Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[untermensche]

Saying the arm is only experienced is not saying the arm is like color.

It is saying it could be like color.

 

[steve_bank]

Only physical and material reality exists. Everything else is metaphysical verbiosity.

One step in the Buddhist path us reeling you are a self delusion, self is a self delusion.

Physically thoughts are the result of physical chemical process, they are real and physical.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But color is not something that exists out in the world.

You can't know that.

It only exists as an experience.

You can't know that either.

Experience is knowledge.

Then it is the brain--and only the brain--that has such "knowledge," since, once again, according to your own ontology, it is the brain that prepares the "experience packages" for the "mind." Everything in your ontology is brain-dependent and because the brain cannot be trusted, you--whatever "you" are--cannot ever trust anything you say or think or believe that you have experienced.

In fact, you can't even derive cogito, ergo sum, because that derivation is also untrustworthy brain-dependent.

EVERYTHING in your ontology is brain-dependent; all the way up and all the way down. You can't even form a syllogism to establish your own existence as a "mind" since it too would all be untrustworthy brain-dependent and untrustworthy brain-generated. How could you? ALL of your information is brain-dependent at all times.

You can't even have "faith" or a "will" or a "belief" in your existence as a "mind," because there is no way for you to ever know whether or not your "will" exists or is a lie or a mistake (like sciatica) of the brain. Indeed, far from proving any of your claims, sciatica proves that all your "mind" concept can ever do is experience the act of experience, never the content of the experiences.

It would be like a character in a film prancing about and saying, "I am not a product of the film projector's activity; I am a distinct entity in my own right and exist separately from the projector and have my own will to move around as I am now demonstrating." No matter how many times that movie was projected would that line be true in spite of how earnestly that character believed it to be true, nor could it ever be true that the character believed it to be true (since the character is written by a brain and generated by a brain).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Saying the arm is only experienced is not saying the arm is like color.

It is saying it could be like color.

You said "the arm is experienced"... This entails that the arm, like colour, is not something that exists out in the world. This is absurd. What we mean by "arm" is definitely not something that "only exists as an experience" but instead that would exist "out in the world".

It's up to you to stop being slovenly in the way you use language.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's up to you to stop being slovenly in the way you use language.

That's all he has. It let's him pretend and avoid and attack and regurgitate.

 

[untermensche]

Saying the arm is only experienced is not saying the arm is like color.

It is saying it could be like color.

You said "the arm is experienced"... This entails that the arm, like colour, is not something that exists out in the world...

The experience of the arm is in the mind.

That does not mean the arm is not in the world.

All it means is we can't possibly know for certain.

How would you prove the arm is in the world?

 

[untermensche]

You can't know that...

Prove color exists in the world and you would have done one thing so far.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Saying the arm is only experienced is not saying the arm is like color.

It is saying it could be like color.

You said "the arm is experienced"... This entails that the arm, like colour, is not something that exists out in the world...

The experience of the arm is in the mind.

That does not mean the arm is not in the world.

All it means is we can't possibly know for certain.

How would you prove the arm is in the world?

You're not addressing my post.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You can't know that...

Prove color exists in the world

I don't have to. Your own brain-dependent ontology prevents the "mind" from ever knowing--or "accepting as a belief"--anything at all, let alone whether or not color exists in the world. You hoisted yourself with your own brain-dependent sciatica.

 

[untermensche]

You can't know that...

Prove color exists in the world

I don't have to. Your own brain-dependent ontology prevents the "mind" from ever knowing--or "accepting as a belief"--anything at all, let alone whether or not color exists in the world. You hoisted yourself with your own brain-dependent sciatica.

Why can beliefs not just be accepted again?

- - - Updated - - -

The experience of the arm is in the mind.

That does not mean the arm is not in the world.

All it means is we can't possibly know for certain.

How would you prove the arm is in the world?

You're not addressing my post.
EB

That you don't understand I have proves you are over your head.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't have to. Your own brain-dependent ontology prevents the "mind" from ever knowing--or "accepting as a belief"--anything at all, let alone whether or not color exists in the world. You hoisted yourself with your own brain-dependent sciatica.

Why can beliefs not just be accepted again?

You understand perfectly well, why. As with everything in your ontology, beliefs would likewise be brain-prepared/brain-dependent, but the brain is untrustworthy and prone to error (e.g., sciatica). At no point could your concept of a "mind" ever just accept that what the brain feeds it is in any way "true: and since it cannot ever experience anything that is not created by brain in order to independently verify anything the brain imbues it with, it must remain--at best, if it were to exist in the first place--forever skeptical of anything brain, including itself.

Again, the only thing it can ever know (directly experience) is the act of experiencing. It can't know anything at all about the content of the experiences the brain prepares for it. It can't know what red is or color wavelengths are or what photons are, etc., etc., etc. and it certainly could never know whether or not "red" exists in the world, nor could it surmise or infer that it does or does not, since it has no way of independent verification.

You understand this, which is why you are so desperately intent on forcing distinction upon it, because without distinction there can be no hope of independence and without independence from brain, it is all brain and nothing but brain, or, at the very least, entirely brain-dependent and thus incapable of anything beyond constant doubt.

And that's stretching the limits of your ontology to give it any kind of meta-capabilities like "doubt," which also are not obtainable through the conditions of your ontology. It can never know anything but what the brain imbues into its creation.

Again, it's like a character in a film claiming that it has autonomy from the projector. Just because it claims it, does not make it so. In fact, the very act of it making any such claim proves conclusively that it is entirely dependent upon the projector.

