ethical suppression of speech

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Advocate wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Age wrote:
Okay but you are saying that you are RIGHT at the same time the other is saying that they are RIGHT
So HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things ?
Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible
Words become physical as soon as you verbalize them and when those sound waves with that set of amplitude and modulation changes
reaches other peoples ears it gets translated into physical effects they produce . Everything that exists in the mind also has a physical
correlate and everything is part of the causality chain
This is absolutely true so you were right and I was wrong though I was using the common definition of physical
that does not apply to the mental - however the mental is also the physical so my definition was an invalid one
I have previously used this definition but on this occasion used the other definition instead so I was not only wrong but inconsistent too
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

RCSaunders wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It doesnt seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of sophistry in the vernacular sense apply . I think he is just hell
bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesnt get us any closer to a point . Irrelevance seems more appropriate
Generally any attempt to rationally explain the rantings of the insane is futile
Age has autism which may explain why some here find it hard to engage with him
Though I have no problem with him at all because I just accept him for who he is
KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:36 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.
Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.
Well OBVIOUSLY this would be NOT TRUE.

Also, could you name just one human being who says that words only which, supposedly, "hurt feelings" (as though that is some actual thing) is equivalent to physical violence?
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.
But WHY 'lie'?

Obviously if some thing is NOT necessary, then it does NOT 'need' to be done.
It needs to be done if one wants to act ethically.
KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.
Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.
When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.
But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?
Not too complicated; humans are social creatures by nature. Morality concerns how we interact with others. If you consistently, intentionally, offend others... you may find yourself alone and unhappy; lacking in eudaimonia.

There is difference between "offend" and harm". I may find your use of CAPITALS offensive, but I am not harmed by it.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:14 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:29 pm

As best i can tell they're is no argument which could ever make that would be considered acceptable to you except for mathematical ones.
A completely and utterly WRONG ASSUMPTION.
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:29 pm A claim always requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality or it's an infinite regress of "prove it"s.
Do you have proof of this?

If yes, then HOW did you actually obtain an infinite regress of ANY thing?

But, seriously, if a claim ALWAYS requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality, then how about you CLEARLY EXPRESS what the ACTUAL, so called, "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" IS, from YOUR perspective, along with YOUR claim?

For example, with one of your many claims here, that; "Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood", then what is your "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" in regards to this claim of yours?
That's only half the contention, and not the half that matters.
'What' EXACTLY is 'half the contention'? All I did was just ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, from a Truly OPEN perspective.
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm The further contention is that my formation is more useful, answers more philosophical questions, is a better definition and understanding that does more work. Apply your skepticism to that and i'm sure you'll be more that satisfied.
Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?

Or do you BELIEVE that 'you', the self called "advocate", REALLY are the "ultimate guru" and "true arbiter of truth"?
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm Your need for potentially infinite supporting details with any contention is an impossible standard.
As I have suggested many times previously, If you want to make a claim, then I suggest you have at least some thing which you can use to back up and support your claim BEFORE you make the actual claim.

That way you can NEVER be caught out not having SUPPORTING DETAILS.

I can back up AND support, with actual EVIDENCE and PROOF, what I say and claim. So, I suggest to "others" that they be able to do this ALSO.
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm We'll get much farther by sticking close to the ordinary understandings of things as far as possible (so long as that isn't itself the point of contention).
I have NEVER done any thing REALLY differently here.
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm If my arguments aren't logically salient to you, so be it.
What is your understanding of the words 'logically salient' here?

To me, your, so called, "arguments" are neither sound, valid, or both. We are in a philosophy forum. So, if you do not like having this pointed out or are NOT YET able to back up and support your claims and arguments, then I suggest not producing them here, or going away and working on them and then bringing them back here.
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm I come to offer an olive branch, not a laurel wreath.
I have absolutely NO idea what this means.

