khaled

Well I had explicitly stated "There is no reason out there, reasoning is a faculty". Sure the use of "reasoning" as opposed to "reason" was a mistake,...

Regardless, that doesn't affect the rock. Are you questioning this belief? Do you think our beliefs can affect the rock? Yes or no? And regardless, yo...

Coming from you? That's just confirmation I'm doing something right. You've determined I'm biased beyond repair based purely on the fact that I disagr...

No not majority rules. More like: if “what of all the people that experienced X” is an argument that X is genuine then the fact that the majority who ...

What of the majority that don’t? Your scientist friend doesn’t know how DNA replicates? I doubt it. I bet he’s just appeasing you. Ok. Done. Still don...

Good luck!

Well I won't speak for him, and I can't see how what you quoted translates to "minds are an illusion" (which he explicitly denied before) but you don'...

Why do you seem to think the only materialist in the world is Dennett? No one here has called minds an illusion or mere noise. So where is the part wh...

I don't know why people keep repeating this. Yes, minds exist. No, they're not immaterial. That's the position. Everything you said also makes sense f...

Similarly, if you say they are different how can Isaac's argument prevail? This is precisely where reasoned arguments are needed. If starting from dif...

The jargon is individually very basic. You can look each piece up and it won't take you very long. You not wanting to understand it that doesn't disqu...

I'm just interested in what "non-physical energy" is currently. I've only ever heard Bartricks say something like that which is how you know it's bull...

But my eye can see your eye and vice versa. Then we come to the astonishing discovery that we can see and study eyes.

I do have reason to believe it. But regardless of whether or not I do believe it, or whether or not I have reason to believe it, the rock will still f...

The laws of reason aren't "out there". Reasoning is a capacity, like sight. Rocks don't fall down because they are following the laws of reason. This ...

Where did you get this? As you say, people can just choose not to believe what they have normative reason for believing or not do what they have norma...

Where’d you get this?

Isn't what Banno said included in what you said? Although yes it's missing an essential part "and no good reason to think god exists"

Then the triviality of your counter argument is laid bare. If it has nothing to do with air vibrations then why did you expect a song playing in your ...

Yes, if by “song playing in your head” you mean that there are air vibrations that produce a certain sound literally emanating or passing through your...

Not true. Idk where you get this. You must have had a first thought no? You haven’t been thinking forever. What caused your first thought after being ...

How, do you mind explaining? I don’t see how you end up with infinite regress.

It solves countless problems. Such as: 1- Not being able to dismiss solipsism, or a world where it’s just you and the mind of God. 2- Not being able t...

Right and he’s saying that to “have a song in your head” has a different meaning to “hearing a song from the other room”. In the one case there are ar...

So? What’s the issue with this? Why not? You just implied in the above quote that you can. Agreed that’s more practical. But you can do both no?

deleted.

This is a much clearer explanation than what I gave. :up:

You can see anything as a curse to be alleviated or as a fun challenge. Everything you just said applies to any activity not just living in general. Y...

What does that have to do with anything? You tried proving that one must concede that ideas exist, and since they don’t have weight, they are immateri...

There is plenty of things we can’t weigh that we consider material. Sound waves for example. Or magnetic fields. So this proves nothing.

Then you're not a substance dualist..... So if I look at your brain, and take note of every neural event, and the neural event that caused it, will I ...

But we haven't seen those laws violated so maybe x is not nonphysical. OR x is nonphysical and also completely useless (can't bring about any movement...

Exactly! But no, the schema is not problematic. To define physical by being detectable seems like a decent definition even in vacuum. If you want to p...

Vexing problems in dualist ontology*

Considering thoughts aren't physical, how are you ever going to detect that this event has occurred? What do you expect to see when a thought does som...

That's not a much better definition.

Right. You assume. For no reason. Yet you claim you have a reason for doing so. Anyways we've been going around in circles for a while now. I'll leave...

Or be completely random. That too is an alternative. Or simply not exist for anyone other than yourself. Heck if I know, a private ineffable substance...

What? I'm reading this as "You will have the same qualia as a clone of yourself" or something like that. Well, by your formulation of qualia: No not n...

I wouldn't call it an "amazing situation" so much as "a problem". If your theory can't prove something inuitively true, either it's not intuitively tr...

Yes it would as this line wouldn't be asked:

How about: Yes you do, that's the brain at work.

I doubt qualia can be treated as a good basis for ethics. Especially given that you can't even tell anyone else has it other than yourself. How do you...

A lot of "may" and "perhaps". Once or if those are gone I'd agree with you. Until then. Or it could be adapted to completely crush any semblance of qu...

I doubt it. I'd say you're just refusing to address the questions. Seems like it ends the same way it ends every time.... I still don't see any reason...

This assumes that something will remain. I don't think so.

Again, while I like the theory, it has its gimmicks which you haven't addressed. Yes, it fundamentally allows for a non material substance that can ca...

Except this formulation mentions nothing about minds, or anything controversial. Anyone can give a yes or no answer to this one: It's different from t...

I asked a yes or no question. I got neither a yes or no.

Do you intend to answer the question? The one you spent 2 pages dodging (in this thread alone)?