Dimebag wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 12:08 pm
Our brains are pattern recognition machines, and action producing machines.
Essentially our mind is a self contained system, but due to this semi permeability it means information can enter it, and actions can be produced by it, which allows that the system can grow, change and learn.
I'm more or less with you so far. I don't think this fits with his model of reality, but hey, let's see where
this goes.
If our minds were truly self contained with no permeability no information could enter them, and no actions could ever arise due to it.
Unless solipsism is the case. I suggested his position sounded like solipsism and he hasn't confirmed or countered this.
Just as a cell is both a self contained system but allows nutrients in, and can produce meaningful actions, our own minds also share this property.
With you.
I think the problem is, this user thinks they can gain truth through syllogisms but doesn’t see their biases they introduce to each new syllogistic premise.
Yes. I said there were leaps, but this is another way of saying the same thing. In any case, he doesn't seem to notice that portions are analytical - or tautologies. You can't know what can't be known, is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase of one of his premises; and that portions have assumptions (biases) that are not supported. They may be correct. But there are missing pieces in his argument.
They do not see the dependency of their conclusions based on their biases, and so if they did might choose a different form of reasoning, and maybe add some permeability to their own thought process to allow an updating to occur.
Yes, I haven't give up yet, but his responses to me and FDP are not encouraging. I think people in general overestimate deduction. We know that there have been seemingly self-evident deduction processes that later turned out to be incorrect. This is true in society, in physics, likely all sciences, in social relations, in the humanities.....
No problem really, but the words 'proof' and 'prove' is used way too often.
It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
If he means this only to apply to him, well what's the interest to us? If he means we don't exist and there is only his mind, it would help if he would say he is a solipsist? If he is not a solipcist and he thinks this statement applies to all of us....how could be possibly know, since we are not inside his mind. If there is, as you suggested, some interpenetration, great. But if it is only partial, then he can't know the limits of our ability to know things. A look at his other 'proof' related to being God, many more problems come in, because he considers his mind all powerful. If that is the case, there cannot be mere partial interpentration.
I'll quote in his other 'proof' because I think it makes his problems even more glaring and is relevant to the one in this thread....
1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists
It seems like he is suggesting ontological idealism, in the argument in this thread. Possibly epistemological idealism. And then a kind of rationalism. It pretty much can't be a kind of empiricism. The mind is all there is. It is not learning about reality via experience but via direct contact. Everything is direct contact or no contact.