Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[surreptitious57]

The future can be anticipated ( prediction ) - I am looking forward to the beautiful sunset tomorrow
or envisioned and brought about ( control ) - I am looking forward to making breakast tomorrow

The future can only be anticipated NOW and when you experience that sunset or breakfast tomorrow it will also be in the NOW
EVERYTHING that you think or say or do is ALWAYS in the NOW for you can never experience the past or the future in real time

The past and the future are psychological markers to differentiate from the NOW because we can think in such abstract terms
But the abstractions that exist within our mind do not automatically mean they are true in relation to how time actually exists

[TimeSeeker]

The future can be anticipated ( prediction ) - I am looking forward to the beautiful sunset tomorrow
or envisioned and brought about ( control ) - I am looking forward to making breakast tomorrow

The future can only be anticipated NOW and when you experience that sunset or breakfast tomorrow it will also be in the NOW
EVERYTHING that you think or say or do is ALWAYS in the NOW for you can never experience the past or the future in real time

The past and the future are psychological markers to differentiate from the NOW because we can think in such abstract terms
But the abstractions that exist within our mind do not automatically mean they are true in relation to how time actually exists

Again. Semantics. If you have a vivid imagination you can 'experience' things in the moment. Dreams.

[surreptitious57]

If you have a vivid imagination you can experience things in the moment . Dreams

Can you NOW have a dream yesterday or tomorrow ? No you cannot because ALL your experiences [ mental and physical ] are in the NOW
You cannot leave your body and travel backward or forward in time and experience a different time to the one you are experiencing NOW

[Eodnhoj7]

There is not system of ethics in the academic community that does not give sway to eventual entropy at one point or another.

The "fake news" movement, as well as the increasing propaganda of political ideologies on college campus's, not to mention corporate funding for the majority of scientific research, is pointing towards not just to an inherent bias within information but a fundamental movement where people are beginning to distrust sources of information.

Part of this may be observed intuitively where the continual bombardment of "x" study or some pop trivia we see in social media and various magazines is going to head to a disillusionment with information at one point or another. People one day will start to see that with this increase information a correlative form of disorder will be observed where truth will be strictly deemed as the subjective creation of various parties and individuals.

The philosophical question as to the nature of evidence stems away from a strict empiricism in these regards as statistics not only do not provide any from of certainty but an inherent ambiguity as all statistical studies are just a localization of any set of relations in reality. The localization of any one truth is fundamentally the distortion of another considering clarity in one field leads to a form of ambiguity in another; hence a form of division occurs not just in standard religion, but the sciences of various sorts, as "truth" becomes a form of subjective tribalism leading to a "fear of the dark" where anyone party is afraid to venture away from the tribe in fear of being consumed by what lies beyond the veil around there own intellectual fire.

While the spiritual movements of the past and present have left us with an inherent sense of disillusionment and confusion as to not just the nature of the universe but ourselves, the current scientific priesthood is strictly an reflection of this trend as it is strictly a projection away from its roots in the theocracy of the middle ages relative to the west. The problem occurs with any projection away from one's roots comes an inherent reformulation of them and in many respects the modern world is strictly a cycle to the dark ages of ignorance where the wolves we fear outside our tribe, ready to eat those who leave the group, are not literal but rather humanity itself.

Now while the faiths, and there roots in the past, give mind to an inherent repression of certain aspects of knowledge the same applies strictly in the modern sense as well. This repression is viewed under a new nature, one synonymous to a whirlwind or vortex of relativism, and the modern religion of science is not so advanced from its ancestors in these respects as it requires a continual system of sacrifice to feed this metaphorical "god". Where prior systems used altars for sacrifice to various gods the modern establishment still uses this construct through the altar of the lab table and the temple of the lab itself, the only difference is the nature of what god we are sacrificing too however the reason's for it have changed little.

The premise of "matter" is a fickle god by any standard of the old and any truth we see to infer from something which exists in the dark becomes embodied within not just how man sees the world but his inherent identity as well. This is considering all empirical proof is inherently relativistic by nature, as what is observed through the senses of one individual is observed by those sense's alone in many respects considering one empirical phenomena is observed through various angles through various eyes and no empirical phenomena is effectively the same in these respects.

