How hard is it to become proficient in weapons based arts compared to physical fighting ones?

Why can't consciousness be a base material process?

 

That you must prove it to others to know it as self-evident reveals your cowardice, not your courage. There is no mystery, you are huffing gas fumes. You exist and decide and act on your own and will be treated as such.

 

Why do you want it to be one? Transcendental logic is incompatible with mechanical logic except for one way and that is transcendental -> mechanical. You want to assert that you can gain no insight to reality as if your mind and will does not spontaneously create outside the parameters of matter. You exist whether you like it or not, deal with it.

 

Are you right because you can say why according to what is agreed to be the parameters of "rational"?

 

If something is self-evident, there is no need to prove it to others, by definition.

A life without mystery sounds a bit dull to me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

I like how we're trying to cut and split with logic and base matter as one does with weapons. Am I barehanded haha!

 

Let me kick to gain distance! Holy crap.

 

Well I'm a sociable guy I guess. You're right that there is no need to prove it. Graduating from one mystery you can move onto the next, look forward to it.

 

Are you referencing Kant?

What does my brain create that is outside the parameters of matter? What does that mean?

 

I am saddened that after I pointed out that I was not attacking you personally you reply with a personal insult.

Note - I have reported one of Deadpool's comments to the administrator as I feel that it breaches the code of conduct for the forum. There is no need for anyone to get personal.

but back to your comment - Once again I am not convinced of anything. I am satisfied that the observed phenomenon in the lizards could be explained by any number of processes that are consistent with the current understanding of evolution. This is how understanding is built. an observation is made that throws light on an understanding. That observation is used to test the current understanding to see if it can be explained. if you cant then you have learnt something new which is brilliant - this is how scientific progress happens.

 

Fair enough, it was a call back to the rational/irrational prime movers discussion, and also being called ignorant, lazy and stupid multiple times by someone I would postulate isn't in the best mental state at the moment.

But you have the free will to do that.... Or do you?

 

Aren't we to answer whether one creates or not?

My understanding includes the existence of the self which spontaneously creates, the Soul, Will (including free will), and an Experiencer. If you want understanding, existential foundations are necessary yes? One must admit that one exists and knowledge of such should exist before one attempts to rationalize.

 

Okay, Yoda, that is not an answer, that is a cop-out. In this transcendental cosmology that you have dreamt up, do you not know what it is that the brain creates outside of the parameters of matter? Are you making this up as you go along?

Why does one need to know they exist in order to rationalise? What prevents someone in doubt of that from rationalising? Seeing as most philosophers who have tackled the subject came from a place of doubt, I find this argument dubious.

 

I do not have free will or control over how I react to something in the moment. However I can practice observing my reactions, acknowledging them, and then consciously choosing what to do next.

I breath in and out three times then try to get on with life. it doesn't always work, but as someone with ADHD I have found it a very helpful practice to cultivate.

 

It's not a cop out. The existential question is whether all is superdetermined (which is basically predetermination) or spontaneous things happen (at all).

There is no impetus to rationalize if there is no self that you are attempting to preserve the existence of. There is no convergent ordering principle without transcendent logic. All trends towards entropy without anti-entropic forcers. It is existential and thus transcendental logic that if there are entropic forces there are anti-entropic forcers. A forcer is an anti-entropic existence while a force is an entropic one.

 

And it is backwards reasoning that I said "entropic forces thus anti-entropic forcers" considering it was the forcers that experienced and conceptualized the entropic forces. More like a return to ORIGIN.

 

I bet your ADHD would be remedied if you believed in free will EDIT: and willpower. One can conduct such a personal experiment, yes? I think the arrangement of your matter permits you to conduct such an experiment for yourself.

 

You need to define your terms. I'm going to try and tease some meaning out of this, because honestly it reads like random gobbledygook.

Spontaneity can exist without consciousness. See quantum theory. However, you still haven't made any attempt to explain what you mean by "outside the parameters of matter". What is that?

The second paragraph really does just look like a series of non-sequiturs. Does it mean anything?

 

I will approach this another way. Any observer of reality may reach the conclusion that it is alive and trends towards evolution, growth, and consciousness, and that existential transcendental logic is the operational logic of reality and individuals of this reality. Correct?
It is at least rational to conclude that the operable logic of reality and individuals is transcendental existential logic, yes?

 

You still haven't defined your terms.

Define "transcendental existential logic". Are you simply referring to Kant's a priori knowledge, or something else?

You are still evading my questions as to what you mean by "outside the parameters of matter". What does that mean?