proposition (1)

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:02 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
Since a "brain" is not a legally defined person, it cannot OWN a property.
So since you say consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain... and it is neither a quality, nor a thing of the brain... so what is it you are saying? PROPERTY BY DEFINITION IS EITHER A QUALITY OR A POSSESSION. YOU SAY IT'S NEITHER. SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE "PROPERTY" WHEN IT IS NEITHER A POSSESSION NOR A QUALITY?

Because you deny you meant by "property" all and any of the meanings that the language gives to the word "property", if you don't provide your own idiosyncratic definition to what you mean by "property", then, obviously, you are talking nonsense.
Seriously?? Take a pill or something.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by -1- » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:02 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
Since a "brain" is not a legally defined person, it cannot OWN a property.
So since you say consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain... and it is neither a quality, nor a thing of the brain... so what is it you are saying? PROPERTY BY DEFINITION IS EITHER A QUALITY OR A POSSESSION. YOU SAY IT'S NEITHER. SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE "PROPERTY" WHEN IT IS NEITHER A POSSESSION NOR A QUALITY?

Because you deny you meant by "property" all and any of the meanings that the language gives to the word "property", if you don't provide your own idiosyncratic definition to what you mean by "property", then, obviously, you are talking nonsense.
Seriously?? Take a pill or something.
"Take a pill or something" is an invalid argument.

I imagine if you were playing chess and you were checkmated, you'd take the wooden box and hit your opponent in the head with it. "Let the pawns and pieces fly".

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:56 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:02 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:11 am


So since you say consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain... and it is neither a quality, nor a thing of the brain... so what is it you are saying? PROPERTY BY DEFINITION IS EITHER A QUALITY OR A POSSESSION. YOU SAY IT'S NEITHER. SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE "PROPERTY" WHEN IT IS NEITHER A POSSESSION NOR A QUALITY?

Because you deny you meant by "property" all and any of the meanings that the language gives to the word "property", if you don't provide your own idiosyncratic definition to what you mean by "property", then, obviously, you are talking nonsense.
Seriously?? Take a pill or something.
"Take a pill or something" is an invalid argument.

I imagine if you were playing chess and you were checkmated, you'd take the wooden box and hit your opponent in the head with it. "Let the pawns and pieces fly".
Such a poor analogy.
Chess is a game of rules.
Philosophy and reasoned argument also has rules; rules of which you seem completely clueless.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by -1- » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:44 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:56 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:02 pm


Seriously?? Take a pill or something.
"Take a pill or something" is an invalid argument.

I imagine if you were playing chess and you were checkmated, you'd take the wooden box and hit your opponent in the head with it. "Let the pawns and pieces fly".
Such a poor analogy.
Chess is a game of rules.
Philosophy and reasoned argument also has rules; rules of which you seem completely clueless.
Ouch! That hurt my head.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6894
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:18 am

Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain is a conceptual known knowledge known absolutely.

All knowledge is a fiction known by no thing...aka the absolute.

A thing is known but the known thing knows nothing. All claims to know is a fiction within absolute knowing the only knowing there is.

No thing can know the absolute. No thing is the absolute.

Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of NOT-A-THING

THINGS are the property of Consciousness..WHICH IS NOT-A-THING...appearing to thing.

.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:37 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:18 am
Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain is a conceptual known knowledge known absolutely.

All knowledge is a fiction known by no thing...aka the absolute.

A thing is known but the known thing knows nothing. All claims to know is a fiction within absolute knowing the only knowing there is.

No thing can know the absolute. No thing is the absolute.

Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of NOT-A-THING

THINGS are the property of Consciousness..WHICH IS NOT-A-THING...appearing to thing.

.
Not only does this post contain grammatical ambiguities, and logical ambiguities, it is also a jumbled collection of irrelevances and non sequiturs.
You end up saying nothing and meaning nothing.

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Atla » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:43 am

Sculptor wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:22 pm
As for mind and consciousness, the question is absurd since they are synonymous.
The mind and consciousness are a property of the brain. They are/ it is what the brain does.
Let's view mind as synonymous with consciousness (thus ignoring half of philosophy).

Even so, what the hell does it mean that it's a "property" of the brain?

- Either mind/consciousness IS a part of the brain, so it's not really what the brain does, but it IS it.

- Or mind/consciousness somehow emerges from the brain, so something inexplicable by science happens.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:43 am
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:22 pm
As for mind and consciousness, the question is absurd since they are synonymous.
The mind and consciousness are a property of the brain. They are/ it is what the brain does.
Let's view mind as synonymous with consciousness (thus ignoring half of philosophy).

Even so, what the hell does it mean that it's a "property" of the brain?

- Either mind/consciousness IS a part of the brain, so it's not really what the brain does, but it IS it.

- Or mind/consciousness somehow emerges from the brain, so something inexplicable by science happens.
A "property of the brain" is far more in accord with "what the brain does", than the rather silly "a part of the brain", which hints at dualism.
Consciousness is some of what the brain does. The brain also has a massive role thinking sub- or un- consciously. In fact I would go so far as to say that most of thinking is done subconsciously. Ideas present themselves to the consciousness from deeper workings. It is almost as if consciousness forms questions; whereas the subconsciousness provides answers, in a steady seemless flow; there being no strict line between the two.

