Get off this thread.

You are not discussing the op.

Focus on the OP!! Jesus, you people are unbelievably bad at philosophy! This place never used to be this bad. — Bartricks

Bartricks we are having our own discussion born out of the op but not related to it. Back off.

We can follow the op or the line of reasoning that emerged out of it. You're not an authority to dictate what ought be discussed as it emerges. What right do you have to command other peoples thoughts? Sure we can created a new thread and maybe we will. In either case it has little to do with you. Either participate or respond to what you feel is relevant..

Do not enforce your beliefs on others please. Have a little respect.

But we can't can we? Because in order to exist we must be separate objects occupying individual space that creates opposing perspectives. In order to be exactly the same we have to occupy the same space simultaneously. Otherwise I'm 2 meters away from something whilst you're 1 meter away. And the two perspectives and sensations are fundamentally different. You think it's too hot 1m away from the fire but I 2m away think it's fine. — Benj96

Still no evidence for the existence of the immaterial!

it's my op, so do it elsewhere you rude twit.
You discuss the op in a thread,not anything that occurs to you.
Start a new thread on whatever you are discussing. Thos is massive derailment from you.
I took time to write an op. You owe it to discuss that op or go away.

You are not discussing the op. — Bartricks

Oh no. Poor you. I'll play my tiny violin for your sorrows.

it's my op, so do it elsewhere you rude twit. — Bartricks

Nice. :) super "philosophical" of you.

Try and use that limited brain capacity of yours to write your own op and sod off.

You have absolutely no philosophical ability. You don't know what this OP is about, yes? The grey cells won't let you know.

Now, address the op or go away.

No it's not! It only involves a physical ability to decide to not speak and not tell me your current thoughts. Nothing immaterial is needed.
I don't think we want to get so far off topic that we start to discuss the legal situation as regarding a future neurological ability to mind read. — universeness

Is it not relevant? If my mind is currently unreadable. No one esle can deduce what I'm thinking except me. Is it material? Is it physical? Because as far as I know the materialist view is everything is knowable from objective measurement. So if you cannot objectively measure my mind. What is my mind? Is it material? I doubt it

Get off this thread,

You have absolutely no philosophical ability. You don't know what this OP is about, yes? The grey cells won't let you know.

Now, address the op or go away. — Bartricks

I have plenty of philosophical ability. You may disagree. That's fine. Believe whatever soothes you. But kindly don't dictate my ongoing debates with other contributors if they want or engage also.

Get. Off. The.Thread.

where do you find your audacity. I'm Intrigued.

We can follow the op or the line of reasoning that emerged out of it. You're not an authority to dictate what ought be discussed as it emerges. What right do you have to command other peoples thoughts? Sure we can created a new thread and maybe we will. In either case it has little to do with you. — Benj96

The guidelines confirm that the TPF moderators require posters to stay in line with the OP.
I would argue that we are, as we are discussing the validity of the concept of the immaterial which is part of what bar tricks wants us to measure as a compatible in his bizarre conflation with dualism.
His points have already evaporated as nonsense based on what members have posted so far on this thread. So, imo, he should be happy that a material/immaterial chat is still on going as his thread died on the first page. If a mod thinks we are too far off the OP, then they only have to say so. @Bartricks can PM a request to them.

The guidelines confirm that the TPF moderators require posters to stay in line with the OP.
I would argue that we are, as we are discussing the validity of the concept of the immaterial which is part of what bar tricks wants us to measure as a compatible in his bizarre conflation with dualism.
His points have already evaporated as nonsense based on what members have posted so far on this thread. So, imo, he should be happy that a material/immaterial chat is still on going as his thread died on the first page. If a mod thinks we are too far off the OP, then they only have to say so. Bartricks can PM a request to them. — universeness

Agreed univerness. :P

Get. Off. The. Thread.

You are not addressing the op. You are derailing. Go away

Or, get off the thread.

Is it not relevant? If my mind is currently unreadable. No one esle can deduce what I'm thinking except me. Is it material? Is it physical? Because as far as I know the materialist view is everything is knowable from objective measurement. So if you cannot objectively measure my mind. What is my mind? Is it material? I doubt it — Benj96

So, are you declaring yourself a dualist?

Get off the thread.

So, are you declaring yourself a dualist — universeness

Yes. From the beginning. Literally lol.

Are you having a breakdown?

Are you having a breakdown? — universeness

Omg dead lmao

Every time I ask you if you are a panpsychist you seem to pause in your rate of response and then your eventual response ignores the question. :chin:

Get off the thread

A panpsychist dualist? You have seemed very reluctant to fly the panpsychist flag, when I have previously asked. — universeness

Just a dualist. Between the material and immaterial. Pan psychism is its own whole rabbit hole. I just think the mimd and the material exist not in opposition but Duality with one another. And can be explained only from a dualist (non monism) perspective. As the very nature of being monist is the negation/denial of the existence of an opposite.

So, is your acceptance of the existence of the immaterial, similar to that of @Metaphysician Undercovers, in that you think the immaterial has existence 'outside' of this universe or do you think what you call 'immaterial' exists within this universe but is forever indetectable to us.
If this were true then the Greeks were wrong with 'Cosmos' as the universe, would therefore, not be fully knowable.

I think it exists within the universe but obeys the law of uncertainty. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Not all information in a system can be known simultaneously without violating time/change.

The uncertainty principle is more about knowing multiple attributes of a system in the same instance of time, as you suggest. I don't think it says anything about existents that can NEVER be detected by human science.

. I don't think it says anything about existents that can NEVER be detected by human science.
now — universeness

I didn't say that. I said they can't be detected simultaneously. It can be detected by science but at the detriment to other certainties, which themeselves can also be detected in isolation.

But not all information can be accounted for simultaneously without somehow stopping information from existing (change).

I need to do some other stuff Ben but I will be back here or on some other thread. My loving message for @Bartricks is:


Unless I get banned in between times of course :halo: