Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The only way to experience a color is to have something that is not a color translated into a color.

The only way to have pain is to have something that is not pain translated into the experience of pain.

And the activity that creates the mind must be generated somehow.

Most likely the brain is generating it.

So you are confirming that in your ontology it is the brain that translates photon wavelength into "color" for the "mind" (also generated by the brain) to "experience." So the brain translates 600 nm into "red" for the "mind" to experience "red" while at the exact same time the brain is generating the "mind" in order for it to "experience" the translation of 600nm to "red."

So the brain does EVERYTHING. Mind does not exist without brain. Red does not exist without brain. Everything is created by brain.

Now that your Descartes drivel has been decimated

You do not even understand the position no less has anything been shattered.

You just keep repeating that and maybe it will magically become true like all of your other contradictory assertions.

Descartes has not been overturned.

No one said it was.

You have not overturned it in any way.

Nor did I claim to. YOU are just regurgitating Descartes as a foundation and then tacking on your own sophistry. It is YOUR moronic nonsense that I have absolutely decimated over and over again--beyond any hope of retrieval--and with each pathetic shifting of goalposts you desperately attempt as avoidance.

Yet another case in point:

An "Idea" (noun) is; but particular ideas are generated by a brain and therefore categorically do not stand on their own.

The mind placed the idea into memory.

With each avoidance you dig yourself deeper into assertions that your ontology can't possible support. What is your evidence that the "mind placed the idea into memory"? Your "experience." What generates that "experience"? Your brain. What constitutes "memory"? Your brain's tissues, apparently.

Brain, brain, brain all the time brain and nothing but brain, no matter what other words YOU use to describe different aspects of brain activity.

It is ALL brain all the time.

The brain merely retrieves something placed into memory by the mind.

Your ontology does not allow you to make that assertion. Iow, you can't know that.

That's not an opinion, that's based entirely on the drivel you keep spewing out your ass. There is no possible way you could know or derive from the stories your brain creates for your mind that this assertion is in any way true or accurate or even coherent.

The idea is not generated by a brain.

It must be, plus, once again, your ontology does not allow you to make any such assertions. Your mind cannot know how an idea is generated; only, at best that "ideas" (identical to "experiences") are generated by brain. It can't VERIFY THE CONTENT OF THE IDEAS OR EXPERIENCES, it can only experience whatever the brain generates not know (directly experience) the content of those ideas/experiences.

According to the conditions that obtain from your ontology, the mind cannot distinguish; it can only experience what the brain decides it will experience. If you assert otherwise, then you (a) have rendered your ontology false and (b) must evidence your assertion without relying on a brain's activity to do so or else (a).

It is generated by something that is a product of brain activity.

Aside from being yet another category error--it is ALL brain activity--your ontology does not allow you to make any such assertion.

Every time you assert anything to be objectively true you are proving your ontology objectively wrong. Iow, you are making objective declarations subjectively derived from empirical evidence that your own ontology insists is nothing more than an unreliable brain's stories.

 

[untermensche]

So you are confirming that in your ontology it is the brain that translates photon wavelength into "color" for the "mind" (also generated by the brain) to "experience."

No.

The brain is translating the neural signal from the eye to color.

The light merely excites cells and creates a neural signal.

That neural signal could be turned to anything. A sound, a pain, an emotion.

That it is translated into red is purely an evolved feature of the brain.

Color is an evolved feature of brains experienced by minds.

It is not something in the world.

What is your evidence that the "mind placed the idea into memory"?

I have actually studied things.

Aside from being yet another category error--it is ALL brain activity

The error is your error.

Over and over. the same stupid error.

A product of activity is distinct from the activity.

The activity of the heater is not the heat.

It is the activity of some machine. It is activity. It is not heat.

Heat arises from it.

The error is your error. Over and over I am forced to read it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your fourth rate opinion is noted.

It is a worthless mind that does not wonder what is happening in the mind when it orders the arm to move.

It is an even more worthless mind that doesn't even know they are doing it.

That, too, is just trivial beliefs not even based on evidence. Same bad metaphysics.

I guess the demonstration has been made that you can't articulate any rational justification for any of your trivial beliefs. You seem to accept this since you don't even try, content to repeat your trivia ad nauseam.
EB

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

What a pathetic thing.

This is all so far beyond you.

Sorry but you're the only one here who is pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. The fact that you can't even get this basic fact of the debate right is just confirmation you're too confused to articulate any rational argument.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

What a pathetic thing.

This is all so far beyond you.

Sorry but you're the only one here who is pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. The fact that you can't even get this basic fact of the debate right is just confirmation you're too confused to articulate any rational argument.
EB

I am describing experience accurately.

And real experience is what has to be explained, not distortions of experience.

And perhaps it is not self evident that infinite pages could never be turned over.

But all it takes is understanding of one mathematical concept.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am describing experience accurately.

"You" can't describe anything "accurately." Your ontology does not allow for that.

Once again, you are making objective declarations subjectively derived from empirical evidence that your own ontology insists is nothing more than an unreliable brain's stories.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The brain is translating the neural signal from the eye to color.

I thought "color" could only be "experienced" by the "mind." Now you are saying that the brain "translates" the wavelength to "color." How does the brain understand what "red" is for it to translate 600 nm into it for the "mind" to experience?

The light merely excites cells and creates a neural signal.

That neural signal could be turned to anything. A sound, a pain, an emotion.

That it is translated into red is purely an evolved feature of the brain.

Color is an evolved feature of brains experienced by minds.

That's a nifty cart before the horseshit thing you've got going on there. How did the brain possibly "evolve" 600 nm to "red" without understanding what it was translating and/or why it was translating it?

What is your evidence that the "mind placed the idea into memory"?

I have actually studied things.

That's not evidence. What is your evidence that the "mind placed the idea into memory"?

Aside from being yet another category error--it is ALL brain activity

The error is your error.

That isn't a counter-argument.

A product of activity is distinct from the activity.

Category error. Illusion is not a tangible "product" and cannot be called "distinct from" the activity that generates it. An illusion does not exist without the activity. There is no bird-in-a-cage, but you keep pretending--fiating--that there is a "distinct" bird-in-the-cage separate from the activity that generates it.

That is patently and objectively false.

The activity of the heater is not the heat.

The activity of a particular heater is what excites the molecules in the room where that heater is operating. The excitation of the molecules is what we call "heat," but it is not activity that is "distinct from" the particular heater that is exciting the molecules in that room.

This is the fundamental category error you keep making. It is undeniable, irrefutable and objectively true no matter how many times you petulantly gainsay it.

 

[untermensche]

I am describing experience accurately.

"You" can't describe anything "accurately." Your ontology does not allow for that.

Gibberish.

My ontology allows my mind to experience and command my hands to type out the words it chooses to describe it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

What a pathetic thing.

This is all so far beyond you.

Sorry but you're the only one here who is pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. The fact that you can't even get this basic fact of the debate right is just confirmation you're too confused to articulate any rational argument.
EB

I am describing experience accurately.

And real experience is what has to be explained, not distortions of experience.

And perhaps it is not self evident that infinite pages could never be turned over.

But all it takes is understanding of one mathematical concept.

All irrelevant to what I said. You're the only one here pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. And this without any rational argument.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I thought "color" could only be "experienced" by the "mind." Now you are saying that the brain "translates" the wavelength to "color." How does the brain understand what "red" is for it to translate 600 nm into it for the "mind" to experience?

It's called a reflex.

A stimulus creates a response.

The light hits the eye. The retinal cells create a neural signal. They do not "know" what they are doing. It is a reflex.

The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

Nothing is "experienced" by a brain in the way the mind experiences.

If a brain could "experience" red it would not need a mind.

Brains and livers cannot experience.

Minds experience.

How did the brain possibly "evolve" 600 nm to "red" without understanding what it was translating and/or why it was translating it?

How does any reflex evolve?

How did the brain evolve the ability to create pain for a mind to experience.

Damage to tissue is not pain.

Pain is an evolved response.

Category error. Illusion is not a tangible "product" and cannot be called "distinct from" the activity that generates it.

More gibberish.

If two things are totally different things then they must be distinct things.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The brain is translating the neural signal from the eye to color.

I thought "color" could only be "experienced" by the "mind." Now you are saying that the brain "translates" the wavelength to "color." How does the brain understand what "red" is for it to translate 600 nm into it for the "mind" to experience?

