Two questions... 1.) Earlier, u said, "but it (solipsism) in no way attests to the idea of there being something beyond what can be sensed." -- Okay, what do u mean by "sensed"? Like something which is grasped by way of the five senses? 2.) What do u mean when u use the word "mind"?
1) Mostly was using it as a synonym for the word perceive. 2) Consciousness - The awareness or perception of something by a person. EDIT: Nothing to do with what we're talking about but I'm interested in why you feel the need to capitalize, put things in quotations, and even italicize, but don't spell out the word you...........
They can be interchangeable depending on which definition you're using for each. Although I'd probably say that consciousness is more the act of perception rather than them being interchangeable.
So, is whatever that is "conscious", or is experiencing consciousness, something which is corporeal and physically extended in 3-d form? Is the "I" or self something which can be grasped by way of the five senses?
Boats, whenever I see you start something like this I get reminded of a part in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The main character is in a discussion with his philosophy teacher. The teacher fleshes out the main character's certain axioms, definitions, etc. and then proceeds to lock him in to some type of logical fallacy.
lol I don't know if this is a compliment or relegation...? But, anywhoo... hello, friend. But, I do know what u mean about locking someone into a box of logical fallacies; it's all thanks to Socrates' and Hume's specifically vital contributions to philosophy...
I believe consciousness is the work of the brain and therefore exists(in some manner) in a physical form. The bolded question is an extremely loaded question.
Okay, so consciousness exists in "physical form"? Okay, now let us understand what "physical form" is... do u not believe that everything which has "physical form" possess the properties of extension (extension in space) and of mobility (movement in space)? And that these properties of space and time are governed by a strict 3 dimensional structure? The brain exists within 3-d time and space, right?
The loaded questions are kind of annoying. What you've been trying to get me to do with these questions is lead me to a position of fallacy wherein by disproving me your supposition becomes correct. If you have a point at the end of this, I'd like for you to state it as succinctly as possible so I don't have to deal with defining every single thing this is based around it for you to nitpick.
lol I'd say it's a compliment. I know you catch some flak for your style but I gotta give you some credit for doing it pretty well. Yes, I'm glad you mentioned them. I was trying to remember who it was in the book the author was referring to. I was going to say Aristotle but didn't because I wasn't sure. In the particular instance I was referring to I think it was Socrates that he was referring to, but he mentions those two, Socrates and Hume, quite often.
Before I can prove something or reach some ending, that we can both agree too, we must walk step by step towards the center; for we are looking at the problem from two different angles; and we are both looking for some common ground (at least I am) in order to amicably meet, and understand, each other. This must be done so that we can hash out all ambiguity and equivocation. In order for us to do this, we must both ask a lot of questions, wherever we discern some sort of inconsistency or equivocation... the task is not something which can be done so quickly, or in a very concise and succinct manner. Patience is a virtue; and knowledge is the end of all virtue. My problem is that most people define words with other words... u say consciousness is an act of perception; and that perception is something physical. Okay, so what are the properties "physicality" other than more words without definition? Words are labels imposed onto experience, and not the experience itself; not necessarily. So, please tell me the properties of "physicality"? P.S. I put things in quotations which are loosely defined and understood; either on my part, or on someone elses part, i.e., the person I'm discussing a given topic with. And I italicize words which are important to understanding what I'm really trying to say, or ask, in a given sentence; it's like shining a little more light on a specific word.
This could all be done through discussion instead of relentless definition. Also the bolded part doesn't really make any sense to me. Mind breaking that down for me? Any small amount of inference and you could've very easily gotten the meaning. You portray this as some kind of innocuous questioning, but it's almost like feigning ignorance for the purposes of your argument. Words can be synonyms, they can mean similar things, and in some cases may even be interchangeable, however with any amount of effort you could go about discerning what I meant and answering accordingly. Instead I'm asked to define everything I say. If there are any problems in the way you interpret what I have to say I would happily point them out to you and the discussion would continue. This isn't making sure we are on the same page, this is just asinine. You entirely missed the point of that. I understand why people put quotes around things and why people italicize things for emphasis, I was simply asking why you type out the letter u instead of the word you.
The problem is that when one constantly uses words to define other words he or she either must stop somewhere and give an actual definition of a word, by using conceptual visions of experience, or, continue to use synonyms infinitely in a circle, i.e., a circular argument. So, u say consciousness, or perception, is something physical... Okay, now let us discover more about "physicality" so that we can reach some common ground. Is it fair to say that everything which can be said to have "physical form" is something which moves and is extended within the construct of 3 dimensional time and space?
