i think YuZhonglu is making the notion that in a historical, crime scene, and scientific perspective that over time new conclusions are made about old results. If i have video footage that Bob robbed my house and 10 years later i discover Bob died in 1990 and infact it was hologram of Bob. The actual person who robbed my house was Frank and he did it with out being caught on camera.

That just isn't true. The concept of "position" is available to even the most rudimentary organisms in an absence of "sensory perception".

Because you used the word "position."

That's a concept generated by the human brain.

No it's not. A bacterium doesn't know where it is, at least not in the way we would understand it.

look up tactile halluicination, halluicination, and delusion

*hal·lu·ci·na·tion

I'm mostly trying to point out the assumptions that people unconsciously make when they talk about "facts."

I think YuZhonglu is making the notion that in a historical, crime scene, and scientific perspective that over time new conclusions are made about old results. If i have video footage that Bob robbed my house and 10 years later i discover Bob died in 1990 and infact it was hologram of Bob. The actual person who robbed my house was Frank and he did it with out being caught on camera. — christian2017

Tim is right, for once. This is just a language game. It is a game, so should be treated as such. Who wants to play hopscotch?

Because you used the word "position."

That's a concept generated by the human brain. — YuZhonglu

Do you not understand what reference is? You're confusing pointing with what we're pointing to.

You can't reference something unless your brain believes it exists. Does a "state of affairs" exist outside of us? Maybe. But any claims about it are generated by a human brain.

I feel my previous posts clarified what YuZhonglu was trying to get across. I could be wrong.

In part, yes. I think.

You can't reference something unless your brain believes it exists. Does a "state of affairs" exist outside of us? Maybe. But any claims about it are generated by a human brain. — YuZhonglu

You can't literally point at something without a finger, right? Does that mean that we can only point at our finger?

crap. he got me.

We can only point at things that we can observe and interpret through our brain.

I feel my previous posts clarified what YuZhonglu was trying to get across. I could be wrong. — christian2017

I don't need you to clarify to me what he is trying to get across. I understand what he is doing, and I am responding accordingly.

You realize Descartes already thoroughly tackled this question? Even the most ardent of skeptics comes to two irreducible facts: cogito ergo sum. You think and therefore you are.

We can only point at things that we can observe and interpret through our brain. — YuZhonglu

The question I asked you is if we can point at something other than our finger. What's the answer to that question?

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate?

Ah, but now we have neuroscience to figure out how we think.

You can't literally point at something without a finger, right? Does that mean that we can only point at our finger? — Terrapin Station

this pretty much clarifies the whole thing. There are some facts that aren't worth debating by anyone.

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate? — YuZhonglu

I catch his drift, and I agree. I don't need him to explain. Maybe I am more intelligent than you.

Clarify what? I'm confused.

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate? — YuZhonglu

So that we use a concept to refer to something doesn't imply that we're referring to a concept, does it?

It's just like using a finger to point. We use a finger to point at something that's not a finger.

We use a concept (and language in general) to point at something that's not a concept (not language).

Noting that we have to use a concept/language to point at the thing in question is like noting that we need to use a finger to point at something.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. Like, literally, the neural circuity related to that concept fire up.

No brain. No neural circuitry. No facts.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. — YuZhonglu

So why isn't it the case that anytime you use a finger, you're referring to (pointing at) that finger?

Observation is not generated by the brain, it exists outside the brain and is interpreted by the brain. It is a function of the environment to impress something upon the brain, not a function of the brain to impress something upon the environment. The brain is an aspect of the environment and acts accordingly via automated processes. There is no subjective reality; there is fact, and there is what the brain interprets--"subjective reality"--compulsion.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. — YuZhonglu

Lol.

Human observations do not exist independent of the human brain.

Alright, this is confusing me. Here's my position again:

1. Facts are statements.
2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain.
3. No brain- > no facts.