The problem occurs in that any facet of reality can be localized to observe its inherent relations and studies grounded in statistics observe an inherent subjective nature in these regards as not just the framework, but the variables being measured in the framework, are strictly variables pushed by a specific party.

With the increase in the subjective relativistic movement towards determining truth, where no authority can be trusted except the self, the standard hierarchies of academia and religion will inevitably crumble and be forced to exist as shells of there former selves synonymous in nature to a "tribe".

This tribalism reflects the entropy of knowledge as what is unified man under a common perspective becomes a merely clashing particles in another and we are left through the empirical nature no real truth but the relations of various parts which exist as such if they are viewed as seperate from another.

The main topic is "Supporting Evidences and References are Critical"
so where are your Supporting Evidences and References??

Note Ying Yang with dualism and monism of the Tao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Thus for whatever the entropy, there is an expansion and increase in knowledge with a positive trend of incremental positives [whatever that may be].

You seem to focus only on one side of the equation, i.e. entropy and seem to be blind to the other.

Actually it is addressed. The entropy in empirical only values leads to an expansion to pure abstract reasoning in another respect. To argue a strict empirical probabalistic manner of "truth" values is only half of the equation.

My supporting "evidence" is the argument as a self-referential proof in itself where probabilities cannot be taken into account as a strict form of evidence only without necessitating some non-probabilistic truth based upon pure intellectual and/or intuitive reasoning.

My supporting evidence is your argument as not self-maintaining and based upon strict assumption alone.

[Age]

No I didn't. I changed one word between the original and what you BELIEVED was a duplicate post.

I guess you didn't read properly.

You would have to be a fool to even imagine that I would read it AGAIN.

Do you have any SUPPORTING EVIDENCE here for that one word change, if you are telling the truth here. I could NOT be bothered looking for it, especially since I have already responded to that post.

Also, WHY would a human being repost the exact same already responded to post, now with a one word change in it, AND THEN write some thing like, "I guess you didn't read properly".

Why would you even assume or think that I would re-read that post again?

By the way I do NOT believe it was a duplicate post. I have always been OPEN to it being some thing different. You have expressed that it is NOT a duplicate post, and I really do NOT care either way if it is or not. So, I certainly did NOT and will NOT believe that it is a duplicate post.

And you still don't know when the next tsunami will happen...

I have already stated what WILL happen.

[Age]

The discourse has become personal by this time. Almost 40 posts ago, TimeSeeker referenced Wikipedia and youtube. Since then, there have been no other references, notwithstanding these are not philosophy references. There have been no a priori statements submitted as supporting evidence. Ironic, isn't it, when you review VA's OP.

But I do NOT need to provide supporting evidence nor references here because I was saying:

There was a time when every one was using every one else's references and quotes to "prove" with "evidence" that the sun revolved around the earth. The more references and quotes they had and used, from "others" and "other" sources, then the more they BELIEVED that they were actually true, right, and correct. But, obviously, the only ONE who was saying the opposite could not use any one else's references and quotes. Who appears to have been more true, right, and correct?

Just some thing to think about.

In other words, so called, "supporting evidences" and "references" are some times only supporting one's own BELIEFS, which may NOT be true, right, and correct anyway. Just because some thing is called "supporting evidence" does NOT mean it is actual REAL evidence. So called "evidence" that SUPPORTS one's own BELIEFS does NOT necessarily make the BELIEF correct, from the outset.

WHERE this thread stemmed from, was from my reply to what veritas aequitas said about me, which was:
Since you are such a bad communicator, provide references and links to good writers/authors who share the same views as yours.

And my reply was:
I did NOT get any My views from other writers/authors. I had hardly read anything prior to this. In fact I was barely able to read and write at all. That is WHY I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better.

As I have already explained even if others have same views I would NOT link to them nor use them as references, as that defeats the whole purpose of: thinking for ones own Self.

ALL the meaningful answers to Life are within one's Self. True and Right answers are NOT sourced from "others", but from within.

By the way, If you want me/others to send you links and references HOW do we distinguish a "good" and/or "bad" writer, for YOUR perspective? Is a "good" one one that shares the SAME views as yours and a "bad" one, one that does not share the same views as you? Or, does "good" and "bad" refer to some thing else?

Also, why do you human beings view other human beings as being either "good" or "bad"?

Congratulations also are due, for showing the slightest bit of inquisitiveness. Although how much there really is will have to be further discovered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, I go out of my way NOT to provide "other" references nor links to what "others" say and think. In other words I am able to SEE and UNDERSTAND what IS really True, Right, and Correct for and by my Self. I am also here just learning how to communicate THIS better, so referencing and linking to "others" is completely unnecessary for Me, unless of course I reference and link to what "others" say in this forum in response to Me, but I do this in order to just show the evidence for what I am referring to about exactly how the Mind and the brain work.

Also, just because you agree wholeheartedly with the opening post, that in of itself does NOT mean references and links are actually necessary. If a human being can NOT just provide a sound, valid argument for the own point of view, then NO amount of other references and links will really support them.

By the way,
If some thing can be 'argued', disagreed with and/or fought against, then it is NOT even worth arguing about. It is just a relative, subjective view that can be and IS obviously disputed. However,
If some thing can be 'argued', logically reasoned in a sound and valid way, then it has already been argued, and thus can NOT be in dispute. It is just an indisputable, unambiguous fact, or, in other words, just thee Truth, which obviously would NOT need any further references nor links to.

Thee Truth is evidenced within its self, and is thus self-supporting. That is thee Truth does not lie on, nor rely on, "others" or any thing else. in other words, thee Truth speaks for itself.

Learning HOW to find and SEE (understand) this Truth, for and by your Self, is just what I am here learning how to communicate better.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The discourse has become personal by this time. Almost 40 posts ago, TimeSeeker referenced Wikipedia and youtube. Since then, there have been no other references, notwithstanding these are not philosophy references. There have been no a priori statements submitted as supporting evidence. Ironic, isn't it, when you review VA's OP.

But I do NOT need to provide supporting evidence nor references here because I was saying:

There was a time when every one was using every one else's references and quotes to "prove" with "evidence" that the sun revolved around the earth. The more references and quotes they had and used, from "others" and "other" sources, then the more they BELIEVED that they were actually true, right, and correct. But, obviously, the only ONE who was saying the opposite could not use any one else's references and quotes. Who appears to have been more true, right, and correct?

Just some thing to think about.

In other words, so called, "supporting evidences" and "references" are some times only supporting one's own BELIEFS, which may NOT be true, right, and correct anyway. Just because some thing is called "supporting evidence" does NOT mean it is actual REAL evidence. So called "evidence" that SUPPORTS one's own BELIEFS does NOT necessarily make the BELIEF correct, from the outset.

You are right in stating the stupid people will rely on "supporting evidences' references and arguments from other stupid people, notably the religious theists blindly relying on faith to agree with whatever is divine that their priests/pastors throw at them.

But are you that stupid and intellectual incompetent that you are unable to differentiate reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking from stupid fallacious arguments?
Perhaps you are as evident with your "I do NOT have any BELIEFS"

WHERE this thread stemmed from, was from my reply to what veritas aequitas said about me, which was:
Since you are such a bad communicator, provide references and links to good writers/authors who share the same views as yours.

And my reply was:
I did NOT get any My views from other writers/authors. I had hardly read anything prior to this. In fact I was barely able to read and write at all. That is WHY I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better.

As I have already explained even if others have same views I would NOT link to them nor use them as references, as that defeats the whole purpose of: thinking for ones own Self.

ALL the meaningful answers to Life are within one's Self. True and Right answers are NOT sourced from "others", but from within.

A personal subjective view with strong conviction is one kind of view that is of the lowest grade. Until proven objectivity, a personal subjective view [opinion] is similar to thoughts of 'reality' from a schizophrenic and stupid people.

