How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That user is a subjectivist as he includes subjective experinces in empiricism if I recalled correctly.

I explained to you why that is appropriate, but you declined to discuss the matter. For you, empiricism begins with the world outside of the body. I include my body. Wisdom is the acquisition of information about how reality works from the individual perspective including what brings lasting satisfaction or as close as we can achieve that. I discovered empirically that strawberries taste good to me and that Brussels sprouts don't. Those experiences are reproducible and predictable notwithstanding that they are subjective. And that information is certainly at least as useful as knowing how to drive a car.

I've also explained why I don't consider objective reality as important as one's subjective reality. It's the other way around. The former is what we imagine lies outside of the mind and which we try to represent as a mental map. Its value is in helping control that inner experience. You've got that reversed. You seem to see subjectivity as flawed or inferior to objectivity.

And because he doesn't like that I point that out I have put him on ignore, so I don't answer his posts and upset him.

You don't upset me. You confuse me and seem to confuse yourself.

And I don't mind being on your ignore list.

 

[shunyadragon]

That user is a subjectivist as he includes subjective experinces in empiricism if I recalled correctly.

He still supports empiricism. Actually subjective experiences can a part of Social Sciences. There is nothing more subjective as your view of science.

And because he doesn't like that I point that out I have put him on ignore, so I don't answer his posts and upset him.

Nonetheless his critique was accurate. The reason you put him on ignore is like because he was right on about you and you could not respond, as usual

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He still supports empiricism. Actually subjective experiences can a part of Social Sciences. There is nothing more subjective as your view of science.

Nonetheless his critique was accurate. The reason you put him on ignore is like because he was right on about you and you could not respond, as usual

Well, here is a text about existence.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It relates to your idea of physical existence. It turns out existence is not science, it is philosphy. So with that out of the way, what is physical? Can you explain that?

 

[McBell]

Well, here is a text about existence.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It relates to your idea of physical existence. It turns out existence is not science, it is philosphy. So with that out of the way, what is physical? Can you explain that?

Existence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Existence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, it is philosophy and not science: "... Ontology is the philosophical discipline studying the nature and types of existence. ..." From your wiki link

 

[McBell]

Yeah, it is philosophy and not science: "... Ontology is the philosophical discipline studying the nature and types of existence. ..." From your wiki link

Ontology is the STUDY of existence, not existence itself.
If existence did not exist, how can it be studied?

 

[Audie]

No, see graphite, diamond and CO2 for common exceptions
A little closer is Carbon containing compounds that have a covalent Carbon Hydrogen bond as opposed to ionicaly bonded as it is in Hydrogen Cyanide HCN but I am sure even this rule has exceptions that I don't remember.
note, it appears that Google U. is not the place to look for an answer to this.

It's NYU, ifn ya dont mind.

And as is so often pointed out, a lot of things,
like " what is life", or a "species", say, don't lend
themselves to one line defifinitions or bright line didt
distinctions
Like whether C02 is just for.P- chem or organic
They're term of conveniece

It's a bit tiresome to bring up diamonds
which aren't even compounds.

I only mentioned " organic" for the creos who so
love to talk about "lifeless chemicals".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ontology is the STUDY of existence, not existence itself.
If existence did not exist, how can it be studied?

It can't be studied as you can't observe it. Please tell what existence looks like? Color, form and so on.

 

[McBell]

Please tell what existence looks like? Color, form and so on.

You just answered your own question.
That is a good start, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just answered your own question.
That is a good start, right?

So what was my answer? It is pink, shaped like an 2037 sided egg, smells like an idiot on fire, sounds like high pitiched silence, taste like boiled sewer vaste and touches as it is not there as an actual touch like any other touch. That is what existence is.
So now I have answer what existence is to me.

Please tell what it is to you?

 

[McBell]

So what was my answer? It is pink, shaped like an 2037 sided egg, smells like an idiot on fire, sounds like high pitiched silence, taste like boiled sewer vaste and touches as it is not there as an actual touch like any other touch. That is what existence is.
So now I have answer what existence is to me.

Please tell what it is to you?

That which is.

Interesting how you claim existence can not be observed then so thoroughly describe what you observe,

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, here is a text about existence.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It relates to your idea of physical existence. It turns out existence is not science, it is philosphy. So with that out of the way, what is physical? Can you explain that?

That is one of too many references concerning existence. You tend to choose one that fits your subjective biased agenda.

Existence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.Existence is the state of having being or reality in contrast to nonexistence and nonbeing. Existence is often contrasted with essence: the essence of an entity is its essential features or qualities, which can be understood even if one does not know whether the entity exists.

Physical and mental

Entities that exist on a physical level include objects encountered in everyday life, like stones, trees, and human bodies, as well as entities discussed in modern physics, like electrons and protons.[52][f] Physical entities can be observed and measured; they possess mass and a location in space and time.[54]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That which is.

Interesting how you claim existence can not be observed then so thoroughly describe what you observe,

Yeah, it was black irony. I am of the school of thought that existence is an idea in philosophy without an actual referent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is one of too many references concerning existence. You tend to choose one that fits your subjective biased agenda.

Existence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.Existence is the state of having being or reality in contrast to nonexistence and nonbeing. Existence is often contrasted with essence: the essence of an entity is its essential features or qualities, which can be understood even if one does not know whether the entity exists.

Physical and mental

Entities that exist on a physical level include objects encountered in everyday life, like stones, trees, and human bodies, as well as entities discussed in modern physics, like electrons and protons.[52][f] Physical entities can be observed and measured; they possess mass and a location in space and time.[54]

So what is mental?

 

[McBell]

Yeah, it was black irony. I am of the school of thought that existence is an idea in philosophy without an actual referent.

Fair enough.
I am not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough.
I am not.

Hence please explain what existence is and how you know that.

 

[McBell]

Hence please explain what existence is and how you know that.

That which is.
It is.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what is mental?

The question was what is existence, the l gave the explanation and I gave the reference, which you apparently do not like. Can you read?

Same source.

Mental entities like perceptions, experiences of pleasure and pain as well as beliefs, desires, and emotions belong to the realm of the mind; they are primarily associated with conscious experiences but also include unconscious states like unconscious beliefs, desires, and memories

Existence is not defined by Mental entities.

You still failed to respond. You are very slippery subjectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That which is.
It is.

What is it, besides that it is? Because that is the very idea of exsistence, being qua being. But I ask what that is, other that playing with the words and writing it is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The question was what is existence, the l gave the explanation and I gave the reference, which you apparently do not like. Can you read?

Same source.

Mental entities like perceptions, experiences of pleasure and pain as well as beliefs, desires, and emotions belong to the realm of the mind; they are primarily associated with conscious experiences but also include unconscious states like unconscious beliefs, desires, and memories

Existence is not defined by Mental entities.

You still failed to respond. You are very slippery subjectively.

But I don't want definitions. You state that physical is what can be observed. I can work with that. But the mental states can't be observed like physical ones, so I conclude that they are not real.
So why do you post claims that are not real, since it is not physical and thus doesn't exist?