numberjohnny5

There are degrees of similarity with regards to (bio)chemical composition and functionality. Rocks are less similar than humans in this regard. Are yo...

Brains are made of different materials than rocks, and that is one good reason why rocks don't "experience" consciousness relative to brains. Brains a...

Ok, thanks for answering.

So would it make sense to say then that ontologically influence is an indeterminer, i.e indeterministic?

Re What's influence ontologically? Or, what's the difference between causal determinants and influence ontologically?

It's true to say that since the two separate "forms" are made of the same "kind" of stuff.

I think it's true that they are two different forms or pieces of marble. All existents/objects are different from one another. With regards to resembl...

Do you have any good reason(s) for why that is the case? Another question would be, do you have any good reason(s) for why free will is not the case a...

The problem with that comment is that "electromagnetic radiation" was never non-physical, it was merely discovered to be physical. Unknown entities/pr...

I agree with that. I don't think "objective criteria" makes sense, since criteria is necessarily subjective. We can produce criteria that we measure o...

States are just a particular set of processes (occurring subjectively or objectively). We come to identify and experience states that are familiar and...

"Mind" conventionally refers to awareness or consciousness. Nonconscious "mind" (i.e. nonconscious consciousness) is at least semantically incoherent....

I'd say that objects are identical to all the properties that comprise them. So the answer to your question is an identity relationship: X is Y. But b...

I can voluntarily generate (some) thoughts, yes. To reflect, plan, make decisions, etc. I do it mainly by concentrating or focusing on specific aims o...

My point was that being aware of something is not necessarily a voluntary act. Just to clarify, I said some thoughts are involuntary, not all. A biolo...

I certainly don't agree with that. One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurring.

Well, in order to communicate it's important to find some common ground. Communication can be tricky in the first place. Otherwise, you may as well ju...

For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act ...

Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an...

That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say ...

I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brain.

Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting u...

A human arm can be attached or detached from the rest of the human body. The arm itself hasn't changed.

No. Nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc....

If by "successfully" you mean "genuinely", then I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself. You either believe A about X in situation Z or you don'...

You're conflating the idea of "mind and brain" with a real/actual mind and brain. There are actual organs that we call "minds/brains"--they're not jus...

Sure, maybe another time.

Ok, I disagree. But it seems that you'd prefer things to stay on topic (as in, you'd prefer to discuss this topic around the belief that temporal real...

No. Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and how we acquire it.

I believe that too. I'm a realist. But I'd also say that both internal and external "realities" are temporal (in other words, reality is temporal, per...

As in psychological trauma? It occurs in the brain. The mind is identical to the brain, namely, the aspect of the brain that is aware or conscious (co...

Truths, falsehoods, beliefs, etc. as mental phenomena only last as long as the mind conceiving/claiming them. What those truths/beliefs pick out in re...

Every thing (or all things) that is not mental is "beyond the mental." Yes, mental phenomena is electro-chemical, and experience is mental phenomena. ...

You mean the "map-is-not-the-territory"-type thing? I agree: descriptions or propositions about stuff are not identical to the stuff that those descri...

I'm not sure I'd put it like that. We can value "knowledge" as "super" or "special" qua mental phenomena, but that's only a subjective assessment. The...

I am being honest. As I mentioned to another poster, I don't believe that my experience of sitting at my pc is an illusion, even if I can't know that ...

I use the conventional definition of "knowledge" per analytic philosophy (justified true belief). In my view, some knowledge claims can be absolutely ...

Indeed, I don't see how non-qualitative experience (whatever that is?--seems incoherent to me) can be the foundation of knowledge, since experience is...

I see, thanks for explaining that. With regards to your "position", I'd rather say that "I don't know that my experience of sitting at my PC writing i...

Well, now that I think about it, even the content of an experience is qualitative. How can any experience not be qualitative? So to answer your questi...

Yes, the quality I know infallibly, and the content I know fallibly, although I believe I have very good reasons to know the content (99.99999....% kn...

Sure. At the present moment, (I know that) I'm sitting at my PC writing this sentence. I adhere to correspondence theory re truth claims, so in this e...

Why would you do that?

Wait--what are patterns for you ontologically? I don't buy that "natural laws" are real, btw, if that's how you support or use "pattern". That's mainl...

Is that how you speak to people face to face? I'm using them in a similar sense, yes. Whether that's conventional per dicitionary definitions I don't ...

All that shows, so far, is that we don't share the same views regarding "general regularity" there, which is one reason why I wanted you to reveal you...

Yes, this brings something up I often think about, actually. The idea that we all have a "network of beliefs" that cohere with one another, and which ...

It's not about being more accurate. "General stability" is synonymous with "general regularity" for me in this context. Maybe you would have preferred...

It depends what you mean by "general stability", which I mean as a general regularity to how things occur/are.

I didn't realise, no. It's difficult for me to grasp how non-physical things exist (even if you say that properties are non-physical), and at the time...