It looks like I'm done here. It was nice trying to get to the bottom of this with you but I've told you, this is just asinine. I'm happy to continue if you would like to state something instead of asking me to define things infinitely. You've done nothing but ask me to define and refine an idea ever since I said; So answer the question I posed, make a statement of some kind, or we'll just move on. You've made one assertion this whole time, I gave you my reasoning why I disagreed with it and it's been nothing but questioning since, all with the underlying intent of reframing the argument.
I did assert something...! Something which sparked this whole conversation... I asserted that the irrefutably of solipsism, in terms of strict empiricism, attest to the reality of transcendent and imperceptible knowledge, i.e., the soul, spirit, and God. U denied this. So, as I said, the only way we can start to understand each other is by taking steps toward each other, in an amicably warranted way, in the form of asking questions. I assert the "I" is not something physical, u asset that it is, so who is right? Only by understanding how we use and define the word physical can we come to sort of logical conclusion. I define something physical as something which is experienced by the five senses within the construct of 3 dimensional space and time, i.e., sensory experience of 3-d extension and movement. What ever can be judged to manifest "physical form" must fall under this definition, imo. So, do u agree with this definition?
Defining physical will get you nowhere... Well besides a path cracked with age and blocked by redundancy. Physical is kind of self evident my friend, think of physics. Anything that can move, interact with space etc. are physical. Yes that includes three dimensional movement, veritably the only type humans can perpetuate. If he understands perception as coming from the physical and thus belonging to that area of theory and theorem then that's seems sensible to me. Maybe instead of questioning his wording, you should question his reasoning. His meaning. Not word by word but altogether. Its more than the sum of its parts, if it was this would be a pointless post for me to make. Let his definitions stand, and take him at his word. Blunder blindly forward into what you take him to mean... And maybe you might learn something from your mistakes. /input on that \solipsism Even if solipsism is the 'answer', that changes nothing for me. Just because I believe myself to be the only existence that won't change my 'reality'. My ego perceives a reality along with passively accepting the reality of every one that exists around me, or that I perceive to exist around me. All the talk of that just sounds so egocentric, but that's how it is. It makes sense... In the way that it's impossible to disprove. It exists as a riddle with no answer. If I believe that others exist as I do then where do i get the evidence, aside from my perception. Of everything physical...
I find myself liking the idea of solipsism, but not necessarily in a strict sense. If I could be so bold as to say I might actually think of it in a way that I think Boats and Hoes would imagine it. What do you think Boats? Of course this here is just talk and I don't mean anything by it but I suppose it is an interesting thought.
I think the solipsistic point of view is made more real, outside diagnosed mental illness of course, through cannabis and other psychoactive compounds. It is so easy to feel that nothing exists outside my own consciousness when under its influence, in a way that I don't feel when sober. I see that everything goes on within, regardless of whether there is an objective, independent reality outside myself, so solipsism may be far nearer to the way things really are, minus the egoic aspect, than we realise. After all, I am not me to you, I am your version of me. Your brain is constructing me out of photons or sound waves (if you knew me IRL), or just concepts, feelings and ideas off the page, with memory, adding in conscious and subconscious processes, to create an idea that you come to recognise that you call me. Same goes for everything else in the world. It could also be that my relationship to what I perceive as shared with you is part of my own projection as well. That there is and always has been only me here. Even though I know you are there, behave in unexpected, independent ways that make you different to me, so do the characters I interact with in my dreams. Who creates them, controls them, decides what they say and do? That same process could be creating you in the same way, just far more profoundly. If we were some kind of conscious energy having the experience of what we call physical life, when we experience something we call synchronicity for example, which gives the feeling that things are occurring as a result of some higher conscious at play, that consciousness could very well be us, just a different aspect of who we are, outside the physical, but in no way disconnected from it, creating a life that the little 'me' needs to experience for whatever reason I chose to experience it. Perhaps I've simply forgotten, or perhaps I had to forget, so that the journey I'm on changes me in ways that only this experience can? It is a journey of limitation, of linear experience, so that I have the joy and pleasure of realising myself through experience rather than simply knowing who I am from the beginning.
I've been thinking about how vibration is a function of time. How could this be if time doesn't really exist? Well, I think I actually heard the answer in that audio clip you showed to me but I had forgotten the answer, and that's where the question creeped up from unwittingly until I thought about it just now. It's that linear experience of time that creates a unique vibration for the self to realize itself. And The vibration already knowing itself isn't dependent on time, being all that is. Something like that.