ruveyn ben yosef

Introspecting

49 posts in this topic

I do it daily. The more one does it, the easier it gets.

That's true of all kinds of silly, fallacious, dangerous and even criminal actions.

So what?

(BTW: You just introspected.)

No. I simply remembered. We all do that.

I am becoming old and feeble. In my senescent decline I am beginning to resemble you Normals. A sure sign of progressive brain rot.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do it daily. The more one does it, the easier it gets.

That's true of all kinds of silly, fallacious, dangerous and even criminal actions.

So what?

(BTW: You just introspected.)

No. I simply remembered. We all do that.

You remembered specific evaluations of a specific mental task you've repeated. That's one form of introspection, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do it daily. The more one does it, the easier it gets.

That's true of all kinds of silly, fallacious, dangerous and even criminal actions.

So what?

(BTW: You just introspected.)

No. I simply remembered. We all do that.

You remembered specific evaluations of a specific mental task you've repeated. That's one form of introspection, isn't it?

Not really. It is simple recall. I do not go delving in the musty attack of my inner self or down to the damp basement. All the things I am interested in are outside of my skin.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. It is simple recall.

Yeah, really.

It need not be the penultimate act of introspection to qualify as introspection,

You clearly were aware of the fact that you were exerting effort to perform a mental task. You then compared that amount of effort to the amount of effort it took for you to repeat that task, and concluded that it gets easier and easier.

You turned your cognitive capacities inward, observed your mind in action, extracted data, compared the results and drew a conclusion. If that's not introspection, what is?

All the things I am interested in are outside of my skin.

And yet, you gathered data and processed it to draw a conclusion about an inner process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, you gathered data and processed it to draw a conclusion about an inner process.

No. I gathered data and processed using my native genetically generated wit. Just as you do.

The differences I do not delve into damp basements or musty attics to get what I need.

I look -out- and think about what I learned from the -world-, and I -use- what I learn from the world.

That way I do not spend my precious time (25,000 - 30,000 days per lifetime) psychologizing.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I gathered data and processed using my native genetically generated wit. Just as you do.

First, even if that were true it would be a conclusion you reached by looking inward -- introspection.

Second, just because it's not a complex, all-out leap into the dark crevasses of your mind doesn't disqualify either the individual acts or the conclusion as introspection.

Third, you're no where near as witty as your genetic lineage would suggest -- free will.

LoL!

I look -out- and think about what I learned from the -world-, and I -use- what I learn from the world.

How did you look out when you gathered the info, then drew your conclusion? Are you seriously going to claim that reason is a genetically given skill?

That way I do not spend my precious time (25,000 - 30,000 days per lifetime) psychologizing.

I don't know about spending all that time psychologizing, but I do know that whenever you make as statement about ruveyn's inner workings, you're introspecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, you gathered data and processed it to draw a conclusion about an inner process.

No. I gathered data and processed using my native genetically generated wit. Just as you do.

The differences I do not delve into damp basements or musty attics to get what I need.

I look -out- and think about what I learned from the -world-, and I -use- what I learn from the world.

That way I do not spend my precious time (25,000 - 30,000 days per lifetime) psychologizing.

ruveyn

This instantly brought the opening minutes of Dr Locke's lecture on introspection to mind, a lecture, BTW, that's peppered with Betsy's comments and Qs . . .

I finally got around to transcribing part of the intro (I've taken some liberties in order to both make what I quoted flow and in order to respect the copyright):

This may sort of surprise you [...] how much of Objectivism depends on Ayn Rand’s ability to introspect. So let me go down a short list for you and tell you all the parts Objectivst philosophy that were based on introspection.

In metaphysics:

-- Consciousness as an axiom. Remember it comes after Existence and Identity but its an axiom. How did you figure out you’re conscious? By introspection.

-- The relation between consciousness and existence. Why did Ayn Rand put existence first? Because by introspection, she could see [that] if I couldn’t introspect on something I was aware of in the outside world, I couldn’t introspect because my mind would be empty.

-- Free will. Does man have it? What status does it have? And if you have it what does it consist of? Is it freedom of emotions? Freedom of action? Or the freedom to think or not?

-- The mind-body relationship.

