Search:

lol

You don't think this is inevitable??

The claim was that comparision is the essence of mind. No one is arguing that comparison is not a mental event.

And this is hardly fodder....

And despite my efforts, no one has approached this...

TT,

There's no need to resort to particular references. All that is required, in making an argument, is premisses and a conclusion, in valid form.

Tossing about URL's to support yourself will...

This is philosphy; semantics is always important, and never petty.

In any case, no, I wouldn't be so stringent as to require that you prove consciousness to be separate from matter. That would be...

swivel,

Look up one post.

As I explained, TT does not understand the term Materialist.

Firstly, your response addressed none of my points.
Secondly, I didn't ask for, nor do I need, explication of the points you made in the previous post.

To the point: reiteration does not make an...

We don't.

I was with you up until this paragraph. Everything preceding it is accepted, if not obvious.
However, everything in this paragraph is unsubstantiated non sequitor. None of this is remotely related...

Nicely put together.

Nonetheless, what is your point?

Interesting points swivel, but you've stopped too early. Every sentence of TT's here is tautologous.

I did indeed read your posts and the links. None of this accounts for some 'other-physics'.




I did.

Surely you can realize that being under the influence of an hallucinogenic does not...

If you hold that we do not receive the same data, then the onus is upon you to account for this. Some sort of 'subjective' denial of ontological reality? And the accompanying refutation of the past...

Exactly.
Thanks P-J.

Basically, what I'm supporting here is Kant's concept of apperception: we are physical creatures with various means of gathering sensory data, data that we are constantly...

lol...
That was garbage.

Check this out:

Jorden

Rather than just say: ibid, I'll simply make 2 points.

1) We're in the philosophy section; that 'dictionary' is invalid.

2) Interesting, but inconclusive. In any case, what we're seeing...

And?

To my mind, that doesn't make him a villain.

Most contemporary action movies and TV shows have protagonist 'good guys' who cruise around shooting, sniping, blowing up and otherwise slaying...

Of course you do, but this isn't a case of controlling perception. Once can control when one perceives, and sometimes how well, but not the very action.





This is not control of...

I admit that there is certainly sensory data. As for mind, depending on the definition, I will concede that we're all talking about the same basic concept. However, I am indeed suggesting that...

You miss my point. By analogy, I was simply pointing out that your statement was tautologous, and therefore, pointless.





Which was my point.

Holy f'ing inbreds.

It's legal in the States to marry your first cousin????
Well, I guess that explains quite a lot...


p.s.: Muslim: What exactly would non-technical marriage be????

PJ,

Don't you think you're 'hijacking' the thread here by spinning this (your) interpretation on the question at hand?

I think it goes without saying that two differently constructed eyes would...

Old???

Eeek.

Remote control (for TV, obviously..).

Uh... back- bacon? Dill-pickle chips?

Oh, and Tim Horton's of course.....(as sad as that is... f'ing Tim's)

Fair enough.

Nevertheless, I disagree with your ad hoc definition of villian.

Wake up people....

The Surfer was never a villian.

Just because he was Galactus' herald doesn't mean he was a 'baddie'.




geeez