Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Grendel]

But a mind is not a brain. That is a worthless irrational idea. It is stupidity.

I understand that this is your opinion. But why is it true, I mean evidentially true. What support is there for these claims apart from your personal opinion?

Or are you saying that their truth is self-evident?

 

[untermensche]

But a mind is not a brain. That is a worthless irrational idea. It is stupidity.

I understand that this is your opinion. But why is it true, I mean evidentially true. What support is there for these claims apart from your personal opinion?

Or are you saying that their truth is self-evident?

A thing and some activity can never be the same thing.

There is you and there is the activity of building a bike.

You are not the same thing as the building of the bike and you are not the same thing as the bike.

This is not difficult.

What is difficult is not seeing it.

I hope nobody is irrational enough to conclude I am saying the mind is like a bike.

The mind is some unknown phenomena, possibly some unknown quantum effect or combination of quantum effects, that arises from some unknown fraction of brain activity.

It is not like a bike beyond it is something created by activity. It is not an object like a bike. It is something else.

Something we do not understand objectively at all.

 

[untermensche]

Just tell me what is there besides experience?



I can't if we ignore reason and think the heat is the same thing as the machine that creates it.

Or if we are even stupider and think this is saying the mind is like heat.

You done little boy? Got that off your chest, did you? Good, because you’re still fucked no matter how many times you pathetically try to misconstrue what I said to avoid dealing with the fact that your ontology fails.

You are so deluded it is funny.

You think the heat is the same thing as the heater.

That is the extent of your nonsense. There is nothing else in your worthless droning.

A very bad misunderstanding.

That is all you have.

You have nothing else to say here.

My position has not been changed in the least by any of your nonsense.

There are the experiences a mind that knows it is experiencing has and there is an active mind that has the ability to make something of those experiences and the ability to move the arm.

This is beyond doubt.

Experience shows the mind is active and contemplative.

And the brain is reflexive.

There is no evidence of a thinking brain. Cells don't think.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You think the heat is the same thing as the heater.

No, I don't, as has been exhaustively explained to you multiple times. The fact that you keep regurgitating an ad hominem proves you to be a pathetic, intellectually dishonest child.

Grow the fuck up and deal with the fact that your ontology fails. It's nobody's fault but your own.

Case in point:

There are the experiences a mind that knows it is experiencing has and there is an active mind that has the ability to make something of those experiences and the ability to move the arm.

This is beyond doubt.

Aside from the DK-fueled gibberish, your ontology does not allow you to make ANY statement that something is "beyond doubt." You just keep fucking yourself over and over and over.

Why? To what end?

"There are the experiences a mind that knows it is experiencing has"? I'm assuming that English is not your first language, so try it auf Deutsch. Maybe that's the disconnect.

 

[untermensche]

You think the heat is the same thing as the heater.

No, I don't, as has been exhaustively explained to you multiple times.

Yes.

Multiple times you have lied and stated it wasn't your ignorant position.

If you understand now that the heater and the heat are not the same thing then you should understand the brain and the mind are not the same thing.

...your ontology does not allow you to make ANY statement that something is "beyond doubt."

It does.

Stupidity is not an argument.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Multiple times you have lied and stated it wasn't your ignorant position.

You realize everyone here can read, right?

You're bending over, showing us your ass and then petulantly demanding that it's not your ass, but everyone else's.

Wtf is wrong with you?

..your ontology does not allow you to make ANY statement that something is "beyond doubt."

It does.

My beliefs cannot create anything or prove anything however so I am forever in rational doubt as well.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Beliefs cannot create any THING.

They cannot create an object behind experience. Or prove there is an object behind experience.

This point has nothing to do with anything else.

Stupidity is not an argument.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes. Beliefs cannot create any THING.

FFS. Equivocation again? From the set of ALL that exists to only physical objects. THAT's what you're attempting?

That is very clearly NOT what you wrote or intended. You wrote that your "beliefs cannot create anything or prove anything" so you are "forever in rational doubt." "Anything" not "any THING." It is clearly incoherent to claim that your beliefs cannot "prove" any "THING" as "prove" is a verb. That's like saying, "You can't prove hammer." Unless English is not your first language and you don't know the rules of English grammar, you unequivocally did NOT mean, "You can't prove hammer."

You were speaking colloquially and clearly meant "anything" in its broadest terms and in regard to doubt and the hard problem, so once again your intellectual cowardice reveals itself, but more importantly, you fucked yourself again regardless! Your shift:

[Beliefs] cannot create an object behind experience. Or prove there is an object behind experience.

Hence you are "forever in rational doubt." You bend over:

there is an active mind that has the ability to make something of those experiences and the ability to move the arm. This is beyond doubt.

Let's repeat:

My beliefs cannot create anything or prove anything, so I am forever in rational doubt.

There is an active mind that has the ability to make something of those experiences and the ability to move the arm. This is beyond doubt.

 

[untermensche]

A belief cannot create an object behind experience.

A belief cannot create knowledge of an object behind experience.

We are always in doubt about THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTS.

Stupidity is not an argument.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We are always in doubt about THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTS.

No, dipshit, we are always in doubt about objective conditions PERIOD, not merely the existence of objects. Regardless, an arm is an object. In your ontology, a "mind" is an object as well. Oops.

Thus you believe that you are a "mind" and you believe you--the "mind"--has the ability to move what you believe to be an arm, but your beliefs cannot prove anything, so you are forever in doubt.

Your ass. Self fucked.

 

[untermensche]

An arm is something experienced.

We can doubt there is something behind the experience of the arm but we can't doubt that it takes doing something with the mind to move it.

The arm, something experienced, does not move without the command from the mind.

That is known for certain.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

we can't doubt that it takes doing something with the mind to move it.

First of all, horseshit, according to your own ontology.

Secondly, you have previously stated that a "mind" is some unknown form of brain activity and that we don't know what it actually is. So all you've said here is that some form of brain activity is doing "something" to move the arm.

Congratulations. You've really blown the lid off the hard problem.

 

[untermensche]

You are not making any rational comments about my position.

You are attacking some strawman of your invention.

The mind is something that arises from activity, is constructed by activity.

It is not the activity.

The heat is not the heater or the activity of the heater.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You are not making any rational comments about my position.

Do you seriously think repeating a lie makes it so?

You are attacking some strawman of your invention.

Everything I am "attacking" is based entirely on things you have written, so, once again, you are only fucking yourself.

The mind is something that arises from activity, is constructed by activity.

A) You can't know that. B) So all you've said here is that some form of brain activity is doing "something" to move the arm.

It is not the activity.

A) You can't know that. B) You have not--and cannot--establish what it is, nor that it is independent from the activity that generates it. C) Even if you could establish (and you can't) that it is "distinct" that does not in any way mean that it is independent. Again, a character in a film is distinct, but it does not exist independently of the projector.

The heat is not the heater or the activity of the heater.

The activity of a particular heater in a particular room causes the excitation of the particular air molecules in that room. This in turn causes a change in temperature in the room, which we call "Heat." Thus, Heat is the act of exciting air molecules.

The act of exciting air molecules ("heat") is entirely dependent upon the activity of the heater. Turn on the heater, and the activity of the heater excites the air molecules; turn off the heater and the lack of activity means the air molecules decrease their excitement.

There are exactly two categories here; the noun (heater) and the verb (to heat, or, the act of exciting air molecules). The verb is dependent upon the noun.

How can you possibly not comprehend this?

 

[untermensche]

Causing something to happen does not make the cause the same thing as what happens.

The activity that creates the mind is not the mind.

It cannot be the mind

You have already admitted your conclusion that the heater is the same thing as the heat is ignorant nonsense.

How long will it take until you understand that the activity that creates the heat and the heat are not the same thing either?

 

[Grendel]

But a mind is not a brain. That is a worthless irrational idea. It is stupidity.

I understand that this is your opinion. But why is it true, I mean evidentially true. What support is there for these claims apart from your personal opinion?

Or are you saying that their truth is self-evident?

A thing and some activity can never be the same thing. There is you and there is the activity of building a bike. This is not difficult. What is difficult is not seeing it.

But once again, I know you believe it, I know you see it clearly in your own mind, and I know you can't understand how others cannot see it. But what evidential proof do you have.

Because once again, all you've given me is your own opinion. Opinion just doesn't count.

When you continue to give me only your opinion, despite my asking for any other proof, all you're really doing, by repetition, is to convince me that what you're saying contains it's own evidential proof.

Is the only 'proof' you have your own opinion? Do you have anything else at all?

 

[untermensche]

A thing and some activity can never be the same thing. There is you and there is the activity of building a bike. This is not difficult. What is difficult is not seeing it.

But once again, I know you believe it, I know you see it clearly in your own mind, and I know you can't understand how others cannot see it. But what evidential proof do you have.

Rational formulations are a form of proof.

Is the builder of the bike the same thing as the bike?

Is the building of a bike the same things as a bike?

This has nothing to do with what I believe.

 

[Grendel]

But a mind is not a brain. That is a worthless irrational idea. It is stupidity.

I understand that this is your opinion. But why is it true, I mean evidentially true. What support is there for these claims apart from your personal opinion?

Or are you saying that their truth is self-evident?

Rational formulations are a form of proof.

Do you have any other rational proof other than your own? What is so difficult about answering this question? Just a straight answer, yes, no

Do you have any proof other than your own 'rational' formulation? Yes? or No?

 

[untermensche]

That is a brain.

Is there a mind there as well?

If you can have a brain and not a mind they are clearly not the same thing.

 

[Grendel]

That is a brain.

Is there a mind there as well?

If you can have a brain and not a mind they are clearly not the same thing.

But that's what I'm asking you.

I don't accept there is any such thing as a mind, and I can prove it, but regardless that's not what I'm asking you. So what proof do you have that a Mind is not a Brain, no matter it's a worthless idea. That's just your opinion.

So, once again ....... Do you have any rational proof that a mind exists (apart from your own opinion? After all, you are saying a brain without a mind is an irrational idea. Do you have any rational proof of what you're calling irrational?

yes or no

or do you just feel the truth of it's irrationality is self evident?

(just answer in monosyballic words please)