I suggest you ask a Greek linguist instead of me. — Lionino

I thought you could be a Greek, but don't appear so.

Whatever. OK I will not try any more clarification with you. I hope you will understand the points, and learn about it.

Soul is supposed to be a separate entity from body, and acclaim to survive after death of body, I understand. But mind has no physical entity. It just operates in the form of mental activities demonstrating reasoning, imagining, believing, using languages etc.

Mind dies when the body dies. It doesn't survive bodily death at all. Hence the two are different. They cannot be the same. Existence of soul is mostly believed by the religious people, which I am not. But then belief and faith issues are subject to change in during the course of one's life.

Ah, the good ol' head in the sand approach. The existence of Christians is groundless rumour or opinion.


There are people on this forum who don't believe mind comes exclusively from the brain. Take your head out of the sand and look around. — flannel jesus

The religious folks believe in the existence of souls, not the minds with intelligence reasoning and intuitions. You are conflating the two. They are totally different things in nature.

so do you agree or disagree with that text from me that you quoted?

If you disagree, then what standard definition of "everyone" makes true the statement "Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain"? — flannel jesus

I was just pointing out and making clear that your insistence that "Everyone knows mind emerges from brain is wrong." I believe that your claim was wrong.

For the other folks you claim to exist who don't believe that mind emerges from brain, I am not sure. I have not met any of them in my whole life. So I am taking that claim as a groundless rumour or opinion.

"Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain" is an untrue statement for any standard or colloquial use of 'everyone'. — flannel jesus

When someone says "Everyone turned up this morning." You can't say he was wrong because Elvis Presley, Immanuel Kant, Joe Biden, Vladmir Putin and Xie Jinping also didn't turn up.

From Everyone knows P, you can't induce some particular group of people or individual also knows P.

And I guess that's why you want to call it an "indirect experience", while I'm kind of inclined to just not use the word "experience" for it - I mean, I would if we were speaking colloquially of course, conversationally, but in this conversation I feel pulled to not use the word 'experience' for things other than those raw things we experience. — flannel jesus

Everyone knows P. In that sentence "Everyone" has no existential instance even in logic. It is a universal quantifier pronoun for further inducing any existential instances if needed. All along you have been barking at the wrong tree claiming it is wrong. It is not a correct way of seeking truth.

Anyway, you still have not answered the question where does mind come from, if it is not from brain.

that's right, explaining it in "logical terms" from you didn't work, because your only definitions of "everyone" were either (a) not normal at all and completely arbitrary, or (b) left the claim untrue — flannel jesus

∀xKp = Everyone knows P (has no existential instance)
∀x∃(X1 .... Xn)Kp = Everyone in the class, group, I know, I met, ...Xn knows P (has existential instance)

Therefore the universal quantifier pronoun "Everyone" has no existential instance on its own in a sentence. Existential instance only emerges with further limiting quantifier connected to the universal quantifier. You have been barking at the wrong tree in all your posts.

Greeks did not have theories of truth like we have today, but many philosophers back then talked about what truth is. How can they not have a concept of truth? — Lionino

Talking about true things and truths doesn't verify that they had real concept of truth. It just means that they were expressing their psychological state or intention to indicate that they agreed to something, they feel something is right, or they have unconcealed something from the hidden.

First you said it means unconcealed, now this. Which one is it? — Lionino

Unhidden and unconcealment was the Etymology, and concrete existence opposed to mere appearance or beliefs is Epistemology.

What today's concept of truth? — Lionino

Today's concept of truth is vastly broader with the modal logic, fuzzi logic and dynamic, epistemic logic ... etc etc and Science has many different concept of truth too.

Greeks knew that "the sky is blue" is true and "the sky is green" is false. — Lionino

The sky is blue is not always true. The sky is black at nights, and grey in cloudy days. The sky is green is true if you wore a green sunglass and look at the sky. Hence, the sky is blue is only true when the sky is blue. The sky is green is true when you wear a green colour lensed sunglasses and look at the sky, or through the green glass of the window.

That "true" does not match "alithís" is a mootpoint, — Lionino

That sentence is false.

It is also difficult to translate "truly" into the Greek word "alithinos", for the reason I brought up above. It is also difficult to translate "demokratia" into the English word "democracy". Despite not having read the article, I don't think Jan Szaif's point is that Greek had no word for truth. — Lionino

Truth in ancient Greek meant concrete existence opposed to mere appearance or beliefs. In Plato truth was not available in the material world, but truth belonged in the world of idea. Aristotle's truth was truth deducted from his syllogism. They had no idea of verified truth from observation and experiment.

Therefore even if they had a word aletheia which is closest meaning for todays word "truth", it wasn't identical meaning to today's concept of truth.

