Ok, you talked about it, now move on.Monistic Idealism said:
The way you fail to see the obvious is just amusing at this point. Read carefully what you have underlined. Where do you see any mention, let alone explanation, of what becomes aware? Is it this "I" ? That is merely a term, which you have still not explained what it is supposed to refer to. Moreover, there is a deeper problem here. Did you notice the word "become" ? It tells us that which is aware was at some time not aware. And since you have asserted the term "notice" is just another term for "consciousness", you have just asserted that which is conscious begins to be conscious.Monistic Idealism said:
Again attempting to evade the obvious. Do you see that term ? The term "you" is supposed to refer to something. That something is that which is aware and perceives. Now, you need to point out exactly what that something is; then explain it. You won't however be able to fulfill any of those necessary requests, because ultimately everyone knows you don't have the slightest clue what you are.
The irony is quite amusing here. You repeating a fundamental mistake and somehow believing that affects me negatively simply warms my corazon. Would you please read your own citations? What exactly becomes aware or conscious? Furthermore, do you understand that for that which is aware or conscious to become as such, it is necessary that it is not aware or conscious at some time ?More proof that you're screwed:
I think we've just witnessed your non-sequitur crash down in flames. Why is it so hard for you to even tell us what is aware and conscious and has perception etc. ? Could it be that you don't know and you are too much of a coward to admit when you are wrong ?
The "I" is a term that is supposed to refer to that which does the noticing, so saying there is an I that notices does not help us understand what this "I" is. The term "I" already includes the information of "an I that notices", so treating the two as if they are separate is just a mistake on your part. We, not only me, do not understand that which does the noticing. We do not know what it is. We do not have an explanation of it.
No, not even close. In fact, I specifically refuted your assertion that one must understand "mind" in order to understand the mode of behavior we call "insane". No wonder you want to stop at the first word. You are too cowardly, and perhaps impotent, to address my arguments.
Have fun explaining what begins to be conscious. What you have pointed to is an ability. But you haven't explained what possesses that ability. Your attempts at evasion are just so obvious. Your understanding of logic is also lacking since one can understand a mode of behavior without understanding what drives that behavior; that is perfectly logically coherent.
Well, you haven't been able to point out a single contradiction on my part. And saying the terms "person" and "self" refer to my alleged contradictions is just a stupid thing to say. But if you agree that the "self" is simply a term that is supposed to refer to something, then you must know by now that not explaining that supposed something collapses your whole case.
Even this is a projection on your part. Try to do less of that and at least attempt to address my arguments.Monistic Idealism said:
No. Premise 1 remains something you have been unable to explain. You still have not explained what is aware or conscious. And now, you have admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Even here you assert things like "what is means to be aware or to be conscious" without answering a basic question. What it means to be conscious or aware FOR WHAT ?
It's rather amusing hearing this from you, since you've been cowering away from all my arguments. The idea of an "I that notices" is logically equivalent to the term "I". Your dichotomy is a false one and I've already demonstrated that. Stop denying logic already.
Actually, that is false. The "mental" would be that which drives that mode of behavior. But one can point to a mode of behavior while at the same time not understanding what drives that behavior.
What is IN that state of mind ? Normal perception, behavior and social interaction are a mode of behavior. This "mental" is that which we call that which drives that behavior. But it's not necessary knowing what drives that behavior to point out a mode of behavior.
You don't understand what a contradiction is. A "mental state" is that state of whatever drives this mode of behavior we call "insane". But just because we recognize a behavior is driven by something, that does not imply we understand that something. Simple logic must be so confusing to you.
The only one who has been caught admitting to anything is you. You have admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. That, after failing to explain what is conscious. To this day, you have been unable to properly explain what the term "mental" refers to.
If your dumpster fire of a pseudo-case would have any weight to it, you wouldn't constantly cower away from all my arguments. You wouldn't refuse to address my points. And you wouldn't fail so horribly at explaining what is conscious. The reason you do all those things is because I have exposed you for what you truly are. A clueless random joe who doesn't have a clue what "mind" is, yet has built himself a whole ideology around a term he does not even comprehend. And if you think the fatal flaw that you call the first premise is the only problem of your argument, then you are more deluded than you already seem.
I literally just refuted that. What I understand is a view one has. But the term "one" refers to something which has not been explained. The notion of a hurt ego does not entail an understanding of the self, because an understanding of that which holds a view is not necessary in identifying a view.
You just proved me right, again. What is comprehensible is the view, not the self. We direct these judgments of respect and admiration to what we call "ourselves" but in reality we do not know what we are, and thus we do not really know to what this view is directed to.
Who are you quoting you insane person ?Monistic Idealism said:
That quote does not explain what does the noticing. Until you point out what that is, and then explain it, you have no premise.
That actually destroys your whole pseudo-case. You have just admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Thank you !
This proves my point, yet again. The "I" is that which is aware and perceives. But "I" is merely a term. You need to point out exactly what it is.
How does that which is not conscious beginning to be conscious affect me negatively? Be precise.
You are projecting the fact that you are an illiterate logic denier on me, again. The idea of "an I that notices" is not a negation of "what an I is has not been explained".
Now, THAT is logically impossible. It is necessary that a thing is not the same as its behavior and thus it is possible to point to a behavior without actually understanding what drives that behavior. Please pick up a logic book!
That is literally impossible. A mode of behavior is necessarily what something DOES, because nothing by definition can not drive any behavior. What we understand enough is that any behavior is driven by something, not what that something is. So you've just made my point, yet again.
<U>
I can't pick from only one option. What I don't understand is what this "I" is. Read this carefully. What this "I" IS. Tell me what has perception. Tell me what is conscious. Tell me what begins to be conscious. Clear enough?
I've already demonstrated my claim beyond any reasonable doubt. I have exposed your fatal weakness for everyone to see. You don't know what "mind' is. You never did. All you can do is point to acts, without being able to point what does the acting. What is that which begins to be conscious ? You will never answer that question because you have no idea what you are talking about.
And you keep projecting your failures on me. What is that which perceives? And cue the silence...
So that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Again, this bothers me because?
You said it yourself. That which is conscious begins to be conscious. That which is aware begins to be aware. Brilliant! Now, what is "that" which does that? The "I"? Double brilliant! But the term "I" is merely how we CALL that thing. That does not explain what it is; after all we could CALL it "chakra". Tell me what begins to be conscious and then explain that thing.
Since your understanding of logic is about as developed as that of a potato, let me walk you through the obvious, yet again. A view and what holds that view are different things; that's the law of identity.
.
<U>
Simple, although I admit that is simple for me since obviously, you have a hard time with the obvious. Whatever that thing is that drives the behavior I am observing and responding to, I need not know it in order to point out it does not act in a logical manner. I can understand insanity because it is a mode of behavior. A mode of behavior is separate from what drives that behavior, in this case an unknown thing to which we refer to using the term "mind".Monistic Idealism said:
If my claim equates your first premise, then whatever the term "mind" refers to in your first premise remains unknown. Hence, by said equation, you entail that my original point stands and thus your whole case is based on magic.
It's right there under your nose and yet you fail at seeing it. Something is aware. Something is conscious. Something comprehends. We refer to that something using the term "I" or "you" or "self". But that is merely how we call it, and that matters not since we could very well call it "cabbage". That does not explain what it is. It does not explain anything about that thing. Tell me what this "you" is and then explain it. Until you do that, you can not possibly have a first premise.
Obviously, chess is not your thing. If something begins to be conscious, then that means that consciousness is not fundamental. It can not be, for it is a property of a non-mental state of affairs that begins to be. It is contingent on that non-mental state of affairs and that non-mental state of affairs precedes it. So much for that "check mate" ha ?You have completely lost track haven't you? lol premise 1 is only about mind existing. It doesn't matter if something begins to be conscious, it's about whether or not consciousness exists. And you just admitted that there is consciousness
check mate, momo
Except that your proposition is not actually of such form now is it ? If the term "I" refers to that which does the noticing, then "an I that notices" is not a negation of "what this I is has not been explained" because at all times you are referencing an act this something does, rather than pointing what this "I" is. Learn what a true dichotomy is, logic denier.
Are you really in any position to lecture others on reason and logic when you can not even put forth a simple dichotomy? When simple logic escapes you? I think not. As for my reasons for being here, I can only say that is none of your business. That you are unable to address my arguments remains your problem, not mine.
