Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).
Each person can only verify their own mind, through direct experience (private GNOSIS).So then, it is empirically verifiable.
It may not bear the capacity to be controlled for independent of their own experience, but that doesn't mean it can't be verified.
Its veracity and their direct experience are fundamentally and inextricably tied.
Our posts, emails ergo all communication verifies and is evidence the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.Is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts quantised or quantified in some other way than communication of abstract?No.
Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).What could you verify independent or isolated from the person's experience?
The mind is a logical necessity because its veracity is axiomatic, right?
Opinion and "truth" aren't mutually exclusive.Ok, but when your claim is regarding (pure, unverifiable) GNOSIS, it is indistinguishable from OPINION.Private information (GNOSIS) is indistinguishable from OPINION.
"The Mind" is a logical necessity because you cannot doubt, or think, without it."The Mind" is a fundamental prerequisite to your experience and comprehension.
Ok, but when your claim is regarding (pure, unverifiable) GNOSIS, it is indistinguishable from OPINION.Private information (GNOSIS) is indistinguishable from OPINION.Opinion and "truth" aren't mutually exclusive.
"The Mind" is a logical necessity because you cannot doubt, or think, without it."The Mind" is a fundamental prerequisite to your experience and comprehension.Exactly. So then, do you not presuppose the veracity of the mind because one can think, doubt, experience and comprehend?
From where have you gotten that description?OPINION must be unverified private information
OPINION must be unverified private information (GNOSIS).(IFF) an OPINION is verified scientifically (THEN) it instantly converts to REAL-TRUE-FACT (and is no longer considered OPINION).
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).
OPINION must be unverified private informationFrom where have you gotten that description?
OPINION must be unverified private information (GNOSIS).(IFF) an OPINION is verified scientifically (THEN) it instantly converts to REAL-TRUE-FACT (and is no longer considered OPINION).What about professional opinions? Doctors' opinions? Are those mutually exclusive from "truth?"
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).I do not presume to entertain this metric. I merely solicit an answer to whether the posit of the mind's being a logical necessity is necessarily informed by the presupposition of the mind's veracity.
Logic. An OPINION is something that's exclusively known to the person holding the OPINION.
So, for example, if a physician were to prescribe a regimen in accordance to his professional opinion that would help one deal with pain management, its being an "opinion" necessarily excludes it from truth?A professional opinion, like a legal opinion, is only verifiable in as much as it is written or spoken.
The "truth-value" (sincerity) of that OPINION is unverified.
It's a REAL-TRUE-FACT that those specific words were submitted as a "professional opinion", but the "truth-value" (sincerity) of those specific words is unverified.
Are you asking if "The Mind" verifies itself?
You might be a sophisticated AI.
Because if I were to tell you of an opinion I hold, you'd know it.
A professional opinion, like a legal opinion, is only verifiable in as much as it is written or spoken.So, for example, if a physician were to prescribe a regimen in accordance to his professional opinion that would help one deal with pain management, its being an "opinion" necessarily excludes it from truth?
Are you asking if "The Mind" verifies itself?Sort of... I'm more so asking: is the Mind self-evident?
Not necessarily. I have no way of determining your sincerity and even if I accept your sincerity prima facie, I have no way of determining if and or when you might "change-your-mind" (invalidating your previously stated opinion).
A professional opinion is not a "fact". A patient may or may not get well or respond positively to prescribed treatment.
A prescription is a HYPOTHESIS. It's basically a prediction, which isn't "true" in-and-of-itself.
"The Mind" is a logical necessity.It's contingent (IFF) you can doubt (THEN) you can think (THEREFORE) something (non-nothing) must be thinking (we choose to call this source of thinking "The Mind").We can't actually say anything else about "The Mind". We can't say where it is or what it consists of. All we KNOW is that it "thinks".
The mind either functions or it does not.Therefore the mind is either self-evident or not, as the case may be.
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).
Not necessarily. I have no way of determining your sincerity and even if I accept your sincerity prima facie, I have no way of determining if and or when you might "change-your-mind" (invalidating your previously stated opinion).That doesn't change the fact that one (or you) can know the opinion of another. Sure, a person can "lie" or be "insincere"; a person can also be forthcoming and sincere. You're hung up on empirical verifying the opinion through your own subjective experience. But under the circumstances where a person who shares an opinion is being sincere, you'd know the opinion. You may not be able to verify the sincerity through experience, but that doesn't change that the person was being sincere.
An OPINION can never be simultaneously BOTH an OPINION (AND) a FACT.
A prescription is a HYPOTHESIS. It's basically a prediction, which isn't "true" in-and-of-itself.Correct. But its truth is consequential: if it it worked, then it's "true;" if it didn't, then it's not.
Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).Yes, and because we can "think" and "doubt," we can posit a priori that "the mind is" is a true, right?
Any statement that is scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary) is a REAL-TRUE-FACT (Quanta).An OPINION is, by definition, PRIVATE-PERSONAL-INFORMATION (GNOSIS, Qualia) and is therefore NOT scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary).Please challenge my axioms (or definitions) and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Because there is no way to verify the "truth" (and it can't properly be considered "true" without scientific verification and or logical necessity)
it is inaccurate to call it a "true-prediction" UNTIL AFTER "THE FACT".
At which point it is no longer an OPINION. At that point, it is a simple statement of FACT.
Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).We cannot conclude that it is 100% true.
So once again, I ask: is scientifically verifiable the same as truth?
Was it inaccurate to state that family photos were the content of that chest?
No. Because before "verification," old family photos being the content of that chest was true.
So making the opinion that there were old family photos in the chest was "true" or accurate independent of verification.
You still have not substantiated how "Real, Fact, and/or True" is necessarily scientifically verifiable (and/or logically necessary) and how "Real, Fact, and/or True necessarily excludes opinion.
You've argued that opinion is indistinguishable from Gnosis (private information/subjective experience) and you've argued before that objectivity is logically incoherent. So where does "Real, Fact, and/or True" lie?
Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).We cannot conclude that it is 100% true.How can you conceive a proportion when your claim is that you cannot perceive the whole?