Btw, have you ever done a thesis under supervision.
In a thesis, yes one has to think for one's own self to generate novel hypothesis but the most critical step in a thesis a 'literature review'.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resour ... ure-review
A literature review has many purposes and in this case it will provide a framework and perspective to your intended hypothesis or main ideas.

The onus is on you [if you are a responsible intellectual] to communicate in the best possible ways to ensure you get your views across by all means, which must include supporting references. In my case, I have provided many links, references, analogies, direct experiments [face illusion, etc.] and whatever I can think of to get my message across. Even then, it is not easy to get one's views across to be understood [not necessary agree with].

By the way, If you want me/others to send you links and references HOW do we distinguish a "good" and/or "bad" writer, for YOUR perspective? Is a "good" one one that shares the SAME views as yours and a "bad" one, one that does not share the same views as you? Or, does "good" and "bad" refer to some thing else?

Also, why do you human beings view other human beings as being either "good" or "bad"?

Those are very silly excuses.
It is your duty to present links and references that you think are the best that represent and support your hypothesis or thesis.
It is then up to others to apply reasonable critical thinking to review and critique your arguments so as to accept or reject your ideas, hypothesis.

Your main argument is 'I do NOT have any Beliefs' and that is intellectual poison [cyanide].

Note BELIEFS in perspective to knowledge.

[surreptitious57]

If you have a vivid imagination you can experience things in the moment . Dreams

Can you NOW have a dream yesterday or tomorrow ? No you cannot because ALL your experiences [ mental and physical ] are in the NOW
You cannot leave your body and travel backward or forward in time and experience a different time to the one you are experiencing NOW

Some phenomena such as photons or other particles of zero rest mass do not experience time
Which would stop for anything when it was approaching light speed and so before it reached c

[Age]

The discourse has become personal by this time. Almost 40 posts ago, TimeSeeker referenced Wikipedia and youtube. Since then, there have been no other references, notwithstanding these are not philosophy references. There have been no a priori statements submitted as supporting evidence. Ironic, isn't it, when you review VA's OP.

But I do NOT need to provide supporting evidence nor references here because I was saying:

There was a time when every one was using every one else's references and quotes to "prove" with "evidence" that the sun revolved around the earth. The more references and quotes they had and used, from "others" and "other" sources, then the more they BELIEVED that they were actually true, right, and correct. But, obviously, the only ONE who was saying the opposite could not use any one else's references and quotes. Who appears to have been more true, right, and correct?

Just some thing to think about.

In other words, so called, "supporting evidences" and "references" are some times only supporting one's own BELIEFS, which may NOT be true, right, and correct anyway. Just because some thing is called "supporting evidence" does NOT mean it is actual REAL evidence. So called "evidence" that SUPPORTS one's own BELIEFS does NOT necessarily make the BELIEF correct, from the outset.

You are right in stating the stupid people will rely on "supporting evidences' references and arguments from other stupid people, notably the religious theists blindly relying on faith to agree with whatever is divine that their priests/pastors throw at them.

At the start here you said that 'I am right'. Are you absolutely 100% sure of this, or, do you just agree with me.

If you agree with me, then please just state that you agree with me, instead of stating that 'I am right'. I would like you to do this for two reasons;
1. I am just expressing A view, which may be right, not right, or just partly right. I do NOT want you influencing what others might or might not notice and be aware of in my writings.
2. If you write that 'I am right' and then state things that are NOT what I said nor wrote, then others might be somewhat influenced to think that I a agreeing with your distorted and different view of what I actually wrote down, and thus said.

Note that I did NOT state what you alleged I was stating here.

Also, are you suggesting that if YOU existed in that period of time that I was referring to that you would then NOT be one of those relying on your/their BELIEFS and thus NOT be insisting that the sun revolves around the earth?

From what I have experienced from YOU, YOU would be one of the most strongest supporters of that BELIEF. YOU would be one of those who would provide and use the MOST, so called, "supporting evidences" and "references" to support your BELIEF that - the sun revolves around the earth.

You would NOT seriously now even be contemplating that YOU, of all people, would be an OPEN person,and listening to another, and not be a BELIEVING person? Surely you can remember that you are the ONE who BELIEVES that ALL human beings MUST HAVE BELIEFS. In fact you BELIEVE this so strongly that you even BELIEVE that human beings could not exist, nor have existed, without BELIEFS. That is what you are TRYING TO argue for anyway, am I right?

But now you appear to be TRYING TO suggest that only "stupid" people have BELIEFS, like the sun revolves around the earth. Surely you can recognize that you would have been one of those "stupid" people who BELIEVED that the sun goes around the earth if you lived in that time period, and YOU would have been one of the most ardent supporters and fighters for your BELIEF here.

In fact from what I have seen from YOU, YOU would have been one of the very last to come around to what IS actually True and Right. I would say you would HAVE TO wait until there was ENOUGH supporting evidences, and references from "others" before YOU were able to SEE the Truth for your self.

But are you that stupid and intellectual incompetent that you are unable to differentiate reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking from stupid fallacious arguments?

Yes, at times, I am stupid and very intellectual incompetent. But I am also, at times, very simply and easily able to differentiate reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking from stupid fallacious arguments. In fact, the latter I can see quite often, of which some of them I have already pointed out and shown. The difference between YOU and I though is, YOU do NOT see your arguments in any other light than reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking, whereas I see this very rarely if at all, from YOU.

Perhaps you are as evident with your "I do NOT have any BELIEFS"

This is a thread, started by you, called "Supporting Evidences and References are Critical". Now, considering the name of this thread, and, especially considering you are the one who started this thread and are TRYING TO argue for it, then do you think/believe it would be a wise move, or a stupid move, to NOT include "Supporting Evidences" and "References" to your opinions, views, BELIEFS, et cetera, which you also believe are "Critical"?

If you think/believe that it would be a wise move to provide those things, then what do you think/believe you should do NOW?
If you think/believe that it would be a stupid move to provide those things, then keep doing what you have been doing all along.

How about you provide just ONE, what you BELIEVE is a BELIEF of MINE, and then provide what you BELIEVE are the "supporting evidences" for "what your provide" and also argue for that. THEN we ALL can take a LOOK AT IT, and then decide if you are making reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking, or, in fact if you are making stupid fallacious arguments (based solely upon your, previously held, BELIEFS)?

How about you let the READERS decide what has been happening here? Instead of you just BELIEVING that you are NOT doing any thing other than just being totally reasonable.

WHERE this thread stemmed from, was from my reply to what veritas aequitas said about me, which was:
Since you are such a bad communicator, provide references and links to good writers/authors who share the same views as yours.

And my reply was:
I did NOT get any My views from other writers/authors. I had hardly read anything prior to this. In fact I was barely able to read and write at all. That is WHY I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better.

As I have already explained even if others have same views I would NOT link to them nor use them as references, as that defeats the whole purpose of: thinking for ones own Self.

ALL the meaningful answers to Life are within one's Self. True and Right answers are NOT sourced from "others", but from within.

A personal subjective view with strong conviction is one kind of view that is of the lowest grade.

Hang on, EVERY view starts out being a personal subjective view. Or, do you think/believe otherwise?

If you agree with what I said, then we can move on. But,
If you think/believe otherwise. Show us WHY?

Until proven objectivity, a personal subjective view [opinion] is similar to thoughts of 'reality' from a schizophrenic and stupid people.

Based on this logic, ALL of YOUR OWN personal subjective views [opinions] ARE similar to thoughts of 'reality' from schizophrenic and stupid people.

Is that what you are TRYING TO argue for here?

If so, then so be it.
If not, then WHY are YOUR OWN personal subjective views NOT that, but "others" are?

Btw, have you ever done a thesis under supervision.

No, have you?

By the way, I have also never DONE a thesis, with supervision.

In Truth is it actually possible to DO a thesis?

I try to just always write about what IS already True, Right, and Correct. I do NOT like to just express what I ASSUME is True, Right, and Correct.

