5heaps wrote:i didnt imply they were external. most of your experience is of internal objects. most of the things you call external objects has been proven to be internal. you experience your emotions directly, but also conceptuallyShonin wrote:Inference is not something external that can be known or perceived directly.
You're making speculative ontological assertions here.
5heaps wrote:the point is that just as inference exists, so does your nonconceptuality. what you said about billiard balls is correct but it is not pervasive to all instances of mind.
Sorry but this doesn't make sense. Inference is a cognitive process, non-conceptuality (whatever you mean by that) by definition isn't. They don't exist in the same way. And your conclusion here in no way follows from the premise.
5heaps wrote:this is something exciting. if its true, youve suddenly dismissed centuries worth of philosophical, mathematical, etc theory. its only fitting that one should do so on the quest to realizing the four noble truths.
Again, this is incoherent to me.
theyre mainly mental aspects (Tib: rnam-pa, Skt: akara). the physical changes which go on are only something of excitement to people with no introspection and no real understanding and observation of memories -- they may even say observations of memories are hallucinations, just to escape their scientific responsibilities.Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?
Criticising the character of those who you disagree with is called an Ad Hominem argument. It is classified as a logical fallacy.