I already said I have no interest in a philosophical discussion because it doesn’t interest me.
I also said ‘as long as you aren’t picky about the answers’ and you get so picky as to take one imprecise word ‘believe’ and claim I have faith after my views on the matter are clear to anyone who apparently researched my posts enough to list a number of them, some correctly.
Gotcha tactics like that aren’t honest debating tactics. Attempting to lead another person into a logical train wreck of gibberish with leading questions that misrepresent my position, is also not an honest tactic. Something I suspected you would engage in from your very first post to me, politely asking if you could ask me some questions.
Saying you are looking to me for answers is also ridiculous as I’ve stated clearly I have no ‘answers’ and don’t claim to be an expert. That’s not false modesty as it is true of you as well, or any person that has ever lived on the planet. There are those who dedicate their lives to these subjects and may be considered more qualified to speak on them, but they also are not to be looked at as having the answers, only better qualified provided their work can be tested, repeated and meet rigid scientific standards, all of whom should be well aware a new discovery could change everything tomorrow.
You are obviously looking to play word games in an attempt to say ‘gotcha’ instead of honestly looking for my position.
It’s why I try to be very precise in my answers instead of just saying yes or no to questions that presume incorrect positions of mine or others in the question and I’ve asked for clarification of definitions several times.
Speak directly and you may get a better response. You want to discuss meaning of life and metaphysical planes of existence, you will have to do with someone who is interested in such pursuits.
To be clear though, I have seen no evidence of such an existence in measurable terms outside the pursuits of philosophy. The mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with. You found one word and presumed way too much. Though many works on this issue can be interesting and worthwhile to investigate, it’s not scientific, even if brain waves that create the concept of mind can be measured scientifically.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
I said it earlier that just because you can imagine something doesn’t mean it exists. You can also formulate a question that is complete nonsense and dismissed out of hand as being ridiculous to even consider answering, like what color is love?
I could imagine a unicorn, but they don’t exist and there is no evidence that they actually have ever existed. That doesn’t make unicorns real or prove any metaphysical plane of existence. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t real, btw.
Consciousness is a result of physical processes, not separate from it. There are no immaterial entities for which to account when they are merely a creation of the brain, a physical, natural process, itself.
Yet in your prior musings you reference logic several times. In your post 183 you reference 'logical conundrums'. Every conclusion you assert is underpinned by a syllogism inferred or an attempt at application of reason and rational thought. How, then, does one have a conversation.
I also said ‘as long as you aren’t picky about the answers’ and you get so picky as to take one imprecise word ‘believe’ and claim I have faith after my views on the matter are clear to anyone who apparently researched my posts enough to list a number of them, some correctly.
I will not discuss at length the idea of belief, unless you push the issue. It is clear you are not ready for such a discussion. Faith, is yet another point. There are those that reason and faith are hostile to each other, and whatever one believes of reason cannot be of faith. However, to arrive at a belief includes three components: (1)notia-understanding the content, (2)fiducia-a faithfulness to that 'notion', and (3)assensuss-and assent to the intellect to the thrush of the proposition. TRUST is the basis of the belief of understanding, knowledge, and your intellectual assent to that view. Yet, by your own words you are not an expert in your pronouncements, and thus no understanding (or minimal), and your belief rests on that lack of undertandigs (your words). Now, truth, and knowledge (warranted true belief)….I will not go into this since you seem adverse. If you enjoin on these subjects I ail be more than happy to fill your mind with the current understanding of these.
Gotcha tactics like that aren’t honest debating tactics. Attempting to lead another person into a logical train wreck of gibberish with leading questions that misrepresent my position, is also not an honest tactic. Something I suspected you would engage in from your very first post to me, politely asking if you could ask me some questions.
" Gotcha" tactics? I am trying to be specific. You do not want to deal in philosophy and logic, yet yo seek the refuge of the phrase 'logic into a train wreck' of gibberish with leading questions. I will hold my comment on this statement. Yet you complain about my politely asking to involve myself into your and Katherine's conversation. I thought it was the polite thing to do. I won't use the term paranoid. I will leave that one alone also….unless you enjoin the subject, then I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Saying you are looking to me for answers is also ridiculous as I’ve stated clearly I have no ‘answers’ and don’t claim to be an expert. That’s not false modesty as it is true of you as well, or any person that has ever lived on the planet. There are those who dedicate their lives to these subjects and may be considered more qualified to speak on them, but they also are not to be looked at as having the answers, only better qualified provided their work can be tested, repeated and meet rigid scientific standards, all of whom should be well aware a new discovery could change everything tomorrow.
My looking for answers from you was based largely on your mistreatment of KatherineAragon in your vilification of her. She seemed perfectly capable of dealing with your pronouncements. I just hate to see the name calling and rudeness. So….I wanted a few 'answers" from you….to see if you were as well versed as your pronouncements attempted to convey. Clearly they do not. But I also hoped you would be interested in the truth. That is coming into question, but I am willing to continue discussing these matters if you continue to enjoin me.
You are obviously looking to play word games in an attempt to say ‘gotcha’ instead of honestly looking for my position.
No, I am not playing word games. I am being as specific as possible, and will not allow you to get away with playing fast and loose with what you describe as self described non-expert on your assertions, which show a profound lack of understanding of science, darwinian evolution, neodarwinism, the theories which contend for that perspective as well as competing theories which refute those notions.
To be clear though, I have seen no evidence of such an existence in measurable terms outside the pursuits of philosophy. The mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with. You found one word and presumed way too much. Though many works on this issue can be interesting and worthwhile to investigate, it’s not scientific, even if brain waves that create the concept of mind can be measured scientifically.
Wow. OK. You say (Conclusion) "the mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with." You,clearly have not read anything about this subject. I am going to ask you if you really want to get into your conclusion. Syllogistically you state:
I know of nothing to indicate the mind is metaphysical,
I do not agree with the idea that mind is metaphysical,
therefore, (conclusion) the Mind is not me physical in nature.
Now, are you sure you want to get into this? It is not a quick process of learning and discussing the facts regarding these matters.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
Same question to you. Do you really want to get into what atheist experts in this area say regarding mind/consciousness/epiphenomenal emergent properties which, according to you, arose from the Big Bang, as a naturalist. Do you really want to discuss the merits of whether consciousness emerged from matter, or do you deny this, thus abandoning phenomenal consciousness. I assure you a Wikepedia explication will not fill in the gaps. Secondly, it is obvious that mental states are causal factors win our behavior. It is hard to see how knowledge and agency can be salvaged if this is denied. Such self-proclaimed atheists, naturalists, darwinists (not you) who are recognized experts in this field would disagree with you. Read Jaegwon Kim, Roger Sperry, D.M.Armstrong, and many others for a deeper understanding.
YOu say you do not want to get into this, yet you make reckless pronouncements about these very matter. If you wish to get into it, if you enjoin me on these matters I will be happy to discuss it profusely with you. I recommend you demur.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
The 2 paragraphs just prior to the last paragraph do not merit response.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
As a naturalist, please tell me what consciousness is made of . Is it epiphenomenal, thus metaphysical, or did dead, brute matter give rise to consciousness? If so, please give me the ontological and epistemic explanation of a naturalistic epistemology. If it is epiphenomenal then you must abandon naturalism. Again, how does brute matter give rise sui generis to a new emergent property. What is the structural property of the constituent parts of consciousness?
Now, are you sure you want to get into it. I will be happy to oblige if you wish.
There are volumes written on consciousness and evolution. It is on point of the article and, as you have eloquently involved logic and reason, it is on the subject which you, unprovoked, have put forth.
I will leave it along if you do not answer. If you want to answer, I will be happy to discuss these matters with you.
If I hear from you, that will be fine. If I do not to hear from you, I do still wish you a Merry Christmas.