RE: Good read on consciousness
January 11, 2021 at 12:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2021 at 1:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
We certainly don't - and probably don't disagree on many of the things it might seem at first. All positions on mind are pregnant with semantic landmines.
I wouldn't find it particularly surprising if every position we've discussed gets some things right, but enough wrong for an accurate description to be validly characterized as not true whateverism. I only bring it up because you've been indicating that you have trouble understanding the things I'm saying. It's for clarity, not for assertion of truth or content or truth-of-content. The bit about illusionism not being a trick that produces the real article seems particularly relevant to our discussion - as that's the form that many of your questions about the position have taken.
All questions that take the form -in the semantics of a given position - of "how does x do this thing y that doesn't exist" are interchangeable, and one answer applies to them all. It doesn't. The perceived insensibility of any answer which insists on the y and reduces to "here's how it does the thing that doesn't exist" are an artifact of the questions poor construction, not the inensibility of the description of what it is doing.
I wouldn't find it particularly surprising if every position we've discussed gets some things right, but enough wrong for an accurate description to be validly characterized as not true whateverism. I only bring it up because you've been indicating that you have trouble understanding the things I'm saying. It's for clarity, not for assertion of truth or content or truth-of-content. The bit about illusionism not being a trick that produces the real article seems particularly relevant to our discussion - as that's the form that many of your questions about the position have taken.
All questions that take the form -in the semantics of a given position - of "how does x do this thing y that doesn't exist" are interchangeable, and one answer applies to them all. It doesn't. The perceived insensibility of any answer which insists on the y and reduces to "here's how it does the thing that doesn't exist" are an artifact of the questions poor construction, not the inensibility of the description of what it is doing.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
