Materialism: Self-driving experience

[bahman]

Let's buy that experience/consciousness is the result of the process in the brain (I have an argument against strong emergence). The experience is subjective so it cannot affect the process in the brain. We however observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do. This means that we are dealing with a self-driving experience. The question is how such a correlation is possible when the experience cannot affect the process.

[Age]

Let's buy that experience/consciousness is the result of the process in the brain (I have an argument against strong emergence).

EVERY one who writes in this forum HAS 'an argument' for or against 'things'. BUT, just because some one PRESENTS an 'argument' here, this is NO WAY means that 'their argument' is a valid NOR sound argument.

In other words, 'you' continually TELLING us that you, "have an argument for ... (this or that)", literally MEANS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

The experience is subjective so it cannot affect the process in the brain.

What do you mean by, "The experience is subjective"?

What the body 'experiences' is just what 'the body experiences'. There is NO 'subjectivity' to 'that experience'.

What is INTERPRETED by the 'you', however, can be VERY 'subjective'.

AND, what the body 'experiences' itself has absolutely NO 'subjectivity' to 'it' AT ALL. That is; until the 'experience' reaches the brain, AND THEN ALL the TWISTING and DISTORTING, (or in other words ALL the 'subjectivity' begins to), takes place

We however observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

This means that we are dealing with a self-driving experience.

Are you absolutely SURE and POSITIVE?

The question is how such a correlation is possible when the experience cannot affect the process.

If the body EXPERIENCES a gun shot 'wound' DIRECT to the head, then the chances that that 'experience' affects the 'process' is just about GUARANTEED.

[bahman]

Let's buy that experience/consciousness is the result of the process in the brain (I have an argument against strong emergence).

EVERY one who writes in this forum HAS 'an argument' for or against 'things'. BUT, just because some one PRESENTS an 'argument' here, this is NO WAY means that 'their argument' is a valid NOR sound argument.

In other words, 'you' continually TELLING us that you, "have an argument for ... (this or that)", literally MEANS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

The experience is subjective so it cannot affect the process in the brain.

What do you mean by, "The experience is subjective"?

What the body 'experiences' is just what 'the body experiences'. There is NO 'subjectivity' to 'that experience'.

What is INTERPRETED by the 'you', however, can be VERY 'subjective'.

AND, what the body 'experiences' itself has absolutely NO 'subjectivity' to 'it' AT ALL. That is; until the 'experience' reaches the brain, AND THEN ALL the TWISTING and DISTORTING, (or in other words ALL the 'subjectivity' begins to), takes place

Subjective is the opposite of objective. An objective thing is like an object, an apple, for example, otherwise, it is subjective, such as thoughts.

We however observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

Anything alive.

This means that we are dealing with a self-driving experience.

Are you absolutely SURE and POSITIVE?

Yes. In the absence of the mind, we are self-driving ideas.

The question is how such a correlation is possible when the experience cannot affect the process.

If the body EXPERIENCES a gun shot 'wound' DIRECT to the head, then the chances that that 'experience' affects the 'process' is just about GUARANTEED.

You don't understand what I am trying to say. I am talking about a person, his/her experience, and the process in his/her mind. Let me elaborate a little. Let's say that you are sitting on your chair and have a cup of coffee next to you. You experience the smell of coffee which is the result of the brain processes. The question is how this experience, can lead you to drink the coffee if the experience cannot affect the processes.

[Dimebag]

What if subjective and objective are not distinct “material” categories with no interaction, but the subjective is the result of the objective making contact with a sensory system. What if the subjective is an impression of the objective, within that sensory system.

That subjective cannot then be considered separate from that “objective” sensory system.

That subjective is then, a phenomenon of that sensory system.

I think, don’t consider subjectivity separate from the system from which it is present in.

Try to understand that sensory system, if you want to understand the relation between that objective sensory system, and that subjective phenomenon present in that sensory system.

