The Infiniteness of Time

[Terrapin Station]

Could you be more sketchy?

Is it supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall or not?

If not, as I said above, the model works fine when we're focusing on things like equations where time isn't a factor. It's important in this, though, that we don't take it to be or to imply an ontological claim about what the world is like outside of that usage. It's important that we don't take it to be a statement about the ontological nature of time in general.

I'm not being sketchy, apparently you fail to comprehend what the block universe even means.

Well you're certainly giving a non-sketchy explanation of it contra what you're taking to be my misunderstanding.

Whatever, use Google

I'm not the one who thinks I don't understand it. It's not that I'm not familiar with it, lol.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

But "data" (of the movie scene) is not the same as the movie scene itself. How does the "data" change into a movie scene if change does not exist?

If I understand the question, you are asking how the 4D physical data that is the entirety of timeless spacetime turns into your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious experience and/or your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious present; is that what you are asking?

Yes, how do my conscious experiences change if change can't happen/exist?

I have never denied that emergent relative timelines would emerge from "conscious presences" (i.e. consciousnesses, plural) if they exist which I personally believe they do. But then those consciousnesses (plural) are more fundamental than the relative times and relativistic timelines that emerge from them.

However, to answer your question in more detail I would need to know whether you are positing only RJG's consciousness and unique conscious present with its own emergent relativistic timeline exists (i.e. solipsism), or if you are positing that many to all humans (and presumably certain kinds of other creatures and objects) across all of spacetime also all have their own conscious presents, including 34-year-old Scott and 10-year-old Scott and (if I live long enough) 50-year-old Scott.

In any case, whether merely positing solipsism or positing something much more significant than solipsism (that all other humans in spacetime have conscious experiences and corresponding conscious presents too), either proposition seems to posit something that transcends currently known physics and observable sharable science.

In other words, Daniel Dennett--who for all we know may be a real life philosophical zombie-- would presumably reject what you are positing, and if he is a p-zombie it would be irrational and unreasonable for him not to reject what you are positing. In other words, it transcends what you can prove or scientifically demonstrate to anyone other than yourself.

I would argue that the word "turn into" (or 'change') is a misnomer in that context. To go back to the analogy, a DVD player does not (necessarily) change the DVD by playing a would-be scene from it. It doesn't turn the DVD into a movie, per se, but generates a playing movie/scene that exists in addition to and separate from the DVD, and each DVD player generates its own separate movie/scenes even if they are all playing the same unchanging DVD.

But according to your model, the DVD player (and the generated movie/scene) also exist in this 4D block universe as just "unchanging data".

No, that's not my model.

I think the entirety of unchanging 4D spacetime (which includes what you would call the past and the future) is only a/the unchanging DVD.

If something corresponding to DVD player(s) also exist, then I believe that is in addition to 4D spacetime and/or or as more fundamental than 4D spacetime.

There can be NO "exists in addition to and separate from" this DVD if this DVD (4D block universe) is ALL there is. You seem to be implying that the DVD player (and the generated movie scenes) somehow magically exist "outside" or separate from this DVD (4D universe).

I am not saying that 4D spacetime (i.e. the unchanging DVD) is or isn't all there is.

For that reason, I have generally done my best to avoid saying "4D block universe" since I agree the equivocal word "universe" could imply all of reality.

I am open and/or agnostic to the idea that there could be something that exists in addition to the entirety of the unchanging 4D timeless spacetime that contains the Big Bang, all humans, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun in a timeless unchanging state.

Maybe there are also things that each act--in analogy--like DVD players each with its own screen and relativistic emergent timeline. Maybe not.

Maybe there's a 5th dimension. Maybe not.

My changing conscious experiences are proof that change happens/exists. Again, it is logically impossible to deny the existence of "change" (and therefore of Time).

It is not illogical for me to deny or doubt your alleged conscious experiences.

You may have a conscious experience of "change" or "happening" whatever that means, or in analogy of "free-will" whatever that would mean, but I am under no logical obligation to say things that are consistent with that alleged experience of yours. As far as I know, you cannot prove or scientifically demonstrate to anyone but yourself that the consciousness you say exists does really exist. My statements do not contradict themselves just because they are incompatible with your alleged consciousness.

If you are asserting solipsism (i.e. that only RJG is conscious), I'm going to reject that, but you can believe it still. Neither of us would be committing a contradiction or being illogical. It doesn't make my statements self-contradictory or illogical, it just makes them incompatible with separate evidence that allegedly exists for you but is only available to you, RJG.

If you are asserting that every human in spacetime is conscious including RJG, 10-year-old Scott, 34-year-old Scott, and 100-year-old Scott assuming Scott lives that long, then I am open to exploring what that might mean in regard to emergent relativistic times, meaning timelines that are relative to consciousnesses (plural) rather than relative to reference frames (fictional).

For that reason, I will copy what I wrote in a earlier post in this thread:

Unless you are positing solipsism, then it is important to remember that then there are presumably countless if not infinite consciousnesses (plural) across all of objectively timeless 4D spacetime. What you posit about the consciousness of April-26th-2021-RJG must be extrapolated to all humans (and other conscious creatures) across all of 4D spacetime, noting that simultaneity is relative so a creature that April-26th-2021-RJG consciously perceives as existing in its conscious present simultaneously with April-26th-2021-RJG could itself see RJG's distant future as existing in its present; meaning you can perceive it as existing in your present while it sees your distant future existing in its past.

The way that your distant future is the past to someone you consider to be in your present is explained well both verbally and visually in the following video from PBS Spacetime, hosted by astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd:

Do the Past and Future Exist?

Here is what is said at about the 10 minute mark by Dr. O'Dowd, "So fill our present time slice with observers and there remains no part of the block universe that couldn't be considered the past according to someone who lives in our present."

Thus, due to the relativity of simultaneity, positing consciousnesses as entailing "happening" or such, without positing solipsism, then essentially means whatever is "happening" is "happening" across all of 4D spacetime including everything you see as the distant future.

In other words, if you conceive of April-26th-2021-Scott's consciousness and April-26th-2021-RJG's consciousness as existing in some kind of shared pseudo-present where things "happen" whatever that means, then you would logically have to conceive of all consciousnesses (plural) including those of humans in your distant future as being in that same simultaneous shared conscious pseudo-present, but with each of the countless and presumably infinite consciousnesses (plural) having their own separate emergent relativistic timelines. However, since that pseudo-present includes all events in the future (and past), then calling it a shared present may be a contradiction, which is why some might prefer a term like an "eternal now" that includes all of 4D spacetime or just conceive of it as consciousness without time. In other words, there is no objective present unless that objective so-called present includes everything you would call the future and past, which is perhaps the fundamental problem with appealing to consciousness (i.e. the experience of conscious present) as requiring or being evidence of real time.

Granted, in many ways that does fit with reported experiences of consciousness, since if you go to sleep at night as adult RJG and then wake up in the past as 10-year-old RJG you would wake up into 10-year-old RJG's body and brain with its memories of having gone to sleep as 10-year-old RJG, thus noticing no difference. If you go to sleep as RJG and wake up as Scott, you would remember having gone to sleep as Scott, thus noticing no difference. There's actually little to no evidence that so-called conscious experience is very time-like or linear at all, even ignoring how little to no third-person scientific evidence exists for consciousness at all.

Alternatively, you can posit solipsism in which case only your consciousness's relative timeline is real.

Or you can reject consciousness as real altogether, like Daniel Dennett does. Then there is no real time at all not even relativistic time.

Regardless of which of those three options you take, my statements about time don't contradict themselves, but they may require modification to fit with any metascientific metaphysical claims you make regarding consciousness really existing, or "happening" whatever that means exactly. In other words, my statements about time don't contradict themselves but they may be incompatible with your alleged conscious so-called experience if it exists. In science and metaphysics, I believe that is typically called the Observer Problem.

[Atla]

Unless you are positing solipsism, then it is important to remember that then there are presumably countless if not infinite consciousnesses (plural) across all of objectively timeless 4D spacetime. What you posit about the consciousness of April-26th-2021-RJG must be extrapolated to all humans (and other conscious creatures) across all of 4D spacetime, noting that simultaneity is relative so a creature that April-26th-2021-RJG consciously perceives as existing in its conscious present simultaneously with April-26th-2021-RJG could itself see RJG's distant future as existing in its present; meaning you can perceive it as existing in your present while it sees your distant future existing in its past.

The way that your distant future is the past to someone you consider to be in your present is explained well both verbally and visually in the following video from PBS Spacetime, hosted by astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd:

Do the Past and Future Exist?

