Karl

I feed myself. If everything is mother, then I would be mother and therefore self contained. You are effectively taking part in a religion. People believe it's God that is Father and provider.

I see you agree with me which is excellent. I don't give myself labels. Objectivism has a lot of merit. I can't say I agree with all of it, just as I couldn't say I agree with everything Aristotle believed, or contradict everything that Plato thought, or even Hegel and Kant. It's best to start with ones own reasoning and develop ones own philosophy by questioning everything.

It's deliberately like that. Rambling sentences and dead ends designed to leave the reader in stunned acceptance.

Stolen concept fallacy. You have just proven the existence of body and mind.

Funny how things which were arguments against a theory end up as being used as examples of proof.

There isn't any need to go any further. This was Aristotles ending of the idea of 'flux' and 'the second world of forms'. These were the dominant philosophies until Aristotle appeared. Gradually through Kant, Hegel and Hulme, these philosophies have re-emerged. Science-the scientific method/inductive logic is entirely the creation of Aristotle. Kant, Hegel and Hulme are a return to skepticism and mysticism. As such it can be seen there is a danger in a collapse towards those barbarous philosophic relics.

It's just a hunk of rock and not a conscious entity. It doesn't love any person anymore than your computer loves you. It is logically erroneous to think of it as a mother or a father. It is neither. It happens to be a place we happen to live.

This appears to be a minor variation on the old 'everything is in flux' philosophy that modern philosophers have raised into modern consciousness. That an acorn becomes a tree doesn't deny the existence of an acorn. Grass becomes beef, grass and cows are existent objects. Man eats beef, but not grass. I see this is where science got tangled up with quantum cats.

Couple of things. Today we can harvest as many calories as we need, but it was far more difficult in the time of our ancestors. Crops were not so hardy and drought was common. It's unlikely that during the ice age we could grow much at all. It meant that some tribes would eat purely meat at times. I don't think Eskimos had a lot of fruit and vegetables. Second, calories and protein. Where are these body building deriving the protein ?

This isn't scientific proof but a biblical myth. Also a creature occurring in the fossil record was 'thought' to be dead, doesn't mean it has come back to life, only that it had been believed dead because it occurred also as a fossil. You seem to find it very easy to accept mythology as fact. Don't you ever question these things ?

I haven't looked into it. We are omnivores and it's unlikely that we would have been able to survive for long on a pure vegan diet due to the lack of calories.

A bit too much Mary Shelley going on there. Has this act been performed and observed under scientifically rigorous conditions. That's a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.

There are some concerns about the mental effects of vegan diets. There is emerging evidence that the brain requires saturated fats to perform optimally. That's another conversation. People see things as they are, they don't necessarily interpret them correctly. That might be ignorance through lack of experience, or simply poor cognition.

Reality is reality we aren't 'interpreting it' we experience it directly through our senses. We might not reach the right conclusions about the things we see, but we see those things as they are. Take a stick and put it into a tumbler of water and the stick looks bent. This is reality that the stick appears bent. Even when the science behind the bending is known, the stick does not become unbent because we have that new knowledge. The same is true of conceptual integrations. If we lack the words to describe the integration or the concepts then we have failed to define the concepts sufficiently well. Personally I question the idea of subjectivity. If one person dislikes the taste of cheese and another finds it pleasant then this is true for both parties. The dislike and like are existent emotional reactions. The cheese remains the same.

You can't transfer consciousness to a dead body.

It wasn't a gratuitous assertion, it was in reply to you being seemingly unable to understand the difference between a complete abscence of consciousness and the state of being unconscious.

That is absolutely true. Going back to early philosophies we can see where these ideas come from. Aristotle lead the movement out of mysticism and scepticism. Currently we are living through a period in which mysticism and scepticism seem to be in the ascendant.

I'm still trying to figure out what the relevance of posting that video is ?

Unconscious is not without consciousness. A corpse isn't unconscious, it is without any consciousness. Mind and body are indivisible. Consciousness is and body is.

Those were the days :-) still one of my favourites. I always struggled with the accuracy of the beat.

No brain then dead. Wasn't that clear? The body is a composition and the brain is where all processing occurs and every bit of the nervous system is connected.

Neither. Consciousness is resident in the body as part and parcel of the construction, but it is not caused by the material anymore than the consciousness causes the material. No consciousness then dead, no body then dead. This is the difference between the way in which I think compared to how you think. For you it is a case of A and non A, for me it is that both thinker and thought exist. I don't need to rationalise the apparent duality that you see because I don't see any.

The energy can be seen but not the thoughts themselves.

As long as you are happy.