[
Replying to Clownboat in post #157]
I acknowledge that you reject the provided dictionary definition...
Dictionary definitions of acknowledge (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
accept or admit the existence or truth of.
Example: “The government acknowledged the need for legal changes.”
Merriam-Webster:
to recognize the rights, authority, or status of; to admit the truth or existence of; to express thanks or gratitude for.
Cambridge:
to accept, admit, or recognize something, or the truth or existence of something.
Your use of acknowledge is itself a misuse. Dictionaries define it as recognize, admit, or express thanks. You’ve twisted it into "concede guilt", which isn’t in any entry. In employing this misuse, you’ve violated the very standard you pretend to uphold.
...you reject the provided dictionary definition for 'projecting' (extending outward beyond something else).
Dictionary definitions of project (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
extend outward beyond something else; protrude.
present or promote (someone or something) in a particular way.
imagine (oneself, another person, or a situation) in a particular future role or state.
cause (an image) to appear on a surface.
Merriam-Webster:
to cause (light, an image, etc.) to appear on a surface.
to plan, figure, or estimate for the future.
to attribute (one's own ideas, feelings, or characteristics) to other people or to objects.
to jut out.
Cambridge:
to cause a film, image, or light to appear on a screen or other surface.
to estimate what the size, cost, or amount of something will be in the future.
to imagine what a situation will be like in the future.
to cause your voice to be heard at a distance.
to wrongly imagine that someone else is feeling a particular emotion that is really yours.
to stick out beyond the edge of something.
You’ve cherry-picked one sense (extend outward) and presented it as if it were the only one. Dictionaries themselves include internal, metaphorical, and figurative senses: projecting as imagining, attributing, visualizing. My use of “projection” in reference to the mind’s eye is directly supported by those same entries. In ignoring these, you’ve misused the dictionary the same way a proof-texter misuses scripture ... elevating one slice while discarding the rest.
I assume...
Dictionary definitions of assume (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
suppose to be the case, without proof.
take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
seize (power or control).
Merriam-Webster:
to take for granted or without proof.
to take to or upon oneself.
to take in a pretended way; feign.
Cambridge:
to accept something to be true without question or proof.
to pretend to have a different name or be someone you are not, or to express a feeling falsely.
Your “assumption” is exactly that - supposition without proof. The dictionaries define assume as “to suppose without evidence” or “to feign.” In using it here, you admit you are not presenting fact but speculation dressed as certainty. By your own chosen standard of dictionary authority, your claim collapses: it is nothing more than an unproven guess.
...you are doing this in order to attempt to sound consistent.
Dictionary definitions of consistent (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.
(of a person, behavior, or process) unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.
Merriam-Webster:
marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity.
free from variation or contradiction.
Cambridge:
always behaving or happening in a similar, especially positive, way.
in agreement with other facts or with typical or previous behavior, or having the same principles as something else.
According to the dictionaries you hold as the standard, consistent is a positive quality ... steady, harmonious, free from contradiction. Yet you frame it as if being consistent were a fault, or a trick. By your own cited authority, my effort to remain consistent is exactly what debate requires. The misuse here is yours: you’ve twisted a virtue into an accusation.
I acknowledge that you think I'm unable to form mental images and see no reason to give credit to this ad hominem by defending myself from such an odd debate claim.
Dictionary definitions of mind’s eye (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
the imagination, or the way someone thinks about things in their mind.
Example: “In his mind’s eye, he saw her clearly.”
Merriam-Webster:
the mental faculty of conceiving imaginary or recollected scenes.
Cambridge:
the part of your mind that allows you to imagine seeing things.
Example: “In his mind’s eye, he could see his school as it was 20 years ago.”
Your attempt to recast this as “ad hominem” ignores the fact that the mind’s eye is a dictionary-recognized concept. Pointing out different cognitive styles - some people with vivid inner imagery, some without - isn’t insult, it’s description. Dictionaries themselves validate the term and its meaning. By refusing to “give credit,” you are not defending against insult, you are denying entries in the very authority you claim to uphold.
And yes, my thinking that you may lack this capacity is directly tied to why you confuse internal mind’s-eye projection with external physical projection, and why you mistakenly insist I must have dropped Simulation Theory as a result. Clearly, the reader can now see that this is not the case... and that my well-meaning query, intended to find level ground, has instead exposed your intention to double down.
In debate, I would encourage you to leave your minds eye out of it and use words as they have been defined due to the fact that dictionaries are far more consistent then each individuals minds eye would be.
You instruct me to “leave the mind’s eye out of it”, yet the mind’s eye is itself a dictionary-defined phrase, with long-standing, consistent usage. By your own standard, I am not violating dictionary authority; I am following it. What’s inconsistent here is not my use of language, but your selective application of the dictionary: embracing one entry when it suits your binary, discarding another when it challenges it.
Thus your “advice” itself is ad hoc. You discard dictionary entries when they contradict you (as with mind’s eye) and then invoke the dictionary when it serves your binary. That isn’t consistency ... it’s opportunism. A poor debate tactic, and demonstrably demolishable.
Demonstrably
Oxford Languages: in a way that is clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.
Merriam-Webster: capable of being demonstrated; capable of being proved.
Cambridge: in a way that can be shown or proved.
Demolishable
Oxford Languages: able to be pulled or knocked down.
*Merriam-Webster (demolish): to tear down completely; to break to pieces; to put an end to.
Cambridge: to completely destroy a building; to prove that an argument or theory is wrong.
Words have meaning and ignoring the meaning of words should be avoided lest confusion is the desired outcome.
Dictionary definitions of word (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing.
Merriam-Webster:
a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use.
Cambridge:
a single unit of language that has meaning and can be spoken or written.
Indeed, words have meaning, but as the dictionaries show, they have multiple meanings, not just the one you elevate. Ignoring alternative senses is itself ignoring “the meaning of words.” Ironically, by flattening language to your single preferred slice, you are the one producing confusion.
Your sermon here isn’t about words having meaning, it’s about words having only your meaning. That is also referred to as “
projection.”
If you can think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our...
Dictionary definitions of external (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
belonging to or forming the outer surface or structure of something.
coming or derived from a source outside the subject affected.
Merriam-Webster:
situated outside, apart, or beyond; relating to, or connected with the outside or an outer part.
arising or acting from outside.
Cambridge:
of, on, for, or coming from the outside.
relating to foreign countries or affairs.
coming from outside, or not relating to something.
Your demand presumes that “consciousness” must either be inside the brain or outside the brain. That’s a false binary. Consciousness, as even the dictionaries allow, is not necessarily confined to “external” or “internal” surfaces. The mind’s eye (itself dictionary-defined) is evidence of how experience is projected in ways not reducible to “external” at all.
.. functioning minds, that might be interesting.
Dictionary definitions of mind (Oxford/Merriam-Webster/Cambridge):
Oxford Languages:
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
a person’s ability to think and reason; their intelligence.
a person’s attention.
Merriam-Webster:
the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons.
the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism.
the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.
Cambridge:
the part of a person that makes it possible for them to think, feel emotions, and understand things.
someone’s memory or ability to think, feel emotions, and be aware of things.
the way someone thinks or the set of ideas someone has.
By dictionary definition, the mind is already the faculty of consciousness. Your challenge - to show that “consciousness is external from our functioning minds” - is therefore self-contradictory. It is like asking whether “heat” can be external from “warmth.” If you want to be consistent with dictionary authority, then mind is consciousness in action. The binary you insist on collapses under the very standard you claim to uphold.
What would truly be interesting for me, would be to see you own the time-wasting tactic you’ve been employing, by admitting what it clearly is: a boring exercise going nowhere interesting.