Which one of us is the logic denier has been made abundantly clear by now. There IS only one option. The term "I" refers to that which does the noticing. It is incoherent to act as if "an I that notices" is a different proposition, let alone a negation of "what this I is remains unknown"
I do not know what this "I" IS. I know we use that term to refer to that thing which does the noticing, but that does not tell us what that thing is. As such, one can not pick between the term "I" and "an I that notices" for they are the same thing.
This "mental" is that which drives whatever behavior you want to specify. Depending on various criteria, we call that behavior "sane" or "insane" say. But it's fairly obvious for anyone with a proper understanding of logic that a behavior can be understood while at the same time what drives that behavior can remain unknown. You are simply confused.
My provided definition of "insane" also specified that something is "in" that "state of mind". And what that something is remains unknown. The term "mind" refers to that something which has not been specified and has not been explained, to that thing which drives various behaviors. So a "state" of this thing merely indicates a different behavior. And that it drives a behavior is necessary since behavior is what some-thing does, not what no-thing does. It's not that we understand what drives that behavior, but that we understand that all behavior is driven by some-thing. And in this case we call that some-thing "mind". But that does not mean we know what it is or we can explain it.
We've been over this alright. I've demonstrated pretty clear that a mode of behavior can be understood while at the same time not understanding what drives that behavior.
Like I said, the obvious escapes you. It says right there "the ability". Perception is the ability of what? It says "become aware". Again. What begins to be aware? That which is not mental obviously. But what is that?
What I don't see is an answer to my question. What is this "I"?
Are you seriously so naive that you can not see the obvious truth of what I am saying ? Why would it be necessary to know what "I am" in order to falsify bad arguments? I need not know whatever you are. So long as you put forth false claims, I can address those claims without understanding what fundamentally puts forth said claims. Such a poor understanding of contradictions you have.
I have demonstrated that since what the term "mind" refers to remains unknown and not explained, your whole pseudo-case rests upon magic. Even worse, by not specifying what exists you can not even claim to have a first premise, but hey-ho it's not like you and logic are best friends. And now, the various claims you have made have shown that a non-mental state of affairs begins to be conscious. So yea...see if you can figure that one out.
That is quite obviously false. For one, what does it even mean to say "one's own mind" if "I=mind"? Secondly, the mental would be that which possesses the quality of ignorance say. But we don't actually have to know what exactly possesses that quality in order to attribute it to someone else. So when we say "we attribute it to other minds" we can just refer to the fact that, whatever you are, you are guilty of the shortcomings you are accusing me of. Subtle, I know.
I'm done because I keep refuting you? I don't think so. A view can be incorrect yes ? You do understand that simple fact ? Okay! So, much like the judgements of admiration and respect, which upon being exposed as false the "I" gets hurt, the ego can also be but a construct of that which does all these things. Hence the numerous claims about what this "self" is.
*SD* said:
That seems so to you only because you are ignorant as to what a contradiction is. You talk about me distinguishing myself from you, yet refuse to point out what those terms refer to. What distinguishes itself from what? You have no answer to that.Monistic Idealism said:
No, I actually don't. You are the one who asserts to understand what the "mind" is, not me. As such, you are the only one who has to identify what does the acting and then explain that thing. I am talking about an act and since all acts are what something does, we call that which does the noticing "the I". But I am not identifying "you as you"; because "you" is merely how we call that thing. And we could call it "chakra" or "mumbo jumbo" or "cabbage" and not a single thing would change. Whatever that thing is that "you" are, we call it the "I" but that does not actually imply we know what that thing is or we can explain it. Learn what the law of identity is, you logic denier.
Says the guy who has been lying this whole time. You are still projecting. Although it is nice to see you finally quoting the full definition. Read carefully what it says. It says "prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction". Those are what that thing we call "mind" does. But we don't actually have to know what the term "mind" refers to in order to recognize a mode of behavior. We can just mean that, whatever that thing is, is in such a state of affairs that it drives a certain behavior.
You fail to see the obvious, yet again. Something has to be "in a state of mind", yet for some curious reason you are unable to point out what that thing is. On the other hand, I could just say that "a state of mind" is just whatever state of affairs that which drives behavior finds itself in. It would not identify what that thing is, or even explain it, yet it would allow me to use the phrase coherently. So yea, you are clueless.
No, it does not. I've actually refuted this and you have yet to answer to those arguments, which means you either have no answer or you have conceded the point and now you are merely attempting to force yourself into believing a logical impossibility.
Again, that appears so to you merely because you have a very poor grasp of logic. Which is the reason you never actually demonstrate your accusations and merely repeat them. I can consider you insane because insane is a mode of behavior and I don't need to know what drives a behavior to conclude that. And I can consider "you" because I can just refer to that thing that must drive this behavior. That because you are a logic denier, does not mean I am committing any contradictions.
It's actually the other way around. Since whatever that thing is that the term "I' refers to in my claim remains unknown, equating said claim to your P1 necessarily means whatever that thing is that the term "mind" refers to remains unknown. What you are saying is also incoherent since noticing is what this "I" does, whereas you claim consciousness is just another word for noticing which implies consciousness is what this "I" does. But hey-ho, it's not like you can understand simple logic.
That amount of projection is not healthy for you, please seek help. You talk about me distinguishing myself from you. Again, what distinguishes itself from what? How come this question causes you so many problems?
Something IS conscious. But, as per your claims, consciousness begins to be, so whatever that something is, cannot be consciousness. So what exactly is that thing that begins to be conscious? Who is the one scared here?
You still don't get it. If what I'm saying equals your P1, then it becomes logically necessary that consciousness is not fundamental. Consciousness cannot be both fundamental and not fundamental. Now, THAT would be an actual contradiction.
There is so much wrong here. Allow me to shed some light.
You are the one who constantly runs from my arguments. So projecting your cowardice on me is just funny. Your dichotomy is a false one, logic denier. Noticing is what this I does, not what this I is. As such "what this I is has not been explained" is not a negation of "an I that notices". What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is. And given your cowardice in answering that inquiry, it is obvious why that question scares you so much.
Correction. You believe I admit P1 is true. But given your refusal to demonstrate that belief, we can safely assume you are simply confused. Thinking is what this "I" does. But we don't actually comprehend this "I" because we don't know what it is or have an explanation of it. We just know something must do the thinking, not what that something is. Again, not like you to understand simple logic.
It just means that something not identified and not explained does the noticing. Absolute fail. Pick up a logic book and learn what a contradiction is.
Some thing is real, to which we refer to using the term "mind". That does not actually imply we know what that thing is. Do you get that ?
More like you are on the path of giving up your incoherent ideology. First, I did not assert whatever thing drives this behavior is irreducible. Second, it is literally impossible for me to equate that which drives this behavior with the brain or the nervous system because that thing has not been specified. Until you tell me what that thing is, I can not possibly say if it is the brain or not. No wonder you adhere to this pathetic ideology with that poor grasp of logic.
Gliding over the fact that your rambling does not address the fact that a behavior can be understood without understanding what drives that behavior, we do not actually comprehend the "I". You don't know what this "I" is remember ? To this day you are impotent at pointing out what it is, let alone explain it. The only thing that has been understood perfectly fine is that your ideology is self-refuting and incoherent.
I don't need to. By "state of mind" one could just mean whatever state of affairs drives a certain behavior. That would not explain the mind and would still allow us to use the concept of "insane" perfectly fine. And by "myself" I could just mean "whatever that thing is that notices" and that would again not explain this "I". So no, no contradiction.
Really easy. Easy at showing how clueless you are. The "mind" is a term yes ? That term supposedly refers to that thing which posseses that ability and drives that behavior. I did not ask you to tell me how you call it, that is easy since we could call it "chakra" if we wanted to. I asked you to tell me what that thing is that possesses said ability and drives said behavior. Again, what that thing IS, not how you CALL it.
What distinguishes itself from what ? And cue the silence...
Irrelevant. It references a potential, which you've equated to an action and you further equated to consciousness. Understand this. If your P1 equals what I've said, then idealism is necessarily false.
Why would I need to do that ? Is there some magical mojo to these words or what ? They are simply how we CALL something not explained. What about that is supposed to bother me ?
