A parallel collective running of ion currents in my brain made me say all this. What reality...

That's a cool fact of reality. — Garrett Travers

In every reality never exists.

I like this. Science admirers who don't know how to argue away what's not scientific.

Statement of reality. — Garrett Travers

For your information: never is a negation.

You believed my was nonsense was real before sending that — Garrett Travers

Your was nonsense has never been real.

No, you can't — Garrett Travers

No point in arguing with someone convinced of their own reality. Their collective motion of particles are determined. :lol:

No, you can't. — Garrett Travers

Yes I can. :lol:

Everything you're doing is predicated on a reality that is accept by you before you even begin with your nonsense. — Garrett Travers

So says your nonsense.

No you can't — Garrett Travers

Yes I can. :lol:

It's not that difficult to transform reality in a scientific materialistic picture. It's just an empty picture.

You already have accepted it. Evinced by your responding to me.
now — Garrett Travers

I haven't accepted it. But I can talk about it.

No, that's what you have to do, or you'll continue being dismissed — Garrett Travers

Now you are threatening me? Good argument!

They were vaporized — Garrett Travers

And what vaporized them?

A point of any kind would suffice, really — Garrett Travers

Then you have to accept that reality first.

Reality. — Garrett Travers

So do the mystics.

It's not possible to argue against assertions of non-existent substance that is claimed no evidence is needed for. You're not arguing here, on this. You're just saying things. — Garrett Travers

I just ignore scientific reality. Precisely because I know about it. What's to argue?

Where do the mystics keep churning these guys out of? Fucking Rivendell?? — Garrett Travers

Where do the scientific realists keep churning guys like you out? Heterotic string theory in 26 dimensions?

The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it.
— EugeneW
Of course it is ... :lol: — 180 Proof

:rofl:

All that remains if arguments don't work anymore. Laughing.

That's exactly the reason they're not interested in that reality.

Dark energy is no proof of gods. It's just as electricity. Of which you said it's no sign of God. It's the existence of the whole universe that is proof. Who else could have blown it in existence? Dark energy is not God blowing us apart.

The discovery of Dark Energy acting unlike a mere physical force is our newest rational possibility for the existence of God. — Joe Mello

That would be more proof of dark demons driving all apart. But it makes room for follow up. And probably we are a follow up too.

There are many ways to talk about the world. There are many worlds in the universe. There is 'possibly' many universes in the vacuum. Even many vacua ... That is aspect-pluralism — 180 Proof

As seen in scientific realism. But that's not the only realism. Many universes in the vacuum? What vacuum? Eternal inflation is a fantasy.

When you say, Eugene, in effect that "objective = subjective" you are asserting a contradiction (i.e. necessary falsehood) and therefore spouting nonsense. — 180 Proof

If I would write it like you do, objective=subjective, yes. But I don't. For you there is a contradiction because it contradicts your objective reality. But that's not the only objective reality. The today's temperature is 12 degrees for everyone who adopts that standard. The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it.

Why is it so difficult to believe there can be more than one objective reality?

People want objectivity. Even if its subjective. Who is the arbiter? Reality? That's circular.

. all objective truths are subjective
An exemplary self-refuting statement — 180 Proof

If you adopt a truth like yours, yes. But outside of it, no. Every truth has is own measure of truth or not true. And I know where you wanna go. But what if some proclaim an obvious fantasy for truth...

So it's wholly arbitrary – "subjective" as you say – whether or not one adopts "relativism as an approach" to truth? :eyes: — 180 Proof

It's not wholly arbitrary. Every truth, once adopted, has its own way of proving thing objectively true.

It's that which resides in the functioning systems.

EugeneW Is what relativism says "about truth" true or not? — 180 Proof

Neither. Like absolutism it is an approach to truth, not a truth on its own. It just says all objective truths are subjective.

if consistent, then relativism is relative; if inconsistent, then relativism refutes itself) — 180 Proof

So the argument goes. If all truths are relative, then also relativism is relative. But relativism speaks *about* truths. About their nature. It doesn't speak about its own truth. It's an approach. Like absolutism.

Mind in that sense is an emergent property that arises from the interaction of the behaviors of neurons and other elements of the nervous system and other bodily systems. — T Clark

This assumes that mind resides outside the neurons, like temperature resides outside particles. Emergence is not a fundamental. Interaction is an epiphenomenon. A reasonable position but it overlooks what's going on inside the neurons.

Well, almost. More like nested loops. I'm the outside loop watching and influencing the inside loops that affect me as a loop.

Maybe the material world is an epiphenomenon of its ingredients. I mean, if you say that the mind is an epiphenomenon, going along with physical processes, you can just as well contend the inverse, i.e. physical processes being the epiphenomenon.

Do you know what do you excess of? hypocrisy — javi2541997

How do you infer hypocrisy here? What means Washington? Was?

What would a physicalist explanation of mind look like? — Agent Smith

We physicalists need to introduce a new ingredient with explanatory power. Let's call that ingredient X. Then what is X? Is it matter? No. Is it interaction. No. Is it X? Yes! But X alone won't do. We need an Y too. Then what is Y? Is it matter? No. Is it interaction? No. Is it Y? Yes!
There you go.

How can something that can't be counted be mathematical? — Agent Smith

Can a surface be counted? Area can but the surface itself?

Non possum ridens...
I can't help laughing...

Jesus Joe! What is the matter with you? I've done too much school already. I don't need school to know what the world is made of. Nor to know what gods are made of. I can feel it.

Eugene, would you really let us down because you do not want to share your intelligence? — javi2541997

Okay then. Tell me Javi(er?). What do you want to know?

Why is it good to be modest? You are the one being rude, not me. Maybe that sounds rude though.