If you scramble the language, you scramble the mind.
“matter” is an idea.
Period.
Right?
or is it not an idea?
Yes, of course, it is.
So: without mind, no matter. Logic.
Mr R - try to smell without being conscious. “particle” “nostrils” “enters”
now think these things existences without using your mind
Yall well underneath level 101.
barbarianhorde
Inventors have “ideas” or thoughts/reflections in their minds. Are their inventions considered to be a part of matter or matter BEFORE they are created in physical form, before they come to fruition?
What you just said, for me, is like putting the cart before the horse.
You became matter at conception. Before that time, you were simply an “idea” or a non-idea. lol
This actually might go back to the scent of the rose ~~ matter or non matter.
Ideas “rise up” from the mind like the scent of the rose rises up. I think that one can even equate an idea to a scent - can one say that an idea is like a sensation or a scent given off by the mind? It is the brain’s or the mind’s achievement before becoming physical reality of some sort.
Yes, what you say is logical BUT you can just as well say: Without mind, sometime in the future without the utilization of mind, there will be no matter.
Michelangelo looked at the block of marble and saw an “idea” within it. That idea later formed the matter or material from which David sprung in a matter of speaking.
But what he saw was the immaterial or idea within the material.
So stop doing it. If smelling something is a result of matter stimulating your nostrils by moving into them, then why make that metaphor in defense of mind body duality?
Perhaps if you start by learning what a metaphor is. Then perhaps one day you’ll discover who was scrambling and who was straightening … and the use and limits of metaphor.
… none of which has to do with the point that odor is not a molecule (over-materialization).
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
There are better arguments for your position than the ones you’re giving. Do you want to swap and you be the one reducing mind to matter and I’ll take the opposite stance?
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
[/quote]
Your ego had already beat me to it.
No there are not. You are simply not following.
What do you think the “opposite stance” is? And what makes you are in opposition to me?
… like I said … just not following.
James, your ego. Please.
If you think that one side or the other in the mind/body debate can defeat the other, then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem or the means by which it must be addressed.
To play this game, you can’t actually believe that the problem can be resolved. It’s an exercise in critical thinking and constructing arguments. Ad homs are evidence of poor arguments.
And if you think that an ingrained drugged up perspective gives you an edge, “then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem”.
I’ll tell you once more, You are not following the conversation.
So you’re sticking with your attack the man strategy here? Very disappointed James. If you’re better than that, then act like it.
I mean, just how much ego does it take to presume that you’ve solved the mind/body problem? Really.
You’re typing in your sleep.
I see. Your argument is very persuasive. You’ve just officially solved the mind/body problem. Good work buddy. I’m proud of you.
surreptitious57 wrote:
For example, there is no proven explanation for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules, it is impossible and the Big Bang concept is an evolutionary idea, that has never been proven and should be left empty. Science is supposed to be knowledge, that is demonstrated, observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proven, or even tested, only believed. As in religion, christians believe it to be true and acknowledge the fact that they believe it. In science, however, it is not supposed to be something one 'believes", science is essentially knowledge and evolution is something not proven or tested, yet there are scientists who accept this unproven concept and believe it, so this essentially creates a religious element out of evolution. Amazing.
new science … new to humans that is … usually follows imagination … or by accident … without imagination how much new science would we have?
one could argue that imagination is the “mother” of science.
For example … take Einstein’s theory of relativity … he imagined it … others proved it.
maas.museum/inside-the-collecti … alia-1922/
We all have a faculty for imagination … though some argue that the world’s education systems … at least some … those school systems reserved for the privileged class may be an exception … are designed to suppress imagination/creativity