In epistemology:

-- Her theory of concepts. Since Ancient Greece, philosophers have tried to figure out what a concept is. None of them got it right. Ayn Rand figured it out in half an hour.

-- The crow epistemology, which psychologists discovered independently.

-- The concept of conceptual hierarchy.

In ethics:

-- How altruism destroys motivation. (See: Causality versus Duty, How Duty Destroys the Concept of Valuing.)

-- Virtues. Virtues are the relation of consciousness to existence. Part of that is introspection.

In politics:

-- The relation of mind and force. How and why force destroys the mind, destroys your ability to think rationally?

In art:

-- The definition of art. Tying art to the artist’s metaphysical values, and the concept of metaphysical values.

-- Art and its relation to sense of life.

-- The epistemological process of artistic creation. Starting with an abstraction, turning it into a concrete by means of a statue or painting, and letting you experience the abstraction in concrete form.

-- The role of art in man’s life, which is to give man the reality of his metaphysical values in direct perceptual form.

In psychology:

-- Psychoepistemology, the study of man’s mental processes, focussing on the relationship between the conscious and the subconscious.

-- The nature of emotions.

-- The nature and basis of self-esteem. Self-esteem is a well known concept in psychology, but Ayn Rand’s concept of it is completely original, and it’s unthinkable to modern psychologists.

-- Happiness and reason. Why you need reason in order to be happy. (Remember, happiness is the experience of non-contradictory joy, you need reason to eliminate contradictions and to chose the values that will make you happy.)

So Ayn Rand was not just a general philosophic genius, she was an introspective genius, probably the greatest introspective genius that ever lived by a wide margin.

(Just to be fair, there’s a lot of stuff in Objectivism that involves extrospection, I don’t mean to imply that it’s all introspection.)

From Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

If men identified introspectively their inner states one-tenth as correctly as they identify objective reality, we would be a race of ideal giants. I ascribe ninety-five percent or more of all psychological trouble and personal tragedies to the fact that in the realm of introspection we’re on the level were savages were in regard to existence. Men are not only not taught to introspect they are actively discouraged from engaging in introspection, yet their lives depend on it. Without it, nothing is possible to them including proper concept formation.

Let me expand on why introspection is important:

-- You could not grasp a single psychological concept without introspection. “Yeah, I see what you mean. Self-confidence, that’s when I feel I can do something. Yeah, I get that.”

-- Identifying thinking errors and blocks to thinking.

-- Identifying your values and your value hierarchy.

-- You need introspection to make action choices.

-- It’s needed to identify the causes of your emotions.

-- Identifying psychological conflicts, especially conscious versus subconscious.

-- Promoting mental health, including self-esteem. Once you know the causes of self-esteem you have the power to affect your self-esteem.

-- Promoting your happiness.

Why don’t most people introspect?

-- Introspection isn’t “natural”. Imagine yourself as a child. What’s the first thing you do when you become conscious? You look outwards. You need extrospection every day of your life in order to live. You can’t cross the street, pick up a fork and knife, etc. There’s no sense organ that makes you suddenly able to introspect. You have to learn it later in life.

-- People don’t introspect because of fear. They might want to get away with the irrational and they don’t want to face it, don’t want to acknowledge it (look at any modern intellectual and think of how much faking they have to do to get away with the insane ideas they preach. James Taggart as the extreme example of this.)

-- Also, introspection can be painful. You might see that you made an error, or you failed at something where you’d like to have succeed, we don’t like to look into what might have caused that in us.

-- People don’t recognize the importance or validity of introspection. Success in business, for example, relies on continuous extrospection, constantly judging what’s happening, what threats what benefits are on the horizon, what will help your business, what will hurt it. If you don’t introspect you don’t get immediate feedback that you messed up. Eventually you do, but it’s not as direct as is the case with extrospection.

-- Also the psychologists are against it. Freud said it’s useless because the only important stuff in your head is unconscious and you can’t discover it by introspection, you can only discover it by analyzing dreams or other techniques. Skinner said it’s useless because the mind doesn’t do anything. Modern philosophers of science say it’s invalid because all science is based on group consensus and how can you get group consensus on what’s inside your head? (If you wrote an article for the leading journals that I know of, and you claim that you got your data through introspection, you're dead meat. That article is rejected out of hand.)

