haha!

Fair enough. Give me some time

Please just read this

It is "Moore’s proof of an external world & the problem of other minds"

There is no evidence of objects. — hope

I again somehow have no constructive criticism for this comment

Is this just me? Can anyone else say anything about this? Maybe I just can't understand...

You can only see one side of an object at a time. It's your memory that fills in the other side and tricks you into thinking it really exists. That's just your mind. — hope

I'm sorry but this is simply not how or why you see in 3D.

Okay, let's say I don't have empirical evidence of my brain at this moment. I could, as you stated, get a brain scan and confirm. The fact that there is a consistent and validated way of measuring the brain and its activity through EEG, MRI, fMRI, etc., reveals that the brain exists. Therefore, Just like every other animal, my brain must also exist. So while I may not have evidence (although I do through EEG and PET scan) that I do not have a brain, by inference alone, I could deduce the existence of my brain.

That is why a 3D landscape can be created on a flatscreen tv so easily. Because flat is all we ever had we just didn't realize it. — hope

okay you're just trolling now

It’s definitely one way of an object/subject recognising itself as conscious though. — Deus

Right, and as Descartes proposes, "I think, therefore I am."

You see shapes of colors and decide that objects exist?

That decision was made in your mind. — hope

That decision was made unconsciously in my brain then brought to conscious thought and then the object appears as my mind perceives it. Ocular observation can only happen when the wiring of the eyes to the brain is correct, not because my mind, or the organization of the physical and non-physical experiences dictates it as such.

Edit: "Ocular" perception can also occur with prosthetics post blindness.

Do u have direct evidence of your brain right now? — hope

Yes, I do. The brain as a Central processing system for the physical world clearly exists.

As described by the 3D Default model proposed by Jerath, conscious experience integrates the relevant bodily experiences into a recreation of stimuli, creating an interactive experience with the external environment via the thalamus. This model is unique as it accounts for the entire body as an internal source for the conscious experience, not just the brain as an input system like Dehaene's global workspace theory. Jerath proposes that the thalamus is the engine for awareness and the primary hub for consciousness, coordinating, integrating, and orienting sensory information. Furthermore, the 3D model describes the conscious experience as the most optimal recreation of the physical stimuli to best interact and respond to the external environment.

According to Schachter's theory the emotional experience is translated from specific and nonspecific peripheral signals into explicit feelings, much like how our visual cortex translates signals from the eyes and translates them into an interactive experience. Schachter suggests that the cortex creates a cognitive response to peripheral information consistent with the individual's expectations and social context. In this model, emotional states are influenced by the conscious state. Demasio corroborates this thought by stating that the feeling state or emotional expression is a story that the brain constructs to explain bodily reactions. Furthermore, Demasio's argument explains why emotional states are paralleled with autonomic responses. Likewise, Arnold states that autonomic responses are not an essential component of emotion, but rather emotion is the result of unconscious analysis of a stimulus.

Additionally, Neurotransmitters, traveling between neuronal synapses, such as Dopamine, Seratonin, GABA, Glutamine, and Norepinephrine play a significant role in information processing and unconscious communication throughout the body. Pleasure, learning, sleep, pain, memory, and relaxation are emotional, conscious, and unconscious states regulated through neurotransmission. Unlike the fixed structures of neurons, hormones flow in the bloodstream and can interact with neurons and neuronal structures. Mediated by the nervous system, hormones are released from the endocrine system triggered by the pituitary gland and play a major role in expressing and managing emotional experiences. While neurons transmit stimulus information from the nervous system and between fixed cerebral structures, hormones transmit chemical information throughout the body.

The physical structure of cerebral systems and the method of communication, namely through select neurons, is such that activation of structures responsible for emotional response simultaneously activates conscious experience. Likewise, activation of conscious experiences, namely through decision making, also activates emotional regulation. For example, learned fear as a response to external stimuli and subliminal bodily states. Emotion ultimately dictates the way in which conscious life is experienced. Every decision and thought are first mediated by neural structures responsible for emotional regulation. While an interactive and simplified version of a conscious emotional experience is evolutionarily adaptive, the unconsciously regulated emotion-based consciousness is detrimental when not properly regulated. Diseases and disorders affecting the physical structures of emotional processing systems lead to the degradation of the conscious experience. PTSD, for example, stems from a physical rewiring of the neural connections between the amygdala and the hippocampus. The brain's physical rewiring results in a conscious experience originating from a learned emotional response from a specific stimulus. Without regard to top-down or conscious, processing the emotional response elicited by the learned stimuli causes an overwhelming and often debilitating conscious experience. Without regulation of emotional systems via top-down processing, the conscious experience becomes subject to bottom-up processes resulting in an uncontrollable and unregulated conscious state driven by autonomic systems.

Its either all object, aka: materalism

Or it's all subject, aka: solipsism — hope

There is also Dualism, Panpsychism, and other non-binary explanations for conscious emergence.

I don't know how to respond constructively to that.

That's a great answer thank you

I think "I am that I am" is ultimately more profound than "I think, therefore I am." — theRiddler

Why? Because it's found in a holy book?

I think therefore I am is not an explanation for coming into existence but rather a statement as to how internal and the perception of the external experience is fostered by the ability to think, feel, and rationalize.

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as brains. — theRiddler

Unfortunately I am 98% a materialist, so by definition I cannot agree with you, however I de believe in a higher power, and so I recognize that there is an element I do not understand and the possibility of external intervention beyond material control is something I cannot currently disprove.

There is no evidence... — hope

Sure, while this egocentric argument may apply to the understanding that others minds do not exist, although the concept of "other" already implies some level of sentience, the Problem of other minds has no bearing on constructing matter from consciousness and in fact, implies that consciousness may not exist outside of ones own material brain. Additionally, we can postulate that the physical matter that makes up one's own mind and consciousness is the same as those around you then; it would be rather arrogant to state The Problem of other minds without first realizing that you may not have a "mind." Thus, I find this argument rather ambitious. Too ambitious for me.

If the "Mind" really is as stated: "The organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism." In other words: The unique internal experience of an organism, I see no logical explanation leading to the belief that no one else on planet earth has a unique organization of mental activity.

A few deep conversations with someone outside of your immediate household should be evidence enough to recognize the presence of a mind without needing surgical proof of the mind.

I'll unify them for you: mind and matter are both made of consciousness. — hope

Whose Consciousness makes up mind and matter?

Mind, brain, consciousness, conscience, beliefs, are 5 completely different things. — hope

You're right! However, through my hypothesis, I hope that I have unified Mind, Brain, and Consciousness in some way. But in case it was not clear as to how I was utilizing these terms, I can use Merriam-Webster Dictionary to elaborate and clarify.

Mind: "The organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism."
In other words: The unique internal experience of an organism

Brain: "The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (such as glia) and that integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling autonomic function (such as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning."
In other words: The physical organ in which the mind, consciousness, thoughts, and beliefs exist.

Consciousness: "The state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought."
In other words: Any awareness of the input and output of the mind.

Conscience: "The sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good."
I didn't use Conscience in my theoretical analysis.

Beliefs: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing."
Also, I did not mention Beliefs.

Consciousness and unconsciousness can also describe arousal states; however, I did not utilize this specific characterization in this essay.

I'm not really a particular fan of him or the movie and don't really have an opinion on who comes to speak, I think it would be interesting regardless. I was just suggesting a way in which the forum could be formatted.

:) lol!
But here the reputation system doesn't restrict or give access with the goal of posting on specific forums. As far as I know....

So...I have no idea of most productive format. — Amity

It would work if only select members were allowed to discuss with the person directly and involve others by vetting questions a little that could then be offered up to the guest. — I like sushi

An interesting example of an online style of live guest speaking may be seen in the Ender's Game series. The idea is that there is an online forum where everyone is allowed to view and comment, but there is a hierarchy of viewers. Those in the top tier hierarchy had the power to create new posts while those in the lowest tier could view the posts and discuss it among everyone else in their tier. Members could participate in their tier level, which would bring to question, what qualifies a lower tier discussion? Simply put, if the member doesn't have access to a higher tier level, then they cant participate. The levels and tiers could theoretically be an unlimited number. Guest speakers would have special temporary access. Those in the higher tiers could view comments in the lower tiers, but not visa Versa. Members have to be invited, vetted, and accepted by a "council" to get into higher tiers. Alongside the hierarchy, there were also categories of membership. Those with professional membership were allowed to comment while those with a citizen membership were only allowed to view (like a children's account). Furthermore, those individuals with memberships could also have followings of individuals who agree/disagree with their claims such as followers on social media (as a simplistic example)

This may be a viable way of holding a live online forum without it getting crowded out by non-serious members or trolls. Maybe this form of account ship may be too complicated or unnecessarily complex for what was discussed in the op. However, for a forum of consistent guest speakers, discussions, and arguments, the forum would have to be organized in such a way that requires a vetting process and/or a "credit score" analyzed from historical posts to discourage trolls and encourage serious discussion.

You're right, you're not talking about the first universe, my apologies. But, what about my other questions?

would such a universe be ethical? Moral? Would God's existence be justified in such a universe? Would God then become the devil in that universe? After all, he has taken away the individuality of free will. Alternatively, does God just become a puppet master? Does that universe even have a God? — Anonymys

Yes, you're referring to the first universe. But my next question would be, would such a universe be ethical? Moral? Would God's existence be justified in such a universe? Would God then become the devil in that universe? After all, he has taken away the individuality of free will. Alternatively, does God just become a puppet master? Does that universe even have a God?

Whether we are part of a permanently fixture of not, we exist. Not only do we exist, but we affect each other's lives. In sin, or at least the traditional way of understanding it, we are flawed, and we live in sin, destroying not only our own lives but the lives around us as well. So yes, we do live in the mind of God, but we also live through each other, and we have been since the beginning of time. As of now, we live in the final universe, where God allows us to sin, rather than not allowing us to exist at all. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your tone?

You are fighting the idea of God when my question is not so much about God as it is our existence. Sure, my question uses the ethical and moral boundaries of God in the sense that in reference to him I am referencing an ideology, however, at the heart of the question is the opportunity to explore the idea of free will. God's existence, as I stated, merely represents the most simple human understanding of the laws of the universe. Sorry if I was a little unclear, it was late when I posted the question. So with this new clarity, I am curious to know what you think, as this is after all just a simple exercise to get to know your opinion, whether academic or not, about what free will means, and how we perceive our universe to be ethical, moral, just, or otherwise.

That is still from thinking, for without philosophizing, the ideology would not develop. — SethRy

I would state that the definition of social ideology is different than the philosophical definition of philosophy. A social ideology is a set of normative belfies or societal systems. Yes, they are developed through philosophical reform, however as it is 'normative', most individuals live their life inside an ideologically based system without questioning it. An example of this would be basically any social system that exists today. In philosophy, an ideology is much more fluid. While the presently held ideologies may be held systematically within a philosophical community, the concepts of human life, nature, politics, religion, etc. are dynamic. Because as I mentioned, philosophers aren't afraid to think outside the normative views of a particular society.

Absolute truths' as a tautology, truth is absolute in itself, there is no truth that's truthful, unless of course, like a religion, you assume a truth. — SethRy

I believe I was using the phrase absolute truths in the same way you were using absolute ethics. They both have absolute and relative descriptions, so I was just affirming it to be absolute.

To philosophize, honestly, would be more of the process than the truth. You are finding a truth, not creating one. — SethRy

You only mentioned the backend of my original quote, which was that in societies that are defined as 'corrupt, oppressive, or evil' philosophy is more than just finding truth, because the truth that is presented by the corruptors will always be found or justified to be acceptable given the audience. I think that in those societies, to philosophize is to create new understandings than the one that are forced onto the individual 'philosophying.'

You could revise revolutionary standards, but not create one. — SethRy

I would think that by revising revolutionary standards, you are creating new standards that were not present before.

Ill come back to respond to the

Which is the correct/better way to live life and expereince a religion? Through a religious pathway or a spiritual one? — Anonymys

but I have to go for now

If you dont want to read the whole thing, I italicized the main points.

To 'philosophize' is its most basic form is 'to think.' So I philosophize that those who aren't afraid of thinking, philosophize. However, philosophy can look different everywhere. While Hispanic philosophers philosophize about community, family systems, and god, the American Eurocentric post-modernists look at generalizable theoretical systems outlining psychology and comprehensive religious frameworks. However, in both systems, people are being represented. The people live similarly, and fall into the same categories, or at least, my understanding of humans is that there are fundamental characteristics that are seen that throughout culture, race, ideology, or society.

Basically, there are a few ways in which people live in a philosophical world and are represented by two venues which define the type of philosophy that can be engaged in: Society and religion.
In a free-speech society, philosophy is allowed to be expressed no matter what your view is. However, in a corrupt society, philosophy is defined differently. Corrupt societies are corrupt because of their trademark ability to want more control than is ethical. They are afraid to lose *place greed here*.

The fear of thinking comes from the need to control. Those in power who are not willing to let go of control fear a power greater than there own, so they limit the ability to learn, reason, analyze, and/or think. They burn books and create punishment for spreading new ideologies. Those who are affected by this do one of four things, follow the rules (They believe them, are ignorant, or are scared), adapt, repress thought, or push back. Those who follow the rules because they believe them, create seemingly unbreakable structures that are created to not allow for individual expression, belief, or identity. Those who follow them because they are ignorant are, well... ignorant. Those who follow them because they are scared to live life afraid of those seemingly unbreakable structures created by enthusiastic followers. Those who adapt create ways to express. Adaptors push the limits and often get in trouble for their ability to follow the rules without believing them. While these set of people may not be willing to change the system outright, and do what they can to stay off the radar, they sure as hell don't appreciate those who follow (or the structure). Then, there are those who repress thought. These people live without understanding why. Their repression is unintentional yet weighs heavily on them and limits their will to be alive in this type of society. Finally, there are the pushers, those who fight the system outright and often die because by the followers hands.
To philosophize in this type of society is to go against the regime, philosophers here are the 'pushers' and 'adaptors' because they question the very existence of the framework. Everyone else is either too dumb to think, too scared to question, or began to question but weren't able to break their repressive state. In these societies personality and character play an immense role in the drive to want to learn more than what is being presented, in this society, to philosophize is to create a new standard of living.