What was the sensory content before that sensory system was assembled? The sensory content is completely dependent on that sensory system.

[bahman]

What if subjective and objective are not distinct “material” categories with no interaction, but the subjective is the result of the objective making contact with a sensory system.

The subjective is the result of the brain process which is initiated by the sensory system. That is what materialists believe. Materialists owe to explain why a process could lead to subjective experience but I accept it for the sake of argument. The phenomenon of subjective experience is different from the brain process. The brain is a material thing and different parts of it interact with each other only through material properties which are determined, matter acts according to laws of physics and nothing else. There is no room for subjective experience to intervene within the material realm. That is what materialists believe leads to epiphenomenalism. So within the realm of materialism, we are self-driving ideas.

Now back to your suggestion that is very odd. You owe to explain how subjective experience can affect brain processes such that it leads to a reasonable reaction of the body. Think of a situation like this: You see an apple, you experience wanting it, you then experience decision, you then experience the movement of your body in order to eat the apple.

[Age]

Let's buy that experience/consciousness is the result of the process in the brain (I have an argument against strong emergence).

EVERY one who writes in this forum HAS 'an argument' for or against 'things'. BUT, just because some one PRESENTS an 'argument' here, this is NO WAY means that 'their argument' is a valid NOR sound argument.

In other words, 'you' continually TELLING us that you, "have an argument for ... (this or that)", literally MEANS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

The experience is subjective so it cannot affect the process in the brain.

What do you mean by, "The experience is subjective"?

What the body 'experiences' is just what 'the body experiences'. There is NO 'subjectivity' to 'that experience'.

What is INTERPRETED by the 'you', however, can be VERY 'subjective'.

AND, what the body 'experiences' itself has absolutely NO 'subjectivity' to 'it' AT ALL. That is; until the 'experience' reaches the brain, AND THEN ALL the TWISTING and DISTORTING, (or in other words ALL the 'subjectivity' begins to), takes place

Subjective is the opposite of objective. An objective thing is like an object, an apple, for example, otherwise, it is subjective, such as thoughts.

'Thoughts' can ALSO be an 'object'. It ALL DEPENDS on HOW one wants to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

'Thinking', by its very nature, is 'subjective', but 'thoughts', themselves, are an 'object'. Although, an INVISIBLE to the physical human eye 'object'. But, 'things' do NOT have to be visible to the human eye to be an 'object', correct?

ALSO, I was referring to the WAY 'you', people, LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN I used the 'subjectivity' word to make this MORE CLEAR.

We however observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

Anything alive.

So, to you, a 'tree' "observes a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do", correct?

It is these types of remarks you make WHY I SAY and SHOW HOW and WHY a LOT of what you SAY and CLAIM is just PURE ABSURDITY and ILLOGICAL. Also, it is remarks like this WHY "your arguments" are NOT 'valid' and/or NOT 'sound'.

Let us NOT forget that the 'earth' is ALIVE, just like the Universe, Itself, is ALIVE. And, in fact, if ANY one wants to have a discussion, it could be argued that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is ALIVE.

So, when "bahman" uses the 'we' word, "bahman" is referring to human beings, dogs and cats, trees and plants, planets and stars, and even the Universe, Itself.

Or, are you now going to SAY and CLAIM that these 'things' are NOT 'alive'?

This means that we are dealing with a self-driving experience.

Are you absolutely SURE and POSITIVE?

Yes. In the absence of the mind, we are self-driving ideas.

HOW CAN this be so when it is YOU who SAYS and CLAIMS that 'we' ARE 'minds'?

Please STOP CONTRADICTING "yourself".

If 'we' ARE "anything alive", then what ARE 'minds'?

The question is how such a correlation is possible when the experience cannot affect the process.

If the body EXPERIENCES a gun shot 'wound' DIRECT to the head, then the chances that that 'experience' affects the 'process' is just about GUARANTEED.

You don't understand what I am trying to say.

OBVIOUSLY.

