For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I don't know whats not making sense...
I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.AlexW wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 11:28 pmI don't know whats not making sense...
All I am saying is: pinch your arm - feel that? Thats reality.
All you can say about this sensation is not reality (while, of course, yes, the thought is also real - but not the things it attempts to create - see my post above to Belinda)
What I am trying to communicate is not a belief system that has conceptual answers for imaginary (purely thought based) things.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 7:51 pm I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.
I agree "that is true for all true things".AlexW wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 11:25 pmLet me be more precise:
What is "real" about the cognition is thought itself, but not what it points to.
There might be a thought arising ... "unicorn" ... the thought is real, the concept/thing that it attempts to create is not.
Now you might believe that this is only true for things like "unicorn" which are only imaginary, but, as I see it, this is true for all so called "things" (your own direct experience proves this).
I don't think that any theory is better or truer than another one. They are all simply theories, not more.
What I am trying to get across is that certain statements and beliefs simply don't match our direct experience.
Stating that there is an "I that has a mind" is simply pure fiction, it is not based on anything that can be experienced, it is all thought up - this is not bad, it allows us to communicate, but basing a theory of existence on it, leads to nowhere but confusion.
No. Memory is all you have experienced in your life which resides as a form in your mind, whatever the mind is, and you can recall it whenever you wish.AlexW wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 12:23 amWhat I am trying to communicate is not a belief system that has conceptual answers for imaginary (purely thought based) things.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 7:51 pm I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.
But, you like explanations, so here we go:
Reality: Look, hear, smell, taste, feel - minus what you think you see, hear, smell, taste, feel - this is reality.
Memory: A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparently - previously formed concept (or experience)
No. It lacks other things, memory, decision, etc.
No. Decision is an act. It allows us to choose one option among other options when there is a conflict of interest.
No. Causation is our ability to change reality according to decision.
No. Thinking is our ability to create links between concepts. We have this ability to fill the gap between question and answer by referring to the previous concepts which reside in mind, memory. You find the answer when there is enough material inside your memory otherwise you fail.
You experience all sorts of things but self all the time but self. If what you said is true about you and other people, then everybody would be substance dualist. Why? Because there is you. And there is the stuff that you experience.
I disagree.AlexW wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 12:23 am
As such I don't need a theory about the self, about reality, as it is perfectly clear and obvious here and now - and every theory you might have only veils it, it hides it behind a curtain of concepts. Now you can add more and more conceptual layers and explain stuff that is purely imaginary or you can look and see.
To thought this might sound absurd - and if you live in thought-world, actually applying this way of being might be the end of "you", but this "end" is actually the place where real life - life in and as reality - starts.
I am a substance dualist. I can clarify any issue if you refer me to it.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:22 amI agree "that is true for all true things".AlexW wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 11:25 pmLet me be more precise:
What is "real" about the cognition is thought itself, but not what it points to.
There might be a thought arising ... "unicorn" ... the thought is real, the concept/thing that it attempts to create is not.
Now you might believe that this is only true for things like "unicorn" which are only imaginary, but, as I see it, this is true for all so called "things" (your own direct experience proves this).
I don't think that any theory is better or truer than another one. They are all simply theories, not more.
What I am trying to get across is that certain statements and beliefs simply don't match our direct experience.
Stating that there is an "I that has a mind" is simply pure fiction, it is not based on anything that can be experienced, it is all thought up - this is not bad, it allows us to communicate, but basing a theory of existence on it, leads to nowhere but confusion.
I am not sure what you mean by " "I that has a mind" is pure fiction ". I'd interpret " I that has a mind" as Cartesian dualism. However I suspect Bahman simply has not studied and compared the several theories of existence and his ideas are therefore inconsistent.Sometimes he talks like a monist and sometimes like a substance dualist
You say "mind". Do you mean minds (plural ) can't be created ?I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created.
There are ideas. You cannot doubt this. Ideas without a mind cannot be coherent. For coherence you need, a memory, ability to experience, to decide, to cause, to process what has been experienced (in case of human thinking).
Thanks for the clarification.
