It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

[Dontaskme]

That which is known knows.

Name something that is known..that you then claim knows?

[Darkneos]

That which is known knows.

Name something that is known..that you then claim knows?

Me for example. I know a lot.

If you’re talking about a rock then it knows nothing, or one would think but it’s a safe assumption.

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

[Dontaskme]

That which is known knows.

Name something that is known..that you then claim knows?

Me for example. I know a lot.

If you’re talking about a rock then it knows nothing, or one would think but it’s a safe assumption.

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

Consciousness knows, that's not a secret, now locate consciousness as if it was an object known that you can separate out from the knower of it.

[Darkneos]

Name something that is known..that you then claim knows?

Me for example. I know a lot.

If you’re talking about a rock then it knows nothing, or one would think but it’s a safe assumption.

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

Consciousness knows, that's not a secret, now locate consciousness as if it was an object known that you can separate out from the knower of it.

Wrong again, consciousness doesn’t know anything, I do. Well specifically the brain. Consciousness just enables me to communicate it and think of it though. It’s like electricity for a computer (loosely speaking), it enables the computer (which knows) to respond and communicate.

You can’t separate consciousness because it’s a function of the brain, like I said.

Again you are empty, have nothing. You didn’t even address the previous point.

I can’t imagine being as stagnant as you while the world around me continues to educate.

[Dontaskme]

Wrong again, consciousness doesn’t know anything, I do.

Locate the I that knows? if like you say, the I exists as an object known.

I do. Well specifically the brain

Can you make up your mind whether the ( I )knows or the ( brain ) knows.

[Darkneos]

Wrong again, consciousness doesn’t know anything, I do.

Locate the I that knows? if like you say, the I exists as an object known.

I is the brain. Effectively since it’s responsible for all this stuff. Brains exist, you are the brain since it’s responsible for everything that runs you even consciousness.

Located and known. Again you’re just lazy and you have nothing to support your own view besides the imperfection of other views. It’s why you haven’t real arguments as that other guy showed.

Thought to be technically correct the self, like consciousness, is an emergent function of the brain. It’s the result of a bunch of different things working together to make something more than the sum of its parts.

So the question “locate the I” is incorrect. However that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Something doesn’t have to be an object to exist. By your definition the consciousness doesn’t exist.

[Dontaskme]

I is the brain.

So there are two names for the same thing?

Located and known.

Yes, the brain can be located as an object known to exist inside the skull, so the knower that you claim is ( I ) according to your logic, lives inside your skull as a physical object known. And yet it is known that physical objects cannot know no more than consciousness can know, as you have stated this yourself. . you said consciousness does not know..I do.

So the question “locate the I” is incorrect. However that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Something doesn’t have to be an object to exist. By your definition the consciousness doesn’t exist.

For an object to exist, it must be known to exist, but this knowing cannot be located as existing as a physical object, is all I'm saying.

If like you say there are some things that don't have to be an object to exist, then what is the thing known that knows it doesn't have to be a thing to exist?

[Dontaskme]

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

I hardly think it's dumb to argue about something that doesn't need to exist as an object like the brain to exist. It's just what brains do.

So what's it to be, is it to be that the brain that is an object known is the knower, or the something that is not an object known that can still exist, is the knower?

[Darkneos]

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

I hardly think it's dumb to argue about something that doesn't need to exist as an object like the brain to exist. It's just what brains do.

So what's it to be, is it to be that the brain that is an object known is the knower, or the something that is not an object known that can still exist, is the knower?

It is dumb to argue, you just can’t see it. Again it’s called emergence.

The brain is the knower, the fact you don’t understand that means this isn’t going to go anywhere. Again just mindless repetition. You have nothing but you think if you repeat it enough times it conveys some sort of mystical understanding of reality.

But the dude before me already showed you’re wrong. At this point I’m just humoring an idiot.

This is a philosophy, go to a spirituality forum if you just want to repeat the same thing without explanation and have it be accepted.

[Darkneos]

It’s always heartbreaking to see that some folks can’t accept that reality is complicated and so are brains and humans, everything really.

[Dontaskme]

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

I hardly think it's dumb to argue about something that doesn't need to exist as an object like the brain to exist. It's just what brains do.

So what's it to be, is it to be that the brain that is an object known is the knower, or the something that is not an object known that can still exist, is the knower?

