So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless.
This has been explained.
You have proved that you don't know what that word means.
The mind uses faith in objects, not objects.
Based on?
The mind has no experience of objects.
Then how does it have "faith" in them? It's ok, you can say it. The brain. Which means, the mind has the
brain's "experience" of objects, which means the mind has faith in the ability of the brain to accurately "translate" the information it receives about objects from the outside world.
Which brings us again to the point you have not explained and just keep pathetically avoiding:
WPOSTPIC said:
me said:
how does the “mind” know it’s not “injured leg” if that’s what it experiences?
We use MRI to diagnose the problem.
So, after ALL of that pointlessly tortured horseshit, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use objects out in the world to know--directly experience--that an experience it had (created reflexively by the brain) was objectively wrong, rendering your entire ontology utterly pointless. You want to insert "faith in the brain" in there instead? Would that make it better?
So, NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use its
faith in the brain to accurately "translate" the information about MRI machines and other human beings called "Doctors" and all such "objects" outside in the world...etc.
But let's make it crystal fucking clear so that you can't continue to pathetically avoid the fact that you have rendered your ontology utterly pointless: NOW you're saying that the "mind" can use its faith in the brain to know that the brain is accurately reporting that the experience of "injured leg" that it created for the mind
before the MRI was objectively wrong, and that the "experience" of "MRI diagnosis" that the brain has created for the mind after being in the MRI is objectively right.
Same brain doing the same "experience package preparation and transmittal" procedure to the same mind (that the brain generates), only now, for no explicable reason, the mind can somehow trust that the same brain that fucked up the "pain in left leg" experience package is now accurately packaging the "MRI diagnosis" experience, which directly contradicts the "pain in left leg" experience.
Brain's experience A package, objectively wrong. Brain's experience B package, objectively right.
So what changed? How did the mind "figure out" that the brain was wrong in regard to the leg but right in regard to the back? The MRI told it. The brain, not the mind, because the mind only "experiences" and is generated by the brain and has no direct access to anything out in the world.
So the brain did exactly what it did with experience A ("Pain in leg") and created experience B ("MRI diagnosis") and the mind--somehow on its own without the brain, even though the brain creates it and it doesn't exist in any way without the brain's activity constantly generating it (it's the bird-in-the-cage; the heat in the room)--independently assessed the two experiences the brain created for it and
chose B as the objectively correct experience, because it somehow has the capacity to have faith in the brain's ability to report MRI "experiences" but not faith in the brain's ability to report pain in leg "experiences."
The "dumb" brain can somehow create a "smart" mind AND the "experiences"
for the mind, but it can't discern which experiences it creates are accurate. Only the mind--that does not exist independently of the activity that creates it--somehow has that capacity. And you--the "mind"--know this because your "dumb" brain tells you this is the case.
And if it were the objective case all along--unbeknownst to anyone involved--that the MRI machine was actually malfunctioning and/or the doctor misdiagnosed sciatica and instead the pain signal was actually revealing a deep vein thrombosis in the left leg? The "smart" mind would just continue to disregard the "dumb" brain's "pain in left leg" experience package, thinking that the "dumb" brain's "MIR diagnosis" experience package was still the objectively correct experience until the whole package died of an embolism.
Which is what should happen to this utterly pointless thread.
So, we are finally, once again, back to,
cogito, ergo sum as the only properly basic belief and the rest is you asserting that the excited molecules in the room (aka, the "heat" generated by the heater) can somehow collectively
decide that they are too excited and thus can turn the heater down a notch or two by will alone and
that is the
most logical explanation for why the room got colder, instead of, say, a temperature sensor on the heater reflexively altering the heater's activity.