-- Also introspection is a learned skill. Who teaches it?
-- Altruism. When you introspect, one of the things you're looking for is what you want. Altruism really discourages that sort of thing.
-- Introspection is hard work.

I hope this was helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my senescent decline I am beginning to resemble you Normals. A sure sign of progressive brain rot.

No it's a sign of improvement. Congratulations. Maybe you'll catch up! Keep shedding the damaging baggage.

Are you still an asparagus addict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my senescent decline I am beginning to resemble you Normals. A sure sign of progressive brain rot.

No it's a sign of improvement. Congratulations. Maybe you'll catch up! Keep shedding the damaging baggage.

Are you still an asparagus addict?

I was much smarter 20 years ago than I am now. At age 30 I was in my Aspergarian Glorious Splendor. I was untroubled by emotions, unconfused by non-facts and I could think, prove theorems and blast out bug-free code like there was no tomorrow. Of course my lack of empathy rendered me a first class royal pain in the a**, but that was a small price to pay for genius.

However being married to a mundane Normal and having 3 out 4 four Normal kids forced me to learn to adapt to the less than optimal ways of the Normals. 53 years of adapting has dulled my razor sharp edge. But I still have my Aspergarian moments.

In all that time I have managed to live with minimal introspection. Musty attics and damp basements are not my favorite places to go.

All the beauty of the World is Out There, not In Here. If you wish to waste your precious lifetime introspecting (only 25,000 - 35,000 days per lifetime) go ahead and do it in Good Health. I will use my precious dwindling time more profitably.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the beauty of the World is Out There, not In Here. If you wish to waste your precious lifetime introspecting (only 25,000 - 35,000 days per lifetime) go ahead and do it in Good Health. I will use my precious dwindling time more profitably.

How can you read the excerpt I put up and think introspection is a waste of time? (I guess we'll never convince you that, your MRI results to the contrary, you do have a mind, ruveyn.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the beauty of the World is Out There, not In Here. If you wish to waste your precious lifetime introspecting (only 25,000 - 35,000 days per lifetime) go ahead and do it in Good Health. I will use my precious dwindling time more profitably.

How can you read the excerpt I put up and think introspection is a waste of time? (I guess we'll never convince you that, your MRI results to the contrary, you do have a mind, ruveyn.)

All I saw in the scan images was my brain and connective tissue.

Pursue your snarks and boojums in Good Health, and I will concentrate on facts.

Till my dying day I will never fully comprehend you Normals.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concentration for producing code requires mental focus, not obnoxious behavior. Emotionally driven obnoxious behavior is not a sign of genius and not a form of superiority, but is often found in defensive geeks -- it is so common that even TV commercials mock it. Perhaps some intelligent introspection could have cured it, but you are right that you would not have found beauty in there, far from it with all the demons in there you claim. It isn't just "normals" you don't comprehend (or claim not to in all the irrational, obnoxious posturing for attention). MRI's aren't supposed to show "consciousness", but you can pretend to only be concerned with "facts" as part of the act. Even broccoli addicts aren't this bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concentration for producing code requires mental focus, not obnoxious behavior. Emotionally driven obnoxious behavior is not a sign of genius and not a form of superiority, but is often found in defensive geeks -- it is so common that even TV commercials mock it. Perhaps some intelligent introspection could have cured it, but you are right that you would not have found beauty in there, far from it with all the demons in there you claim. It isn't just "normals" you don't comprehend (or claim not to in all the irrational, obnoxious posturing for attention). MRI's aren't supposed to show "consciousness", but you can pretend to only be concerned with "facts" as part of the act. Even broccoli addicts aren't this bad.

That me. Facts First. I am genetically programmed to be a pain in the a**. Think of me as the Little Boy in the Hans Christian Andersen story: The Emperor and His New Clothes. I will state facts even if it offends. Facts are firm and true. Opinions can be all over the place.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consciousness is as heavy a fact as you can have, though. The error here is yours, ruveyn, not the Normals you seem to think you hover over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consciousness is as heavy a fact as you can have, though. The error here is yours, ruveyn, not the Normals you seem to think you hover over.

I agree. Every second I am awake I am aware that I am conscious. That is because I have a perfectly good working brain

And you Normals have an advantage. I am mind blind. It is the advantage of the sighted over the blind. But even blind folk can manage to get about. You are fortunate you can attribute intentions to persons other than yourself. The only intentions I am aware of are my own.

