You can put "homo circularis rationatio" in any search engine and know exactly what it means.
I Googled it and got three hits, all you, and I still don't know what you mean by this phrase:
I've said a million times that it is the species that arose from the dust of the tower of babel.
That still has no meaning to me. There was no Tower of Babel, and even if there were, you still haven't described what caused this biological speciation event or why you think that speech makes a Homo sapiens something else.
If you don't want to argue then why respond at all?
It's you that won't engage. What value do you get out of repeating unevidenced claims that have been rejected by others as wrong or incomprehensible?
I'm proposing a new way to see reality from which some things make more sense and it explains many things never before explained.
But what you write doesn't accomplish that. You've explained nothing. Explain: "make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas."
If you must see the world through the lens of a '60's American product and life through the eyes of a quack from 1830's England that's your choice and you have every right to it.
A quack from 1830's England? Does this mean that you don't approve of my understanding of medical science, either? I don't either at this time, 14 years into retirement, but I was always current when working.
My worldview makes sense to me and has served me well. You seem to think you have a better way of knowing, of seeing further that others like me might benefit from imitating.
I very much enjoy discoursing with you
Thanks, but I don't see why. What's in it for you? I teach you nothing and you disregard most of what I write to you.
I don't agree with any part. There is more or less truth in every part but viewing consciousness from the perspective of a sleepwalker is nonproductive. We must model consciousness. All life is conscious means all life is always conscious. We don't die when we go to sleep or passout drunk, we merely enter new states of consciousness where some parts of the brain mostly shut down and others are alert. We experience "unconsciousness" when the higher brain functions sleep or shut off largely because it is the nature of a brain that runs on abstract language.
This doesn't meet the requirements of the kind of answer I requested. It ignores most of my words and most specific areas of disagreement, and where it does do that, it lacks the requested explanation of why you think your contradictory position is correct and mine wrong.
What you could have done is to take my paragraph describing consciousness and change only the phrases in that you think are incorrect to ones you think are more correct and afterward comment on why, that is, make it correct factually.
Look at how you start out referring to my description as the perspective of a sleep walker while ignoring most of what I wrote about a theater of consciousness, a parade of phenomena, an intuition of self-other/here-there/then-now, discussing instead and go off into your own world which says nothing to me. I STILL don't know what you think consciousness is or why you say all life is conscious, and I never will, will I?
The "self" the "viewer" we perceive is a product of language, belief.
Here's something that resembles some of my words, but also lacks substance. It doesn't contradict me, but it also adds nothing but another unsupported claim that is obviously incorrect. My dog has an implied sense of self without any language at all. I approach a bird and it flies off demonstrating an implicit sense of self-other/here-there/then-now. It's itself and I'm not. It's there (here to it, there to me) and I'm here (there to it, here to me), and its flight implies a sense of the future and wanting to control its outcome, it's understanding my approaching as
was becoming
is becoming
will be.
