Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 4:46 am
Mind reading, ad hom, insulting his intelligence, strawman, all in all an unbeliavable Dunning-Kruger word salad. In such a short comment. Congrats I think you just broke your own record.
What are you blabbering??
I did not read his mind, he admitted himself on that point in the video while insisting on his philosophical realist's position.
You said "this is the first time" he admitted the possibility. Do you know how fucked up that is? In fact we absolutely don't even need any QM for that possibility.
This has nothing to do with 'mind reading'.
I have seen many of Khalili's video and based on my experience that is the first time he did that.
'first time' or many times [if otherwise] is not critical, what matters is he did it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 3:26 am
I was not interested in your points at all.
The post was addressed to 'Fairy' and he agreed with the point discussed.
I was quoted in that post. And in neither that post nor any other did you address any specifics in my post. You simply repeat your position. It's amazing how specifics where you might actually have to show you understand and can apply your beliefs are not interesting to you. Or, perhaps 'convenient' would be a better term than 'amazing'. It's actually quite banal.
You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.
And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:10 am
You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.
And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.
And given that most scientists think the Moon persists when not perceived, their scientific FSERC would be, according to VA, the most objective.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:10 am
You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.
And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.
And given that most scientists think the Moon persists when not perceived, their scientific FSERC would be, according to VA, the most objective.
“Moon”is a label. A label known - knows nothing of any independent existence apart from the knower. The knower cannot be known without shapeshifting into an object known. And so the object known can never exist independently of the knower. Both knower and known - or, subject and object must both arise together in the exact same instance of knowing.
Human awareness knows the label known as moon, as human awareness is that which is witness to it’s own conceived concept, or thought. . . as both thought and thinker are simultaneously conceived.
Again, that’s what VA is pointing to. I’m not sure. Needs clarification, again.
No Humans = no moon that is absolutely HUMAN-mind-DEPENDENT?
Otherwise, it seems like it would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and logically futile statement (by humans anyway). Maybe even chauvinistic. It's a bit like saying, without Gary Childress, there can be no absolutely mind-independent moon. I mean, I realize the world revolves around me and me alone, but I like to be generous toward others and pretend to give you all some significance in the world too.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:10 am
You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.
And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.
I told VA a few times that the logical conclusion of his whole FSK philosophy is to conclude that realism is the way to go. Went over his head higher than the Moon.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:10 am
You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.
And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.
I told VA a few times that the logical conclusion of his whole FSK philosophy is to conclude that realism is the way to go. Went over his head higher than the Moon.
The moon's only high according to some FSKs, so be careful with that. Some mind-dependent moons are actually quite low.
No Humans = no moon that is absolutely HUMAN-mind-DEPENDENT?
Otherwise, it seems like it would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and logically futile statement (by humans anyway). Maybe even chauvinistic. It's a bit like saying, without Gary Childress, there can be no absolutely mind-independent moon. I mean, I realize the world revolves around me and me alone, but I like to be generous toward others and pretend to give you all some significance in the world too.
No Humans = no moon that is absolutely HUMAN-mind-DEPENDENT?
Otherwise, it seems like it would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and logically futile statement (by humans anyway). Maybe even chauvinistic. It's a bit like saying, without Gary Childress, there can be no absolutely mind-independent moon. I mean, I realize the world revolves around me and me alone, but I like to be generous toward others and pretend to give you all some significance in the world too.
Would you say “Gary Childress” is mind dependant?
It depends upon what is meant by "Gary Childress" and what is meant by "mind dependent." Can you clarify a little more on those questions?
No Humans = no moon that is absolutely HUMAN-mind-DEPENDENT?
Otherwise, it seems like it would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and logically futile statement (by humans anyway). Maybe even chauvinistic. It's a bit like saying, without Gary Childress, there can be no absolutely mind-independent moon. I mean, I realize the world revolves around me and me alone, but I like to be generous toward others and pretend to give you all some significance in the world too.
Would you say “Gary Childress” is mind dependant?
It depends upon what is meant by "Gary Childress" and what is meant by "mind dependent." Can you clarify a little more on those questions?
I mean is “Gary Childress” a thought? Where is Gary Childress lying in your mother’s womb. In the womb you didn’t know you existed as Gary….but now you do, so how do you know? Where did the knowledge come from that wasn’t there in the womb?
It depends upon what is meant by "Gary Childress" and what is meant by "mind dependent." Can you clarify a little more on those questions?
I mean is “Gary Childress” a thought? Where is Gary Childress lying in your mother’s womb. In the womb you didn’t know you existed as Gary….but now you do, so how do you know? Where did the knowledge come from that wasn’t there in the womb?
In some ways "Gary Childress" is a thought and in others "Gary Childress" refers to a physical being in the world. Not sure if that is what you mean or not but it's the way I see it.
It depends upon what is meant by "Gary Childress" and what is meant by "mind dependent." Can you clarify a little more on those questions?
I mean is “Gary Childress” a thought? Where is Gary Childress lying in your mother’s womb. In the womb you didn’t know you existed as Gary….but now you do, so how do you know? Where did the knowledge come from that wasn’t there in the womb?
In some ways "Gary Childress" is a thought and in others "Gary Childress" refers to a physical being in the world. Not sure if that is what you mean or not but it's the way I see it.
Thanks.
So where do thoughts come from that were not there in the physical being that was in your mother’s womb?
I’m just trying to get to the creator of the thought. That wasn’t there in the womb.
Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 6:52 pm
So where do thoughts come from that were not there in the physical being that was in your mother’s womb?
Again, what is meant by "where"? My thoughts seem to come from my brain, according to contemporary neuroscience. It seems that when my brain is gone, my thoughts might likely go bye, bye too. Not sure. Why do you ask?