Thus the VERY REASON WHY for ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to YOU.

I am TRYING my HARDEST to UNDERSTAND YOU. BUT, you KEEP CONTRADICTING "yourself" here.

I am talking about a person, his/her experience, and the process in his/her mind.

But WHAT IS 'a person', EXACTLY? You have previously INFORMED us that 'we' are 'people' and 'we' ARE 'minds', but THIS TIME 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'a person' is some gendered 'thing' which HAS its OWN 'mind'.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER get around to WORKING OUT HOW to define ALL the words you use here, in a WAY where 'you' are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself", then, and ONLY THEN, I suggest 'you' come back and 'try' and CLAIM the 'things' you are here.

Also, a gun shot DIRECT to the head of human body, usually null and voids, and thus 'effects', ANY 'process' of 'a person.

Let me elaborate a little. Let's say that you are sitting on your chair and have a cup of coffee next to you. You experience the smell of coffee which is the result of the brain processes.

Let me ELABORATE. You appear to have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT to you here.

1. Because of what a 'you' IS, EXACTLY, 'you' can NEVER "sit on any chair". But what 'you' are REFERRING TO CAN.

2. The aroma of coffee or absolutely ANY 'thing', which gives off an aroma, is 'smelt', and thus 'experienced' by the 'senses' of the human BODY itself.

3. 'Experiences' HAPPEN through, and from, the 'senses' of the BODY. These 'experiences' are GRASPED and HELD (or gotten rid of) by or in the BRAIN.

4. Because of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, 'you' do NOT 'experience' ANY 'thing'. This is because 'you' are, literally, the result, or sum, of 'experiences', themselves.

5. The BODY 'experiences'. 'you', ARE just the 'sum of' ALL of 'that body's' 'experiences'.
6. The BRAIN just gathers and stores 'experiences', (or the 'information', of the "outside world", which is being FED TO the BRAIN through any of the five senses of the body", this 'information' is processed and turned into 'knowledge' (right or wrong or correct or incorrect), then, which some of, gets expressed through 'thoughts', in the form of verbal, written, or sign language. It is these 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') which is just what 'you' ARE, and the person, IS.

7. The BRAIN just 'processes' the 'information', and turns 'it' into 'knowledge'. The reason WHY so much of human 'knowledge' is TWISTED, DISTORTED, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is because of the BELIEF-system WITHIN a BRAIN and because of ASSUMING, which is ALL attributed to the VERY 'past experiences' of THE BODY, itself.

The question is how this experience, can lead you to drink the coffee if the experience cannot affect the processes.

WHO EVER SAID, the 'experience', itself, can NOT affect 'the process'?

The very reason WHY I say, 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, STILL 'think' APE-like is for the SOLE REASON that 'you' STILL KEEP making Assumptions based solely on Past Experiences. That IS; 'you', adult human beings, are STILL using 'past experiences' ONLY to express the 'thoughts' within those bodies. Therefore, and in other words, 'you' STILL do ALLOW 'experiences' TO affect the processes.

I was just SAYING that if a gun shot to the body STOPS the body from breathing and from pumping blood, then this will STOP, and thus EFFECT, ALL future 'experiences' of that body. In other words, there will be NO more 'experiences' 'affecting the processes', as the 'processes' are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'working' ANYMORE.

[Age]

What if subjective and objective are not distinct “material” categories with no interaction, but the subjective is the result of the objective making contact with a sensory system. What if the subjective is an impression of the objective, within that sensory system.

That subjective cannot then be considered separate from that “objective” sensory system.

That subjective is then, a phenomenon of that sensory system.

I think, don’t consider subjectivity separate from the system from which it is present in.

Try to understand that sensory system, if you want to understand the relation between that objective sensory system, and that subjective phenomenon present in that sensory system.

What was the sensory content before that sensory system was assembled? The sensory content is completely dependent on that sensory system.

Sounds about right, well to me anyway.

