"Objective" Evidence

[DBT]

A perception is what an active mind makes of an experience.

An object is something an active mind imagines is behind experience.

All perceptions of a table exist in a mind.

They exist nowhere else.

We are minds experiencing.

And we have beliefs about the world based on those experiences.

We believe there are objects

A very strong faith.

- - - Updated - - -

Never in the history of the human race has there been a credible report of someone walking through a solid wall

Something pulled from your ass.

Prove it.

What you mean is you have never had the experience of pushing through what you experience as a wall.

What you mean is you have experienced a wall.

And based on your experiences you believe a wall is there.

All you have is your faith in something.

You cannot peal back your experiences to see if they actually point to something real.

The evidence for someone having the ability to pass though solid walls does not exist. It is the absence of credible evidence that I referred to, in case you are having an exceptionally slow day, it is the absence of evidence for the truth of the claim that it possible to pass through solid walls that is evidence against the claim.

Just like the idea of invisible magical imps living at the bottom of your garden, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.....

 

[untermensche]

The evidence for someone having the ability to pass though solid walls does not exist.

I agree there is the experience of walls.

The subjective experience.

Everything else about walls are mental constructions.

Beliefs.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it untrue.

It is possible there are more than experiences.

We will most likely never know.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Give me a break.

You have the process creating the experience of a cage and you have a different process creating the experience of a bird.

And the final product of the two processes when combined is a different product.

There’s a step missing in your conflation of process to product. What is doing the “when combined” experience? And, of course, I noticed you didn’t mention the fact that the “different product” doesn’t exist as there is no bird inside the cage.

All the experience of end products.

There is no such condition as “end” in an ongoing process, unless you are referring to death. Death is the only “end result” of brain activity.

Brain activity is not experienced.

Funny, because your fallacy is nothing but brain activity all the way down. In fact, there is nothing other than brain activity being experienced. The actor doesn’t actually kill anyone, remember?

Mind=brain activity.
Experience=brain activity.

Nothing but brain activity.

If you claim it is which activity is experienced?

Category error. As always. Even in your own fallacy, what we “experience” is brain activity.

What activity is it that leads to consciousness?

Wrong question. The correct question is, “How does brain activity lead to consciousness?” Regardless, the answer likely comes from the fact that there is no bird inside the cage.

 

[untermensche]

An ongoing process can have an ongoing production of "ends".

You have no argument.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

An ongoing process can have an ongoing production of "ends".

In the context of "experience" being brain activity, that's as idiotic as pointing to a drop of water and saying that's an "end" of the river.

 

[untermensche]

An ongoing process can have an ongoing production of "ends".

In the context of "experience" being brain activity, that's as idiotic as pointing to a drop of water and saying that's an "end" of the river.

Water is not in the process of creating final products.

The brain is creating one product after another.

We call them experiences.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

An ongoing process can have an ongoing production of "ends".

In the context of "experience" being brain activity, that's as idiotic as pointing to a drop of water and saying that's an "end" of the river.

Water is not in the process of creating final products.

Neither are brains.

The brain is creating one product after another.

Asinine.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is creating one product after another.

Asinine.

Activity is not experienced.

Red is experienced.

An end product is experienced.

Your position is totally absurd.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The brain is creating one product after another.

Asinine.

Activity is not experienced.

Then nothing is, because according to the terms of your own argument, there is nothing else but brain activity.

Mind=brain activity.
Experience=brain activity.

All brain activity, nothing else.

There is no bird inside the cage “finished product” no matter how many times you stomp your petulant little foot. Nor is there any point to your poorly regurgitated position. Everyone knows inference has utility.

 

[untermensche]

My position is that there is brain activity that results in products.

Products like a mind.

And the product is not activity.

It is a product of activity.

Like heat is a product of a heater.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

All experiences are finished products.

 

[DBT]

The evidence for someone having the ability to pass though solid walls does not exist.

I agree there is the experience of walls.

The subjective experience.

Everything else about walls are mental constructions.

Beliefs.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it untrue.

It is possible there are more than experiences.

We will most likely never know.

The subjective experience of not being able to pass though a solid wall is based on the physical fact of not being able to pass through a solid wall.

The physical fact determines your subjective experience if the brain is functioning normally.

A dysfunctional brain my have the experience of passing through a solid wall, but that is merely a delusion.

The solid wall does not allow anyone passage.

The solid wall is an objective reality.

 

[DBT]

My position is that there is brain activity that results in products.

Products like a mind.

And the product is not activity.

It is a product of activity.

Like heat is a product of a heater.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

All experiences are finished products.

Sorry, but your position is fatally flawed for the numerous reasons already given, but rejected by you because they do not happen to conform to your position.

It's like someone who is arguing for a geocentric solar system in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

 

[untermensche]

My position is that there is brain activity that results in products.

Products like a mind.

And the product is not activity.

It is a product of activity.

Like heat is a product of a heater.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

All experiences are finished products.

Sorry, but your position is fatally flawed for the numerous reasons already given, but rejected by you because they do not happen to conform to your position.

It's like someone who is arguing for a geocentric solar system in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

You have given no flaws. That is absolute nonsense.

Your position is unsupportable.

All you have are subjective experiences of a wall. You have no wall to speak of.

A wall is a mental construction based on subjective experiences.

 

[untermensche]

The evidence for someone having the ability to pass though solid walls does not exist.

I agree there is the experience of walls.

The subjective experience.

Everything else about walls are mental constructions.

Beliefs.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it untrue.

It is possible there are more than experiences.

We will most likely never know.

The subjective experience of not being able to pass though a solid wall is based on the physical fact of not being able to pass through a solid wall.

It is the subjective experience of not being able to move.

From this experience, along with a visual experience, a wall is constructed in the mind.

The experiences are known.

The wall is a construct.

This is a fact and no amount of hand waving can change it.

The solid wall is an objective reality.

That is a label we give to something when we believe it is there based on our totally subjective experiences. It is a subjective judgement.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

My position is that there is brain activity that results in products.

But what kind of “products”? It is not possible that you are too stupid to understand what a category error is, or an equivocation fallacy, yet you insist on repeating them. Why?

Products like a mind.

And the product is not activity.

By your own terms, that is false. It is the activity that generates a “mind.” The brain isn’t a carpenter building a chair and a “mind” is not an organ that’s sitting behind the hypocampus.

It is a product of activity.

In the verb sense, not in the noun sense.

Like heat is a product of a heater.

Heat is NOT a “product” of a heater in the sense of the heat generated is some concrete, discrete construct separate from its generation. It literally IS the heater activity.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

Now you’re just being a child refusing to accept your own sophistry. There is an illusion of a bird in a cage caused entirely by the activity of twirling the placard. Just like the heat, the bird in a cage IS the activity. Cease the activity and the “finished product” disappears.

To call an “illusion” a “finished product” is esoteric and unwarranted, unless one is attempting an equivocation fallacy for some unknown reason.

All experiences are finished products.

Iff by “finished products” you mean “ever changing neural-electro-chemical patterns” you may have a coherent, non-vague point, though to what end is still unstated. All that seems apparent is a need to falsely equate religious belief with inference through equivocation and category errors.

Why? What is the purpose of any of this nonsense? Inference is useful. The hard problem is a hard problem. AND...........?

 

[untermensche]

But what kind of “products”?

That is something for science, not me, to figure out.

But to explain consciousness you have to explain products that arise from some activity of the brain.

Because consciousness is the mingling of brain products. It is the mind, a product, having the experience of red, another product. Or the experience of pain, another product.

By your own terms, that is false. It is the activity that generates a “mind.” The brain isn’t a carpenter building a chair and a “mind” is not an organ that’s sitting behind the hypocampus.

The mind is the result of brain activity. A product of brain activity.

The experience of a chair is a product of activity as well.

The brain does not build a chair. It builds the experience of a chair.

The blue chair only exists as an experience.

There is no blue chair anywhere else.

Heat is NOT a “product” of a heater in the sense of the heat generated is some concrete, discrete construct separate from its generation.

This is so convoluted it is laughable.

It literally IS the heater activity.

No the activity is what is needed for the heat to arise.

The heat is an end product of activity that is not heat.

There is all the activity that takes place to cause the heat. And there is the heat.

To not see these are distinct and separate entities is a serious problem of reason.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

There is an illusion of a bird in a cage caused entirely by the activity of twirling the placard.

No the illusion is some property of brain activity. Not a property of cards.

And it is less interesting than the production of color.

Something produced whole with no correlate in the world.

All experiences are finished products.

Iff by “finished products” you me an “ever changing neural-electro-chemical patterns” you may have a coherent, non-vague point

The activity leads to products that are experienced. You are missing a step in the explanation. You have no explanation of anything, no greater understanding by denying products.

If there is no final product of red to experience then it is not experienced and it cannot be distinguished from green.

 

[fromderinside]

If there is no final product of red to experience then it is not experienced and it cannot be distinguished from green.

Why then does is the fact of tone click tone sequence experienced as two tones followed by a click? Or the fact of speech with masking noise during it experienced as continuous speech alone?

Or the fact of a trapezoid and a pipe oscillating experienced as a pipe passing through a window?

Or that the fact of red and green light entering the eye expeienced as green?

Seems to me you need some work on your theory so that it's final version corresponds to actual experience.

One who carries bedpans for patients should never opine about sensation or perceptions would be my suggestion.

 

[untermensche]

The brain presents some product to the mind.

Within it's ability to create products.

No product = no experience.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That is something for science, not me, to figure out.

No shit.

But to explain consciousness you have to explain products that arise from some activity of the brain.

stfu

 

[untermensche]

What it must be like to be reduced to that.

You have no position or rational criticism of mine.

Goodby.