Deleted User

Positing a "view from everywhere" is an act of circumscription and exclusion: that which is thought of as unreasonable or insane must be excluded. Alw...

Worthwhile insofar as we can ascertain and crystallize and circumscribe a set of persons in cahoots. A precarious agreement contingent on some notion ...

The "view from everywhere" is available if we accept that you and I and the humans are "embedded in language" - that is, if you accept that we (not 'y...

Can you point out where he says that? Thanks.

Addendum: It's wise to beware (moreover) of an uknown future refutation of the possibility of an unknown future refutation. Is it possible to refute t...

Because you have chosen your camp you attack my counterpoise as a kind of begging. This is the hammer speaking. My intention is more charitable: I mea...

...To demonstrate that a vision-inversion experiment is easily assimilated to an experience-centric dialect and metaphysics. Note my conclusion: A vis...

The vision-inversion experiment proves only that: 1) A vision-inversion-experience takes some time for the mind to process and integrate. 2) The exper...

Can you support these claims with a direct reference to Sartre's works?

Thanks.

My personal spiritual development proceeded from depressed fascination with the Sartrean void to transnihilist saniassiform illumination. So I see a d...

There is one moment in Nausea where Sartre writes: "I can't describe it. It's like the Nausea, and yet it's just the opposite."

Yes. Nothingnesses in need of a hieros gamos. From what I've read of him, Sartre never came close to illuminating his nothingness.

There's a vast and fascinating literature on anxiety, its source and meaning: Rollo May's The Meaning of Anxiety is a good place to start.

If change is an illusion the illusion of change is constantly changing. It's easy to say change is an illusion. It's also easy to say the idea that ch...

That's pretty weak. Thought-atoms, like thought-trees, are noticeable. 1) I don't think you believe physical objects are made of thought-atoms. 2) If ...

Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom.

Even in the context of explaining things...

Nah. It's possible Terrapin is right and thoughts are physical. It's a mystery to me.

When in your life have you noticed an atom?

An atom is just as mysterious as a thought. I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what an atom is made of. I don't know what a thou...

A table is noticeable. An atom isn't.

It's not a property of atoms, molecules, particles. The basis of the physicalist view.

Dogmatism and humility are the polarities in question. Dogmatism denies the mysterious, positing certainty or knowledge. Humility accepts the mysterio...

It seems far-fetched to call a thought-tree a property of atoms or molecules. At best it's an imprecise use of language. A thought-tree may be a produ...

No. Able to be seen or noticed. I notice I have thoughts.

So the thought-tree is a property of a molecule or atom?

Matter and mind both have extremely mysterious properties.

"able to be seen or noticed" https://www.google.com/search?q=perceitible&oq=perceitible&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5191j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Perceptibility. A thought-tree is perceptible. A molecule as such isn't perceptible.

Thoughts are vague whatevers. Yes. And molecules and atoms are vague whatevers. These days, physicists don't even seem to know what a particle is.

And thoughts are physical? A thought-tree is physical? Is a thought-tree made of atoms?

Looks like my logic was flawed. "Some brain content is unconscious" is the closest we can get to an agreement.

This rejoinder would be relevant if I had said: Minds are brains = brains are minds. I haven't said that. To be clear I changed the = to an 'is'.

Your post is irrelevant. You say minds are brains. M is B. It would follow that mental content is brain content. MC is BC. Do you disagree?

You say minds are brains. M is B. It would follow that mental content is brain content. MC is BC. If some BC is unconscious then some MC is unconsciou...

Maybe something in your unconsciousness affecting your perception of reality. Stranger things.

There's a lot of ego in that attitude.

Every conversation has to end. On these forums they rarely end in a happy agreement. It's good brainwork.

That's okay. It was fun. :)

The logical form. The logical structure. What do you take issue with in the logical form or structure?

Without bogging down the discussion by filling in variables, is there something you take issue with in the logical form of the abstraction?

I'm interested in the logic of the abstraction. Not in filling in the variables.

I'm sorry this logical abstraction doesn't make sense to you. I don't think we can go any further.

We're looking at a logical abstraction. It isn't necessary to know what the similarities are. What do you take issue with in the logic of this abstrac...

Sorry, I'm not answering your questions until you've answered mine. What do you take issue with in the above scenario?

So let's call it brain-state X. Again: So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note...

There is certainly a brain-state at T1. I'm calling it brain-state X. What would you like to call it?

Analogical argumentation is inherently imprecise. "Strength of an analogy Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy: The releva...