There is NO real necessity for just ASSUMING, and making up things. Just like there is NO real necessity for BELIEVING any thing, if I am to be Truly honest here.

In a thesis, yes one has to think for one's own self to generate novel hypothesis but the most critical step in a thesis a 'literature review'.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resour ... ure-review
A literature review has many purposes and in this case it will provide a framework and perspective to your intended hypothesis or main ideas.

It appears here now that you have NOT created a thesis within an english taught framework.

Am I correct here?

The onus is on you [if you are a responsible intellectual] to communicate in the best possible ways to ensure you get your views across by all means, which must include supporting references.

Hang on, human beings just naturally communicate in the best possible way, that is; if they want to ensure they get their views across. There is NO "onus" on having to do this.

Also, getting one's views across does NOT necessitate including supporting references.

One can provide their views in statements that are in fact True, and thus provide the supporting Truth within themselves, WITHOUT references to or from any where nor any thing else. Obviously this will get one's views across.

Are you under some sort of perception that just discussing in a philosophy forum, and forming sentences and statements, there NEEDS to be some sort of intellectual academic or educated form to it?

If yes, then is that coming from a critical thinking perspective or just from some sort of BELIEF. Or,
If no, then WHY the referencing and linking to unnecessary scholarly things here?

In my case, I have provided many links, references, analogies, direct experiments [face illusion, etc.] and whatever I can think of to get my message across.

Yes you have. Most to no avail though.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with you that you have TRIED 'WHATEVER you can THINK of' to TRY TO get your message across. You have, glaringly obviously, TRIED many things to get "others" to understand and ultimately agree with you. That is EXACTLY how I say the brain works. The brain will TRY absolutely ANYTHING to TRY TO get its BELIEFS across, and agreed with. I have mentioned this earlier. May be you MISSED it, or it may have been OVERLOOKED. But this is normal because the brain has a huge tendency to OVERLOOK and MISS that what does NOT fit in with its own BELIEFS. The BELIEF-system is far more powerful than the human beings in this period of time realize just yet.

Even then, it is not easy to get one's views across to be understood [not necessary agree with].

But what you are TRYING TO suggest is the Truth, is very easily understood. But your views are mostly just NOT very true, right, nor correct, at all. This can be very easily SEEN in the way you formulate YOUR "arguments".

By the way, If you want me/others to send you links and references HOW do we distinguish a "good" and/or "bad" writer, for YOUR perspective? Is a "good" one one that shares the SAME views as yours and a "bad" one, one that does not share the same views as you? Or, does "good" and "bad" refer to some thing else?

Also, why do you human beings view other human beings as being either "good" or "bad"?

Those are very silly excuses.

You MISSED the whole point again.

Also, the are NOT excuses. They are, in fact, just questions, asked for clarity. Three questions, actually. Of which, once again, NONE of them are answered, by you.

The are NOT questions to form any argument, to show any view, to excuse any thing, nor are they any thing else other than just questions posed to you, in the hope that if, and when, you did answer them (openly or even just internally) that you would then see the error in your own thinking.

However, because you refuse to LOOK AT them for what they are, that is; just an open clarifying question, we end up going down this kind of discussion path that we have been, are, and continue to keep heading.

It is your duty to present links and references that you think are the best that represent and support your hypothesis or thesis.

In case you are unaware I would have to be presenting some sort of hypothesis or thesis FIRST, before I could present any links and references for.

So that it is HOPEFULLY clear to YOU, I am NOT representing any hypothesis NOR thesis that would NEED supporting.

I am just expressing My views, and waiting for correction. I do this so that I can learn how to communicate My views better.
I also just ask open clarifying questions, and wait for Truly open and honest replies. I do this so that, hopefully, the errors can be seen for and by one's self. I also do this now, but at the start even i was aware i was doing this, so that the PROOF of HOW the Mind and the brain actually work can be EVIDENCED its Self.

It is then up to others to apply reasonable critical thinking to review and critique your arguments so as to accept or reject your ideas, hypothesis.

