I already answered that:That is a physical process. You can call it perception. I asked you what is experience though. — MoK
An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories)...An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon. . — Relativist
Your definition ASSUMES there is something nonphysical, and then when a physicalist approach cannot account for it, you think you've proven something.I already defined experience. Given this definition, I distinguish between physical and experience. — MoK
They don't have mental experiences.Do you think objects around you experience anything — MoK
I read it. Here's a few questions:Please read OP and let me know if you have any questions — MoK
Perception=a short term memory produced when our sensory organs sends electrochemical signals to a portion of the brain that channels the data to the cerebral cortex. E.g. photons stimilate the retina, signals are passed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, and then the cerebral cortex. Physical changes throughout.define perception — MoK
I accounted for experience as a purely physical phenomenon. What aspect of it can you prove to be nonphysical? Stipulating a non-physical definition isn't proving anything.Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness. — MoK
Matter by definition is a substance that undergoes changes governed by the laws of physics. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the Hard Problem of consciousness. Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness. — MoK
"Conmon sense" isn't an argument. Appearances can be deceiving.I am defending a new version of substance dualism and I am attacking physicalism for two main reasons, 1) The Hard Problem of consciousness and 2) The common sense that tells us that the change in physical is due to experience. — MoK
Yes, we can. An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon.But we cannot equate matter or change in matter with experience. Could we? — MoK
You're defining "experience" with more vague terms: "Event", "conscious event", "information".A conscious event that is perceived by the Mind and contains information. — MoK
So you agree that the brain changes by new experiences, whether the experience is perception, thoughts, etc. You however didn't answer my question: How could the experience change the brain knowing that the experience is not a substance? — MoK
What paradox is entailed by an actual quantum collapse from entanglement?I think the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is paradox-free. — MoK
1)Your question reifies "experience". The brain is changed by new perceptions and the act of thinking.I have three questions for you: 1) How experience can affect the brain knowing that it is not a substance, 2) Do you believe that physical motion is deterministic and is only based on the laws of nature? and 3) If yes, then how could the brain be affected by experience? — MoK
You have been misreading if you inferred I was trying to arouse your sympathy. I simply trying to get across to you how Palestinians would take it, and that this will have consequences. You had suggested this would all go away.excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies. — BitconnectCarlos
International standards developed after WW2 in the Geneva Conventions (1949 and 1976) would consider our "punishment" of civilians as war crimes.The war will continue until Palestinians accept their defeat. It took huge amounts of suffering for Germany and Japan to get there. What Israel is doing isn't any different than what the Allies did, except Israel is being much more careful. The punishment we inflicted on Japanese and German cities before they surrendered was incredible, but that's war. — RogueAI
So you think think it was appropriate to correct a situation established 1300 years earlier. That's as ludicrous as suggesting Israel should be abolished because of the past injustices to Palestinians. Irrespective of Palestinian claims, Israel exists and has a right to continue. That doesn't doesn't justify ethnic cleansing. I absolutlely understand Israel's need for security, but this approach seems likely to provoke more resentment from Palestinians and more hostility from Israel's neighbors.Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century — BitconnectCarlos
What difference does it make? You're judgement of what they "ought" to do doesn't compel them to do so.What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't? — RogueAI
History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time.Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. — BitconnectCarlos
There's not many close analogies of a conquered people being ejected from their land. But regardless, I'm discussing the reality that they aren't likely to be docile about it.Many countries lose wars and accept the new reality and move on. Why won't the Palestinians? — RogueAI
Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement.Jews are indigenous to the land — BitconnectCarlos
And you think this means they should just accept their lot, like native Americans did? What "should" happen isn't the point. It's what WILL happen. They won't accept it, and neither will their Arab neighbors.Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war. — BitconnectCarlos
You've completely ignored the history. These Arabs were in Palestine, and were forced out. Israel often excuses this as perfectly fine, because it's so similar to the treatment of native Americans in the US. They see that as perfectly fine.Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba." — BitconnectCarlos
Good point. He does trust authoritarians, and mistrusts democratic leaders. But in terms of making "deals", I don't think he'll intentionally pick Russia over UK. The net result would be the same, because of the trust issue - and his stupidity.Trust me, when he believes Vladimir Putin more than his own American intelligence services, that tells something. — ssu
Exiling Palestinians from their land will not destroy their culture. It will be a second Nakba.If wishing for the destruction of a culture where e.g. powerful men routinely abuse young boys or human sacrifice is a constant make me a Nazi then so be it. — BitconnectCarlos
So far, P01135809 has followed Putin in some respects:
• gathered/appeased religious conservatives (and extremists, disillusioned)
• threatened other countries
• efforts to sideline (or remove most) non-loyalists, merits less relevant
• moves to ditch some protection of minorities (or vulnerable)
• lied
(Did I miss any?) — jorndoe
Are you under the impression that his "lesson" was well-received by his "students"?JD Vance schools Europe’s overlords. — NOS4A2
Trump really wants to please both the leaders of Russia and China. — ssu
Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are not valid.
— 180 Proof
I am not talking about the abstract objects here. I am talking about experience. Are you denying that you experience and your experience is not subject to change? — MoK
I didn't talk about the mind and its role in the body but the experience. — MoK
According to Greg, even using conservative assumptions, this fraud SWUNG the election. — hypericin
Who's this good for anyway? — jorndoe
No, I didn't. Here's what I said:Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying then. You seem to keep flip-flopping. First you mentioned that everything exists necessarily such that there is no way they could have failed to exist — Bob Ross
You correctly noted that I should have said "causal determination", but my meaning is clear. I'm insisting on two things:Concrete example:suppose determinism is true. This implies every event, and everything that comes to exist, is the necessary consequence of prior conditions. — Relativist
That's part of it. Also: composition is identity, and contingency implies non-actual possibilities (metaphysically possible).Here’s what I am thinking you are attempting to convey, and correct me if I am wrong: saying that a thing could have failed to exist if its parts did not get so arranged (or did not exist) does not demonstrate that it could have failed to exist because it may be the case that there were no other causal possibilities such that it would not have existed. Is that right? — Bob Ross
A table is composed of its parts. Contingency implies something that could have been different. What is it that could have been different?In my sense of the term, a table is contingent upon its parts; — Bob Ross
The chair IS the arrangement of parts. So it's equivalent to saying "the chair would not exist if the chair did not exist".I think you can agree that that particular chair would not exist if its legs, the wood it is made out of, etc. did not exist — Bob Ross
I have no problem with this definition, because "the nature of things" means that it's consistent with whatever metaphysical framework is true; in practice, we treat our own metaphysical framework as true.Metaphysical possibility is such that a thing could exist in a manner that does not violate the nature of things; — Bob Ross
Contingency implies something that could have been different. Suppose necessary object A deterministically causes B. B therefore exists necessarily. What is it that could have been different?contingency is the dependence of one thing on another for its existence; and necessity is the independence of a thing on any other things for its existence. — Bob Ross
The Aristotelean paradigm. The modern physics paradigm is more straightforward, and it omits nothing. Labelling an object's composition its "cause" makes the word "cause" less precise and more ambiguous.Causality is traditionally and widely accepted as explanations of why a thing is the way it is. What you are probably thinking of is physical or material causality. — Bob Ross