Objective/Subjective

[DBT]

The World cares not in the least about our experience of it.....

The world is something you are experiencing, and that it does not care about you is an assumption.

You seemed to have missed the point.

A clue: stars form regardless of your experiences or beliefs, planets orbit stars regard of your experiences or beliefs, geology goes about its processes regardless of your experiences or beliefs, life evolves and functions regardless of your experiences or beliefs.

The physical world existed long before you were born and shall exist long after you are gone....

 

[fromderinside]

Unfortunately those who think about those things don't know how to start car. Its a shame isn't it.

 

[skepticalbip]

The World cares not in the least about our experience of it.....

The world is something you are experiencing, and that it does not care about you is an assumption.

You seemed to have missed the point.

A clue: stars form regardless of your experiences or beliefs, planets orbit stars regard of your experiences or beliefs, geology goes about its processes regardless of your experiences or beliefs, life evolves and functions regardless of your experiences or beliefs.

The physical world existed long before you were born and shall exist long after you are gone....

That would be the understanding of a normal human. For Unter, there is no universe without him to experience it... what with it all being inside his mind he is the creator and sustainer of the universe. I don't know if there is a word for such a view but megalomania seems much to wimpy a term.

 

[untermensche]

The World cares not in the least about our experience of it.....

The world is something you are experiencing, and that it does not care about you is an assumption.

You seemed to have missed the point.

A clue: stars form regardless of your experiences or beliefs, planets orbit stars regard of your experiences or beliefs, geology goes about its processes regardless of your experiences or beliefs, life evolves and functions regardless of your experiences or beliefs.

I never said our experiences cause anything. I said: All we have are our experiences. Talking about things we experience and the assumptions we make from those experiences is not refuting anything I said. You don't understand me. That is all.

But all you know about stars are your experience of them or your experience of reading about them or your experience of some person you experience talking about them.

You do not experience stars.

You experience your experience of them. You are a mind that experiences.

The physical world existed long before you were born and shall exist long after you are gone....

That is an assumption you have based on your experience.

Prove it without merely pointing to something you or another has experienced.

What are called "scientific data" are things humans can experience. The weight of an object is something experienced by experiencing numbers on an experienced scale. The height of an object is an experience of numbers on an experienced measuring device.

You clearly don't have a clue what I'm saying.

 

[untermensche]

You seemed to have missed the point.

A clue: stars form regardless of your experiences or beliefs, planets orbit stars regard of your experiences or beliefs, geology goes about its processes regardless of your experiences or beliefs, life evolves and functions regardless of your experiences or beliefs.

The physical world existed long before you were born and shall exist long after you are gone....

That would be the understanding of a normal human. For Unter, there is no universe without him to experience it... what with it all being inside his mind he is the creator and sustainer of the universe. I don't know if there is a word for such a view but megalomania seems much to wimpy a term.

I never once said anything close to that.

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

 

[untermensche]

Unfortunately those who think about those things don't know how to start car. Its a shame isn't it.

This is absolute gibberish and is not related to my position.

It is just another way to show you don't comprehend my position.

We experience the key. We experience the car.

We assume neither are created by our experience of them. This is a very helpful assumption for us and an assumption we make without thinking about it.

None the less the facts are all we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make from them.

We are minds that experience and can make assumptions from those experiences.

And we have a body we experience that we assume is creating us in some way.

And having an assumption does not mean the assumption is wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

You assume the planets are out there? Why do you assume the planets are out there? An assumption is a conclusion without proof and foundation. You are misusing the term.

An assumption is not something without foundation.

I assume you don't understand what I am saying based on my experiences of how you react to it.

We have no proof the universe is out there. We assume it is based on our experiences. We also make the assumption based on the utility of the assumption.

If we don't assume our experience of the hot stove is based on something out there we will experience pain when we put what we experience as our hand on it.

But that does not mean we have more than our experiences and our assumptions about them.

We are minds experiencing. That is all we know for certain.

I know what you are trying to say but again you are framing it incorrectly. You are drifting into kind of mysticism..


In a very broad sense you might say science is an assumption, but that is misleading and incomplete lacking nuance.

Your argument becomes more 'what is knowledge' and all the associated debates. Can there be knowledge without experience? Is all knowledge ultimately empirical? I would say years.

