logical bob wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is nothing surprising about the physical basis of the mind and consciousness. It's all in your head.

What you did there. I see it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:My discourse makes few claims to anything. None of it disallows philosophy but of course I belittle it. What is certainly not claimed is that my experience is anything other than a few hundred milliseconds of confused biological goo. What does make a difference is accumulated knowledge or the developmental aspect. This is where you will find science and other useful things.

On understanding subjectivity or introspection you really need to come current with some of the efforts being made so you at least understand the domain of discourse.

Philosophers and woo-farmers have made this all much more ridiculous and complicated than it actually is. There is nothing surprising about the physical basis of the mind and consciousness. It's all in your head.

Do you have something to say about introspection and the problem of 'object persistence'?

I don't see that they are particularly related.

Reading a book called Scientific Introspection. He makes quite a case for it.

SpeedOfSound wrote: It's about math. In particular something about sets and transformations.

Bob? Bob? Come in, Bob!

I think this is pretty funny, but it's a bit of an in-joke privileging the few over the many:

http://community.asdlib.org/blog/archives/116

Check for spelling errors.

What on earth would Aunt Agatha makes of that?

logical bob wrote:What on earth would Aunt Agatha makes of that?

It's just a small digression, in which somebody cites "Worcester Polytechnic Institute" (wpi.edu) as "Wooster Polytechnic". This has got to be funny to somebody here besides me.

I'm thinking of The Immanuel Kant Laboratory for Spoon Bending Research.

logical bob wrote:I know.

Oh, fuck me sideways with a badger.

In my part of the world we spot outsiders by their inability to pronounce Cirencester (Siren-sester) and Bicester (rhymes with sister). When someone says Bi-sester we suck on out teeth and go "you ba'int from round here are you?"

After a three-week absence I see too many pages to read all the posts...I skimmed some of them... so let me start by replying generally. Thanks to those who welcomed me here, and to those who liked my post.

Jamest said: "S-Humanist made a post that included a lot of valuation, with zero justification. I suspect that he/she just didn't realise what he/she was doing."

It is true that I made some assumptions, including many unspoken ones. All arguments do or they would be extremely complex and wordy. *The ones not spoken of are often those that most readers agreed with already, so they are conveniently left out. That was my tact here. Given the replies, I think I was correct.

Of course this does not mean that I am aware of all the implicit assumptions beneath my words, or that commonly held assumptions are always correct, or that ALL would agree to them, and apparently you are an exception.

In short, I did not feel that most of my evaluations needed much justification, but perhaps they need some clarification as to what I MEAN. When I talk about an argument being practical or useful, I meant one or more of the following:

1. That it explains phenomena, and the more the better. That is a useful means of painting a picture or map of the world: A world of known interacting forces reacting in predictable manners strongly suggesting cause and effect.
2. That it allows us to make reasonably reliable predictions. Predictions that either lead to further knowledge or that help us in everyday life.

That's all I meant by the word "useful".