No, but you are considering you've admitted idealism is necessarily false. I did not identify this "I". Again, get this simple fact if you can. That is how we CALL it. So whatever does all those things, we CALL it "myself" or "me" or "I". But that does not tell us what it is.
You have never actually defined your terms. You still can't tell what the term "mind" refers to. When you realized how incoherent your attempts were, you gave up. You can't even bring yourself to address my arguments and you just keep contradicting yourself over and over, while asserting I am contradicting myself without actually demonstrating that baseless assertion.
This is a bare faced lie. I have at every turn responded to that point and in return you did not even address my counter-arguments. So for you to throw that accusation is just ridiculous.
To which I've responded with a simple point. What does the knowing ?
If there is not a lack of description, then why do you refuse to provide it ? Furthermore, I have commited no such equivocation. I've asked you what does the knowing. To that, you had no answer. I think we both know why that is so.
Again. What are you babbling about ? I did not advance behaviorism. Take your meds !
You did. According to me, I call whatever drives this behavior "I" and whatever drives your behavior "you". You have made a series of claims that are best suited to describe you. Again, no need to know what you are fundamentally. Just that, whatever you are, is behaving in a certain manner.
I understand a property, not what possesses that property. Were we to call the mind "chakra", it would be equally valid to say we understand chakra properties. Without pointing out what the term "mind" refers to, saying these properties are "mental" tells us next to nothing.
I am not identifying it. That is how we CALL it. I don't know what it is for me to identify it. It is an unknown thing that drives certain behaviors.
It shouldn't be possible to talk about behavior without understanding what drives said behavior ? Why ? Because the law of identity and basic logic escapes you? I need not know what you are in order to conclude whatever you accuse me of, is best suited to describe you. What exactly about that is so hard to understand ?
You didn't ? Curious thing. Then what is this: "the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties" ?
The irony of this accusation is just soo good. Did you not notice right after that I've said "Where have I advanced that idea exactly?" ? It's not that I don't know what the term stands for, but that I have no idea what you are babbling about when it comes to it in relation to me.
What are you talking about ? Why would I avoid the mental ? Do you think there is some magical mojo with that word or what ? I don't care how you call that which does the noticing. I want to know what it is. Were we to call it "chakra" would I have to avoid talking about "a chakra" or "the chakra" ? No. What a ridiculous thing to say.
No, but you might be.
Says the child who can't comprehend basic logic. What is comprehensible is the view, but that view could mean any number of things, such as "the I is something unknown and not explained".
A view is just how we think a state of affairs is. That might be right, or it might be wrong. It depends. Ideas,like all thoughts, begin to be. So I would say they are something that "mind" does.
And the "I" is merely a term that refers to something that understands. And we already established you don't know what that something is.
A judgment would be how you think a particular state of affairs is. A construct in this context is some sort of avatar. How that which does the noticing think it is. Saying ideas are mental in nature tells us nothing because again "mental" is but a term. Were we to call the mind "chakra" those things would be "chakra in nature".
I am not trying anything. I am stating a fact. And no, we won't stop at your ad-hoc nonsense. You (which is but a term) can think of yourself. But what do you think ? Well you might think you are "something that remains unknown and not explained".
You really are clueless to the obvious. "Mind" is a term that is supposed to refer to something that does the thinking. We could call that thing "cabbage" and it would be equally valid to say "there is a cabbage that thinks and has constructs". The obvious. Do you see it ? What is that thing ?
It is not that I did not meet your challenge. Rather, it is that I completely reject the underlying assumptions your challenge is based upon. For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person, if we are to discuss this word in the context of this debate. But the main point is that this "first-person" is but a phenomena we refer to using these first-person pronouns. What this phenomena is remains unknown, just as an understanding of it remains unknown. You are still operating under the delusion that I deny this phenomena exists. What you are supposed to tell us is what this "I" is and then explain it. The terms "you", "I" and "person" are not magical you know ? Simply using them does not automatically grant us an understanding of the phenomena they refer to.Monistic Idealism said:
This is just wrong. Nowhere did I point out what this "I" is, neither did you. An internet profile is not this "I", so distinguishing between two of such profiles has nothing to do with this discussion to begin with. Again, you assert I identify myself as distinct from you, yet that merely employs the same terms without actually explaining what they refer to. What distinguishes itself from what ? Me from you ? Those are terms. Tell me what they refer to. So you are yet again the one who is full of shit. At every point you refuse to answer this simple inquiry and the reason is obvious. You don't know. Why is that so hard to admit ?