Good point but don't expect a rational response.
EB

 

[untermensche]

All irrelevant to what I said. You're the only one here pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. And this without any rational argument.
EB

Am I?

Is the fact that I must do something with my mind to move my arm pretending?

Or is it a real experience?

- - - Updated - - -

The brain is translating the neural signal from the eye to color.

I thought "color" could only be "experienced" by the "mind." Now you are saying that the brain "translates" the wavelength to "color." How does the brain understand what "red" is for it to translate 600 nm into it for the "mind" to experience?

Good point. But if you point out his contradictions, he will ignore what you say.
EB

Boy do you look stupid!

As I had just answered his third rate criticism again.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's called a reflex.

A stimulus creates a response.

The light hits the eye. The retinal cells create a neural signal. They do not "know" what they are doing. It is a reflex.

The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

A good example of magical thinking. A reflex does the trick. If you have no idea what to say, think of the word "reflex". There's nothing that a reflex can't do.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It's called a reflex.

A stimulus creates a response.

The light hits the eye. The retinal cells create a neural signal. They do not "know" what they are doing. It is a reflex.

The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

A good example of magical thinking. A reflex does the trick. If you have no idea what to say, think of the word "reflex". There's nothing that a reflex can't do.
EB

What would you call light energy hitting the retina and a neural signal being created?

Are you saying the retinal cells have little minds and know what they are doing?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Am I?

Is the fact that I must do something with my mind to move my arm pretending?

Or is it a real experience?

All irrelevant to what I said. You're the only one here pretending to know something as to the putative connection between the subjective mind and the brain. And this without any rational argument.

Good point. But if you point out his contradictions, he will ignore what you say.
EB

Boy do you look stupid!

As I had just answered his third rate criticism again.

Answered?! Your answer is just pathetic drivel. A reflex does it?! Come on, you must be kidding... Oh, Gosh, no, you're serious. A reflex does the trick! Extraordinary! Why don't you publish this immediately. Why do you waste your time here talking to idiots. There's a Nobel prize that's waiting for you.

So, how does the mind communicate with the brain? Using something like a counter-reflex? An anti-clockwise reflex? A reflexion? And how does the mind thinks at all? Come on, you've already said too much, you have to tell us everything. Does the mind control the brain to make it produce the thoughts it wants to have? Please use your magical thinking again so we can marvel at such a beautiful thing!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's called a reflex.

A stimulus creates a response.

The light hits the eye. The retinal cells create a neural signal. They do not "know" what they are doing. It is a reflex.

The brain does not know what the signal means. It just responds reflexively and translates the signal into something a mind can experience.

A good example of magical thinking. A reflex does the trick. If you have no idea what to say, think of the word "reflex". There's nothing that a reflex can't do.
EB

What would you call light energy hitting the retina and a neural signal being created?

Are you saying the retinal cells have little minds and know what they are doing?

How reflex, a neural signal or whatever could produce anything like a subjective idea? You think you've produced an explanation?! It's just magical thinking.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What would you call light energy hitting the retina and a neural signal being created?

Are you saying the retinal cells have little minds and know what they are doing?

How reflex, a neural signal or whatever could produce anything like a subjective idea? You think you've produced an explanation?! It's just magical thinking.
EB

This shows you are so lost it is not even worth trying.

I have said ideas originate in minds.

And I have not claimed to have an explanation.

But to get an explanation you have to know what you are trying to explain.

What needs to be explained is how the mind moves the arm.

Pretending it doesn't won't ever explain anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Your answer is just pathetic drivel. A reflex does it?!

A reflex does what?

What are you talking about?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What needs to be explained is how the mind moves the arm.

No, the only thing that you have to explain is how on earth you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What needs to be explained is how the mind moves the arm.

No, the only thing that you have to explain is how on earth you could possibly KNOW that it's the mind and not the brain that moves the arm.
EB

Because I use my mind to move my arm as my mind chooses.

I do it every day. I have done it for years.

What possible reason is there to doubt this experience?

 

[Grendel]

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

But what is doing the babbling if it's not the mind

 

[untermensche]

You are just mindlessly babbling and addressing nothing.

But what is doing the babbling if it's not the mind

A lazy mind.

A mind in error unable to admit it.