 

[untermensche]

I don't have to. Your own brain-dependent ontology prevents the "mind" from ever knowing--or "accepting as a belief"--anything at all, let alone whether or not color exists in the world. You hoisted yourself with your own brain-dependent sciatica.

Why can beliefs not just be accepted again?

You understand perfectly well, why. As with everything in your ontology, beliefs would likewise be brain-prepared/brain-dependent...

That is your "ontology".

The "I am an illusion" "ontology"

The laughable "ontology".

Mine is the mind can act and choose which ideas it accepts and which it rejects.

I can have faith in the MRI without knowing it is there.

No reason to doubt it but the absence of a reason to doubt is not proof of anything.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You understand perfectly well, why. As with everything in your ontology, beliefs would likewise be brain-prepared/brain-dependent...

That is your "ontology".

No, that is yours.

Mine is the mind can act and choose which ideas it accepts and which it rejects.

No, that is an assertion that can not be supported in any way by your ontology for the simple reason that the "mind" can't ever be independent of brain and thus any "act" it "chooses" or any "ideas it accepts and rejects" it can't ever know if it was its own action or the brain's that caused any such things.

I can have faith in the MRI without knowing it is there.

How? Based on what your brain tells you. Your brain is "dumb" and untrustworthy and prone to error, so what exactly would your "mind" be having faith in?

No reason to doubt it

Brain dependency is the reason to doubt it. Sciatica is the reason to doubt it. Literally everything you've been arguing in this thread and the other one are the reasons to doubt it.

 

[untermensche]

the "mind" can't ever be independent of brain and thus any "act" it "chooses"...

That is your belief.

In your "ontology" you did not come to this conclusion through reasoning.

You are not something that reasons.

You are an illusion.

It is so very amusing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The experience of the arm is in the mind.

That does not mean the arm is not in the world.

All it means is we can't possibly know for certain.

How would you prove the arm is in the world?

You're not addressing my post.
EB

That you don't understand I have proves you are over your head.

This shows you don't understand English.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That you don't understand I have proves you are over your head.

This shows you don't understand English.
EB

Yes. I have a doctorate and license in Pharmacy but do not understand English.

Amazingly the Pharmacy boards were in German.

The problem is I understand it much better than you do.

Your English is weak.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

the "mind" can't ever be independent of brain and thus any "act" it "chooses"...

That is your belief.

No, that is a condition of your ontology. Do you seriously not understand what that means?

In your "ontology" you did not come to this conclusion through reasoning.

I have presented no ontology. The fact that I came to that conclusion through reasoning, however, is spelled out in front of you. Guess what problem that entails for you.

You are not something that reasons.

I clearly am as evidenced by the reasoning demonstrated repeatedly itt, but more importantly, you can't know that, because you are a "mind" that is experiencing my reasoning as an interpretation by your brain, which according to your ontology is all your mind can know.

You are an illusion.

You can't know that.

It is so very amusing.

Yeah, no. You having to write that proves you don't actually find any of this amusing, which is what is actually amusing.

 

[untermensche]

No, that is a condition of your ontology. Do you seriously not understand what that means?

I know what a baseless claim is, yes.

The mind is autonomous. That is it's nature.

It is not the brain. It is not the activity of the brain. It is an autonomous agency that arises out of activity.

And there is no need to say this is all based on a belief there is something behind experience.

But none of it is a proof there is something behind experience.

You are an illusion.

You can't know that.

You stated it. And I experienced what you stated.

Now when your stupidity is understood you run away from your prior claims.

It is all so amusing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I know what a baseless claim is, yes.

And you think being cute like that is going to just magically change the fact that your ontology doesn't allow for most of this ancillary shit you keep pulling out of your ass?

The mind is autonomous.

First of all, it can't be if it is brain-dependent and brain-generated. Second, you--as the "mind"--can't know that. Third, you--as the "mind"--can't make any such objective declarations period, let alone about your own autonomy, because you can never know whether or not that's all a lie or a mistake (like sciatica) created by the brain.

No amount of childish, petulant posturing on your part can overcome these fatal flaws to your ontology.

That is it's nature.

For you--the "mind"--to make such an objective declaration, you would necessarily have to be not-mind AND exist in an objectively true universe AND be able to directly experience such an objectively true universe such that not-mind could determine independently of "mind" or "brain" what mind's "nature" is.

Mind, however, in your ontology, can't ever know if that's all just brain fucking things up again.

Just. Like. Sciatica.

It is not the brain.

Here you go again trying to desperately force distinction in order to bridge the chasm to independence, but even if true, it is still brain-dependent for ALL of its information. Which necessarily means that it can't ever trust any information. Period.

It is an autonomous agency that arises out of activity.

Incoherent, but, again, even if true, it is STILL brain-dependent for ALL of its information. It cannot independently verify ANYTHING about itself or the outside world or anything at all. How could it when ALL of its information comes from brain?

You can't know that.

You stated it. And I experienced what you stated.

No, you did not. According to your own ontology, you experienced your brain's "translation" of what I stated and since you can't trust your sciatica brain, you've fucked yourself.

you run away from your prior claims.

I have done no such thing, but if this transparently childish reliance on vacuous self-assurance helps you to deal with the fact that your ontology fails, have fun with that.

 

[untermensche]

First of all, it can't be if it is brain-dependent and brain-generated.

Bullshit.