Only try to realize the truth, zumbo.

There is no stone

But also consider, there is no "there" there.

don't even get me started on "is"

without air, the planet and vegetation, the sun, the solar system, and so on, the human process wouldnt exist. Processes affect other processes in a constant feedback loop.



I dont know. Do you apply the same things to other processes, eg weather, earthquakes?



I have never said "thoughts dont exist".
Nothing about what I have said is mystical. Anyone can see it.

This is what I said on my input into the thread

I dont see any deepities there?

On introspection, you realize that everything you thought you did, is just happening automatically. You aren't doing your thoughts for example, they just appear and disappear. You also find there is no such thing as mind. Its just a convenient label.

This quote in itself is nothing but a convenient label to cause anxiety within. Do you consider 'within' to exist? What if 'within' is defined as a generalized direction opposed to a crossing of a boundary? You clearly believe in ideas, rules, it does not make sense to have difficulty in comprehending that you exisat based upon that, and that furthermore you can exist in more than one 'place'. My arm can be anathematized and camouflaged and I may believe I don't have one through intervention, but it's still there for me to get knowledge and control of it again.

Anyway I didn't really get much of this thread, but thankyou to well named. I'm all past this stuff generally and didn't intend the thread to get so much posts.

I don't see the relevance. Where is the empirical and philosophical justification for your comment that "it's all one process" and more importantly how does it support your wider claim that "there is no such thing as consciousness". I'm not disputing that processes affect other processes.

No. Do you use a barometer to measure both weather processes and photosynthesis processes?

You've said it in the past, I'm 99% sure, but regardless, I take "there is no such thing as consciousness" to be more or less the same thing. Replace my use of "thoughts" with "consciousness" if it will move things along.

Ok how about this:

Cognitive neuroscientists believe that networks of neurons "do the cognizing". So apparently you think neuroscientists study something that doesn't exist?

When I was a youngster, my little brother videotaped 'Teen Wolf' off the telly. On the sticky label he wrote a synopsis of the plot, the content of which had come PURELY from the trailer adverts. As a result, the plot synopsis was hilariously wrong: character relationships misinterpreted, chronology all wrong etc etc.

Your view on the mind is very similar. There is a ton of interesting debate to be had on the subject, whether from the perspective of philosophy of mind, or from the perspective of neuroscience and psychology. However, you never use any of this extensive academic material in your posts. Instead, you seem to have half-watched a couple of Sam Harris videos on Youtube, and come up with a commensurately half-baked and unscientific synopsis of his points.

I don't see the relevance. Where is the empirical and philosophical justification for your comment that "it's all one process"

he gave you this answer with 'cause and effect' and you repeat question (altho second question is valid)

so tedious debate. enjoy thread i'm out. i will just read about some stuff in library to strengthen my side in the later questions

Neeeel, would you agree or disagree with this:

"You find that there is no separation between what is photosynthesised, and what is doing the photosynthesising. Furthermore, there is no "thing" that is doing the photosynthesising."

Because, to me, those look like equivalent (and equally ridiculous) claims.

If two processes feed into each other, affect each other, and are inextricably linked with each other, in what way are they not the same process? Other than you arbitrarily delineating it.

My comment about processes was not mean to support my wider claim that there is no consciousness. And I make no claim that it does support it.




I also commented on this when i talked about how

On introspection, I have no experience of "neurons doing the cognizing", and yet it seems rational to think that the brain must be the seat of consciousness

I would agree.
Can you have photosynthesis without a plant?
can you have photosynthesis without water? without sunlight?
Is the plant "doing" the photosynthesis? like is it actively working to make it happen? Or is it just happening when the right conditions( plant sunlight water) happen?

Can you have a plant without earth? Can you have liquid water without the conditions that support the existence of liquid water. Can you have sunlight without a sun , and an ozone layer to filter out the damaging UV light?

Can you have any of these things without a big bang and billions of years of cosmic and earth based evolution?

Photosynthesis is just the label we put on part of the process. But it doesnt exist of its own right. It doesnt exist inherently as a thing. Things cant exist where the conditions dont support them existing.

I suppose I look like an idiot coming back.

The separation is time.

Neel,

[O][O][O][ ] = Something made of things,
[O][ ][ ][ ] = Another thing
[ ][ ][ ][ ] = All things

(next int he sequence all things starts to be a thing

Yes. You imply it is one way process, the plant is doing the photosynthesis and the photosynthesis is doing the plant. They are both things, existing in their own right, because you ask these series of questions you do not look small enough, into where things become curved/spiral. There will be a finite number of 'things' that we are made of in a hypothetically viewable instance, but because that subset is infinite in monomer, we just view it as one, and compare it to grander infinities (external)

Just by asking the question is confirming it's reality. Why can't someone be responsible for a perceptions existence? If viewing it elsewhere it is fragmented and unrecognizable.