[bahman]

EVERY one who writes in this forum HAS 'an argument' for or against 'things'. BUT, just because some one PRESENTS an 'argument' here, this is NO WAY means that 'their argument' is a valid NOR sound argument.

In other words, 'you' continually TELLING us that you, "have an argument for ... (this or that)", literally MEANS absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.


What do you mean by, "The experience is subjective"?

What the body 'experiences' is just what 'the body experiences'. There is NO 'subjectivity' to 'that experience'.

What is INTERPRETED by the 'you', however, can be VERY 'subjective'.

AND, what the body 'experiences' itself has absolutely NO 'subjectivity' to 'it' AT ALL. That is; until the 'experience' reaches the brain, AND THEN ALL the TWISTING and DISTORTING, (or in other words ALL the 'subjectivity' begins to), takes place

Subjective is the opposite of objective. An objective thing is like an object, an apple, for example, otherwise, it is subjective, such as thoughts.

'Thoughts' can ALSO be an 'object'. It ALL DEPENDS on HOW one wants to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

'Thinking', by its very nature, is 'subjective', but 'thoughts', themselves, are an 'object'. Although, an INVISIBLE to the physical human eye 'object'. But, 'things' do NOT have to be visible to the human eye to be an 'object', correct?

ALSO, I was referring to the WAY 'you', people, LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN I used the 'subjectivity' word to make this MORE CLEAR.

Thought as an object, I don't think so. Anything that we experience is subjective.

WHO or WHAT is the 'we' here, EXACTLY?

Anything alive.

So, to you, a 'tree' "observes a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do", correct?

It is these types of remarks you make WHY I SAY and SHOW HOW and WHY a LOT of what you SAY and CLAIM is just PURE ABSURDITY and ILLOGICAL. Also, it is remarks like this WHY "your arguments" are NOT 'valid' and/or NOT 'sound'.

Let us NOT forget that the 'earth' is ALIVE, just like the Universe, Itself, is ALIVE. And, in fact, if ANY one wants to have a discussion, it could be argued that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is ALIVE.

So, when "bahman" uses the 'we' word, "bahman" is referring to human beings, dogs and cats, trees and plants, planets and stars, and even the Universe, Itself.

Or, are you now going to SAY and CLAIM that these 'things' are NOT 'alive'?

Think of humans and animals for now.

Are you absolutely SURE and POSITIVE?

Yes. In the absence of the mind, we are self-driving ideas.

HOW CAN this be so when it is YOU who SAYS and CLAIMS that 'we' ARE 'minds'?

Please STOP CONTRADICTING "yourself".

If 'we' ARE "anything alive", then what ARE 'minds'?

If the body EXPERIENCES a gun shot 'wound' DIRECT to the head, then the chances that that 'experience' affects the 'process' is just about GUARANTEED.

You don't understand what I am trying to say.

OBVIOUSLY.

Thus the VERY REASON WHY for ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to YOU.

I am TRYING my HARDEST to UNDERSTAND YOU. BUT, you KEEP CONTRADICTING "yourself" here.

I am talking about a person, his/her experience, and the process in his/her mind.

But WHAT IS 'a person', EXACTLY? You have previously INFORMED us that 'we' are 'people' and 'we' ARE 'minds', but THIS TIME 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'a person' is some gendered 'thing' which HAS its OWN 'mind'.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER get around to WORKING OUT HOW to define ALL the words you use here, in a WAY where 'you' are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself", then, and ONLY THEN, I suggest 'you' come back and 'try' and CLAIM the 'things' you are here.

Also, a gun shot DIRECT to the head of human body, usually null and voids, and thus 'effects', ANY 'process' of 'a person.

Let me elaborate a little. Let's say that you are sitting on your chair and have a cup of coffee next to you. You experience the smell of coffee which is the result of the brain processes.

Let me ELABORATE. You appear to have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT to you here.

