Well, you've already admitted that "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone" when you say it, so that's a good start.

Well, you've already admitted that "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone", so that's a good start. — flannel jesus

Well, I have even given you a clear and detailed explanation what "Everyone" can imply in logical sense with the advice not to be too restrictive in your judgements which sounds too impractical to consider in serious manner. I have not admitted anything at all. That is another prejudgement of yours.

Why are you wasting your time telling me what it CAN mean, instead of what you DO mean? What an inefficient way to communicate. Just get to the point, say what you think. Don't be afraid to share your thoughts, that's presumably what you're here for. Don't tell me all the things you might mean, tell me what you do mean.

I am only responding to your posts addressed to me. Not wasting time as such. I was just telling you that your understanding is not correct, and your insistence sounds unusual.

Anyone would say that your insistence that "Everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe without the class limitation is incorrect and unusual. This is a simple knowledge in First-Order Logic and High-Order Logic.

So you don't want to say what you mean. You said "everyone knows X". I said "not everyone knows X". Instead of saying "oh my mistake, you're right, not everyone" you said "when I say everyone, I don't mean everyone" - and now you won't even say what you mean instead of "everyone".

What are you doing? What's the point of any of your words? If you don't want to communicate your thoughts, why bother learning how to write?

Please read the above post again, and think before posting.

Yeah, I've read it, it doesn't contain the answer to what you mean by 'everyone'.

If you don't want to communicate your thoughts, why bother learning how to write?

It is difficult to imagine anyone insisting "everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe. It doesn't exist, it is vague and obscure, and it is illogical to even imply that.

I'm not insisting anything, I'm asking you what you mean. Asking you what you mean is not an insistence, it's a question.

You have been insisting to admit that I was incorrect. But the fact is that you don't seem to know a very basic knowledge in First-Order Logic. "Every" is a quantifier which is vague on its own without further limiting quantifier.

"every" is the opposite of vague. It's one of the most well-defined concepts in existence. If you don't mean the normal meaning, please let me know what you mean instead.

"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.

At this point in the conversation, the only thing that matters is what you mean.

You said everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain.

That's clearly not true for the standard interpretation of "everyone", and you've suggested that you're using a more loose definition of the word 'everyone', so... what more loose definition are you using? What did you mean by your claim?

When you claim "everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain", what does everyone mean to you in that sentence? I clearly can't read your mind, so if you want to communicate your thoughts, now's the time to do it.

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:

Yes, this is the question you should have asked. — Corvus

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

Why are you wasting your time telling me what it CAN mean, instead of what you DO mean? — flannel jesus

Right? Lmao.

"Everyone" means "everyone i came across in my reading and listening" lmao. That's an absolutely absurd way to use that word.

I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind — Corvus

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".

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 ....

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.

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

This would not help us very much, we could even regard advanced forms of AI as something like a homunculus. Awaiting an answer to the question of personal identity from neuroscientists is equally futile. All they could tell us is, that special regions of the brain are activated after a ray of light strikes our eyes.

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

No — Corvus

Uh... yes, I clearly was inviting you, all the way back there, to tell me what you do mean. You refused to do that, for many many many posts - as if you were scared of what might happen if you made your thoughts clear.

You don't think computationalists think consciousness emerges from the brain? But isn't... isn't that where the majority of computationalists think mental computations *happen*? Computationalists seem like a perfect example of agreement, not disagreement. Except for, I suppose, the rare computationalist who thinks some of the mental calculations happens somewhere other than the brain. — flannel jesus

They would object to consciousness emerging ONLY from brains, but Corvus might not be saying that, so I take your point. The implication I got from reading Corvu's responses was that only brains are conscious, but he might not be saying that.

I don't think he's saying that, I think he's taking the standard physicalist position, which is that human consciousness happens in human brains, which usually implies to most physicalists that consciousness is also possible in other physical circumstances.

He's then adding onto the standard physicalist position the bizarre statement "everyone knows this is true", which it turns out means something entirely different from what you might think that means.

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

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

I was trying get this point across, but ↪flannel jesus 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 — Corvus

Sure, let's ask :

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.

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.

And you still can't just say "yes, not everyone knows or believes that". How easy would that be to say? You already know it's true.

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"?

People use "Everyone" "Anyone" to say the majority of people or really anyone in the figure of speech all the time. — Corvus

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.

If we want to be loose with the word 'everyone', it should still mean something stronger than '51% of people'. It should mean a VAST majority, at the very least - no less than like 95% of people, maybe 90% if we're pushing it. Nowhere near 90% of people think consciousness emerges from the brain, not even 90% of philosophers.

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.