But I would not, because I do not know if that understanding is correct. Rather, it is better said I would have a suggestion as to what this "I" is. Even then, it could still be the case that I do not know what does the noticing. For me to do that, it would imply that I have a complete understanding of this body, which none of us has. So while I would identify this "I" with this body, I would not actually have an explanation of it. In fact, it is not even clear I could claim I identified this "I". I say that because absent a complete understanding of said body, I would not know what parts of it are necessary for me to remain as I am. And absent said understanding, I would not know what modes of behavior of any given parts are necessary to remain as I am.
It would not. The term "whatever" does not identify anything. It is about as general as you can get. And noticing is what this "whatever" would do, not what it is. The distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance already relies on the term "you", as you have shown just now. To that extent, the very distinction you are attempting to employ can not take flight until you explain what that term refers to.
I did not forget that non-mind becomes mind. Why would that bother me again?
But I would not understand it. I would not know what it is. Rather, I could merely infer that, whatever it is, it does not require the taste of an apple say. What something is not does not tell us what something is. In fact, our own experience tells us even us might not be necessary for this "I" to persist. You get knocked out, it all goes blank. Same with sleep and certain types of coma. Yet when you wake up, there you are. What follows is that an underlying non-mental structure is more fundamental than this "I".
Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Yes ! Something DOES the noticing. And what I've been asking you? To tell me what that something is. Again, what that is, not how you CALL it. I call myself "I" but I could call myself "chakra" if I wanted to.
Actually, in the definition of "insane", something is in a state of mind so have fun explaining what that something is. But more importantly, "mind" would be that which functions in that non-normal way. But notice again the distinction between what something is and what something does. What you are identifying is what that something does, not what that something is. So there is nothing wrong with me saying something unknown behaves in such a way that drives a non-normal behavior. Again, these mental verbs refer to things this something does. But we need to know what does all those things. Again, cause I bet you've forgotten by now. What does it, not how you call it.
So are you saying your P1 refers to actions?
I don't know what mind is. I can make sense of projection without that piece of information. Have fun proving me wrong.
Buddy, for me to reduce mind to anything, it would imply what mind is. I can't reduce that which I have not identified. Also, I do not understand what "in a state of mind" means. I observe a behavior and infer that whatever drives that behavior must change in some way to account for different behaviors. But I don't know what that thing is. Nor do I know how that process goes.
That's the point you keep missing. Without pointing out what that state of affairs is, I can not possibly identify it with anything. Again, P3 is necessarily false due to how you defined consciousness. An ability is reducible by definition.
And I just refuted your argument, while you did not when I responded to your assertions. In fact, at one point you just kept repeating the same nonsense, while ignoring my refutations and at the same time accusing me of repeating myself. Talk about projection...
Perception, behavior and social interaction is what this thing does. We call this thing "mind" but that does not imply we have to know what that is in order to recognize a behavior. Again, you are confusing your own ignorance with lies.
Perception, behavior and social interaction is what that thing we call "mind" does. Notice that we identify not what does those things, but merely the behavior. We CALL that thing "mind" but that's not what it is, that's the law of identity. So, by logical necessity, we can talk about what that thing does, while at the same time not knowing what that thing is.
The phrase "you are you" is meaningless unless you tell me what this "you" refers to. I could for example, mean that collection of bones and flesh. Do you mean to tell that is what "you" are ? I gave several possibilities that show what this "I" is can remain unknown while allowing us to use the term coherently. What you need to explain is what this thing is but for some reason you want to assert you actually know what it is while also refusing to share that knowledge. Someone is lying alright...
Those are phenomena that I call "perception, awareness and consciousness". But I don't actually know what they are. I just call them that. And by how you defined them, they are either an ability or an act, which by definition implies they are reducible to non-mind. So if that is your P1, you've already falsified idealism.
That is not an identification. That is how we call it. Again, you must explain what that thing is. The phrase "this self is different from me" is meaningless unless you specify what the terms "self" and "me" refer to.
You still don't get it. That something that begins to be conscious must be non-conscious to begin with. What is that something ? If what I'm saying equals your P1, then it is necessary that idealism is false.
There is no "your" consciousness because you've said "I=consciousness". Moreover, whatever the term "mind" means in P1, it MUST mean the same thing when used in this "cosmic mind" sense. To do otherwise is to commit a fallacy of equivocation.
Again. What does that mean? How does it happen? And again. That is literally impossible. You can not use a meaning when it suits you, then switch gear and use another one. Whatever "mind" means in P1, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are the one who is failing to grasp basic logic. Whatever this "cosmic" mind is, it must mean the same thing as in P1. The term "mind" can not mean one thing when it suits you and another when it does not. That is a fallacy of equivocation.
A potential does not turn into an actual unless that thing which posseses it acts upon said ability to bring it forth. The support for that is your own provided definitions.
You did actually. This is a photo you posted yourself.
But it does. Watch! That which does not exist (they) can not begin to be anything. Only things that exist can begin to be anything, because nothing lacks all potentialities. Because you've said "I=consciousness", you can only say consciousness begins to be, not that "they being to be conscious".
What deeper analysis of the self? You are still refusing to tell me what the self is. The most basic questions about it remain unanswered.
No, I am not because that is not what your false dichotomy poses. What I don't understand is what this "I" is. Learn what the law of the excluded middle means before you embarrass yourself further.
A noun which references an act. Mental verbs refer to what the mental does. What you still fail to grasp is that this term "mental" is merely how we call that which does those things. The only reason we say those are "mental verbs" is because we CALL that thing which does it "the mental". Were we to call it "chakra" those would be "chackra verbs". How is this distinction still lost on you ?
What you have laid out so far is that you lack the ability to spot subtle differences that are necessary to hold this kind of conversation. What is that which "everybody else" seems to get? Why would I need to adhere to those people assumptions sans proper argument?
And given that what this "I" is remains unknown, what does the thinking remains unknown.
Actually what you've just said is an equivocation. You are confusing how we call a thing with what that thing is. The term "we" is how we call it, not what it is. As for your distinction, it already relies on that which you have failed to explain. So follow your own advice and pick up a logic book.
No, I called it "I". How we call something is not the same as what that thing is. How is that law of identity going on for you ?
Again. Utterly wrong. I've called that something "mind" or "the mental". Would I have called it "chakra", it would be equally valid to say chakra exists. Yes ! Super great! Law of identity indeed.
It's not a fact because you do not know if I am reducing that which drives behavior. I am calling that which drives behavior as "mind". But for me to identify that thing with the brain, you first need to tell me what it is. Without doing that first, your request is nonsensical.What I said what that you're not reducing that which drives behavior, and this is fact. You are literally not trying to say that the brain or the nervous system drives behavior, but rather you are identifying that which drives behavior as "mind" and you are not identifying this mind with the brain and nervous system. So then you would not be a reductionist which means you're with me
Ho-Ho! That is not what it is. That is how we call it. Law of identity, logic denier. Learn it!
It is if you've defined "mind" as an ability and if you tried to equate an act with it. Mind begins to be. Your "solution" for that is one big fat fallay of equivocation. Such brilliance...
Buddy, stop with the behaviorism babble. I am not that. If you comprehend the "I" just fine, you should have no problem explaining what it is. Yet you refuse to do so. Why ?
Then there is obviously a problem with the way you comprehend what I'm saying because your accusations don't follow at all.
I literally don't. The reason I can understand said definition is because I am making a distinction between a behavior and what drives that behavior. A distinction you fail to get.
States of mind is how we call that which drives behavior. Giving the unknown a name does not magically explain that thing. Again, you say it yourself. What we grasp is what this thing does. But I keep asking you what this thing is.
"Whatever" is not an understanding. Noticing is what it does, not what it is. And only existing things can perform acts. So "this I notices and exists" is logically equivalent to "something unknown drives a certain behavior". At no point you are telling me what that thing is.
What an absolute fail. On what criteria is this definition set ? Give me an actual argument as to why I could not call that which notices "chakra". And cue the evasion...
There can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exists. Why is this different from what you're saying ? And how comes when it is suitable for you, you can distinguish between what a thing is and what a thing does?
What distinguishes itself from what? Again. What that thing is. Not how you call it. And cue the silence...
I don't think so. I think a reasonable person would see the distinctions I am making are quite reasonable. The explanations provided make sense. You keep referring to things this "I" does while I keep asking you what this "I" is. Why that ?
It is for what I was quoting. I meant it is irrelevant because it references a potential.
What I don't understand is what this "I" is. You keep talking about what it does. The terminology we use is how we call that thing. That is irrelevant to my inquiry. You are the one who is trying to sell a pseudo-understanding of something you clearly don't understand.
What should I expect from a habitual liar. You even quoted part of my rebuttal in the next breath. Just so we are clear, I said "That is how we CALL it. So whatever does all those things, we CALL it "myself" or "me" or "I". But that does not tell us what it is.".
That is how we call that thing. But what is it ? What am I identifying ? Again. You keep confusing how we call things to what things are. Were I to call myself "chakra" I would be merely "identifying" chakra as distinct from chavra or what have you.
What do they understand ? Be specific. I've address your sources. They too fail at pointing out what this "I" is.
It absolutely is a lie. I have at every point addressed your distinction. This can be checked you know ? The simple point is that the very distinction you are making relies on that thing that remains unknown. And you are also claiming you can describe the "I" so what's the issue ? Just do it!
This comming from the guy that literally spammed his nonsense over and over. Such silly projections.
1. You did not. You merely swapped words and acted as if that explains it. Did you also not try to say the self is an act by the self ?
Buddy, I am not advancing behaviorism. I am not even close to that. What else do you want to me tell you ? But I would like to know what this mind is and what a representation is. I have to repeat this because you probably forgot it by now. What it is. Not how you call it.
You've said "I=consciousness". Do you want a screenshot or what ?
The word is. But what the word refers to remains unknown. The term "whatever" does not tell me what that thing is.
Those are phenomena that we name that way and because I assume you are in some fashion similar to me, I can draw that conclusion. But that does not imply I know what gives rise to said phenomena.
Yes, because it is supposed to be non-reducible remember ? And about the existence of what you are talking about ? We most certainly don't know what this object is. This has been the whole point of this debate.
The only reason they are called "mental properties" is because we choose to call that which does all those things "mental". How comes you still don't get this distinction between how we call a thing and what a thing is ?
Identity of the terms, not of the things they refer to. One of those has to be that thing. The apple is the object, the word "apple" is what is used to refer to that thing. I am calling whatever this is "I". But I don't know what it is.
No. I am calling myself that way.
Yes and I've addressed that so who is the one sucking at reading ? Those are names we give to phenomena. And we say that phenomena is driven by something. And we call that something "mind". But that is how we CALL it. I want to know what it is. They could very well be "chakra phenomenon".
And what does the "other mental properties" refer to ?
I am stating that I do not know what this "mental" is. That does not mean I can not give it a name.
Totally. Like confusing how a thing is called with what a thing is. Noob!
Okay, let's turn that "might" into a "probably". Buddy, did you forget you wrote the answer yourself ? Or was that some copy pasta which you didn't fully read ?
Not necessarily. There is no reason a view must always be correct. It is my view that I see a lake in the desert. That view is comprehensible. That does not imply there is an actual lake there or what I am seeing is correct. One could say his view of the self is that it is "pure love". Would that be correct mr chess pigeon ?
Thoughts and ideas is how we call certain phenomena. This "mind" is supposed to be that which drives said phenomena. But were we to call it "chakra" it would be true that "chakra exists". In all cases, you are no identifying what that thing is, you are merely telling me how you call that unknown thing.
Oh no! I'm so scared. Perhaps your threats would carry more weight if I hadn't mopped the floor with you at every point.
There is something I call "me". You are supposed to explain what that thing is, not how we call it, mr great chess pigeon.
Whatever is doing the thinking can ponder about what it is. What about that is so hard to understand ?
It is but a term that refers to something. There really is this something. We call it "I". Amazing ! Now, what is that thing ?
We call it that way. Yes! But what is it ?
Is this a law of nature ? Is it set in stone ? What argument do you have for me not being able, if I so choose, to call that which does the noticing "cabbage" ?
I do. It is this clarity that has allowed me to expose your pseudo-case for what it is. You have nothing.