1. Because of what a 'you' IS, EXACTLY, 'you' can NEVER "sit on any chair". But what 'you' are REFERRING TO CAN.

2. The aroma of coffee or absolutely ANY 'thing', which gives off an aroma, is 'smelt', and thus 'experienced' by the 'senses' of the human BODY itself.

3. 'Experiences' HAPPEN through, and from, the 'senses' of the BODY. These 'experiences' are GRASPED and HELD (or gotten rid of) by or in the BRAIN.

4. Because of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, 'you' do NOT 'experience' ANY 'thing'. This is because 'you' are, literally, the result, or sum, of 'experiences', themselves.

5. The BODY 'experiences'. 'you', ARE just the 'sum of' ALL of 'that body's' 'experiences'.
6. The BRAIN just gathers and stores 'experiences', (or the 'information', of the "outside world", which is being FED TO the BRAIN through any of the five senses of the body", this 'information' is processed and turned into 'knowledge' (right or wrong or correct or incorrect), then, which some of, gets expressed through 'thoughts', in the form of verbal, written, or sign language. It is these 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') which is just what 'you' ARE, and the person, IS.

7. The BRAIN just 'processes' the 'information', and turns 'it' into 'knowledge'. The reason WHY so much of human 'knowledge' is TWISTED, DISTORTED, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is because of the BELIEF-system WITHIN a BRAIN and because of ASSUMING, which is ALL attributed to the VERY 'past experiences' of THE BODY, itself.

The question is how this experience, can lead you to drink the coffee if the experience cannot affect the processes.

WHO EVER SAID, the 'experience', itself, can NOT affect 'the process'?

The very reason WHY I say, 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, STILL 'think' APE-like is for the SOLE REASON that 'you' STILL KEEP making Assumptions based solely on Past Experiences. That IS; 'you', adult human beings, are STILL using 'past experiences' ONLY to express the 'thoughts' within those bodies. Therefore, and in other words, 'you' STILL do ALLOW 'experiences' TO affect the processes.

I was just SAYING that if a gun shot to the body STOPS the body from breathing and from pumping blood, then this will STOP, and thus EFFECT, ALL future 'experiences' of that body. In other words, there will be NO more 'experiences' 'affecting the processes', as the 'processes' are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'working' ANYMORE.

Here I am talking about materialism in which the process does its job based on the laws of nature. In another word, the subjective experience cannot possibly affect the process.

[Age]

Subjective is the opposite of objective. An objective thing is like an object, an apple, for example, otherwise, it is subjective, such as thoughts.

'Thoughts' can ALSO be an 'object'. It ALL DEPENDS on HOW one wants to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

'Thinking', by its very nature, is 'subjective', but 'thoughts', themselves, are an 'object'. Although, an INVISIBLE to the physical human eye 'object'. But, 'things' do NOT have to be visible to the human eye to be an 'object', correct?

ALSO, I was referring to the WAY 'you', people, LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN I used the 'subjectivity' word to make this MORE CLEAR.

Thought as an object, I don't think so. Anything that we experience is subjective.

MISSED THE POINT and thus MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, ONCE AGAIN.

'Thought', like 'tree', like 'sun', and like 'wind' IS an 'object', which can be DISCUSSED and TALKED ABOUT.

There ARE 'thoughts' within human bodies, just like there ARE 'emotions' within human bodies, AND, these 'thoughts' and 'emotions' CAN BE 'objects', and thus be SPOKEN ABOUT.

Anything alive.

So, to you, a 'tree' "observes a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do", correct?

It is these types of remarks you make WHY I SAY and SHOW HOW and WHY a LOT of what you SAY and CLAIM is just PURE ABSURDITY and ILLOGICAL. Also, it is remarks like this WHY "your arguments" are NOT 'valid' and/or NOT 'sound'.

Let us NOT forget that the 'earth' is ALIVE, just like the Universe, Itself, is ALIVE. And, in fact, if ANY one wants to have a discussion, it could be argued that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is ALIVE.

