Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 03:24 (4866 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: We do not understand the linkage between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities.
> 
> I have made the same point on the thread "Consciousness, identity, OBEs", which I opened precisely for the sake of this discussion. Would contributors please, please, please continue it on the appropriate thread, quoting the arguments to which they are responding.
> 
> MATT: Again we return to the fact that your description falls apart when we try to apply empirical methods to it; and as I discussed earlier in my framework, I'm not interested in things that can't be known.
> 
> You set out your epistemological framework on 12 January at 02.16, defining what you considered to be knowledge, plus your own hierarchy of rank. It is full of holes, and in my post of 12 January at 20.27 I did my best to provide a critique of it, as well as offering a suggestion of my own, only to be informed on 13 January at 22.32 that your scepticism was underpinned by the maxim "the only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." May I suggest that on this thread you explain your epistemological framework by responding to my critique, and that on the consciousness thread you explain the process by which ... I quote myself rewriting your own statement in materialist terms ... "The brain knows the brain well. The brain knows when the brain is trying to get the brain to do something versus what the brain intends on doing."-I think we should pause here... lets get my thoughts in order so that they make sense to you first...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"