Here is what is said at about the 10 minute mark by Dr. O'Dowd, "So fill our present time slice with observers and there remains no part of the block universe that couldn't be considered the past according to someone who lives in our present."

Thus, due to the relativity of simultaneity, positing consciousnesses as entailing "happening" or such, without positing solipsism, then essentially means whatever is "happening" is "happening" across all of 4D spacetime including everything you see as the distant future.

In other words, if you conceive of April-26th-2021-Scott's consciousness and April-26th-2021-RJG's consciousness as existing in some kind of shared pseudo-present where things "happen" whatever that means, then you would logically have to conceive of all consciousnesses (plural) including those of humans in your distant future as being in that same simultaneous shared conscious pseudo-present, but with each of the countless and presumably infinite consciousnesses (plural) having their own separate emergent relativistic timelines. However, since that pseudo-present includes all events in the future (and past), then calling it a shared present may be a contradiction, which is why some might prefer a term like an "eternal now" that includes all of 4D spacetime or just conceive of it as consciousness without time. In other words, there is no objective present unless that objective so-called present includes everything you would call the future and past, which is perhaps the fundamental problem with appealing to consciousness (i.e. the experience of conscious present) as requiring or being evidence of real time.

Granted, in many ways that does fit with reported experiences of consciousness, since if you go to sleep at night as adult RJG and then wake up in the past as 10-year-old RJG you would wake up into 10-year-old RJG's body and brain with its memories of having gone to sleep as 10-year-old RJG, thus noticing no difference. If you go to sleep as RJG and wake up as Scott, you would remember having gone to sleep as Scott, thus noticing no difference. There's actually little to no evidence that so-called conscious experience is very time-like or linear at all, even ignoring how little to no third-person scientific evidence exists for consciousness at all.

Alternatively, you can posit solipsism in which case only your consciousness's relative timeline is real.

Or you can reject consciousness as real altogether, like Daniel Dennett does. Then there is no real time at all not even relativistic time.

Regardless of which of those three options you take, my statements about time don't contradict themselves, but they may require modification to fit with any metascientific metaphysical claims you make regarding consciousness really existing, or "happening" whatever that means exactly. In other words, my statements about time don't contradict themselves but they may be incompatible with your alleged conscious so-called experience if it exists. In science and metaphysics, I believe that is typically called the Observer Problem.

These three options are not quite how it works. Western philosophy doesn't realize that here are two kinds of consciousness: the "godhead" Alan Watts mentioned and the organism minds.

The "godhead"/"ground of being"/"True Self"/"great I" etc. is the fundamental consciousness. It's actually the same thing as existence, the material world, including the entire 4D block universe. It's everything, and also includes all the organism minds. Its only notable "feature" is this eternal first-person-view. One realizes this state of affairs by cracking the illusion of the ego, the illusion of the separate self that's "looking into reality".

Organism minds on the other hand can be seen to be limited in 4D spacetime. In general, Western culture makes the mistake of attributing the first-person-view to the organism mind, this is partially the reason why the West can't solve the Hard problem of consciousness.

As for the Observer Problem (I guess you mean the measurement problem of QM), that problem seems to be like 1-2 orders of magnitude more difficult than the Hard problem of consciousness.. the quantum observer and the organism mind don't seem to be the same thing, but they also seem to be related somehow. It probably can't be solved in 4 dimensions, and anything above 4 dimensions is educated guesswork.

[Thomyum2]

These three options are not quite how it works. Western philosophy doesn't realize that here are two kinds of consciousness: the "godhead" Alan Watts mentioned and the organism minds.

The "godhead"/"ground of being"/"True Self"/"great I" etc. is the fundamental consciousness. It's actually the same thing as existence, the material world, including the entire 4D block universe. It's everything, and also includes all the organism minds. Its only notable "feature" is this eternal first-person-view. One realizes this state of affairs by cracking the illusion of the ego, the illusion of the separate self that's "looking into reality".

Organism minds on the other hand can be seen to be limited in 4D spacetime. In general, Western culture makes the mistake of attributing the first-person-view to the organism mind, this is partially the reason why the West can't solve the Hard problem of consciousness.

Yes, I think you've successfully articulated that very succinctly here, which isn't easy to do with the language we have.

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

But isn't there another, non-dualistic, option? Namely, that consciousness itself is what is fundamental, and that this universe of matter, space and time, rather than being an objective reality, is rather a construction or projection, or we could even say manifestation, of the greater mind and consciousness to which you refer?

[Terrapin Station]

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

In my view, the world is " a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism" but in no way am I saying any of the following:

(1) That space, time and matter are "primary substances" contra other things that exist,
(2) That consciousness is in any manner detached or separate from the world,
(3) That consciousness is some different sort of substance or existent.

Contrary to the above I say that dynamic relations of matter is what every single existent is (time is the dynamicism in question, space a subset of the relations in question), and consciousness, which is just as much a part of/"embedded in the world as anything else, is simply one way that dynamic relations of matter can be.

So there are other options than those you're specifying.

[Thomyum2]

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

In my view, the world is " a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism" but in no way am I saying any of the following:

(1) That space, time and matter are "primary substances" contra other things that exist,
(2) That consciousness is in any manner detached or separate from the world,
(3) That consciousness is some different sort of substance or existent.

Contrary to the above I say that dynamic relations of matter is what every single existent is (time is the dynamicism in question, space a subset of the relations in question), and consciousness, which is just as much a part of/"embedded in the world as anything else, is simply one way that dynamic relations of matter can be.

So there are other options than those you're specifying.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If 'every single existent' is equivalent to 'dynamic relations of matter', then how is matter (and time and space, which structures those relations) not the substance of everything that exists?

[Terrapin Station]

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

In my view, the world is " a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism" but in no way am I saying any of the following:

(1) That space, time and matter are "primary substances" contra other things that exist,
(2) That consciousness is in any manner detached or separate from the world,
(3) That consciousness is some different sort of substance or existent.

Contrary to the above I say that dynamic relations of matter is what every single existent is (time is the dynamicism in question, space a subset of the relations in question), and consciousness, which is just as much a part of/"embedded in the world as anything else, is simply one way that dynamic relations of matter can be.

So there are other options than those you're specifying.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If 'every single existent' is equivalent to 'dynamic relations of matter', then how is matter (and time and space, which structures those relations) not the substance of everything that exists?

It is. What I'm not saying is that it's a "primary substance" contra other things that exist.

[Atla]

Yes, I think you've successfully articulated that very succinctly here, which isn't easy to do with the language we have.

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

But isn't there another, non-dualistic, option? Namely, that consciousness itself is what is fundamental, and that this universe of matter, space and time, rather than being an objective reality, is rather a construction or projection, or we could even say manifestation, of the greater mind and consciousness to which you refer?

Well not quite. First we think that the material universe is fundamental and consciousness is secondary, then we think that consciousness is fundamental and the material universe is secondary. But actually we've just inverted the dualism, ended up with another dualism. But it's usually necessary to go through this stage, before it hits us what nondualism actually is.

In the nondual view, consciousness and the material world collapse into one and the same thing. Because they always were one and the same, we just had a weird cognitive double vision since early childhood.

Of course we are used to think about the material world in an abstract and third-person-view way, so it's difficult first to view in a concrete, first-person-view way. What's even more difficult is to realize that this first-person view we thought belonged to our own mind, is actually shared with everyone and everything else.

[Atla]

These three options are not quite how it works. Western philosophy doesn't realize that here are two kinds of consciousness: the "godhead" Alan Watts mentioned and the organism minds.

The "godhead"/"ground of being"/"True Self"/"great I" etc. is the fundamental consciousness. It's actually the same thing as existence, the material world, including the entire 4D block universe. It's everything, and also includes all the organism minds. Its only notable "feature" is this eternal first-person-view. One realizes this state of affairs by cracking the illusion of the ego, the illusion of the separate self that's "looking into reality".

Organism minds on the other hand can be seen to be limited in 4D spacetime. In general, Western culture makes the mistake of attributing the first-person-view to the organism mind, this is partially the reason why the West can't solve the Hard problem of consciousness.

Yes, I think you've successfully articulated that very succinctly here, which isn't easy to do with the language we have.

I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.

But isn't there another, non-dualistic, option? Namely, that consciousness itself is what is fundamental, and that this universe of matter, space and time, rather than being an objective reality, is rather a construction or projection, or we could even say manifestation, of the greater mind and consciousness to which you refer?

It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.

They are exclusory dualisms, not genuine monisms. I consider this subtlety to be the main reason why Western philosophy didn't get anywhere for hundreds of years, when it comes to the fundamentals, nor can it get anywhere using this paradigm.

[Terrapin Station]

It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.

Putting aside that lately people on the board keep seeming to use the word "fundamental" is some mysterious" technical" sense, maybe some materialists/physicalists say the above, but many, if not most, don't say that. They rather say that the mental is material/physical, not some other sort of "stuff." They're not saying that the mental doesn't exist, or is subordinate, or is separated/detached/"other" in some way, etc.

[Atla]

It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.

Putting aside that lately people on the board keep seeming to use the word "fundamental" is some mysterious" technical" sense, maybe some materialists/physicalists say the above, but many, if not most, don't say that. They rather say that the mental is material/physical, not some other sort of "stuff." They're not saying that the mental doesn't exist, or is subordinate, or is separated/detached/"other" in some way, etc.

We've covered this some months ago. Despite your academic background in philosophy, you never actually understood what is meant by mental or material, and what those philosophical debates are all about.

[Terrapin Station]

It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.

Putting aside that lately people on the board keep seeming to use the word "fundamental" is some mysterious" technical" sense, maybe some materialists/physicalists say the above, but many, if not most, don't say that. They rather say that the mental is material/physical, not some other sort of "stuff." They're not saying that the mental doesn't exist, or is subordinate, or is separated/detached/"other" in some way, etc.

We've covered this some months ago. Despite your academic background in philosophy, you never actually understood what is meant by mental or material, and what those philosophical debates are all about.

Rather, you're mistaken that mental necessarily implies "not material."

That's all that that is about.

And then you can't accept that someone can disagree that there's a big problem with the mind-body connection.

[Atla]

It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.

Putting aside that lately people on the board keep seeming to use the word "fundamental" is some mysterious" technical" sense, maybe some materialists/physicalists say the above, but many, if not most, don't say that. They rather say that the mental is material/physical, not some other sort of "stuff." They're not saying that the mental doesn't exist, or is subordinate, or is separated/detached/"other" in some way, etc.

We've covered this some months ago. Despite your academic background in philosophy, you never actually understood what is meant by mental or material, and what those philosophical debates are all about.

Rather, you're mistaken that mental necessarily implies "not material."

That's all that that is about.

And then you can't accept that someone can disagree that there's a big problem with the mind-body connection.

You've demonstrated plenty of times that you don't understand the problem of the mind-body connection. You can't solve a problem if you don't even know what it is. That's what you get for redefining key philosophical concepts, thereby sweeping the problems under the rug, and then crowning yourself for such achievement.

[Terrapin Station]

Putting aside that lately people on the board keep seeming to use the word "fundamental" is some mysterious" technical" sense, maybe some materialists/physicalists say the above, but many, if not most, don't say that. They rather say that the mental is material/physical, not some other sort of "stuff." They're not saying that the mental doesn't exist, or is subordinate, or is separated/detached/"other" in some way, etc.

We've covered this some months ago. Despite your academic background in philosophy, you never actually understood what is meant by mental or material, and what those philosophical debates are all about.

Rather, you're mistaken that mental necessarily implies "not material."

That's all that that is about.

And then you can't accept that someone can disagree that there's a big problem with the mind-body connection.

You've demonstrated plenty of times that you don't understand the problem of the mind-body connection. You can't solve a problem if you don't even know what it is. That's what you get for redefining key philosophical concepts, thereby sweeping the problems under the rug, and then crowning yourself for such achievement.

That would be far more convincing if you were capable of making explicit just what I'm not understanding.

[Atla]

We've covered this some months ago. Despite your academic background in philosophy, you never actually understood what is meant by mental or material, and what those philosophical debates are all about.

Rather, you're mistaken that mental necessarily implies "not material."

That's all that that is about.

And then you can't accept that someone can disagree that there's a big problem with the mind-body connection.

You've demonstrated plenty of times that you don't understand the problem of the mind-body connection. You can't solve a problem if you don't even know what it is. That's what you get for redefining key philosophical concepts, thereby sweeping the problems under the rug, and then crowning yourself for such achievement.

That would be far more convincing if you were capable of making explicit just what I'm not understanding.

Well the first thing you didn't understand is that if you don't understand a topic, then that's not automatically other people's fault.