Absolutely, the way I was using was like practical magic that affects the world, but the broader category of yes. — schopenhauer1

:up: This is an interesting topic. It seems to prove that humans had both irrational and rational aspect in their mental states from the start of the history. Presumably in the ancient times, the irrational aspect has been more dominating in life.

With the discovery of reason and logic by the ancient Greek philosophers, the rational aspects have grown and balancing the two. However, we can still see much irrational part of human psyche taking over the human life which had been more predominant and hidden aspect of human consciousness in the deep structure biologically and mentally.

Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1

Can all religious faiths and practices be classed as superstition?

3. Ancient peoples coherently talked about their mental states.
4. Ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their brain states. — RogueAI

Which ancient peoples do you mean? Any particular names in the history of philosophy?

It is called existential experience. You know you exist ?right? It is simply the experience of your existence. You are experiencing it you can't deny it. It is simply that experience. If you are not aware of it then I suppose you might have to wait for an existential crisis to happen. Then you will be aware of your existence. — Abhiram

Initially when you were describing about the being, I thought you were talking about some other being than yourself. But from your post above, it appears that you must have been describing you yourself as a being encompassing

physical reality , space, time and thought with it. Like an intertwined whole with several distinguishable parts which cannot be separated — Abhiram

Is it correct?

Thus time and space are essentially different from the intellect but nevertheless in consciousness just the same. Please refer to Sections one and two of Transcendental Aesthetic. — Pez

Interesting.  German speakers would definitely be more advantageous for reading all the German philosophical textbooks in German.  Once I tried to read CPR in German, but my German was too basic.  I was able to translate the texts ok, but the progress was far too slow, which was the reason for abandoning the reading, and went back to the English translated CPR.

Reading in English is not bad at all, because there are so many translations and commentaries for almost every non-English textbooks available, but sometimes you might feel that some important meanings could be lost from the original texts in translations.  It is especially the case with the difficult original texts such as CPR.  I ended up getting 3 copies of different translated copies of CPR. English is not my main language, but much better than my elementary German in readings.  

But for your point on Kant's time and space is not intelligence, but intuition,  is interesting.  I agree with the point.  Because Time and Space can never be clearly understood or perceived by mind as distinct and concrete entities.  They are definitely the internal perceptions in that Time and Space can be guessed and felt in thoughts, but they can never be accurately and precisely understood by reason.  Hence, it makes sense to say that Time and Space are types of intuition, and they can only be intuited in mind. I wonder if it would make sense to say that Time and Space is the foundation or precondition of consciousness.

I was reading Kant intensely a few months ago, but recently I got so busy in daily life, I have not read anything for a while.  I will be getting back to reading either Kant or Hegel for a change, so some Philosophical logic or even Mathematics, when things get quieter here.

So trying to explain in logical terms didn't make any difference. Well good luck in keep demanding admittance of wrong from anyone you engage in discoursing.

How can anyone converse normally with you who cannot understand what "everyone" means in ordinary language expression, and demanding admittance of wrong?

It seems clear that you lost your plot. It is a waste of time posting to your replies. All the best.

What ordinary definition of 'everyone' is it true for? — flannel jesus

No point telling you when you refuse to understand anything.

You don't believe it. You know it to be false. You're just being dishonest. — flannel jesus

How can a sophist and sceptic know the other's mind? You still haven't answered where the mind comes from.

I don't think thats the case. There's no ordinary definition of 'everyone' for which it's true. — flannel jesus

You are being a sophist as well as sceptic.

Don't admit you're wrong then, just don't say it again because you know it's untrue. — flannel jesus

I will say what I believe as true. You cannot say to others "Don't say it".

I understand it perfectly well, it's just untrue. — flannel jesus

All I was saying was that your judgement seem to be based on your inability in understanding the ordinary language expression.

"Everyone knows X" - I disagree with this claim.

X and Everyone knows X are not the same claim. I can agree with one and disagree with the other. — flannel jesus

You are free to disagree, but it is not done thing to demand admitting wrong from anyone.

And you have something better that you're basing the "everyone" claim on? What better information than statistics is that? — flannel jesus

Well it is your problem not understanding ordinary linguistic expressions. How could I help you? You brining out the statistic figures make your claims sounds more unfounded and suspicious.

So if mind is not generated from the brain, where is it from?

You just seem to blindly trust and follow anything statistics or some gibberish in the internet, and try to claim that they are the truths. It is just form of a religion in disguise.

It's not some tiny minority. Only 51-52% of professional philosophers are physicalists about the mind. That means up to 48% of philosophers might not think the mind emerges from the brain.

It's not senseless, 52% isn't "everyone" by any reasonable definition. — flannel jesus

I don't subscribe to any statistics. It means nothing to me I am afraid.

And I suppose you're defining "reasonable" as "people who agree with me", which makes it tautologically true, not meaningfully true. — flannel jesus

In all the sciences, math and philosophy, they all pursue for the knowledge which is true for generality. But you bring out some minority claims of the folks from the shade, and try to refute the general principles and knowledge. It sounds senseless.

You now know that not everyone thinks minds emerge from brains, so you have no reason to make the claim again. — flannel jesus

Everyone who are reasonable knows that mind generates from the brain.

but if you meant the majority of people, (a) you would have said that when I invited you to say what you meant, and you didn't say that, and (b) that would still be incorrect. The majority of people are religious and believe in souls. — flannel jesus

I have explained it you, but you seem neither try to read my explanation nor try to understand it. You just kept on saying wrong wrong wrong, admit wrong. That is not philosophical discourse.
You don't demand admitting anything from the other party. The other party will admit wrong, if he genuinely knew he was wrong, and feel that the admitting is needed at his own accord.

And you still can't just say "yes, not everyone knows or believes that". How easy would that be to say? — flannel jesus

People use "Everyone" "Anyone" to say the majority of people or really anyone in the figure of speech all the time. It just means that it is widely accepted that, it is predominantly fact that, unless you are talking about First-Order logic topics.

But if you really insist on everyone to mean something else, then you won't find it. You yourself will get lost trying to understand what it means. Because then you must go and find and agree whether to include every single person since the start of the universe, or just the folks who are living on this earth at this particular moment? Or the folks in your own country? .... what is the real "everyone"?

Ok, you decided to define everyone to mean all the folks who are living on this earth at this moment. But as soon as you decided on that, there have been hundreds and thousands of the new birth in the world, and at the same time hundreds have died in the world due to old age, accidents and illness what have you. Then who are the real "everyone"?

If someone says 'everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain', do you think that's true, and what do you think that claim means? Corvus said that, I'm curious what you think is the most natural interpretation of that claim. — flannel jesus

If you were genuinely philosophically asking about it, you would have asked "What do you mean by Everyone?", and gave me a chance to explain about it. But you decided to claim "Everyone? There are the non believers, and it is not true. It is wrong, you are wrong wrong wrong. Admit you are wrong."

Hmmm anyone would sense that your aim was not pure and silly sophistic.

I would even say quite the contrary. The possibility and the limits of metaphysics follow from his exposition concerning time, space and consciousness. Just have a look on the paragraph "What Objective Unity of Self-consciousness is". — Pez

By the way, I was going to ask you, what do time and space have got to do with consciousness in Kant?

The implication I got from reading Corvu's responses was that only brains are conscious, but he might not be saying that. — RogueAI

My point on mind is that it is property of lived life and experiences in the world interacting with the other minds. The property being able to exercise high level of linguistic, rational and emotional interactions ... etc etc with the other minds in the societies they live in. AI and the intelligent devices definitely seem to posses and demonstrate the rational part of consciousness, but they seem to be lacking in the other part of the human mind and consciousness.

The core of mind is definitely in the brain. I am not sure if mind can be further divided into lower level material structure. Maybe it can, but it would be then neurological, biological and physical terms.

I was trying get this point across, but kept on insisting that he could not understand and accept what the word "Everyone" means. Obviously he is incapable of communicating and discoursing in ordinary linguistic level, hence I tried explain to him in logical manner, by which he seemed to have further confusing himself resorting into ad hominem in the end.

I would even say quite the contrary. The possibility and the limits of metaphysics follow from his exposition concerning time, space and consciousness. Just have a look on the paragraph "What Objective Unity of Self-consciousness is". — Pez

Good point. I will try to read on the concept of Self in Kant, and see what he had to say.

That's been the question since all the way back here: — flannel jesus

No, you just wrote saying that there are the other folks who don't know, and saying "Everyone knows" is wrong, therefore I must admit incorrect. You either have a short memory or ....

When you claim "everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain", what does everyone mean to you in that sentence? — flannel jesus

Yes, this is the question you should have asked. You are giving a logical opportunity for further clarification and limitation to the concept "everyone" which it cries for. My reply would be "Everyone" that I came across in my reading and listening. Is it that important? :rofl:

"every" is the opposite of vague. It's one of the most well-defined concepts in existence. — flannel jesus

Does "everyone" mean then, everyone who ever lived in the past, is living at present, or will live in the future, or totality of the all the folks who ever lived on this earth since the big bang or what?

If you were thinking logically, you should have asked whether "everyone" meant the whole population of the universe, or a group of folks I know, or whatever, rather than jumping into the bandwagon shouting that I must admit I was incorrect.

I wouldn't describe your way of discoursing was exactly logical or fair, to be fair and honest.