What is this in reference to, and what does this mean, to you?
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm I know that i know The Truth as well as any human ever has and i feel no duty to convince anyone so if your search isn't compatible with what i can and do regularly prove, so be it, our paths must diverge.
If you can NOT provide a sound and valid argument, for your "search", or you can NOT provide actual proof for your claims, then do NOT expect to "convince" ANY one.

What do you actual think or believe you have, regularly, PROVED here?

Let us SEE what you say, and then I will decide if I ask you for PROOF of that, or NOT. Until then I have NOT seen you, regularly, prove ANY thing.

Maybe if you put THEM ALL in point form, then that might make this much easier for us to RECOGNIZE and SEE.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:12 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:49 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:42 pm
More sophistry!
It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.
Possibly. Generally, any attempt to rationally explain the rantings of the insane is futile.
Why is it mostly the ones who can NOT back up and support their views and claims who are the ones who most quickly turn their views onto and about the "other", instead of remaining looking at what they have actually said and claimed?

Also, how about instead of one attempting to rationally explain the rantings of the "other", that one just attempt to CLARIFY what the "other" is actually 'ranting' on about or just talking about.

Claiming that the "other" is irrational and insane, BEFORE CLARIFICATION, might just be a form of insanity itself?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:09 pm
Advocate wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible
Words become physical as soon as you verbalize them and when those sound waves with that set of amplitude and modulation changes
reaches other peoples ears it gets translated into physical effects they produce . Everything that exists in the mind also has a physical
correlate and everything is part of the causality chain
This is absolutely true so you were right and I was wrong though I was using the common definition of physical
that does not apply to the mental - however the mental is also the physical so my definition was an invalid one
But how do you KNOW that the 'mental' is also the physical?

While you are at it, is the Mind, Itself, also the physical, to you?

And, if yes, then, again, how do you KNOW this?

And, if no, then, once more, how you KNOW this?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:09 pm I have previously used this definition but on this occasion used the other definition instead so I was not only wrong but inconsistent too
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:09 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It doesnt seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of sophistry in the vernacular sense apply . I think he is just hell
bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesnt get us any closer to a point . Irrelevance seems more appropriate
Generally any attempt to rationally explain the rantings of the insane is futile
Age has autism which may explain why some here find it hard to engage with him
Though I have no problem with him at all because I just accept him for who he is
How do you know "age" is a "he"? And, to be able accept some thing for what it is, then one would have to KNOW, exactly, what that 'it' is. So, 'who' EXACTLY is "he"?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:36 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.
Well OBVIOUSLY this would be NOT TRUE.

Also, could you name just one human being who says that words only which, supposedly, "hurt feelings" (as though that is some actual thing) is equivalent to physical violence?
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.
But WHY 'lie'?

Obviously if some thing is NOT necessary, then it does NOT 'need' to be done.
It needs to be done if one wants to act ethically.
So, to you, one NEEDS to lie for that one to, supposedly act ethically.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

And, if one, supposedly, NEEDS to lie, to laughably 'act ethically', then one can "justify", to themselves, EACH and EVERY lie that they want to say, or write. As just evidenced above.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am
Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.
When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.
But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?
Not too complicated; humans are social creatures by nature. Morality concerns how we interact with others. If you consistently, intentionally, offend others... you may find yourself alone and unhappy; lacking in eudaimonia.
What does the word 'eudaimonia' mean, to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm There is difference between "offend" and harm".
What EXACTLY is that difference?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm I may find your use of CAPITALS offensive, but I am not harmed by it.
But WHY, exactly, would a human being find letters written in CAPITALS 'offensive'?

How could, and how would, just EMPHASIZING some words, just through CAPITAL LETTERS, be 'offensive' to SOME people?

HOW and WHY may you find my use of CAPITALS 'offensive'?

What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
But how do you KNOW that the mental is also the physical ?

While you are at it is the Mind Itself also the physical to you ?

And if yes then again how do you KNOW this ?