So what "half of philosophy" suggests that the mind is distinct from consciousness?

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Atla » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:28 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am
A "property of the brain" is far more in accord with "what the brain does", than the rather silly "a part of the brain", which hints at dualism.
Consciousness is some of what the brain does. The brain also has a massive role thinking sub- or un- consciously. In fact I would go so far as to say that most of thinking is done subconsciously. Ideas present themselves to the consciousness from deeper workings. It is almost as if consciousness forms questions; whereas the subconsciousness provides answers, in a steady seemless flow; there being no strict line between the two.
That's fine but then how do you solve the Explanatory gap?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:32 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:28 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am
A "property of the brain" is far more in accord with "what the brain does", than the rather silly "a part of the brain", which hints at dualism.
Consciousness is some of what the brain does. The brain also has a massive role thinking sub- or un- consciously. In fact I would go so far as to say that most of thinking is done subconsciously. Ideas present themselves to the consciousness from deeper workings. It is almost as if consciousness forms questions; whereas the subconsciousness provides answers, in a steady seemless flow; there being no strict line between the two.
That's fine but then how do you solve the Explanatory gap?
Please state your problem!

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Atla » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:34 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:32 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:28 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am
A "property of the brain" is far more in accord with "what the brain does", than the rather silly "a part of the brain", which hints at dualism.
Consciousness is some of what the brain does. The brain also has a massive role thinking sub- or un- consciously. In fact I would go so far as to say that most of thinking is done subconsciously. Ideas present themselves to the consciousness from deeper workings. It is almost as if consciousness forms questions; whereas the subconsciousness provides answers, in a steady seemless flow; there being no strict line between the two.
That's fine but then how do you solve the Explanatory gap?
Please state your problem!
Not my problem and I just did.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:42 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:34 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:32 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:28 am

That's fine but then how do you solve the Explanatory gap?
Please state your problem!
Not my problem and I just did.
What the hell are you talking about?
If you can't state a problem, then there is no problem.
Science is not about the "whys" but about the "hows". All we can do is describe what we find and have such explanations as emerge to satisfy.
But this is true about everything. And I mean everything without exception, there is no full explanation of any phenomena, that does not have a gap somewhere.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what "half" of philosophy considers the mind different from the consciousness.

:roll:

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Atla » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:47 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:42 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:34 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:32 am


Please state your problem!
Not my problem and I just did.
What the hell are you talking about?
If you can't state a problem, then there is no problem.
Science is not about the "whys" but about the "hows". All we can do is describe what we find and have such explanations as emerge to satisfy.
But this is true about everything. And I mean everything without exception, there is no full explanation of any phenomena, that does not have a gap somewhere.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what "half" of philosophy considers the mind different from the consciousness.

:roll:
If you do not know about / understand the Explanatory gap problem, which is as basic in philosophy as it gets, then we are once again ignoring half of the rest of philosophy so we are at 1/4 now. This forum can see too that you have no idea.

In that 1/4 I agree that obviously mind/consciousness can be seen as what the brain "does", that's been confirmed by all neuroscience and psychology beyond any reasonable doubt.

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Age » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:54 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:47 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:42 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:34 am

Not my problem and I just did.
What the hell are you talking about?
If you can't state a problem, then there is no problem.
Science is not about the "whys" but about the "hows". All we can do is describe what we find and have such explanations as emerge to satisfy.
But this is true about everything. And I mean everything without exception, there is no full explanation of any phenomena, that does not have a gap somewhere.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what "half" of philosophy considers the mind different from the consciousness.

:roll:
If you do not know about / understand the Explanatory gap problem, which is as basic in philosophy as it gets, then we are once again ignoring half of the rest of philosophy so we are at 1/4 now. This forum can see too that you have no idea.

In that 1/4 I agree that obviously mind/consciousness can be seen as what the brain "does", that's been confirmed by all neuroscience and psychology beyond any reasonable doubt.
Well I am way out on my own here. To me, what the brain does is process the information fed into it, and then just produce thoughts.

Mind and Consciousness are NOT thoughts, not processes of the brain, nor the brain itself.

To say that obviously mind/consciousness can be seen as what the brain "does", that has been confirmed by ALL neuroscience and psychology, and that this is beyond ANY reasonable doubt, then there MUST BE some extremely strong and convincing evidence for all these people to believe, without any reasonable doubt, such a thing as this.

Will you provide the actual evidence that shows just how obviously mind/consciouness can be seen as what the brain "does"?

Ramu
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Ramu » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:06 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:37 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:18 am
Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain is a conceptual known knowledge known absolutely.

All knowledge is a fiction known by no thing...aka the absolute.

A thing is known but the known thing knows nothing. All claims to know is a fiction within absolute knowing the only knowing there is.

No thing can know the absolute. No thing is the absolute.

Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of NOT-A-THING

THINGS are the property of Consciousness..WHICH IS NOT-A-THING...appearing to thing.

.
Not only does this post contain grammatical ambiguities, and logical ambiguities, it is also a jumbled collection of irrelevances and non sequiturs.
You end up saying nothing and meaning nothing.
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of brains. Brains and neuroscience occur in Consciousness

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests