I.e. A "fact" is a physical process generated by complex neural circuits of the brain.

Alright, this is confusing me. — YuZhonglu

That's good. The whole point is to get you thinking. Settling back on a prepared statement isn't going to do that.

If you agree that we can point at something that isn't our finger--even though we HAVE to use our finger to do that, then why can't you agree that we can use a concept to point at something that's not itself the concept? Sure, we have to use a concept to do it, just like we have to use our finger to point, but the idea of reference is that we can point to something that's different than the thing making the reference.

1. Horse is cooked bread.
2. Cheese on horse consists of cheese and cooked bread.
3. No cooked bread, no cheese on horse.

They most certainly do. They exist in other humans outside the singular human, and apart from that in other animals, and apart from that in everything down to the smallest living organism, and apart from that down to the smallest subatomic particle. This body belongs to, and is comprised of, the constituents of its environment. To separate it as if it's somehow enchanted beyond the sum of its parts is both religious and absurd.

You can use your finger to point at something that's not your finger. But you can't think about the brain without using your brain.

Sure. But again, this claim of yours requires a brain. There are no observations independent of the observer.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains.

Consciousness is a tool of microorganisms that we interpret as being our domain due to the nature of its function--self-awareness--which is mandatory for the fabrication of inorganic intelligence--a prerequisite to interplanetary, and in turn perhaps intergalactic, propagation of species.

I have to go. But I'll be back in an hour or two. Thank you for your time and I will respond when i get back.

It is a claim as a result of the brain, yes, but it is a fact independent from the brain.

Doesn't change the fact that you are and that you are thinking.

My existence is not mandatory as far as I have observed. It is an infinitesimal function of a greater whole and is wholly expendable.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains. — YuZhonglu

That's so absurd that it's funny.

Why are we all so compelled to place ourselves at the centre of all things. It's as if the Sun revolves around the Galaxy, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Universe revolves around the human consciousness. Doesn't anyone think this is a bit skewed?

Why are we all — whollyrolling

Speak for yourself!

Universe revolves around the human consciousness. — whollyrolling

I don't think that's true in the least.

Well there you have it. You don't even have to give it any consideration, it's not you though it may be others, specifically the person who so audaciously suggested it. If you disagree, then maybe you can explain how your consciousness in particular is uniquely altruistic.

Well there you have it. You don't even have to give it any consideration, it's not you though it may be others, specifically the person who so audaciously suggested it. — whollyrolling

Not sure what you'e saying here.

If you disagree, then maybe you can explain how your consciousness in particular is uniquely altruistic. — whollyrolling

I don't think it is.

1. Facts are statements.
2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain.
3. No brain- > no facts. — YuZhonglu

So now the argument has changed from "there are no facts, just opinions" to this new argument that "facts are statements, which generated in the brain". Wonder how this will change later...

Ok. Can the planet Jupiter exist without you yourself being alive? If so, can it exist without any humans being alive? If so, why would the fact of it's existence need a statement generated by the neural circuitry in our brains?

You highlighted a small portion of my comment and stated that you don't think it's true. You took it out of context, so now that you've replied I'm not sure what you're replying to, my full comment or your excerpt from it. That humans are self-centred has been demonstrated for thousands of years and i we have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

You highlighted a small portion of my comment and stated that you don't think it's true. You took it out of context, so now that you've replied I'm not sure what you're replying to, my full comment or your excerpt from it. That humans are self-centred has been demonstrated for thousands of years and i we have yet to demonstrate otherwise. — whollyrolling

You're proving yourself to be one of those self-centered persons right now.

Which doesn't matter because it only illustrates my point, but in what way?

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains. — YuZhonglu

Maybe a bunch of brains thinking about other brains?

That is one of the basic questions: What can I know? Like... Am I real? Are you real? Are our perceptions of what we call 'reality' consistent with what 'reality' actually is? (It often is, but sometimes it is not.) How would we know, one way or the other?

Which doesn't matter because it only illustrates my point — whollyrolling

No, it's only a reflection on you. The rest of the world is not determined by your narcissism.

That humans are self-centred has been demonstrated for thousands of years and i we have yet to demonstrate otherwise. — whollyrolling

It seems to me to be the case that human are self-centered. Of course, that isn't all we are all the time. But creatures with egos like their reflections. In a way, most creatures are self-centered. Their various lives are composed of efforts to survive and propagate. Survival and propagation require a narrow focus.

Can the planet Jupiter exist without you yourself being alive? If so, can it exist without any humans being alive? If so, why would the fact of it's existence need a statement generated by the neural circuitry in our brains? — ssu

This shows that it is not sensible to use "fact" as he does, just as it is not sensible to use "horse" as I did. I only used it that way to demonstrate the general problem of idiosyncratic usage.

It seems to me to be the case that human are self-centered. — Bitter Crank

I think that's probably true in a sense. We often act selfishly and think only of ourselves.

Few, however, would seriously maintain that the universe actually revolves around them in the way that the earth revolves around the sun.

But we're also genetically programmed to be social beings, so I think our very nature drives us in two directions.

That's correct, the rest of the world is "determined" by its own narcissism.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains.
— YuZhonglu

Maybe a bunch of brains thinking about other brains? — Bitter Crank

No. Both of those definitions seem to widely miss the mark. Philosophy isn't a bunch of brains full stop. And doing philosophy doesn't consist in thinking about brains, even if some philosophical thinking does. The question of what's the case is philosophical and about reality, not brains, unless we happen to specifically be talking about brains.

This is the finger-moon mistake that Terrapin was getting at.

So does the propagation of an idea.