Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 12:36 am
Very good. You've arrived.

Wow! Give Him my regards.

It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years. They made no difference to Him whatsoever. I spoke to Him for 50 years... His silence was finally deafening.

But apparently you 'know' Him.

So, you have an idioslexis of 'knowledge', based on idioslexes of coherent, justified and true.

If They, i.e. Love, were the ground of being, it would be obvious. They would be necessary. The barely evolved tribal desert warrior storm god of the Bible is not. And He reverts to type on steroids. The incompetent Loveless fundamentalist God of the NT alone is not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:27 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:12 am Mind exists. By physicalism.

It exists. But not by physicalism.

Give me, please, the physical dimensions of rationality. How many ounces in a personality? What is the weight of a thought? What's the volume of logic, and how many pieces does "a morality" have?

You can see very easily that it's utterly foolish to attribute physical characteristics to mental phenomena. It's so obviously just a category error. And yet, as you insist, mind does exist. So how does it exist, if physicalism were true? Mental phenomena have no physical characteristics.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:40 pm[As the non-physical is meaningless].

Ummm...do you know what "category error" means? It has nothing to do with the reality of something, and everything to do with the category into which one classifies them. You'd better look that up.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:40 pm[Because physicalism is true]

Logically, you get your choice, but not both: if mind exists, physicalism is false. If physicalism is true, mind does not exist...but since you're using your mind to do philosophy right now, and even to do such a rudimentary activity as doubting....well, you can draw the right conclusion, if that mind is working at all.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:02 am
Wow! Give Him my regards.

It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years.

In what form? Where did you go? What did you do?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:27 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:12 am Mind exists. By physicalism.

It exists. But not by physicalism.

Give me, please, the physical dimensions of rationality. How many ounces in a personality? What is the weight of a thought? What's the volume of logic, and how many pieces does "a morality" have?

You can see very easily that it's utterly foolish to attribute physical characteristics to mental phenomena. It's so obviously just a category error. And yet, as you insist, mind does exist. So how does it exist, if physicalism were true? Mental phenomena have no physical characteristics.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:40 pm[As the non-physical is meaningless].

Ummm...do you know what "category error" means? It has nothing to do with the reality of something, and everything to do with the category into which one classifies them. You'd better look that up.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:40 pm[Because physicalism is true]

Logically, you get your choice, but not both: if mind exists, physicalism is false. If physicalism is true, mind does not exist...but since you're using your mind to do philosophy right now, and even to do such a rudimentary activity as doubting....well, you can draw the right conclusion, if that mind is working at all.

You'd better categorically shit, and not your weak, hostile, projected, ad hominem, crap, or get off the pot.

How, if mind exists, is physicalism false? Why? Why is your faith so weak? Why do you have to start with belief, make your next mistake of crippling reason with it, and then use that doubly inadequate combination to tilt futilely at unfettered, unadulterated, reason.

Honest believers never do that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:13 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm
It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years.

In what form? Where did you go? What did you do?

The wrong form, wrong place, wrong things, I'm sure. No matter what. You'll know better. This I know. You're right. I'm wrong. Because. What happened to you mate? Where's your faith?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:09 pm ad hominem,

You need to look that one up, too. Nothing I said was the least ad hom.

How, if mind exists, is physicalism false?

Because physicalism, because of its own commitments, has to insist that mind is brain, and nothing different...so it really doesn't exist at all, just brain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:38 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:09 pm ad hominem,

You need to look that one up, too. Nothing I said was the least ad hom.

How, if mind exists, is physicalism false?

Because physicalism, because of its own commitments, has to insist that mind is brain, and nothing different...so it really doesn't exist at all, just brain.

That is ad hominem. Prat. Like that.

Sorry, mind as a brain state, a matter state, doesn't exist? If you say so. If you believe so. For you. Not in any disinterested, transferable, communicable, convergent, consensual, consilient way. You 'know' it too. Likewise.

Where's your faith? What in?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:13 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm
I gave Him my regards for 50 years.

In what form? Where did you go? What did you do?

The wrong form, wrong place, wrong things, I'm sure.

No, it's a sincere question: I was just wondering what your personal search had looked like. Since I don't know you personally, I can't guess. I was offering you a chance to say, if you wanted to.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:38 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:09 pm ad hominem,

You need to look that one up, too. Nothing I said was the least ad hom.

How, if mind exists, is physicalism false?

Because physicalism, because of its own commitments, has to insist that mind is brain, and nothing different...so it really doesn't exist at all, just brain.

That is ad hominem. Prat. Like that.

How? No part of my response says anything at all about your person. It all pertains to your content. So how can it be "to the person" (ad hom.)?

Sorry, mind as a brain state, a matter state, doesn't exist? If you say so.

Only Materialism, Physicalism and such say so. I don't.

P.S. -- Oh, I see... When I write "Materialism" or "Physicalism," you convert that into "you," mentally. You think I'm making a claim about what Materialists or Physicalists do, and you think that's ad hom. Is that right?

