Okay, fair enough. What are you saying? — Garrett Travers
I think it's acceptable to say my experience of a thought justifies my saying there are thoughts. My experience of a thought justifies saying thoughts exist. Further, my experience of pain, joy, discomfort, justifies my saying pain, joy and discomfort exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm
My sense is that you're too entrenched in a position you feel is justified by science to catch a glimpse of my perspective.
My sense is that you're too far removed from my vista to understand me.
The end of the line. — ZzzoneiroCosm
our positions are compatible — Garrett Travers
cherry-picking fallacy — Garrett Travers
Wasn't trying to cherry pick. Trying to make sense of your saying there are thoughts but thoughts are X and also saying there are no thoughts and thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm
That's when I've been aiming at since the start of this exchange. Good. — ZzzoneiroCosm
They do not exist — Garrett Travers
The phrase "thoughts do not exist" misrepresents your position. The phrase is too strong. It's not accurate. I would recommend rethinking your language here to avoid pointless frustrating miscommunications. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The price one pays, however, is that a full dismissal of either position renders the understanding incomplete, or reduced. — Garrett Travers
...what would have been more clear, linguistically? — Garrett Travers
Now, we're talking. See, from my mind, such was clear from language. However, you did not detect such. So, as the one who didn't detect such, what would have been more clear, linguistically? — Garrett Travers
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.