And if no then once more how you KNOW this ?
The mental is also the physical because it also exists and its existence can be demonstrated

The Mind as you describe it is physical to me although I myself do not actually use the term

I know this because knowledge is something that can be demonstrated - indeed it HAS to be demonstrated

I do not however mean this in an absolute sense but as true as can be demonstrated at that point in time
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:56 am
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm The further contention is that my formation is more useful, answers more philosophical questions, is a better definition and understanding that does more work. Apply your skepticism to that and i'm sure you'll be more that satisfied.
Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?

Or do you BELIEVE that 'you', the self called "advocate", REALLY are the "ultimate guru" and "true arbiter of truth"?
fuck i hate this formatting bullshit

No, it is not possible. If anyone else has a way to answer all philosophical questions they're either wrong (and my story can explain exactly how and why) or they're telling the same story in a different way. As for what a better understanding could be, that is also part of The Whole Story. As mentioned, it answers everything. (The answer to what it means to answer everything is also in there.)

I am a Disciple of Truth. I respect it and value it as my highest priority. I understand it and can explain it at every level of detail. I do not own truth and i have seen many examples of people understanding it in part. I have never seen an example of anyone understanding it as completely. I do not call myself "the best philosopher" despite having a grasp on The Best Philosophy in deference to any others who may also be out there, undiscovered. The truth belongs to everyone. I'm just trying to explain it into usefulness. When Utopia comes based on The Whole Story, you need not mention my name.

Maybe you're thinking of the same story from a different perspective? As long as there's no woo (god, etc.), it likely could be.

>I can back up AND support, with actual EVIDENCE and PROOF, what I say and claim. So, I suggest to "others" that they be able to do this ALSO.

As can i. There are some caveats: a) I won't respond to requests for evidence that are vague. "Prove it" is entirely too open-ended to admit of a meaningful response - it's a time waster and a space filler, not philosophy. b) appeals to statistics, etc. are a conversation-ender. You can prove or disprove anything with statistics and the conversation about sources is an infinite bog. The conversation has to stick close to logical necessity to be productive, and that must assume a certain core of common understanding at least in vocabulary. c) If the answer to the request for evidence is already in the original document/post. d) ?

>What is your understanding of the words 'logically salient' here?

logically salient - the inherent and necessary rationality of the idea is immediately obvious

>To me, your, so called, "arguments" are neither sound, valid, or both. We are in a philosophy forum. So, if you do not like having this pointed out or are NOT YET able to back up and support your claims and arguments, then I suggest not producing them here, or going away and working on them and then bringing them back here.

You have never given me any indication of what sort of response might count as evidence for you. I'm not willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail - that would defeat the larger purpose of The Truth being made accessible to all; and i'm not willing to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks.

>I have absolutely NO idea what this means.

>What is this in reference to, and what does this mean, to you?

Someone mentioned you self-identify as autistic so this could be an issue. I'll try to stick closer to ordinary speech but i have a habit of mixing metaphors quite freely, and The Whole Story is entirely a metaphor; a metaphor explaining metaphors. (I mention TWS quite frequently because everything else i say is a part of it already and that's the central reference point that ties it all together.)

From an Autistic perspective, you might skip to the end - Universal Taxonomy. That's really just another lens for TWS but it's one that is, as it suggests, the complete organization of everything. That's appealing, right? However... that part of TWS really doesn't have anything in it yet. That was going to be the last bit i worked on as it's a project that is only just beginning. That's also the great appeal - getting in on the ground floor of it.

This is also a sneaky test because if you respond to this in a blase manner you're either autistic or unusually self-restrained. Someone who is not will probably respond with a heightened emotional state at having their inner workings publicly discussed by a complete stranger. Also, if you're autistic you'll probably appreciate my over-analysis of things. But to take it back to the point - i'll try to use less metaphors with you so that the logical train-of-thought that i consider to be both evidence and proof is more obvious.

That's the kind of editing help i'm looking for with TWS too...
KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:28 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:49 am

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?



