the real world

No. It is a pronoun.

So you think the world consist of words rather than the stuff that makes up the external conditions and causes?

Not a philosophical problem for me. People (hypocritical, hateful ones that live in denial that choose fear over their own people) are the problem for me, and that's a given.

Think a bit deeper !

1."The world", "stuff", " external", and "causes" are all human concepts which have evolved and changed in their meanings over thousands of years.
2. Words are the essential currency of thought. You can't do much thinking without them.
3. The current philosophical and psychological view is that words do not so much represent reality as construct an idea of reality, according to our physical, psychological and social needs.

NB Derrida's analysis of aporia, which you inquired about on a previous thread, is an example of current views about the nature of language in so far that any "concept" necessarily implies selection of a focus to the possible detriment of what is not selected, despite the fact that a concept and its complement (as in set theory) are logically inextricable ...hence the term aporia.

I surrogate words for images. I cannot "see", I "feel" the imaginarium. You might want to evolve your knowledge on the human mind, fresco. You are undermining the other capabilities which make it so grand (i.e the blind are able to incorporate sonar waves to see, without eyes).

On the contrary, you might want to "evolve your knowledge" by researching "embodiment theory" which professionally examines and has led to experimentation on some of your ideas, rather than merely playing with them.

I came across the pencil experiment, which was a nice read, but I'm not sure why you're telling me to evolve my knowledge on this, when I am aware of how the mind behaves in relation to objects/concepts.

Are you telling me that the embodiment theory can explain why I "feel", but cannot "see" via my own imagination? Because I'm quite sure the real reason why I do not have a imagination I can see, is because my brain has been living in nihilism its entire life - it wasn't that far from now when I became a juxtaposition between holism and nihilism.

So I don't have an imagination, because one cannot dream inside an eye that never closes, now can they?

You are obviously philosophically clueless about the word "mind".
Here is a compendium of papers on the subject of "consciousness". Come back when you have done a bit of reading.
http://consc.net/online
Enjoy!

Sorry, fresco. I know consciousness on a cosmic level. Which is really what you need to start realizing - I know more than you do. I don't philosophize - I universalize, which makes me far more aggregated and assimilated than you could ever be, as long as you resort to what you want to believe, instead of what already "was".

Why send me to a site that "attempts" to know consciousness? If it doesn't involve water being consciousness, as well as giving evidence that the chemicals that bathe our spinal cord and brain during our sleep consists of 99% water, (yes, if dreams can be created with 99% water chemicals, I am very sure consciousness can be created with water chemicals), then they do not know consciousness at all. If it's some word-play on perception that reduces itself to word-salad, I am not interested in the hyperbole, because I know consciousness for what it "is", because I know the Universe for what it "is", and now I have proof that nobody can argue, where the brain's spinal fluid is simulating function, which is to say that the mere fluid can create a cognitive effect without the physical part of the brain!

As a matter of interest, have you been banned from less tolerant forums ?

The crepuscular crepitation of his wisdom is the true genius of his peripatetic philosophy.

See . . . babble speak isn't hard. Not only that, it's easy to do it with far more style than this hayseed.

By the way, surrogate is a noun, not a verb. This clown truly is hilarious.

Yes. Regarding your attempt at "One-Eyed speak", I was going to say that your grammar was too good.

Easy there, Cyclops. That post made you seem arrogant and ignorant. You are aware that there is a difference between thinking and dreaming?

Yes. His silence since my banning query may be significant. His facebook page certainly repels boarders.

I haven't seen his facebook page. But from what I've read here I can imagine.

(You can't do much thinking without them) - that is a subjective stament i.e. it only applies to your thinking and can not be made into a generalization, or it can but it still remains untrue. their have been humans born in the wild and these humans were taken in by animals. these type of humans do not speak and do not use words, and there is no evidence of them thinking in word form.

(think a bit deeper) this is a judgement and a false one or at least lacking in the supporting data.

slap your self in the face, the sensation felt is the effect of the cause of that action not just a concept, it is experince and reason that is cause and effect

such as the cause and effect of attracting humans to new posts by aggravating them and relying on their agression tendencies etc etc.


expalin this ---concept" necessarily implies selection of a focus to the possible detriment of what is not selected, despite the fact that a concept and its complement (as in set theory) are logically inextricable ...hence the term aporia.

Are you implying intolerance was ever a sign of honesty and integrity?

very interesting

embodiment theory