We have knowledge of the motions of the solar system and solar systems in the galaxy based in observation in our human 3D spatial reality.


What is reality? Who knows. Des our models accurately reflect reality? Don't know. Are you a 'flat Earther'?

 

[untermensche]

You assume the planets are out there? Why do you assume the planets are out there? An assumption is a conclusion without proof and foundation. You are misusing the term.

An assumption is not something without foundation.

I assume you don't understand what I am saying based on my experiences of how you react to it.

We have no proof the universe is out there. We assume it is based on our experiences. We also make the assumption based on the utility of the assumption.

If we don't assume our experience of the hot stove is based on something out there we will experience pain when we put what we experience as our hand on it.

But that does not mean we have more than our experiences and our assumptions about them.

We are minds experiencing. That is all we know for certain.

I know what you are trying to say but again you are framing it incorrectly. You are drifting into kind of mysticism..

Nope. That is just another bad understanding unless you say experiencing itself is mystical. I assume it is an evolved ability based on my experiences.

In a very broad sense you might say science is an assumption, but that is misleading and incomplete lacking nuance.

I never said "Science is an assumption". That is pulled directly from your butt.

I said science is a system of models and descriptions that we can use to predict future experiences or explain present experiences with.

Your argument becomes more 'what is knowledge' and all the associated debates. Can there be knowledge without experience? Is all knowledge ultimately empirical? I would say years.

That's not remotely close to my position.

My position is about what we as minds are.

We have knowledge of the motions of the solar system and solar systems in the galaxy based in observation in our human 3D spatial reality.

An observation is an experience a mind has.

What is reality? Who knows. Des our models accurately reflect reality? Don't know. Are you a 'flat Earther'?

You are off chasing things pulled from your butt.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

It is not about the world.

It is about what we as minds are.

A mind experiences. It does not experience the world. It experiences various kinds of experiences of the world. The world and our experiences of the world are not the same thing. The world does not have color. Our experience of the world does. Our experience of the world is not what the world is.

 

[steve_bank]

i do not assume the Earth goes round the Sun, I know it does from observational evidence. Pictures from space.

 

[untermensche]

i do not assume the Earth goes round the Sun, I know it does from observational evidence. Pictures from space.

You assume both the earth and sun are out there based on your experience of them.

The assumption that the earth goes around the sun is based on experience.

You can't claim the earth goes around the sun with anything besides experiences and assumptions derived from experiences.

You can't know it. You assume it and pretend to know it.

Humans can pretend to know things.

Some pretend they know experienced objects have color because they experience color.

 

[steve_bank]

Again semantics and word usage. I posted a dictionary definition of assume.

I do not assume the orbits, I KNOW the orbits based on observation. Your use of the word experience to describe everything is simplistic and irrelevant.

I assume there is a high probability of life in some form elsewhere in the unversed based on what we see on Earth. I have no evidence.

 

[untermensche]

Again semantics and word usage. I posted a dictionary definition of assume.

I do not assume the orbits, I KNOW the orbits based on observation. Your use of the word experience to describe everything is simplistic and irrelevant.

I assume there is a high probability of life in some form elsewhere in the unversed based on what we see on Earth. I have no evidence.

Word usage? You mean using words to express ideas?

And I say you don't know.

You assume based on experience.

Prove I am wrong. But do it without mere appeals to experience and assumptions made from experience.

I can't really even know that you experience. I merely assume it.

 

[steve_bank]

Again semantics and word usage. I posted a dictionary definition of assume.

I do not assume the orbits, I KNOW the orbits based on observation. Your use of the word experience to describe everything is simplistic and irrelevant.

I assume there is a high probability of life in some form elsewhere in the unversed based on what we see on Earth. I have no evidence.

Word usage? You mean using words to express ideas?

And I say you don't know.

You assume based on experience.

Prove I am wrong. But do it without mere appeals to experience and assumptions made from experience.

I can't really even know that you experience. I merely assume it.

You lack the background to grasp the concepts. Read a book on digital logic, then read a book on the brain. Then we can talk.

You are going around in circles and lack the experience to break it.

 

[DBT]

You seemed to have missed the point.

A clue: stars form regardless of your experiences or beliefs, planets orbit stars regard of your experiences or beliefs, geology goes about its processes regardless of your experiences or beliefs, life evolves and functions regardless of your experiences or beliefs.