So, when "bahman" uses the 'we' word, "bahman" is referring to human beings, dogs and cats, trees and plants, planets and stars, and even the Universe, Itself.

Or, are you now going to SAY and CLAIM that these 'things' are NOT 'alive'?

Think of humans and animals for now.

SO, I asked 'you' to CLARIFY, which you DO, but then TELL US that what you "CLARIFIED" is NOT ACTUALLY want you MEANT.

To speed this process up, are you able to just SAY the 'things' that you ACTUALLY MEAN, ONLY?

Now, WHY use the 'AND' word, when humans ARE animals?

And, REALLY, do ALL 'animals' DO what you SAID and CLAIMED here?

Yes. In the absence of the mind, we are self-driving ideas.

HOW CAN this be so when it is YOU who SAYS and CLAIMS that 'we' ARE 'minds'?

Please STOP CONTRADICTING "yourself".

If 'we' ARE "anything alive", then what ARE 'minds'?

You don't understand what I am trying to say.

OBVIOUSLY.

Thus the VERY REASON WHY for ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to YOU.

I am TRYING my HARDEST to UNDERSTAND YOU. BUT, you KEEP CONTRADICTING "yourself" here.

I am talking about a person, his/her experience, and the process in his/her mind.

But WHAT IS 'a person', EXACTLY? You have previously INFORMED us that 'we' are 'people' and 'we' ARE 'minds', but THIS TIME 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'a person' is some gendered 'thing' which HAS its OWN 'mind'.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER get around to WORKING OUT HOW to define ALL the words you use here, in a WAY where 'you' are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself", then, and ONLY THEN, I suggest 'you' come back and 'try' and CLAIM the 'things' you are here.

Also, a gun shot DIRECT to the head of human body, usually null and voids, and thus 'effects', ANY 'process' of 'a person.

Let me elaborate a little. Let's say that you are sitting on your chair and have a cup of coffee next to you. You experience the smell of coffee which is the result of the brain processes.

Let me ELABORATE. You appear to have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT to you here.

1. Because of what a 'you' IS, EXACTLY, 'you' can NEVER "sit on any chair". But what 'you' are REFERRING TO CAN.

2. The aroma of coffee or absolutely ANY 'thing', which gives off an aroma, is 'smelt', and thus 'experienced' by the 'senses' of the human BODY itself.

3. 'Experiences' HAPPEN through, and from, the 'senses' of the BODY. These 'experiences' are GRASPED and HELD (or gotten rid of) by or in the BRAIN.

4. Because of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, 'you' do NOT 'experience' ANY 'thing'. This is because 'you' are, literally, the result, or sum, of 'experiences', themselves.

5. The BODY 'experiences'. 'you', ARE just the 'sum of' ALL of 'that body's' 'experiences'.
6. The BRAIN just gathers and stores 'experiences', (or the 'information', of the "outside world", which is being FED TO the BRAIN through any of the five senses of the body", this 'information' is processed and turned into 'knowledge' (right or wrong or correct or incorrect), then, which some of, gets expressed through 'thoughts', in the form of verbal, written, or sign language. It is these 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') which is just what 'you' ARE, and the person, IS.

7. The BRAIN just 'processes' the 'information', and turns 'it' into 'knowledge'. The reason WHY so much of human 'knowledge' is TWISTED, DISTORTED, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is because of the BELIEF-system WITHIN a BRAIN and because of ASSUMING, which is ALL attributed to the VERY 'past experiences' of THE BODY, itself.

The question is how this experience, can lead you to drink the coffee if the experience cannot affect the processes.

WHO EVER SAID, the 'experience', itself, can NOT affect 'the process'?

The very reason WHY I say, 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, STILL 'think' APE-like is for the SOLE REASON that 'you' STILL KEEP making Assumptions based solely on Past Experiences. That IS; 'you', adult human beings, are STILL using 'past experiences' ONLY to express the 'thoughts' within those bodies. Therefore, and in other words, 'you' STILL do ALLOW 'experiences' TO affect the processes.

I was just SAYING that if a gun shot to the body STOPS the body from breathing and from pumping blood, then this will STOP, and thus EFFECT, ALL future 'experiences' of that body. In other words, there will be NO more 'experiences' 'affecting the processes', as the 'processes' are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'working' ANYMORE.

Here I am talking about materialism in which the process does its job based on the laws of nature. In another word, the subjective experience cannot possibly affect the process.

You, here, are making LESS and LESS sense.

[bahman]

'Thoughts' can ALSO be an 'object'. It ALL DEPENDS on HOW one wants to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

'Thinking', by its very nature, is 'subjective', but 'thoughts', themselves, are an 'object'. Although, an INVISIBLE to the physical human eye 'object'. But, 'things' do NOT have to be visible to the human eye to be an 'object', correct?

ALSO, I was referring to the WAY 'you', people, LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN I used the 'subjectivity' word to make this MORE CLEAR.

Thought as an object, I don't think so. Anything that we experience is subjective.

MISSED THE POINT and thus MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, ONCE AGAIN.

'Thought', like 'tree', like 'sun', and like 'wind' IS an 'object', which can be DISCUSSED and TALKED ABOUT.

There ARE 'thoughts' within human bodies, just like there ARE 'emotions' within human bodies, AND, these 'thoughts' and 'emotions' CAN BE 'objects', and thus be SPOKEN ABOUT.

There is a difference between your subjective experience and objective entity.

So, to you, a 'tree' "observes a fantastic correlation between what we experience, what we decide, and what we do", correct?

It is these types of remarks you make WHY I SAY and SHOW HOW and WHY a LOT of what you SAY and CLAIM is just PURE ABSURDITY and ILLOGICAL. Also, it is remarks like this WHY "your arguments" are NOT 'valid' and/or NOT 'sound'.

Let us NOT forget that the 'earth' is ALIVE, just like the Universe, Itself, is ALIVE. And, in fact, if ANY one wants to have a discussion, it could be argued that absolutely EVERY 'thing' is ALIVE.

So, when "bahman" uses the 'we' word, "bahman" is referring to human beings, dogs and cats, trees and plants, planets and stars, and even the Universe, Itself.

Or, are you now going to SAY and CLAIM that these 'things' are NOT 'alive'?

Think of humans and animals for now.

SO, I asked 'you' to CLARIFY, which you DO, but then TELL US that what you "CLARIFIED" is NOT ACTUALLY want you MEANT.

To speed this process up, are you able to just SAY the 'things' that you ACTUALLY MEAN, ONLY?

Now, WHY use the 'AND' word, when humans ARE animals?

And, REALLY, do ALL 'animals' DO what you SAID and CLAIMED here?

HOW CAN this be so when it is YOU who SAYS and CLAIMS that 'we' ARE 'minds'?

Please STOP CONTRADICTING "yourself".

If 'we' ARE "anything alive", then what ARE 'minds'?



OBVIOUSLY.

Thus the VERY REASON WHY for ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to YOU.

I am TRYING my HARDEST to UNDERSTAND YOU. BUT, you KEEP CONTRADICTING "yourself" here.



But WHAT IS 'a person', EXACTLY? You have previously INFORMED us that 'we' are 'people' and 'we' ARE 'minds', but THIS TIME 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'a person' is some gendered 'thing' which HAS its OWN 'mind'.

WHEN, and IF, you EVER get around to WORKING OUT HOW to define ALL the words you use here, in a WAY where 'you' are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself", then, and ONLY THEN, I suggest 'you' come back and 'try' and CLAIM the 'things' you are here.

Also, a gun shot DIRECT to the head of human body, usually null and voids, and thus 'effects', ANY 'process' of 'a person.


Let me ELABORATE. You appear to have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT to you here.

1. Because of what a 'you' IS, EXACTLY, 'you' can NEVER "sit on any chair". But what 'you' are REFERRING TO CAN.

2. The aroma of coffee or absolutely ANY 'thing', which gives off an aroma, is 'smelt', and thus 'experienced' by the 'senses' of the human BODY itself.

3. 'Experiences' HAPPEN through, and from, the 'senses' of the BODY. These 'experiences' are GRASPED and HELD (or gotten rid of) by or in the BRAIN.

4. Because of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, 'you' do NOT 'experience' ANY 'thing'. This is because 'you' are, literally, the result, or sum, of 'experiences', themselves.

5. The BODY 'experiences'. 'you', ARE just the 'sum of' ALL of 'that body's' 'experiences'.
6. The BRAIN just gathers and stores 'experiences', (or the 'information', of the "outside world", which is being FED TO the BRAIN through any of the five senses of the body", this 'information' is processed and turned into 'knowledge' (right or wrong or correct or incorrect), then, which some of, gets expressed through 'thoughts', in the form of verbal, written, or sign language. It is these 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') which is just what 'you' ARE, and the person, IS.

7. The BRAIN just 'processes' the 'information', and turns 'it' into 'knowledge'. The reason WHY so much of human 'knowledge' is TWISTED, DISTORTED, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is because of the BELIEF-system WITHIN a BRAIN and because of ASSUMING, which is ALL attributed to the VERY 'past experiences' of THE BODY, itself.


WHO EVER SAID, the 'experience', itself, can NOT affect 'the process'?

The very reason WHY I say, 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, STILL 'think' APE-like is for the SOLE REASON that 'you' STILL KEEP making Assumptions based solely on Past Experiences. That IS; 'you', adult human beings, are STILL using 'past experiences' ONLY to express the 'thoughts' within those bodies. Therefore, and in other words, 'you' STILL do ALLOW 'experiences' TO affect the processes.

I was just SAYING that if a gun shot to the body STOPS the body from breathing and from pumping blood, then this will STOP, and thus EFFECT, ALL future 'experiences' of that body. In other words, there will be NO more 'experiences' 'affecting the processes', as the 'processes' are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'working' ANYMORE.

Here I am talking about materialism in which the process does its job based on the laws of nature. In another word, the subjective experience cannot possibly affect the process.

You, here, are making LESS and LESS sense.

No. You just do not understand what I am trying to say.

[Age]

Thought as an object, I don't think so. Anything that we experience is subjective.

MISSED THE POINT and thus MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, ONCE AGAIN.

'Thought', like 'tree', like 'sun', and like 'wind' IS an 'object', which can be DISCUSSED and TALKED ABOUT.

There ARE 'thoughts' within human bodies, just like there ARE 'emotions' within human bodies, AND, these 'thoughts' and 'emotions' CAN BE 'objects', and thus be SPOKEN ABOUT.

There is a difference between your subjective experience and objective entity.

MAYBE SO. But, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL with what I ACTUALLY SAID, POINTED OUT, and SHOWED here.

Think of humans and animals for now.

SO, I asked 'you' to CLARIFY, which you DO, but then TELL US that what you "CLARIFIED" is NOT ACTUALLY want you MEANT.

To speed this process up, are you able to just SAY the 'things' that you ACTUALLY MEAN, ONLY?

Now, WHY use the 'AND' word, when humans ARE animals?

And, REALLY, do ALL 'animals' DO what you SAID and CLAIMED here?

Here I am talking about materialism in which the process does its job based on the laws of nature. In another word, the subjective experience cannot possibly affect the process.

You, here, are making LESS and LESS sense.

No.

SORRY I CLEARLY 'should have' added the words, 'to me', at the end so that you COULD UNDERSTAND what I was SAYING and MEANING here.

You just do not understand what I am trying to say.

That is EXACTLY what I MEANT.

And, it is NOT from a 'lack of trying' on my part.