Ceisiwr wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:22 pm
Yes it does. If that's how you participate in what you describe as a debate, I can save my energy too.
I’m afraid it doesn’t since you only know those concepts through ...mind.
Yes for those scientists there is no question that what they know about deep space is real. That's what I'm talking about: you don't really tackle my remarks, you just repeat over and over "all I know goes thrrough my mind, therefore it cannot have any existence outside of it", which is a false argument.
Then how come you don't doubt that I exist, as you previously stated?
Because I don’t think you are dependent upon my mind despite being immaterial. I never stated otherwise.
Alright, then what is your alternative explanation? I haven't seen any.
To assume matter, which you do, is to assume that there is a thing separate from mental phenomenon despite the fact that you can’t possibly know this.
Yes you can, unless you remain blind to the fact that your mind has no control over those things, and that there is a clear distinction between the world of thoughts and the physical world.
But I could actually return the same to you: you can't possibly know that your mind actually generates anything, nor do you have any justification to explain why it's not the same to imagine something in your mind's eye, and to see something physical with your physical eyes.
Yes, I can shake hands with an idea. I can have sex with idea too, laugh with idea, hate idea and so on.
If you are not pulling my leg, then don't you think such a statement would deserve some elaboration? You say you reply to my every post, but compare the length of my responses with the length of yours. I think either you want to debate and you should, or you don't want to and you should say it clearly so that no one wastes anyone's time.
I think my reality is as my mind constructs it. I’m fine with that.
Yet you have no proof that your mind can actually construct anything. Daily experience strengly suggests otherwise: inability to remember, inability to foresee, inability to properly assess situations, confusion, lack of understanding, etc. are all our lot. That's a a very far shot from the "supercomputing mind" that could possibly generate the infinite complexity of the universe as we know it.
Yes. Already discussed,we're just going around in circles here.
We are since all you can know is mental in nature. You never experience anything outside of your mind.
Which explains absolutely nothing. Nor does it refute anything. Again, we've been over this before. So I suggest it might make more sense for you to rebuke what I wrote previously instead of always repeating this mantra of yours...
You reasoning (based on the one you use for the mind, so here I equate your mind with your microscope) is: "I see a yeast in a microscope. The only way I can see a yeast is through my microscope. Therefore I have no reason to believe the yeast exists, and it makes more sense to believe my microscope created that image." I don't even know what to call it, there is simply no logical relationship between your premise and the conclusion.
So, not a logical fallacy just as I thought. My logical is quite simple. All we can know is mental in nature, therefore I cannot claim that matter exists since I never experience such a thing.
Not a logical fallacy? it's a false inference at the very least. From "the only way I can see a yeast is through a microscope", it does NOT follow that "therefore it's more likely that my microscope created that image". Please rebut that. Until you haven't, none of what you say has any sound logic to it.
Are you suddenly talking about faith now? or is it still supposed to be
My faith merely enhances my empiricism. Take my faith away and I would still be arguing in a similar, although slightly different, fashion.
Well that's usrprising because as far as I know, in paṭiccasamuppāda there is a clear distinction between mental phenomena (thoughts, percetipons, etc.) and physical ones (form, action). And the complete separation between thoughts and actions are at the core of the concept. Which what youu describe seems to abolish.