The belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist only exists in that scientist’s mind. The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.
Exactly. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.” Let’s reword that. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING ‘undecatillion swarms of quarks’ not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks’s mind.”
The belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist only exists in that scientist’s mind. The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.
That observation runs headlong into the problem, rather than solving it.
Exactly. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.” Let’s reword that. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING ‘undecatillion swarms of quarks’ not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks’s mind.”
There seems to be a logic problem there.
Composition fallacy. Try again.
Nope. There is no composition fallacy where there is no composition. I am replying to your position, not to mine.