
.
.
Example of Solipism given by Boethius: I'm blind, so prove that colour exists, I'm deaf, so prove that sound exists, I'm ...................
When you truly believe the probability that 'nothing' exists (not a probability in QM btw) outside your head, as you do, then it becomes impossible to answer your challenge. Can you see that?
When you state 'outside our heads' can you prove to me that other heads exist? How do you know anyone exists?
You are forbidden to use the word 'our' again, or any plural or collective word. If you use one, just one, again you will debunk your own belief. You're on probation in this thread from this point on, got it. Signed: The voice inside your head.
Apart from the appalling self-centredness of this belief, which denies all other life exists except for oneself, and only oneself, it's just plain dim-witted as it means no transition of knowledge between sapients can occur. (Presumably because no other sapients truly exist ... heehe) As we know this does happen all the time, Solipism is debunked.
Solipism, the last unrecognised religion whose adherants claim they are athiests, in the genuine belief that they are purged of all spiritual superstition ... snigger
.
Example of Solipism given by Boethius: I'm blind, so prove that colour exists, I'm deaf, so prove that sound exists, I'm ...................
That some call this position solipsism shows how lost people are.
Considering that:
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
It's perfectly understandable as that is almost exactly word-for-word what you have been regurgitating.
It seems to you are just wrong here. As far as I can tell, untermensche and I broadly have the same analysis and, like him, I don't equate my view with solipsism. I grant you that the distinction is subtle for the non-specialist but there's no doubt as to the fact. And it's not a matter of equivocating on words, there really is a difference. Like me, I don't think untermensche's view is that (A) only his own mind is sure to exist. According to this, UM's view is not solipsism (except, as he says, as a possibility).
To help you sort out the mess, please note that the rest of Wiki's explanation does apply to untermensche's view (and my own): (B) "knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind".
The two bits, A and B, are not equivalent. And I believe that A doesn't apply to UM's view, while B does, at least as far as I understand his position but what he says here does confirm this.
EB
EDIT
In effect, we have A → B but not B → A. So, you can hold that B is true without necessarily holding that A is true.
Also, the difference between us is that untermensche's view is naive, i.e. he can't explain himself, which is why he keeps repeating again and again the same things, essentially a few trite ideas, and why he can't debate properly with other posters, as you will have noticed.
it becomes impossible to answer your challenge. Can you see that?
So your bit starts on the wrong foot. You're committing the same mistake as untermensche.
I don't "believe nothing exists outside my head" as you say I do. So, see, you really seem to have a problem with understanding the world of which I am a part. Or is it just English?
You must have missed my explanation to Koyaanisqatsi earlier in this thread. This should tell you there's something you didn't quite understand in relation to solipsism. Here it is: ...........
please note that the rest of Wiki's explanation does apply to untermensche's view (and my own): (B)
I hope this will be enough to stop you making unsubstantiated claims about me.
EB
Solipsism in philosophy, is an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself. The British idealist F. H. Bradley in Appearance and Reality (1893)
Descartes himself, after the Cogito went on to say very stupid things.
The mind is not limited by your narrow imagination.
Unter,
What is the mind limited by?
Is it limited by the body?
Descartes himself, after the Cogito went on to say very stupid things.
That's a BARE-FACED lie ... He always said stupid things, even as a child. He was noted for it. Haven't you ever read 'Mathesis Universalis'
Saying the mind is that which experiences is not saying that is all the mind is.
That which experiences is also that which moves the arm.
My formulation is: I experience therefore there is something that experiences and the things it experiences.
The salient point is there is an "I" that is thinking, an "I" that is experiencing.
There is an "I".