The intellectual draught of ideas.

shnarkle

Well-known member
Draught: as used here: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:18,19

Descartes assumed his thoughts proved his existence. He assumes that he is the one who thinks. He commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. He never proves that he is the one who is thinking. He doesn't have to if everyone accepts it as a Given.

The mystic, the poet, the seer, and the prophet will be the first to openly admit that the inspiration, musings, or revelations they receive are not of their own making. They neither created them, nor are they theirs to possess.

However, it does not then follow that we cannot create anything. In fact, the first thing we create actually follows from what all infants create. The mind forms an intellectual bowel movement in the form of its own identity.

From there, this intellectual turd simply assumes every idea that appears before it is of its own making. It is all intellectual waste and is incapable of inspiration of any kind.

The idea, the id, the identity is what is produced, and therefore can never be the source of inspiration.

By the same token, they can never be worthy of redemption. These silly ideas are destined, like Satan burned to ashes in an incinerating toilet; to a brief and harried life of flatulent ratiocination.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Not of their own conscious making.
I used to find it quite amusing to see how many people wander through their lives almost completely unconscious. Unconscious people are not creative. They're not inspired. They're bored, boring and seek constant mind-numbing stimulation.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I used to find it quite amusing to see how many people wander through their lives almost completely unconscious. Unconscious people are not creative. They're not inspired. They're bored, boring and seek constant mind-numbing stimulation.
Subconscious, not unconscious.

Ever suddenly remembered something you stopped thinking about hours ago? If you are suggesting that this somehow comes from "outside" your mind, I find that ludicrous, but if you can prove it, I'm all ears.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Subconscious, not unconscious.

Ever suddenly remembered something you stopped thinking about hours ago? If you are suggesting that this somehow comes from "outside" your mind, I find that ludicrous, but if you can prove it, I'm all ears.
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness. Good luck proving those thoughts that you become aware of originate in your mind. Look at everything you're aware of that is "out there". Do you believe you created that as well?

There's a really entertaining British hypnotist with his own show, and he shows how easy it is to plant ideas into someone's mind. These people all think they're making these choices themselves.


Just because you're not aware of someone planting ideas into your noggin, it doesn't then follow that you came up with these ideas yourself.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness.
1. Yet.
2. This is an argument from ignorance.
Good luck proving those thoughts that you become aware of originate in your mind.
Good luck proving that they don't.

And I didn't claim that they don't, so I don't have to prove it.
You claimed that they did, so you do.
There's a really entertaining British hypnotist with his own show, and he shows how easy it is to plant ideas into someone's mind. These people all think they're making these choices themselves.
This does not prove that all ideas are "planted".
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
1. Yet.
2. This is an argument from ignorance.
It's a simple observation which you have yet to refute.
Good luck proving that they don't.
I don't have to. I'm not the one making these assumptions.
And I didn't claim that they don't, so I don't have to prove it.
You're the one who is making these assumptions which preclude you from even entertaining an argument as to why you believe these assumptions.
You claimed that they did, so you do.
Strawman argument. I'm simply pointing out that you are the one who is making these assumptions which you can't prove.
This does not prove that all ideas are "planted".
Ah, at least you now see that there is evidence which is more than can be said for your assumptions. Perhaps you have some evidence showing that you're in the habit of planting ideas in your own mind.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
It's a simple observation which you have yet to refute.
"Science doesn't know" =/= "it's supernatural".

You don't win just because your opponent hasn't (yet) won.
I don't have to. I'm not the one making these assumptions.
Neither am I.
Ah, at least you now see that there is evidence which is more than can be said for your assumptions.
We have evidence that humans can plant ideas in the mind of other humans.

How does it follow that something besides humans - something supernatural, even - can do so?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
"Science doesn't know" =/= "it's supernatural".
Ah, yet more Strawman arguments. Your inability to produce a valid argument is telling.
You don't win just because your opponent hasn't (yet) won.
When no one refutes or even addresses what I've posted, the points presented are automatically conceded. You are not opposing anything I've posted. You're presenting Strawman arguments. You're addressing arguments that have nothing to do with this OP.
We have evidence that humans can plant ideas in the mind of other humans.
Agreed!
How does it follow that something besides humans - something supernatural, even - can do so?
Why are you pretending to argue? Where have I suggested the supernatural as a solution to this conundrum? Where are these mysterious Strawman hallucinations coming from? Are they coming from you? If so, prove it. If not, then where are they coming from?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Draught: as used here: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:18,19

Descartes assumed his thoughts proved his existence. He assumes that he is the one who thinks. He commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. He never proves that he is the one who is thinking. He doesn't have to if everyone accepts it as a Given.
I think you could made a case that it is true by definition. What is Descartes is that entity that is doing the thinking - regardless of where the body is or whether it even exists.

The mystic, the poet, the seer, and the prophet will be the first to openly admit that the inspiration, musings, or revelations they receive are not of their own making. They neither created them, nor are they theirs to possess.
So then the whole idea of copyright is flawed. No one - in your view - thinks of anything original.

I disagree. I think there is a difference between being inspired by something and dictation.

However, it does not then follow that we cannot create anything. In fact, the first thing we create actually follows from what all infants create. The mind forms an intellectual bowel movement in the form of its own identity.

From there, this intellectual turd simply assumes every idea that appears before it is of its own making. It is all intellectual waste and is incapable of inspiration of any kind.
Well I am now wondering about your postings, but I do not consider what I create to be anything like that.

The idea, the id, the identity is what is produced, and therefore can never be the source of inspiration.
Can you talk me through that? Are you saying it is impossible for something that is made to inspire? I find great art, great architecture inspiring. Acts of bravery likewise. Am I missing some nuance here?
 

mikeT

Active member
Science has no clue what to make of human consciousness.
As stated, this is objectively false. Science knows a great deal about human consciousness, including how to detect and manipulate it.

There is obviously a lot more to learn, too.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
As stated, this is objectively false.
Stating it doesn't prove it. This is just Begging the Question.
Science knows a great deal about human consciousness,
No. It doesn't.
including how to detect and manipulate it.
They have no idea why they can manipulate someone's consciousness.
There is obviously a lot more to learn, too.
Or there's nothing more to learn because it may remain a mystery forever.
 
Top