In religious settings, philosophy is defined a bit differently. It is not about thinking, but it's about what path of religion you're focused on. Is the focus of the philosopher on the ideologies of Buddha, finding internal peace through thought and gaining self-understanding through self-analysis, toward enlightenment? Or is the philosophers focus on the pathway of Jesus, whose basis was social reform, synthesizing principles to define new normalities of a spiritual life, rather than a physical one.
Whatever the philosopher's journey, there are two primary pathways of internal ideology that are addressed and expressed in personal life. The first is a religious-based life, that is focused on expressly stated organized belief systems, external focus, and formal structure, with the goal of salvation through only one truth with only one right way. Or is the your internal ideology one of a Spirituality based life, one of belief within all individuals, internal focus, with the goal of determining universal principles, values, and ethics through belief in what is good, true, and beautiful. One defines truth as absolute, the other unites people.
Whether the philosopher is looking to philosophize about the "whys" of the religious pathway or the "hows" of the spiritual pathway, it doesn't matter, because philosophy is to understand something better, and if you have done that, then who gives a **** about why.
But... since you asked. I would have to say anxiety as well.
ill probably end up posting this as an OP on my page becaue I liked where your question took me.

The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster was a “tangible” thought)
Obviously, the mind and the brain are similar, but their differences are worlds away.

Is John Harris Back? Sure seems like it.

Are women also polygamous in this world? Fair is fair after all. — MikeL

I can definitely say that I have heard of women who enjoy the polygynous acts. So no, I wouldn't exclude women from this list.

Also, no, I don't believe your argument is not a paradox — Anonymys

I was making a little joke with this statement, it contains one two many negatives (lol) I wasn't really stating that it was your argument, just a side effect of a poor joke.

I would say that sin can be stated as anything facing against divine law, and that suffering is relative to your opinion on the state of suffering that you are in. ie some people would consider being kidnapped terrible, some enjoy being kidnapped (something along the lines of Stockholm syndrome). So, in summary, I would state that suffering is relative to the sufferer.

I would dare to ask, why do you need to suffer to achieve salvation? Is living in this world not suffering enough? Salvation is just a choice, to be saved, or to deny your savior. I would say that the only true suffering going on is living in a sinful world, not dying to get out of it. This is what my belief states. Also, no, I don't believe your argument is not a paradox

That's my favorite ethnic group

I would argue that your five senses lead you to feel a certain emotion, not necessarily that they are one. My evidence being that when I hear something or touch something that reminds me of an emotion, it reminds me of an emotion, I don't suddenly have a new unique emotion due to my senses.
Furthermore, your emotional brain and your physical one are different and are also located in different parts of your brain.

There's something just a tad odd in complaining that Johnny Foreigner is better educated than you and in the next breath blaming him for dragging you down. — unenlightened

I assumed the fact that you were in my head... my mistake, I was originally talking about foreigners from two different specific countries.

science doesn't answer anything, us humans do

Let's see if we can distinguish between: gender, gender identity, and gender roles.
It would be nice to separate sexual physical characteristics: penis, vagina, etc from the physiology of the brain as well. — prothero

Maybe we can create a 59th gender option called: separatist... lol

You spelled my tag wrong

I don't usually talk to argumentative......... but here we are. Don't let your pride get in the way of what you really see, you and I both know that I clearly used myself as an example

No, really, I was using myself as an example for the purpose of the question

*thumbs up*

But let's say, "I'm straight" that's not something that's gonna change, I'm either straight or I'm not. — Anonymys

I was making an example of myself, I wasn't making a metaphorical person up, I was literally saying that I'm straight, and that is not going to change

Of course it can change. Many Gay people thought they were Straight for a long time and even married and had children before they realized they were Gay and became actively Gay. — John Harris

I just meant for me personally

People's sexual identity can vary over time, so I think gender not only is not binary but it also represents a psychological state, you are free to disagree. — prothero

It's not so much that I disagree, it's just more of I don't fully understand

58 gender options identified by ABC News — prothero

Thank you for that, made me chuckle

Gender isn't a psychological "state.' it's an identity of each person they have 24/7 unless it changes. — John Harris

But let's say, "I'm straight" that's not something that's gonna change, I'm either straight or I'm not. So I don't understand why it would change. Is it based on the weather? "it's sunny today, so I like men", "it's rainy today, I like pots" I feel as though people, like my acquaintance in the OP, who openly state that gender is fluid, is like saying that weather doesn't have its purposes. I believe Weather, much like our gender, are set so that you know what to call rain, or wind, or storm, just as you call male or female or "both".