Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Sparko]

Well, an infant doesn't know what the moon is either, so what? If they see it they are aware that it is there, they are aware of its existence even if they don't know what it is.

Infants can't really reason yet. derp.

Until they can reason, they don't even know they are "observing" something. They can't consider anything.

So what, an object doesn't have to have meaning to one in order for them to be aware of its existence. You apparently don't know what "to reason" means.

You have to reason to be "aware."

[JimL]

Infants can't really reason yet. derp.
So
Until they can reason, they don't even know they are "observing" something. They can't consider anything.

So, they can see an object, but not be aware that they see an object?

You have to reason to be "aware."

No you don't Sparko, that's just dumb. To reason is to think about the object you are aware of. Awareness and reason are two different things which is why they are two different terms.

[Tassman]

Infants can't really reason yet.

Until they can reason, they don't even know they are "observing" something. They can't consider anything.

Infants are nevertheless aware of their surroundings long before they are capable of reasoning about them, which undercuts your point that reasoning comes first.

You have to reason to be "aware."

Not so. See above.

[Sparko]

So, they can see an object, but not be aware that they see an object?



No you don't Sparko, that's just dumb. To reason is to think about the object you are aware of. Awareness and reason are two different things which is why they are two different terms.

My God, you are completely dense, JimL

We were talking about reasoning has to be the first step in finding the truth. Tassman said you have to observe FACTS to find the truth. But in order to even realize that observation corresponds with reality, you have to have the concepts of "reality" and "observation" and "truth" already in your mind. To realize the moon is an object outside of your body, you have to have the concept of "me" and "not me" - You can't observe or be aware of anything without having a mind and being able to think.

That you are actually arguing otherwise means you are either trolling, or are the biggest idiot on the internet.

[JimL]

My God, you are completely dense, JimL

We were talking about reasoning has to be the first step in finding the truth.

No, you were asserting that awareness of an object is the same thing as reasoning about it. Not!

[Sparko]

No, you were asserting that awareness of an object is the same thing as reasoning about it. Not!

Define awareness, JimL. What is it exactly? and how do you achieve it without thinking?

[JimL]

Define awareness, JimL. What is it exactly? and how do you achieve it without thinking?

Sparko, It has become clear that disgussing any kind of logic, or physics, or even philosophy with you is just an exercise in frustration and a waste of time. You just don't have the mental capacity to understand such concepts no matter how much anyone tries to dumb it down for you. And the saddest thing is, you believe you are an expert in such matters. If they ever need a photo to go with the definition of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, you should submit yours. You're the quintessential example of that.

[Sparko]

Sparko, It has become clear that disgussing any kind of logic, or physics, or even philosophy with you is just an exercise in frustration and a waste of time. You just don't have the mental capacity to understand such concepts no matter how much anyone tries to dumb it down for you. And the saddest thing is, you believe you are an expert in such matters. If they ever need a photo to go with the definition of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, you should submit yours. You're the quintessential example of that.

True to form, all you can do is imitate your betters like a little monkey.

[shunyadragon]

And yet to even have the concept "objective verifiable evidence determines reality" you have to use, wait for it, ... REASON.

Reason cannot stand alone without objective verifiable evidence. If you choose this route your REASON becomes only anecdotal and subjective among the many other conflicting assertions based on REASON alone.

[Sparko]

Reason cannot stand alone without objective verifiable evidence. If you choose this route your REASON becomes only anecdotal and subjective among the many other conflicting assertions based on REASON alone.

You clearly have never studied logic or philosophy.

But regardless, I never claimed that reason stands alone. Burn some more straw while you are at it.

[shunyadragon]

You clearly have never studied logic or philosophy.

But regardless, I never claimed that reason stands alone. Burn some more straw while you are at it.

In your post to me you only stated REASON in capital letters with no reference to objective verifiable evidence.

[Tassman]

Define awareness, JimL. What is it exactly? and how do you achieve it without thinking?

Awareness merely requires the existence of a functioning brain, whereas “reason” is the power of the brain to think, understand, and form judgments. A baby can be ‘aware’ of a noisy baby rattle without reasoning about it.

[Sparko]

Awareness merely requires the existence of a functioning brain, whereas “reason” is the power of the brain to think, understand, and form judgments. A baby can be ‘aware’ of a noisy baby rattle without reasoning about it.

Why does "awareness" require a functioning brain then? What is the brain doing to make itself "aware" of something?

[Sparko]

In your post to me you only stated REASON in capital letters with no reference to objective verifiable evidence.

that doesn't even make sense Shunya.

I said REASON was a first principal, that you just have to accept reason as a valid way to get to the truth and it is what comes before you can even use observational facts. Because to use observational facts, you have to first be able to reason that there are such things as observing things, that things exist other than yourself, what truth is, and that observing is a method of finding that truth.

I have yet to see anyone show me wrong yet. Instead Tassman and JimL have gone on some weird rabbit trail about "awareness" which still requires a BRAIN and the brain functioning and reasoning in order to be aware.

[Sparko]

Just wanted to remind the thread that JimL has already conceded that I am correct way back here:

Reason and logic are self evidential valid methods of finding truth as has been proven throughout time. Reason is not itself something that need be proven, it's what we use to prove facts about the world.