Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

Bullshit.

Piercing counter-argument.

 

[untermensche]

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

Bullshit.

Piercing counter-argument.

Nothing to counter but absurdity.

The absurdity of a pleading mind saying it is not free.

It cannot stop it's pleading nor is it in control of it's pleading.

Insanity. And lies.

Autonomy of mind is a given to have any serious discussion.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Piercing counter-argument.

Nothing to counter but absurdity.

Enough with the idiotic posturing.

Autonomy of mind is a given

Truly absurd, but then that's why you keep attempting these idiotic diversions.

 

[untermensche]

Subjective experience is primary.

It is what we know.

Objects behind experience are what we believe.

This is where I started and where I still am because there is no argument to move me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Subjective experience is primary.

Objective declaration.

It is what we know.

Assertion by a brain-dependent "mind" that has no way to know whether or not that's true.

Objects behind experience are what we believe.

Assertion by a "mind' that has no way to know whether or not that's true. How can a brain-dependent mind "believe" anything at all?

You continue to make objective declarations that directly contradict the subjectivity that obtains both from the topic of your declarations and from your ontology. You can't possibly be so stupid that you cannot understand this.

This is where I started

We know.

and where I still am because there is no argument to move me.

Petulance is not a counter-argument.

 

[untermensche]

Subjective experience is primary.

Objective declaration.

Clear observation.

I am not a brain. I am not made of cells.

I am not brain activity. I am not a neurotransmitter binding to a cell. I am not electricity.

Assertion by a brain-dependent "mind" that has no way to know whether or not that's true.

If all our conclusions are brain dependent then there is no way for anyone to know if anything is true.

You are taking a position freely yet claiming you have no freedom to take positions.

It is absurd nonsense.

and where I still am because there is no argument to move me.

Petulance is not a counter-argument.

As we see.

 

[steve_bank]

What is the metaphysic's of metaphysics?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Clear observation.

There can be no such thing as a "clear observation" for anything that must get all of it's information from an untrustworthy brain.

No matter how many times you try to restate it, you always hoist yourself with your own petard.

If all our conclusions are brain dependent then there is no way for anyone to know if anything is true.

Assuming the brain is untrustworthy and by "true" you mean "objectively the case regardless of observation" then welcome to your ontology.

You are taking a position freely

I am not. Re-read what you just wrote. If all our conclusions are brain dependent (and the brain is untrustworthy) then there is no way for anyone to know if anything is true (objectively the case regardless of observation).

That if/then proposition is constrained by its own conditions.

 

[untermensche]

There can be no such thing as a "clear observation" for anything that must get all of it's information from an untrustworthy brain.

Reflexivity implies trustworthiness.

The mind tells the brain to move the arm and the brain does it every time.

That is trustworthiness not an untrustworthy brain.

Once again you fail to make the rational choice.

You have a free mind but a faulty mind.

You are taking a position freely

I am not

Then what you spew is worthless.

My comments are made freely by a free mind.

You have no way for a mind or brain to act freely in your mangled irrational worthless "ontology".

In my ontology that corresponds to the real world the mind is separated from the reflexive brain, a distinct entity.

There is the possibility for a limited freedom.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Reflexivity implies trustworthiness.

Sciatica demonstrates untrustworthiness.

My comments are made freely by a free mind.

Your ontology contradicts that statement. At best your "comments" would be brain generated and then brain activated. All the "mind" would be doing is experiencing the act of the body speaking or writing.

You have no way for a mind or brain to act freely in your mangled irrational worthless "ontology".

I have presented no ontology, but the fact that you're lashing out like this just proves you already know and accept that your position has been utterly eviscerated.

In my ontology that corresponds to the real world the mind is separated from the reflexive brain, a distinct entity.

That's not your ontology; that's an assertion that cannot be derived from your ontology that you just keep petulantly (ironically) insisting is objectively true. A "mind" could no more be a "distinct entity" than a character in a film projected onto a wall.

 

[untermensche]

Sciatica demonstrates untrustworthiness.

It demonstrates dumb reflexivity in a damaged system.

The nerves that extend into the leg are being irritated. An abnormal signal is reaching the brain.

The brain doesn't think, it reacts reflexively and creates the sensation of pain in the leg. It is responding as it has evolved to respond to an abnormal signal.

Reflexivity in no way implies untrustworthiness.

It implies the exact opposite. It implies a trustworthy response to stimulation in most cases.

Like the command to move the arm.