I can only perceive utterances, writing, visible actions. I only know what I am told or find out for my self. I have no idea what is going on in the heads of other people, unless I am scanning their neurological functions. I can only deal with visible outputs/actions.

You Guys are lucky. You can see invisible things. I can't. So I am trapped in the world of the perceptible except for the abstractions I can generate internally. That is fortunate. That means I can program and prove theorems.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consciousness is as heavy a fact as you can have, though. The error here is yours, ruveyn, not the Normals you seem to think you hover over.

I agree. Every second I am awake I am aware that I am conscious. That is because I have a perfectly good working brain

And you Normals have an advantage. I am mind blind. It is the advantage of the sighted over the blind. But even blind folk can manage to get about. You are fortunate you can attribute intentions to persons other than yourself. The only intentions I am aware of are my own.

I can only perceive utterances, writing, visible actions. I only know what I am told or find out for my self. I have no idea what is going on in the heads of other people, unless I am scanning their neurological functions. I can only deal with visible outputs/actions.

You Guys are lucky. You can see invisible things. I can't. So I am trapped in the world of the perceptible except for the abstractions I can generate internally. That is fortunate. That means I can program and prove theorems.

ruveyn

-- Consciousness in the human context is the mind, ruveyn.

-- Those of us who understand that human beings have minds also understand that the mind is an attribute of the brain.

-- You can act "mind blind". Choosing to do so, however concedes that there is a mind.

-- I'm not sure what intentions the mind conscious attribute to others, but you've managed to do a good deal of that -- mindlessly.

-- That you can only perceive X, Y and Z, doesn't mean the rest of the alphabet can't be inferred from X, Y and Z.

-- Some day, when the reign of the mindless is over, we probably will be able to scan neurological functions and "see" the mind.

-- There are entire specialties in the sciences that study the invisible, all day every day.

-- The second sentence in your last paragraph reeks of stuff like introspection, mind, etc. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not hold my breath until the "mind" (whatever that is) is objectively detect. By that I means person A detects a mind by objective means in person B.

Anyone can imagine that he has a Mind inside his head. If people can believe in ghosts and miracles they should have not trouble believing in Minds.

I happen not to believe in ghosts and miracles nor do a believe there is a non-material non physical thing in my head.

In fact I believe everything in the Cosmos is physical. All that there is is matter and energy doing their thing in Space and Time or so I believe.

And I am blaming this entire conversation of Rene Descartes who believed in the dichotomy of Mind and Matter. He created a lot of confusion.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not hold my breath until the "mind" (whatever that is) is objectively detect. By that I means person A detects a mind by objective means in person B.

Anyone can imagine that he has a Mind inside his head. If people can believe in ghosts and miracles they should have not trouble believing in Minds.

I happen not to believe in ghosts and miracles nor do a believe there is a non-material non physical thing in my head.

In fact I believe everything in the Cosmos is physical. All that there is is matter and energy doing their thing in Space and Time or so I believe.

And I am blaming this entire conversation of Rene Descartes who believed in the dichotomy of Mind and Matter. He created a lot of confusion.

ruveyn

The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

You miss his point. Most of us understand what you wrote and it has been explained and repeated endlessly on the Forum in response to the perverse repetition. But look at what you are attempting to answer in the form of conceptual understanding while giving him the benefit of the doubt yet feeling like you are talking to a stone wall: repetitive, unresponsive, evasive, sophomoric philosophical skepticism filled with contradictions, all loudly insisted to be "fact" and "genius" and hiding behind claims that he is "determined" to be obnoxious so don't hold him accountable. There is nothing to answer. "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes". He's "determined" all right: pursuing attention-seeking, deliberately obnoxious behavior out of his own stubborn determination to see how far this act can go on playing people and still be taken seriously. Fact and genius this trolling is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

I have made efforts to detect apples in trees. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are pits, cells, juice and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

The apple was the subject of and was worked on by PET scans, fMRI scans, EEGs and such like. No soap. No apple, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware things happen inside the thing, but I attribute them to chemicals, juices, hormones, and connective tissue. No apples, no fruit, no taste, and especially no awareness or life. I believe in neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

I have made efforts to detect apples in trees. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are pits, cells, juice and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

The apple was the subject of and was worked on by PET scans, fMRI scans, EEGs and such like. No soap. No apple, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware things happen inside the thing, but I attribute them to chemicals, juices, hormones, and connective tissue. No apples, no fruit, no taste, and especially no awareness or life. I believe in neither.

Then you agree with me? All there is is matter doing its thing in Time and Space.

I think Democrotus was right. All there is is matter in motion in Space and Time. He did not know he was right, but modern physics suggests that he was right.

My time is short (I am pushing 80) so I will not waste it chasing immaterial snarks, spooks, ghosts, wills of the wisp, and spirits. Life (for humans) is short. If one is lucky between 25,000 and 35,000 days give or take. Time is the only thing you have, spend it wisely.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

I have made efforts to detect apples in trees. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are pits, cells, juice and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

The apple was the subject of and was worked on by PET scans, fMRI scans, EEGs and such like. No soap. No apple, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware things happen inside the thing, but I attribute them to chemicals, juices, hormones, and connective tissue. No apples, no fruit, no taste, and especially no awareness or life. I believe in neither.

Did you intend this as a post? Something is wrong because it didn't come through. There is supposed to be a post created by some conscious being with a mind and displayed on a monitor connected to a computer, but I can't find any of that, only atoms jostling in time and space, somehow inferred as some of the constituents of objects and consciousness that don't exist. What is 'you'? Only spooks, ghosts and spirit ... Haaaalp ... trapped in philosopher's imagined universe ... desperate ... turning to solipsism ... in name of fact and genius ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

I have made efforts to detect apples in trees. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are pits, cells, juice and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

The apple was the subject of and was worked on by PET scans, fMRI scans, EEGs and such like. No soap. No apple, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware things happen inside the thing, but I attribute them to chemicals, juices, hormones, and connective tissue. No apples, no fruit, no taste, and especially no awareness or life. I believe in neither.

Then you agree with me? All there is is matter doing its thing in Time and Space.

I think Democrotus was right. All there is is matter in motion in Space and Time. He did not know he was right, but modern physics suggests that he was right.

My time is short (I am pushing 80) so I will not waste it chasing immaterial snarks, spooks, ghosts, wills of the wisp, and spirits. Life (for humans) is short. If one is lucky between 25,000 and 35,000 days give or take. Time is the only thing you have, spend it wisely.

ruveyn

Of course I agree with you, if I were a rock or some form of inanimate matter. But I'm not. And your inability at introspection makes it impossible for you to grasp my intentions, which was to show how absurd your position was by reductio ad absurdum. One would think that if you really believed what you say, you'd stop arguing the same point after all these years of repetition. Your argument is a refutation of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind is an attribute of something physical. Observing it in yourself and others requires no mysticism. People have known of the mind long before Descarte.

I have made efforts to detect minds in other people's heads. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

I have been the subject of and have also worked on PET scans, fMRI scans EEGs and such like. No soap. No mind, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware of things happening in my head. I attribute them to brains, nerves, blood vessels and connective tissue. No spooks, no ghosts, no spirit and especially no Mind and no Soul. I believe in neither.

ruveyn

I have made efforts to detect apples in trees. So far I have failed. When I see the scan all I see are pits, cells, juice and connective tissue. All I detect are electrochemical events, caused by ions osmosing through semi-permeable substances.

The apple was the subject of and was worked on by PET scans, fMRI scans, EEGs and such like. No soap. No apple, only matter doings its physically dynamic thing. I am aware things happen inside the thing, but I attribute them to chemicals, juices, hormones, and connective tissue. No apples, no fruit, no taste, and especially no awareness or life. I believe in neither.

Did you intend this as a post? Something is wrong because it didn't come through. There is supposed to be a post created by some conscious being with a mind and displayed on a monitor connected to a computer, but I can't find any of that, only atoms jostling in time and space, somehow inferred as some of the constituents of objects and consciousness that don't exist. What is 'you'? Only spooks, ghosts and spirit ... Haaaalp ... trapped in philosopher's imagined universe ... desperate ... turning to solipsism ... in name of fact and genius ...

Presumably this should be directed at ruveyn The Solipsist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites