No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?"

Perhaps the reason people can't agree on anything in these discussions is that each person is talking about a different 'God.'

There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'?

You're right. There's little point in discussing things with you as you are arrogant and abusive. Please don't respond to my threads anymore.

Parental nurturing instincts are a good thing... today. But people may not think so in the future. Desirability is the product of biology and biology can be changed.

In other words: your brain isn't observing facts. Your brain is creating them.

Then they would have their "facts," but these "facts" would not be comprehensible to us. When I talk about "facts" I mean "human facts."

It means every so-called "fact" that any human has ever learned or thought about is the product of neuronal activity. If there are no brains, then there will also be no "facts."

If humans disappeared, the Earth might still revolve around the Sun. But there would be no "facts" regarding this phenomenon. "Facts," as people understand them, do not exist independent of the mind that created it.

EDIT: This has significance because when two people look at the Sun, they're not seeing the same "Sun." Similarly, when two people react to a post, they're not reacting to the "same" post.

In order to respond, your brain had to interpret and remember the visual input coming in from your retina. Then, based on this interpretation, neurons in the brain send signals back to the muscles in your fingers to respond. In other words, as you typed this, sections of your brain are responding to input and stimuli from OTHER sections of your brain. Technically you're not responding to me. You're actually responding to your own brain.

The same applies to me, too, of course. It's an insanely complex process.

Technically you're not responding to what I wrote. You're actually responding to a memory of what you believe I wrote.

But it is interesting, to many others, because philosophy is little more than neuroscience but without the science or the tools.

All basic primary instincts are a function of biology and can be modified once people finally begin to understand how the brain works. Just because something is "basic" doesn't mean it can't be changed.

I agree, but it's not the direction I'm going. The direction I'm aiming for is the idea that anytime we talk about something, we're actually discussing our own memories. When we claim "X is a fact" we're implying that:

1. I have a memory of X.
2. This memory is accurate.
3. Others should agree with me on this claim.

In other words, we're not actually talking about X itself. Instead, we're discussing our interpretations of X, generated by the physical processes of our brains.

What I'm trying to say is that the difference between an opinion and a fact depends on the feeling of certainty attached to the concept, as both opinions and facts are merely the products of neurological activity.

I'm glad this has not devolved (yet) into blind insults. That's good.

My argument appears to be changing, or at least that's how it would appear to others, but that's because I'm presenting it in installments. Also, I'm not entirely sure how to summarize my idea, so I'll attack this communication problem from another angle- by providing the context and the background for my odd claims- so at least others will know where I'm coming from.

Imagine this: you're in a dark, abandoned house. Your best friend, hiding in a corner, jumps in front of you, and you scream like a little girl. The casual relationship in this scenario appears to be obvious: "your best friend surprised you in a scary environment. Thus you were scared and screamed."

But it's not that simple. What actually happened on a biological level was more like this:

"Sounds and sights from the environment [best friend jumping in front of you] triggered the neurons in your eyes to send signals to neurons in the back and side lobes of your brain. These neurons then triggered the subsystems in your brain involved with "fight / flee." Your body jumped back because, again, the fight/flee subsystems sent signals to the rest of your body triggering a physical reaction. This event is then, somehow, imprinted in the various subsystems of your brain involved with memory, which is why, later, when your friends tease you about it, you get angry." Etc. etc. .

In other words, when "you" jump back and scream in response to a scary event, it's not as simple as it seems. What's actually happening is that your brain is responding to itself, in response to external cues from the environment. Or more specifically: subsystems in your brain responded to other subsystems in your brain, which then activated various other parts of your body, which is why you were scared. When you look back at the event, what's happening on a biological level is that executive neural networks in your brain are modifying/recalling the neural networks involved with memory. Somehow. No one knows the details, but what I've provided here is a reasonable sketch.

Why did I write all this? It's to point out that "facts" don't exist in a vacuum. "Facts" are memories stored (somehow) in human brains. When you recall a "fact", you're recalling a "memory"- the result of some physical process in your brain. If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't be able to recall 'facts.' If everyone lost their brains, then everyone would have also lost their 'facts,' which means there will be no 'facts' anymore.

Etc. etc. '

[EDIT: Ignore the italics. Not intentional. I can't seem to get rid of it].

I have to go. But I'll be back in an hour or two. Thank you for your time and I will respond when i get back.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains.

Sure. But again, this claim of yours requires a brain. There are no observations independent of the observer.

You can use your finger to point at something that's not your finger. But you can't think about the brain without using your brain.

I.e. A "fact" is a physical process generated by complex neural circuits of the brain.

Alright, this is confusing me. Here's my position again:

1. Facts are statements.
2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain.
3. No brain- > no facts.

Human observations do not exist independent of the human brain.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. Like, literally, the neural circuity related to that concept fire up.

No brain. No neural circuitry. No facts.

Clarify what? I'm confused.

Ah, but now we have neuroscience to figure out how we think.

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate?

We can only point at things that we can observe and interpret through our brain.

In part, yes. I think.

You can't reference something unless your brain believes it exists. Does a "state of affairs" exist outside of us? Maybe. But any claims about it are generated by a human brain.

I'm mostly trying to point out the assumptions that people unconsciously make when they talk about "facts."

No it's not. A bacterium doesn't know where it is, at least not in the way we would understand it.

Because you used the word "position."

That's a concept generated by the human brain.

All observations are generated by complex neurological processes.

Concepts of position requires sensory perceptions. The very concept of position itself wouldn't exist without a brain.

So long as they rule in my favor and collect my debt, I am content.

yes. On purpose.

My definition makes sense, unlike yours, S.

I mean, facts are generated by brains, correct?

Huh? If the judges agree that my opinion is right, then they will send officers of the law to collect my debt.

EDIT: So I guess, yes.

I've reviewed it. I still don't understand.

Facts are generated by the human brain. If there's no brain, then there are no facts.

That's one of my positions. Why do you disagree or think it silly?

According to the opinions of other judges in the past.

What logic? I'm not being silly (or at least I'm not trying to). But you are.