Your comments about my ontology are totally distorted and worthless by misunderstandings like this.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sciatica demonstrates untrustworthiness.

It demonstrates dumb reflexivity in a damaged system.

You can't know that.

Regardless, that would still establish "untrustworthiness." And since it--the brain--is the mechanism that informs the "mind" about the damaged system--about ALL things, including the undamaged system or the steps taken to fix a believed to be damaged system--you've fucked yourself. No way around it.

Reflexivity in no way implies untrustworthiness.

"Implies"? Nice dodge. You just presented a primary way that it guarantees untrustworthiness.

At best, in your ontology, the "mind" can ONLY react to what the brain tells it. It cannot ever be independent of the brain--no matter how desperately you try to force distinction--and therefore cannot ever independently verify/confirm anything outside of what the brain tells it. The brain says damage; the brain says MRI diagnosis; the brain moves the arm and prepares an "experience package" for the "mind" to make the "mind" think that it was the one that told the brain to move the arm...

The brain lies to the "mind" every single night and in a myriad of ways throughout the day, either directly (dreams) or via omission of information the brain deems unnecessary for the "mind" to "experience."

All brain all the time, with the "mind" nothing more than a captive observer of whatever the brain wants it to "experience." The brain creates it, animates it, imbues it; it's the brain's toy. And like Pinocchio, the "mind" of your ontology is the little wooden puppet who wants so badly to be a "real boy"--because that's actually the desperate wish of Geppetto (the brain) and why he made Pinocchio to begin with--but of course never can be without a force that does not exist.

Magic.

 

[untermensche]

You can't know that.

An illusion is something that can not know things.

A mind can know many things.

It can know there is no reason to doubt some experiences and to doubt others.

But not doubting is not the same as knowing and never can be the same.

You have no argument.

You just presented a primary way that it guarantees untrustworthiness.

The brain responding reflexively to abnormal signals from nerves that travel into the leg is not untrustworthy.

It is a very trustworthy reflexive action. It will happen every time.

It most definitely is nothing like a decision made by an autonomous contemplative active mind.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You can't know that.

An illusion is something that can not know things.

Agreed. Thus, it cannot be an illusion that is the one that knows things.

A mind can know many things.

A "mind" is an illusion, so you've just fucked yourself again.

You just presented a primary way that it guarantees untrustworthiness.

The brain responding reflexively to abnormal signals from nerves that travel into the leg is not untrustworthy.

You can't know that any such signals were "abnormal" (or "normal" for that matter).

It is a very trustworthy reflexive action.

So much for your earlier dodge about scepticism. Regardless, you can't know how trustworthy is such a system.

It will happen every time.

There are dozens of reasons why that's false, but all it takes is ONE instance of failure to demonstrate untrustworthiness.

It most definitely is nothing like a decision made by an autonomous

You have not established how a brain-generated/brain-animated/brain-dependent illusion could possibly be "autonomous."

 

[untermensche]

A "mind" is an illusion, so you've just fucked yourself again.

You are stating a conclusion.

Yet stating it comes from an illusion.

Your ideas are less than dog shit and a complete waste of time.

The brain responding reflexively to abnormal signals from nerves that travel into the leg is not untrustworthy.

You can't know that any such signals were "abnormal" (or "normal" for that matter).

This pulling of conclusions from your ass with nothing to support them every time your nonsense has been shown to be total shit is getting boring.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You are stating a conclusion.

Derived from your ontology.

Yet stating it comes from an illusion.

In your ontology.

Your ideas are less than dog shit and a complete waste of time.

Confirming I'm correct and your idiotic rehash of Descartes fails spectacularly.

This pulling of conclusions from your ass with nothing to support them every time your nonsense has been shown to be total shit is getting boring.

Irony. Big fan. Now you know how everyone else feels.

Oh, no. You don't, because your ontology doesn't allow for that.

 

[untermensche]

Derived from your ontology.

This pulling of conclusions from your ass with nothing to support them every time your nonsense has been shown to be total shit is getting boring.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This pulling of conclusions from your ass with nothing to support them every time your nonsense has been shown to be total shit is getting boring.

Agreed.

 

[untermensche]

Then we are done and I am where I started.

Experience is primary.

Faith in something behind experience does not make a belief primary.

But belief in certain kinds of experiences is what has given us science.

So belief is not bad mouthed as unproductive.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am where I started.

At Descartes. Only you can't even get to "I am," just "I think."