The Metaphysical Consciousness

Slowvehicle said:
<snip, of much off-topic non-discussion, for focus>
Click to expand...
This evasion has been noted, and has been added to your evasion to reply to a simple first step like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.

Slowvehicle said:
As is consciousness, which is why it is entertainingly diagnostic when you try to pretend that it "objectively" represents "the" "invariant".
Click to expand...
Consciousness is not different from being invariant AND variant and since this linkage is the core of actual reality in the first place, wo-subjective-only variant-only observers like you get the following as problems:

1. The Mind-Body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem).

2. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences).
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please support your claims by actually reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10199152&postcount=793 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10200548&postcount=803.

The stage is yours :popcorn1
Click to expand...

You persist in pretending that you may shift the onus at your whim. You may not, not if you have any aspirations of being taken seriously.

I have explained to you, "in details" why your woo!-formulations deserve no more than the shrift they are getting, if that; you have continued to ignore that post.

Your claims, your onus, your "stage".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This evasion has been noted, and has been added to your evasion to reply to a simple first step like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566.


Consciousness is not different from being invariant AND variant and since this linkage is the core of actual reality in the first place, wo-subjective-only variant-only observers like you get the following as problems:

1. The Mind-Body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem).

2. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences).
Click to expand...

The mind-body problem is how to keep the two together.
 
tsig said:
The mind-body problem is how to keep the two together.
Click to expand...
Unless both have a common source.

In this case no efforts are needed in order to them together.

Moreover, the common source enables the development of natural harmony among them.
 
doronshadmi said:
Unless both have a common source.

In this case no efforts are needed in order to them together.

Moreover, the common source enables the development of natural harmony among them.
Click to expand...
A common source does not in any way guarantee that things will stay together.

People and chimpanzees have a common source, but me and my shadow, we see no chimpanzee, nor does the common tree mean we need not nail the rafters to the walls to keep the wind from blowing off the roof.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please provide the link to this detailed explanation, that was (according to your claim) ignored by me.

Please also support your "As is consciousness" argument in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10199348&postcount=796.
Click to expand...

Tell you what:

Instead, why don't you actually read my explanation to you as to why your half-formed, inconsistent, ungrammatical and unsupported assertions do not admit of analysis "in details"? It will have leapt out at you if you have actually read the thread.

That would be a useful start.
 
bruto said:
A common source does not in any way guarantee that.
Click to expand...

It is true about relative common source.

I am talking about an absolute common source for all relative phenomena, that can't be known as long as we are only talking (or thinking) about it.

Moreover a real absolute common source is not influenced by space\time changes, and your example uses a (relative) common source that is influenced by space\time changes.

Once again the relative-only variant-only view is used as the only game in the neighborhood.

Please also reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10195772&postcount=783.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is true about relative common source.

I am talking about an absolute common source for all relative phenomena, that can't be known as long as we are only talking (or thinking) about it.

Moreover a real absolute common source is not influenced by space\time changes, and your example uses a (relative) common source that is influenced by space\time changes.

Once again the relative-only variant-only view is used as the only game in the neighborhood.

Please also reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10195772&postcount=783.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

This is meaningless, new-age word salad - regardless of the poster's native language. How people keep this mumbo-jumbo in their heads and actually interact- productively, and honestly - with the world around them is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom