(May 21, 2016 at 2:52 am)quip Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 11:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm wondering where any evidence might be found demonstrating the separability of mind and brain.

I suppose you could add to that body of evidence by introducing yours to a .45

Just a thought.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

(May 21, 2016 at 2:52 am)quip Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 11:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm wondering where any evidence might be found demonstrating the separability of mind and brain.

I suppose you could add to that body of evidence by introducing yours to a .45

Just a thought.

Wow, seriously? Why don't you do everyone a favor, and get the fuck out of here, asshole. Some peaceful Buddhist you are; visiting Internet forums and telling strangers to kill themselves. You think we don't deal with fucktard trolls with no lives like yourself around here on a daily basis? Fuck you, and fuck off. Or take your own advice.
[/quote]

(May 21, 2016 at 4:04 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 8:47 pm)quip Wrote: If there is nothing prior to the established "I" then wherefore the determinate factors denoting your particular quale in distinction to roughly six billion alternate, extant possibilities? 

You're not reading my posts. I've already outlined some of the determining factors in the same post that you previously quoted. Jorg is right, you're not really interested in discussion any more, just focussing in on what you think are 'gotcha!' moments.

You're posts are not answering anything. Your outlines are explaining to me how you exists as you and I as I....rather than how in another possible world the precise inverse may have occurred and by what determination does the current scenario exist.

The "gotcha" is in your conspicuous lack of answers... 

Is this another "gotcha" moment?

---

(May 21, 2016 at 8:53 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 2:52 am)quip Wrote: I suppose you could add to that body of evidence by introducing yours to a .45

Just a thought.

So much for a civil discussion with you. I was simply asking a question, and you come back with a suggestion for suicide?

I don't know if you are or aren't a Buddhist ... but I know for a fact you have a lot to learn about taking aboard opinions that don't comport with your own.

These will be my last words to you; you can have the last word in this conversation between us, so make it a good'un. It's not very often someone so signally falls short of conversational worth, but congratulations, you've managed that, with this one nugget.

Have a nice life.

Dish it out?  ...then take it.  

Your piss 'n moaning will be missed!

28 pages later....

Perhaps -you- should just tell us the only answer you'll accept...and be done with it?

(May 20, 2016 at 5:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: This dude can't be a Buddhist. I've known a few of them, and they're never this bad. Or this douchey.

Buddhists can be pretty douchey. There are Buddhists who believe that people are born into poverty because of their "past karma;" who are anti-choice; who oppose gay marriage. There are Buddhists who slum around with all manner of parapsychology bullshit. I've heard Buddhist monks endorse homeopathic medicine.

---

(May 21, 2016 at 2:52 am)quip Wrote: I suppose you could add to that body of evidence by introducing yours to a .45

Well you're a regular psychopath, aren't you?

FAIL.

Is the answer magic?

In accordance with grammatical rules, only you refer to me as you. If you referred to me as I, you'd instead be referring to yourself. I am always going to be me/I, but never you.

(May 20, 2016 at 2:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Gem

I won't blow smoke up your ass by telling you I was familiar with Priest beforehand, lol, but even the most cursory glance at his wiki entry (and particularly the referenced articles he's authored and reviews of his work) firmly establish his credentials as a syncretist.

Not that this should be taken, in any way, as a refutation of the value you find in those works.  It's just a descriptor.  More skeptical than what, though, and by reference to what standard?

I'm actually astonished to find that you are so convinced Priest has some kind of syncretist agenda. The works I've read tend to focus exclusively on philosophical issues pertaining to logical paradoxes and dialetheism. Which referenced articles give you that impression?

As to eastern philosophical traditions being more skeptical, I would say they are generally more skeptical of metaphysics than western traditions. An example being platonism. You find some flirtation with platonism early on (Nyaya tradition, for example), but after Nagarjuna that was pretty much dead.

Another example would be substance theory. It may seem innocuous to say that the fundamental architecture of reality is something like relativistic fields, who existence is a brute fact with no explanation, but suppose you live in the nineteenth century, or tenth century. Why not conclude that reality bottoms out at matter and energy, or the four classical elements, and declare your quest for understanding the physical universe victorious?

(By the way, the point of this isn't to suggest anything like theism. I don't think first cause and teleological arguments even made it out of B.C.E. in the east.)

By contrast, eastern philosophers tended to conclude that the answers to questions like that were beyond the scope of conjecture. The conceptual framework we operate within is inadequate to describe regimes outside the world of empirical experience, which necessitates both empirical investigation and an expansion of our naive conceptual frameworks. 

I think this comports with the history of science better than western metaphysics.

---

(May 20, 2016 at 3:53 pm)quip Wrote: Mere semantic sophistry.

You refuse to answer..for obvious enough reasons.

Moving on. I await other's answers.

G'day.

Here's my answer. As someone who has more than a passing familiarity with the subject matter.

For a Buddhist, you really are terrible at phenomenology. Perhaps you should meditate more.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Gemini Wrote: I'm actually astonished to find that you are so convinced Priest has some kind of syncretist agenda. The works I've read tend to focus exclusively on philosophical issues pertaining to logical paradoxes and dialetheism. Which referenced articles give you that impression?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about a syncretists agenda.  I simply identified his positions as syncretism.  Syncretism is when one belief-set or tradition is combined with another belief-set or tradition (just in case you thought I meant something else, or something more by this).  Priest argues for this -explicitly- in his defense of particular buddhist traditions or beliefs from within the framework of western philosophy.  He makes this clear in proposing that we incorporate buddhist (and other assorted eastern) philosophy into western philosophy, and vv.  He states that these traditions have alot to teach each other.   From those articles, and I've since read interview transcripts, he seems to be very open and vocal syncretist.  The two things you mentiond are great examples of this. He advocates for, defends, both of these things by rephrasing or re-stating them to satisfy the conditions of western philosophy.

I don't have any problem or issue or bone to pick with syncretism - a good idea is a good idea, lol.

Quote:As to eastern philosophical traditions being more skeptical, I would say they are generally more skeptical of metaphysics than western traditions. An example being platonism. You find some flirtation with platonism early on (Nyaya tradition, for example), but after Nagarjuna that was pretty much dead.

Another example would be substance theory. It may seem innocuous to say that the fundamental architecture of reality is something like relativistic fields, who existence is a brute fact with no explanation, but suppose you live in the nineteenth century, or tenth century. Why not conclude that reality bottoms out at matter and energy, or the four classical elements, and declare your quest for understanding the physical universe victorious?

I think that we'd need a sliding ruler to declare that either tradition is more or less skeptical than the other.

 Perhaps one sub-branch seems to be more skeptical to you, because the tradition does not accept or believe in the things you consider to be in conflict with skepticism...the things you are familiar with from the tradition in which you were born or are most familiar?  OFC, that they don't accept or believe in the weird ass shit you're familiar with is probably to do with deep cultural, temporal, and foundational differences...and not skepticism. They still accept or believe in the weird ass shit -they're- familiar with....and we'll probably be able to find a western counterpart, sub-branch, that also rejects those things.

Personally, I don't think that skepticism can be judged by a relative count of who believes in what weird ass thing...or how many weird ass things....but -why- they believe in whatever it is they do...and how they support those beliefs....whatever they are.

Quote:(By the way, the point of this isn't to suggest anything like theism. I don't think first cause and teleological arguments even made it out of B.C.E. in the east.)

They didn't make it out of the BCE in the west either.  Most of the refutations of theist arguments you'll see on this site actually predate christianity...and were formed in response to various branches of classical greek philosophy and pre-christian paganism.   

Quote:By contrast, eastern philosophers tended to conclude that the answers to questions like that were beyond the scope of conjecture. The conceptual framework we operate within is inadequate to describe regimes outside the world of empirical experience, which necessitates both empirical investigation and an expansion of our naive conceptual frameworks. 

-that all sounds very skeptical, doesn't it...and then...Karma, Anatta (no, not the syncretism), etc.  

Quote:I think this comports with the history of science better than western metaphysics.

Science -arose- of out western philosophy, so that's a pretty high bar. Are you sure you're not counting the hits (and maybe even syncretising the hits)...and ignoring the misses?

(May 21, 2016 at 4:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I simply identified his positions as syncretism.  Syncretism is when one belief-set or tradition is combined with another belief-set or tradition ... 

...that all sounds very skeptical, doesn't it...and then...Karma, Anatta (no, not the syncretism), etc.  

Science -arose- of out western philosophy.  Are you sure you're not counting the hits (and maybe even syncretising the hits)...and ignoring the misses?

If you mean that Priest is a philosophical syncretist, as opposed to a religious syncretist, then sure.

When I say the philosophical traditions are more skeptical, I mean the *philosophical* traditions. Not the religious traditions. So bugger Karma.

And I don't think it's fair to say science arose out of western philosophy. It arose out of philosophy, sure. Which had been heavily influenced by near-eastern philosophy. Which had been influenced by eastern philosophy.