It is dumb to argue, you just can’t see it. Again it’s called emergence.

The brain is the knower, the fact you don’t understand that means this isn’t going to go anywhere. Again just mindless repetition. You have nothing but you think if you repeat it enough times it conveys some sort of mystical understanding of reality.

But the dude before me already showed you’re wrong. At this point I’m just humoring an idiot.

This is a philosophy, go to a spirituality forum if you just want to repeat the same thing without explanation and have it be accepted.

My philosophy has nothing to do with spirituality or anything remotely mystical, so why do you keep making so many false assumptions about what my philosophy is all about?

Why is philosophy so bad at explaining what it is that is thought to be understood but goes nowhere to even understanding what it thinks it is undertstanding ?

[Dontaskme]

Like things without a nervous system don’t know so if your gotcha is me naming an object that obviously has no consciousness then your argument is dumber than I thought.

I hardly think it's dumb to argue about something that doesn't need to exist as an object like the brain to exist. It's just what brains do.

So what's it to be, is it to be that the brain that is an object known is the knower, or the something that is not an object known that can still exist, is the knower?

It is dumb to argue, you just can’t see it. Again it’s called emergence.

The brain is the knower, the fact you don’t understand that means this isn’t going to go anywhere. Again just mindless repetition. You have nothing but you think if you repeat it enough times it conveys some sort of mystical understanding of reality.

But the dude before me already showed you’re wrong. At this point I’m just humoring an idiot.

This is a philosophy, go to a spirituality forum if you just want to repeat the same thing without explanation and have it be accepted.

My philosophy has nothing to do with spirituality or anything remotely mystical, so why do you keep making so many false assumptions about what my philosophy is all about?

Why is philosophy so bad at explaining what it is that is thought to be understood but goes nowhere to even understanding what it thinks it is undertstanding ?

[Darkneos]

I hardly think it's dumb to argue about something that doesn't need to exist as an object like the brain to exist. It's just what brains do.

So what's it to be, is it to be that the brain that is an object known is the knower, or the something that is not an object known that can still exist, is the knower?

It is dumb to argue, you just can’t see it. Again it’s called emergence.

The brain is the knower, the fact you don’t understand that means this isn’t going to go anywhere. Again just mindless repetition. You have nothing but you think if you repeat it enough times it conveys some sort of mystical understanding of reality.

But the dude before me already showed you’re wrong. At this point I’m just humoring an idiot.

This is a philosophy, go to a spirituality forum if you just want to repeat the same thing without explanation and have it be accepted.

My philosophy has nothing to do with spirituality or anything remotely mystical, so why do you keep making so many false assumptions about what my philosophy is all about?

Why is philosophy so bad at explaining what it is that is thought to be understood but goes nowhere to even understanding what it thinks it is undertstanding ?

It is mysticism because they use the same word salad you just did. The previous guy already explained it you just didn’t reply because you have nothing.

Just like how I explained it again through my view but you just mindlessly repeat because you have nothing. No argument, no logic, no understanding.

Philosophy isn’t bad at it, you just don’t understand it and it’s evident from how you talk.

Like I said, everyone can see it. You don’t have an actual philosophy or thought process, just dogma.

[Dontaskme]

It’s always heartbreaking to see that some folks can’t accept that reality is complicated and so are brains and humans, everything really.

Yeah it's awful, I'm just so heartbroken right now, I'm in the absolute pits of dark despair knowing how complicated brains and humans are, how will I ever function properly ever again, maybe if I could just make everything so simple with my knowing brain. My brain that knows everything, could just simply never have to think about anything ever again, wouldn't that be simple way to be, yes, I too would like to be a nobody, then at least I wouldn't have to worry about getting my heart broken, my all kowing brain can make that happen any time it likes, because it just knows how to do anything.

[Dontaskme]

Philosophy isn’t bad at it, you just don’t understand it and it’s evident from how you talk.

Like I said, everyone can see it. You don’t have an actual philosophy or thought process, just dogma.

Hmm, you may think that, but that would just be your opinion, doesn't make it true.

Just as I think the philosophy you come out with is nothing but your own dogma, we've all got a dogma on offer. I wonder who is going to buy these dogmatic stories? I guess if the flavor is right then why not, if it tastes good then swallow it, I suppose that's how it works, huh?. Each to their own story, I guess...meanwhile on with the for or against, whatever it is we think we understand.