Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 77650966" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>Yet we can see that you're offering <em>'the ability of abstract <u>thinking</u>' </em>as the primary demonstration of us stepping outside of our own minds?????</p><p></p><p>Do you not see that as being nonsensical? What is doing the <em>'thinking'</em> there, then? One cannot demonstrate mind independence <em>(or 'stepping outside of our minds')</em> by using a mind to do it .. namely because that's not what mind <em>'stepping outside of our minds'</em> (or mind independence) means!</p><p></p><p>Ok .. so I think you're objecting to using extrapolation forwards and backwards in time, (ie: an abstraction), in order to infer the results of such extrapolations as being real (exists) or not?</p><p></p><p>The flaw in that argument is you need the meaning of <em>'existence in the inanimate physical world'</em> to be speaking of<em> 'a world' </em>which is truly mind independent, which is nonsensical (for the same reasons I outlined above). Everything in that phrase depends on meanings assigned by human minds .. it therefore, in no way, demonstrates a truly mind independent <em>'existence in the inanimate physical world'</em> .. exactly the opposite of that, in fact .. its yet another a mind-model you're referencing there, as supposedly being the basis for that self-defeating argument!</p><p>Merely using word salad like: <em>'<u>represents</u> the progression of events and the duration of experiences',</em> is an insufficient basis for realising what you <em><u>believe</u></em> is being <em>'represented'</em>.</p><p></p><p>There are only two known ways for coming up with a meaning for what <em>'exists'</em> (physically, or otherwise).. either by asserting mere beliefs, or by using the scientific (objective) method. Both make use of abstractions but only one has a track record of rapidly expanding useful/practical knowledge, making reliable predictions and making sense of our perceptions. It ain't perfect, but its worked out being better for us in the long run than the other way.</p><p></p><p>There is no evidence for what exists <em><u>outside</u></em> of the human mind, in order to give meaning to what exists <em><u>inside</u></em> the human mind. That whole inside/outside model is completely flawed. There is no inside/outside the human mind, unless you just use a belief to imagine there is an 'outside'.</p><p></p><p><em>'Things existing before mankind', </em>is a mind model. It is an extrapolation which you started out objecting to, on the basis of being only an abstraction. Your argument has come back full-circle because of the belief in that we are truly capable of <em>'stepping outside of our minds'</em> (we can't do this, other than just merely believing we can and then holding it as some kind of universal truth .. which I'll reject on a scientific reasoning basis). Cheers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 77650966, member: 354922"] Yet we can see that you're offering [I]'the ability of abstract [U]thinking[/U]' [/I]as the primary demonstration of us stepping outside of our own minds????? Do you not see that as being nonsensical? What is doing the [I]'thinking'[/I] there, then? One cannot demonstrate mind independence [I](or 'stepping outside of our minds')[/I] by using a mind to do it .. namely because that's not what mind [I]'stepping outside of our minds'[/I] (or mind independence) means! Ok .. so I think you're objecting to using extrapolation forwards and backwards in time, (ie: an abstraction), in order to infer the results of such extrapolations as being real (exists) or not? The flaw in that argument is you need the meaning of [I]'existence in the inanimate physical world'[/I] to be speaking of[I] 'a world' [/I]which is truly mind independent, which is nonsensical (for the same reasons I outlined above). Everything in that phrase depends on meanings assigned by human minds .. it therefore, in no way, demonstrates a truly mind independent [I]'existence in the inanimate physical world'[/I] .. exactly the opposite of that, in fact .. its yet another a mind-model you're referencing there, as supposedly being the basis for that self-defeating argument! Merely using word salad like: [I]'[U]represents[/U] the progression of events and the duration of experiences',[/I] is an insufficient basis for realising what you [I][U]believe[/U][/I] is being [I]'represented'[/I]. There are only two known ways for coming up with a meaning for what [I]'exists'[/I] (physically, or otherwise).. either by asserting mere beliefs, or by using the scientific (objective) method. Both make use of abstractions but only one has a track record of rapidly expanding useful/practical knowledge, making reliable predictions and making sense of our perceptions. It ain't perfect, but its worked out being better for us in the long run than the other way. There is no evidence for what exists [I][U]outside[/U][/I] of the human mind, in order to give meaning to what exists [I][U]inside[/U][/I] the human mind. That whole inside/outside model is completely flawed. There is no inside/outside the human mind, unless you just use a belief to imagine there is an 'outside'. [I]'Things existing before mankind', [/I]is a mind model. It is an extrapolation which you started out objecting to, on the basis of being only an abstraction. Your argument has come back full-circle because of the belief in that we are truly capable of [I]'stepping outside of our minds'[/I] (we can't do this, other than just merely believing we can and then holding it as some kind of universal truth .. which I'll reject on a scientific reasoning basis). Cheers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike
Top
Bottom