No, I don't mean to make a comment about persons. I'm just talking about what the ideology of Materialism, Naturalism or Physicalism require of adherents who wish to be logically consistent with their beliefs. I'm challenging the ideologies, not the people. The people often don't follow their own belief system to the logically-required ends, I know.

MY content. Foe. You're a waste of bandwidth. And you have no faith.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:51 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:13 pm
In what form? Where did you go? What did you do?

The wrong form, wrong place, wrong things, I'm sure.

No, it's a sincere question: I was just wondering what your personal search had looked like. Since I don't know you personally, I can't guess. I was offering you a chance to say, if you wanted to.

OK friend, viewtopic.php?p=766217#p766217 We'll see won't we? And what happened to you? I'm more than happy to tell, interpolate the story, in as clinical a fashion as possible. I reflect back your offer. What path your being a believing machine took. The journey is far more significant and Rogerianly interesting than the destination.

PS Truce. Therefore my apologies for my John Cleese Sir Lancelot https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r ... &FORM=VIRE impersonation. Beware. Leopards. Spots.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:02 am
Wow! Give Him my regards.

It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years. They made no difference to Him whatsoever. I spoke to Him for 50 years... His silence was finally deafening.

But apparently you 'know' Him.

So, you have an idioslexis of 'knowledge', based on idioslexes of coherent, justified and true.

If They, i.e. Love, were the ground of being, it would be obvious. They would be necessary. The barely evolved tribal desert warrior storm god of the Bible is not. And He reverts to type on steroids. The incompetent Loveless fundamentalist God of the NT alone is not.

Love is a Platonic idea that because it's a Platonic Form it underlies all culturally relative ideas of love.

The evil you refer to is absence of love, and is often presence of fear.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:38 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:09 pm ad hominem,

You need to look that one up, too. Nothing I said was the least ad hom.

How, if mind exists, is physicalism false?

Because physicalism, because of its own commitments, has to insist that mind is brain, and nothing different...so it really doesn't exist at all, just brain.

That is ad hominem. Prat. Like that.

Sorry, mind as a brain state, a matter state, doesn't exist? If you say so. If you believe so. For you. Not in any disinterested, transferable, communicable, convergent, consensual, consilient way. You 'know' it too. Likewise.

Where's your faith? What in?

Physicalism holds that mind exists as epiphenomenon.
epiphenomenon
/ˌɛpɪfəˈnɒmɪnən/
noun
a secondary effect or by-product.
Medicine
a secondary symptom, occurring simultaneously with a disease or condition but not directly related to it.
a mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:02 am
Wow! Give Him my regards.

It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years. They made no difference to Him whatsoever. I spoke to Him for 50 years... His silence was finally deafening.

But apparently you 'know' Him.

So, you have an idioslexis of 'knowledge', based on idioslexes of coherent, justified and true.

If They, i.e. Love, were the ground of being, it would be obvious. They would be necessary. The barely evolved tribal desert warrior storm god of the Bible is not. And He reverts to type on steroids. The incompetent Loveless fundamentalist God of the NT alone is not.

Martin it sounds to me that you need to separate the baby from the dirty bath water. Or sort the gold from the dross. This has been done by experienced panners for gold , and metaphorically by philosophers and historians of religion.

As modern people we begin with history and anthropology of the people who were concerned with God of The Bible. Immanuel who is a Biblical literalist does not submit his reading to history or anthropology.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 10:47 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 2:28 pm
It's your own "regards" that would make any difference. I can't give Him that on your behalf. You'll have to speak to Him yourself...

I gave Him my regards for 50 years. They made no difference to Him whatsoever. I spoke to Him for 50 years... His silence was finally deafening.

But apparently you 'know' Him.

So, you have an idioslexis of 'knowledge', based on idioslexes of coherent, justified and true.

If They, i.e. Love, were the ground of being, it would be obvious. They would be necessary. The barely evolved tribal desert warrior storm god of the Bible is not. And He reverts to type on steroids. The incompetent Loveless fundamentalist God of the NT alone is not.

Martin it sounds to me that you need to separate the baby from the dirty bath water. Or sort the gold from the dross. This has been done by experienced panners for gold , and metaphorically by philosophers and historians of religion.

As modern people we begin with history and anthropology of the people who were concerned with God of The Bible. Immanuel who is a Biblical literalist does not submit his reading to history or anthropology.

There's no baby Belinda. No unnatural intrusion in to nature. We'd all, every creature, know it. All Christians are fundamentalists apart from at the emergent edge, and historical outliers like George MacDonald. Text-bound. The God of the solus textus is utterly inadequate. I can make up a far better one going beyond it, where God is actually Love, not mere love, Who immediately shatters Occam's razor. I'd know Them if they intruded, excessed (derived from Ian M. Banks peerless Excession). But they haven't left a trace. All we have is our belief stories. No fossil.