The physical world existed long before you were born and shall exist long after you are gone....

That would be the understanding of a normal human. For Unter, there is no universe without him to experience it... what with it all being inside his mind he is the creator and sustainer of the universe. I don't know if there is a word for such a view but megalomania seems much to wimpy a term.

I never once said anything close to that.

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

It appears that you have little or no understanding of the implications of your remarks on perception and experience in relation to the objective world.

 

[fromderinside]

Unfortunately those who think about those things don't know how to start car. Its a shame isn't it.

This is absolute gibberish and is not related to my position.

Before this becomes another pissing match let me clarify.

Your position is you experience.

In order to drive a car one must learn the operations necessary to drive the car.. If the brain hasn't gone through the processes necessary to integrate what the being has bumped in to it can't develop the knowledge necessary, condition the brain elements to perform the actions of driving a car. How does one get from disembodied experience to knowing how to perform activities?

You provide no clues. You just insist that somehow one experiences. Not good enough.

Now you have to explain how the brain goes from poofing up a disembodied experience to reintegrating what is the experience into the brain in such a way that the brain now has the capacity to execute actions based on what has experienced. A second, more unknown poofing?

How perilous the journey once one inserts interventions. You probably need to show how neurons which obviously do perform association tasks and accomplishes relating this input to previous inputs are related to your experiencing notion.

 

[untermensche]

Again semantics and word usage. I posted a dictionary definition of assume.

I do not assume the orbits, I KNOW the orbits based on observation. Your use of the word experience to describe everything is simplistic and irrelevant.

I assume there is a high probability of life in some form elsewhere in the unversed based on what we see on Earth. I have no evidence.

Word usage? You mean using words to express ideas?

And I say you don't know.

You assume based on experience.

Prove I am wrong. But do it without mere appeals to experience and assumptions made from experience.

I can't really even know that you experience. I merely assume it.

You lack the background to grasp the concepts. Read a book on digital logic, then read a book on the brain. Then we can talk.

You are going around in circles and lack the experience to break it.

You have proven over and over you don't even understand what I'm saying.

You do have the strange arrogance we see with ignorance many times however.

 

[untermensche]

In order to drive a car one must learn the operations necessary to drive the car..

Driving a car is a series of experiences.

If the brain hasn't gone through the processes necessary to integrate what the being has bumped in to it can't develop the knowledge necessary, condition the brain elements to perform the actions of driving a car. How does one get from disembodied experience to knowing how to perform activities?

The brain knows nothing about cars. It is reflexive tissue reflexively squirting chemicals and reflexively reacting to them.

Minds know about their experiences of cars and of moving the body to drive the car.

You provide no clues. You just insist that somehow one experiences. Not good enough.

I can only lead horses to water.

We experience our experiences of the car. We do not experience the car.

Now you have to explain how the brain goes from poofing up a disembodied experience to reintegrating what is the experience into the brain in such a way that the brain now has the capacity to execute actions based on what has experienced. A second, more unknown poofing?

You are right I have not explained what the mind is objectively. Me and every other human.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet I can point out what the brain does and you can't point out why there need be mind or experience for the brain to do what it does. Unless learning is part of experience that relates to how a being comes to be capable of doing one is waving hands futilely. Repeating a motion picture analogy doesn't get the job done. It is only a poor substitute for seeing the job get done.

You've explained nothing yet your hands are waving furiously. Fear of falling off your pompous perch?

 

[untermensche]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

You can't tell me what it does beyond saying it responds reflexively.

You think energy has information about color in it.

You think the isomerization of retinal can somehow transmit that information.

You are about as lost as one can be.

 

[steve_bank]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

You can't tell me what it does beyond saying it responds reflexively.

You think energy has information about color in it.

You think the isomerization of retinal can somehow transmit that information.

You are about as lost as one can be.

Energy has information about color r is nonsense, no one said that. What was said is that we classify wavelengths of lvisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

The eye and brain discarnate between color regardless of what we call the light. Information is human perception of relity based on measurements and observation. Reality has no 'information'.

The eye and brain does not 'know' anything about wavelength, it responds like a hard wired electrical circuit. Knowledge about something is a construct of the brain. Birds develop an adaptive knowledge about the world around them as do most critters with brains..