But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?
Not too complicated; humans are social creatures by nature. Morality concerns how we interact with others. If you consistently, intentionally, offend others... you may find yourself alone and unhappy; lacking in eudaimonia.
What does the word 'eudaimonia' mean, to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm There is difference between "offend" and harm".
What EXACTLY is that difference?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm




I may find your use of CAPITALS offensive, but I am not harmed by it.
But WHY, exactly, would a human being find letters written in CAPITALS 'offensive'?

How could, and how would, just EMPHASIZING some words, just through CAPITAL LETTERS, be 'offensive' to SOME people?

HOW and WHY may you find my use of CAPITALS 'offensive'?

What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?
Does a person need to justify their feelings if the feel offended. How about a situation where a derogatory was used in CAPITALS. By using CAPITALS, it reminds me of the derogatory term and hurts my feelings. In case you think this is not a good thought experiment:
https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg- ... -students/

Eudaimonia is an umbrella term of all things conducive to well being in proper measure... see nichomachean ethics

If you say that you don't like my accent, I am offended... if shoot me in the head, I am harmed.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:28 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm

Not too complicated; humans are social creatures by nature. Morality concerns how we interact with others. If you consistently, intentionally, offend others... you may find yourself alone and unhappy; lacking in eudaimonia.
What does the word 'eudaimonia' mean, to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm There is difference between "offend" and harm".
What EXACTLY is that difference?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm




I may find your use of CAPITALS offensive, but I am not harmed by it.
But WHY, exactly, would a human being find letters written in CAPITALS 'offensive'?

How could, and how would, just EMPHASIZING some words, just through CAPITAL LETTERS, be 'offensive' to SOME people?

HOW and WHY may you find my use of CAPITALS 'offensive'?

What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?
Does a person need to justify their feelings if the feel offended. How about a situation where a derogatory was used in CAPITALS. By using CAPITALS, it reminds me of the derogatory term and hurts my feelings. In case you think this is not a good thought experiment:
https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg- ... -students/

Eudaimonia is an umbrella term of all things conducive to well being in proper measure... see nichomachean ethics

If you say that you don't like my accent, I am offended... if shoot me in the head, I am harmed.
a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:14 pm
Age wrote:
But how do you KNOW that the mental is also the physical ?

While you are at it is the Mind Itself also the physical to you ?

And if yes then again how do you KNOW this ?

And if no then once more how you KNOW this ?
The mental is also the physical because it also exists and its existence can be demonstrated
So? Where is claimed that what exists HAS TO BE physical?

And what evidence and/or proof is there that this claim is absolutely, 100%, without doubt, irrefutably and unambiguously, factually True?
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:14 pm The Mind as you describe it is physical to me although I myself do not actually use the term
You do not, now, use the term, 'The Mind', or, you do not use the term, 'The Mind', in the way I do?

If it is the latter, then is the Mind, or the mind, physical, to you, in the way you describe 'it'?

If yes, then what actual evidence and/or proof do you have that that 'thing' is a 'physical thing'?
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:14 pm I know this because knowledge is something that can be demonstrated - indeed it HAS to be demonstrated
I agree 'knowledge', itself, can be demonstrated, and even agree that knowledge, itself, HAS to be demonstrated, 'physically'. However, this does NOT provide an explanation of HOW nor WHY the 'mental' itself is physical.

How about you define to us what the 'mental' is exactly, and then show or reveal to us how this 'thing' is actually physical?
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:14 pm I do not however mean this in an absolute sense but as true as can be demonstrated at that point in time
I, for one, would love to see how what you claim here can be demonstrated, at this particular point in time, when this is being written.

From my perspective, from what I have observed so far, I have NOT seen any evidence NOR proof that the 'mental', which to me are just 'thoughts', or the 'Mind', are both or either physical, or non physical either, for that matter This is WHY I describe both of them as being 'non visible', instead. But anyway, if anyone can SHOW me either way, then I would be most interested in seeing and finding out if they are either physical or non physical things. It would be great to find out and KNOW this, once, and for ALL.
Last edited by Age on Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply