You just did explain it, and I understand your explanation - I fully agree with you about loosening on the definition of 'everyone' in colloquial speech, you can loosely say "everyone" without meaning "100% of everyone, no exceptions" - I'm fine with that, let's loosen up on the definition - and you're still wrong. Even for reasonably loosened definitions of 'everyone', you're not correct.

You now know that not everyone thinks minds emerge from brains, so you have no reason to make the claim again.

Do you still think "everyone knows that"?

You now know that not everyone thinks minds emerge from brains, so you have no reason to make the claim again. — flannel jesus

Everyone who are reasonable knows that mind generates from the brain.

And I suppose you're defining "reasonable" as "people who agree with me", which makes it tautologically true, not meaningfully true.

Everyone believes in Islam.

How do I define Everyone? I mean Everyone Reasonable.

How do I define "reasonable"? I define it as "people who are muslims".

And I suppose you're defining "reasonable" as "people who agree with me", which makes it tautologically true, not meaningfully true. — flannel jesus

In all the sciences, math and philosophy, they all pursue for the knowledge which is true for generality. But you bring out some minority claims of the folks from the shade, and try to refute the general principles and knowledge. It sounds senseless.

But you bring out some minority folks — Corvus

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874

It's not some tiny minority. Only 51-52% of professional philosophers are physicalists about the mind. That means up to 48% of philosophers might not think the mind emerges from the brain.

It's not senseless, 52% isn't "everyone" by any reasonable definition.

Are 48% of people 'noone'? If I killed 48% of people in your town, would you say "he didn't kill anybody"? "Everyone survived"?

It's not some tiny minority. Only 51-52% of professional philosophers are physicalists about the mind. That means up to 48% of philosophers might not think the mind emerges from the brain.

It's not senseless, 52% isn't "everyone" by any reasonable definition. — flannel jesus

I don't subscribe to any statistics. It means nothing to me I am afraid.

Beautiful cop out. You now have data to demonstrate unambiguously that not everyone thinks what you say "everyone knows", and instead of acknowledging that fact, you just stick to your guns, head in the sand.

You just seem to blindly trust and follow anything statistics or some gibberish in the internet, and try to claim that they are the truths. It is just form of a religion in disguise.

So if mind is not generated from the brain, where is it from?

And you have something better that you're basing the "everyone" claim on? What better information than statistics is that? Please source the "everyone" claim for me.

And you have something better that you're basing the "everyone" claim on? What better information than statistics is that? — flannel jesus

Well it is your problem not understanding ordinary linguistic expressions. How could I help you? You brining out the statistic figures make your claims sounds more unfounded and suspicious.

You are very, very confused in this conversation. I'm not disputing that minds come from brains. I'm disputing "everyone knows minds come from brains".

"X" - I agree with this claim
"Everyone knows X" - I disagree with this claim.

X and Everyone knows X are not the same claim. I can agree with one and disagree with the other.

Well it is your problem not understanding ordinary linguistic expressions. — Corvus

I understand it perfectly well, it's just untrue.

"Everyone knows X" - I disagree with this claim.

X and Everyone knows X are not the same claim. I can agree with one and disagree with the other. — flannel jesus

You are free to disagree, but it is not done thing to demand admitting wrong from anyone.

Don't admit you're wrong then, just don't say it again because you know it's untrue.

I understand it perfectly well, it's just untrue. — flannel jesus

All I was saying was that your judgement seem to be based on your inability in understanding the ordinary language expression.

I don't think thats the case. There's no ordinary definition of 'everyone' for which it's true.

Don't admit you're wrong then, just don't say it again because you know it's untrue. — flannel jesus

I will say what I believe as true. You cannot say to others "Don't say it".

You don't believe it. You know it to be false. You're just being dishonest.

I don't think thats the case. There's no ordinary definition of 'everyone' for which it's true. — flannel jesus

You are being a sophist as well as sceptic.

What ordinary definition of 'everyone' is it true for?

You don't believe it. You know it to be false. You're just being dishonest. — flannel jesus

How can a sophist and sceptic know the other's mind? You still haven't answered where the mind comes from.

What ordinary definition of 'everyone' is it true for? — flannel jesus

No point telling you when you refuse to understand anything.

should be easy, it's just an ordinary definition of everyone, right? What ordinary definition is the claim true for?

It seems clear that you lost your plot. It is a waste of time posting to your replies. All the best.

thanks for the well wishes. Let me know if you can find a single other person here who agrees with your claim - it might be you who has lost the plot after all.

How can anyone converse normally with you who cannot understand what "everyone" means in ordinary language expression, and demanding admittance of wrong?

How can anyone converse normally with you if you keep claiming that you're using everyone in a normal way, and are still refusing to lay out what that normal way is?

So trying to explain in logical terms didn't make any difference. Well good luck in keep demanding admittance of wrong from anyone you engage in discoursing.

that's right, explaining it in "logical terms" from you didn't work, because your only definitions of "everyone" were either (a) not normal at all and completely arbitrary, or (b) left the claim untrue