No, Iacchus. You are quite simply wrong. Your post is circular because you begin by assuming what you eventually hope to conclude. You are also wrong about mine being either circular or materialist. Your circularity is independent of monism; it is circular because of the way you try to argue, not because of the specific content.
No, am merely presenting the plausibility of the argument, and asking why materialism should make sense, in and of itself.
Again, from which perspective? ... Empiricism perhaps?
I would classify it as a conclusion with premise 1 being a suitible definition of thought and premise 2 being that humans exhibit characteristics that satisfy that definition. Of course, you could argue that the definition of thought is the conclusion that it exists, however I know lots of things which are defined but don't actually exist.
Well, that one is pretty much a slam dunk.
This is, of course, a complete non-sequitor. The existence of your mind is not required for the existence of other minds. They would exist even if you weren't aware of it. You're not that important, Iacchus. Really.
For you, yes.
That would a start; luckily Thought is available, and for humans with all that neat brain & nervous system, here we are. What can you tell us about the attributes of the stuff, that in the correct configuration, we perceive as our body, and in fact is everything we perceive.
I'd agree that human level -- or better -- Thought exists. We even think we think. And you apparently think that makes it so.
And of course, as usual -- or, so it would seem -- you have mistaken me for the solipsist. I am merely proposing that there is a greater mind, of which all minds, and matter, exist.
...demonstrating to one and all that in 19 pages, Iacchus has learned nothing.
Well, we were just asked for a recap, and this says it just as well as I can. In fact I'm hoping that sooner or later Tricky will catch on, and understand that I am not speaking from the standpoint of the solipsist.
Regardless of what you think, it does illustrate what I'm trying to say.
...i.e., nothing at all.
I think that is a fair request. If you think of Iacchus as the White Queen then it is easier to understand the discussion (?) thus far.
Well, it was me you asked.
I would argue that not everything we perceive involves thought. For example, how do you keep from wetting the bed even when you are asleep? Is there not something in your body that perceives that it needs to keep your sphincters closed, even while you are not thinking about anything?
Humans do appear to be more self-aware than most creatures. That doesn't mean that they are the only ones who think though. It certainly appears that many higher animals are capable of making decisions. Do they "think" about the fact that they think? What do you think?
I am pointing out that your arguments fit those of a solipsist. You have repeatedly argued that truth is predicated on the ability of you to perceive it. Classic solipsism.
And yet your "evidence" for this greater mind is nothing more than your own evidenceless belief, which you feel is enough. If asked to explain why your belief is enough, as compared to the beliefs of others, you lapse once again into solipsism. You claim that your experience or perception is the thing that makes a proposition true or not. If you do not recognize that as solipsism, then you simply do no know the meaning of the word. (Wouldn't that be a surprise!
)The fact that I believe other minds exist, albeit within the greater mind as a whole, invalidates what you're saying here. And yes, we have no means to validate the truth (ultimately that is), except by means of the mind. That isn't to say the truth doesn't exist outside of what we think we know, however, just that we are incapable of ascertaining it fully and completely, outside of our own personal "mind-set" (and/or bias). Uh oh, did someone just mention set theory?I am pointing out that your arguments fit those of a solipsist. You have repeatedly argued that truth is predicated on the ability of you to perceive it. Classic solipsism.
And yet your "evidence" for this greater mind is nothing more than your own evidenceless belief, which you feel is enough. If asked to explain why your belief is enough, as compared to the beliefs of others, you lapse once again into solipsism. You claim that your experience or perception is the thing that makes a proposition true or not. If you do not recognize that as solipsism, then you simply do no know the meaning of the word. (Wouldn't that be a surprise!
In fact this isn't altogether different than what the materialist claims, just that I'm augmenting it with the element of a greater mind. So, I'm not discounting materialism per se', in-as-much-as I'm providing the basis for both a material and, spiritual reality.
... Mind you, this is the first time I've said Merry Christmas to anyone in at least ten years!In other words heaven reflects the greater mind, of which each individual mind (or angel) shares a similar (thought-based) reality as those who are in closest affiliation to it. So there is in fact a sharing of thoughts in heaven.
