The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[TimeSeeker]

No, you just state some obvious things, thinking I don't know them, while not actually understanding them yourself.
And no, context is not only created by rules - that claim shows your inability to properly process context.

I told you - my context is The Universe. Interpreted through the lens of Temporal Type Theory.

From my lens OR from the lens of classical logic. This is an idiotic train of thought:

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

I never claimed in any way that philosophy is a "thing".

YOU made it a thing! When you said that you use classical logic FOR philosophy.

You USED THE PHRASE "FOR philosophy".

[Atla]

No, you just state some obvious things, thinking I don't know them, while not actually understanding them yourself.
And no, context is not only created by rules - that claim shows your inability to properly process context.

I told you - my context is The Universe. Interpreted through the lens of Temporal Type Theory.

From my lens OR from the lens of classical logic. This is an idiotic train of thought:

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

I never claimed in any way that philosophy is a "thing".

YOU made it a thing! When you said that you use classical logic FOR philosophy.

No, your rigid misunderstandings about simple English words shows your inability to properly process context.

[TimeSeeker]

No, your rigid misunderstandings about simple English words shows your inability to properly process context.

There isn't much to misunderstand when you uttered the phrase "FOR philosophy".

Unless you used the word "FOR" in a way that is different to its simple and common use?

[Atla]

No, your rigid misunderstandings about simple English words shows your inability to properly process context.

There isn't much to misunderstand when you uttered the phrase "FOR philosophy".

Unless you used the word "FOR" in a way that is different to its simple and common use?

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

What context should I be interpreting the word "FOR" in ?

Because can't think of any contexts where it DOESN'T imply teleology.

[Atla]

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

What context should I be interpreting the word "FOR" in ?

Because can't think of any contexts where it DOESN'T imply teleology.

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

What context should I be interpreting the word "FOR" in ?

Because can't think of any contexts where it DOESN'T imply teleology.

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

Bullshit.

This is EXACTLY what "processing context" looks like. What I am doing right now. ASKING you how to INTERPRET the word "FOR".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sens ... _of_senses

[Atla]

What context should I be interpreting the word "FOR" in ?

Because can't think of any contexts where it DOESN'T imply teleology.

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

Bullshit.

This is EXACTLY what "processing context" looks like. What I am doing right now. ASKING you how to INTERPRET the word "FOR".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sens ... _of_senses

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

Bullshit.

This is EXACTLY what "processing context" looks like. What I am doing right now. ASKING you how to INTERPRET the word "FOR".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sens ... _of_senses

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

No. I am quite certain that you are the problem

Your inability to articulate yourself is evident from your repetition.

[Atla]

Bullshit.

This is EXACTLY what "processing context" looks like. What I am doing right now. ASKING you how to INTERPRET the word "FOR".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sens ... _of_senses

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

No. I am quite certain that you are the problem

Your inability to articulate yourself is evident from your repetition.

I'm not your therapist, I don't intend to spend half a year analyzing your comprehension issues.

[TimeSeeker]

Again you demonstrate your inability to properly process context.

No. I am quite certain that you are the problem

Your inability to articulate yourself is evident from your repetition.

I'm not your therapist, I don't intend to spend half a year analyzing your comprehension issues.

No need. I have analysed your communication issues and I have good ideas on how to fix them.

[Atla]

No. I am quite certain that you are the problem

Your inability to articulate yourself is evident from your repetition.

I'm not your therapist, I don't intend to spend half a year analyzing your comprehension issues.

No need. I have analysed your communication issues and I have good ideas on how to fix them.

You? You can't even communicate with pretty much anyone on this forum.

[TimeSeeker]

I'm not your therapist, I don't intend to spend half a year analyzing your comprehension issues.

No need. I have analysed your communication issues and I have good ideas on how to fix them.

You? You can't even communicate with pretty much anyone on this forum.

I have seen what philosophers call “communication”.

Wiio’s laws apply...

Unless you have a strategy (say - a mathematical model?) for minimising miscommunication. But again - this is right brain holistic stuff that is probably elusive to a simple philosophical mind.

[Atla]

No need. I have analysed your communication issues and I have good ideas on how to fix them.

You? You can't even communicate with pretty much anyone on this forum.

I have seen what philosophers call “communication”.

Wiio’s laws apply...

Actually there's a lot of successful communication too, but that part went over your head.
It demonstrates your inability to properly process context, Mr. Communication Expert.

[TimeSeeker]

You? You can't even communicate with pretty much anyone on this forum.

I have seen what philosophers call “communication”.

Wiio’s laws apply...

Actually there's a lot of successful communication too, but that part went over your head.
It demonstrates your inability to properly process context, Mr. Communication Expert.

Weasel words.

Quantify it.

I am talking about an active strategy (applied by both participants) for minimising miscommunication.

But since philosophy has no goals, I suppose minimising miscommunication is not something you care about...