Agreed.

Your main argument is 'I do NOT have any Beliefs' and that is intellectual poison [cyanide].[/quote]

That is NOT an argument. That is just an expressed view/opinion, call it what you like. But if you do NOT BELIEVE it is True, then SHOW otherwise.

Note BELIEFS in perspective to knowledge.

Is this picture/diagram of BELIEFS in perspective to knowledge: absolute knowledge, objective knowledge, just knowledge, true, a justified true belief, a Truth, thee Truth, or some other thing else?

Are you aware that some people BELIEVE that 'knowledge' Is justified true belief. Do you wholeheartedly agree with this BELIEF?

If yes, then great. But,
If no, then now this is the dilemma, for Me ("others") WHO am I expected to KNOW has the True, Right, and Correct, dare i say it, 'knowledge', here?

If 'you', human beings, can NOT agree on even the most simplest of things, which obviously 'you' can NOT, then HOW can I, and WHY should I, be expected to even listen to 'you' for Truth and Knowledge?

I am OPEN to looking at and seeing what you are saying, but NONE of 'you' are making any REAL sense. Therefore, I will keep LOOKING AT things and SEEING the way that I am NOW. That is; by remaining OPEN to ALL and EVERY thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How about you provide just ONE, what you BELIEVE is a BELIEF of MINE,
and then provide what you BELIEVE are the "supporting evidences" for "what your provide" and also argue for that. THEN we ALL can take a LOOK AT IT, and then decide if you are making reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking, or, in fact if you are making stupid fallacious arguments (based solely upon your, previously held, BELIEFS)?

I BELIEVE your BELIEF is you do not have any BELIEFS [your own declaration].
I have already explained [sable-toothed tiger example] how humans are evolved with an inherent faculty of believing to facilitate survival.
Your BELIEF i.e. 'I [Age] do not have any BELIEFS' is a false belief which in this case is due to ignorance and stupidity.

[Atla]

Thee Truth is evidenced within its self, and is thus self-supporting. That is thee Truth does not lie on, nor rely on, "others" or any thing else. in other words, thee Truth speaks for itself.

Learning HOW to find and SEE (understand) this Truth, for and by your Self, is just what I am here learning how to communicate better.

Have you considered the possibility, that this "self-evidenced Truth" / "universe knowledge" you keep going on about, is simply your own intuition, and it may be wrong too? And you are desperate and delusional enough to believe it to be something more and infallible? You too are just a human being through and through.

[Age]

How about you provide just ONE, what you BELIEVE is a BELIEF of MINE,
and then provide what you BELIEVE are the "supporting evidences" for "what your provide" and also argue for that. THEN we ALL can take a LOOK AT IT, and then decide if you are making reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking, or, in fact if you are making stupid fallacious arguments (based solely upon your, previously held, BELIEFS)?

I BELIEVE your BELIEF is you do not have any BELIEFS [your own declaration].

THAT, what you call "a BELIEF", is a VIEW or as you now say, "a declaration".

A VIEW or a declaration is NOT necessary a BELIEF, as I do NOT BELIEVE 'it' is True. A 'BELIEF', to me, is some thing which is BELIEVED to be true, right, and/or correct. I am OPEN to my views and declarations to being NOT TRUE.

Present some sort of credible EVIDENCE to show that I BELIEVE that my VIEWS are true, right, and correct, then me and others readers can LOOK AT it, and then we will decide what we will.

NO evidence has been provided that I BELIEVE that that VIEW (or any other VIEW I have) is true, right, and correct.

If you CAN provide some EVIDENCE contrary to what I say, then provide it and let us SEE it. Until then I await for you to do it.

I have already explained [sable-toothed tiger example] how humans are evolved with an inherent faculty of believing to facilitate survival.

I KNOW you have provided THAT. Do you recall I RESPONDED to it? Do you recall that you NEVER responded to what THAT what I responded with?

I can only wonder WHY you did NOT?

Your BELIEF i.e. 'I [Age] do not have any BELIEFS' is a false belief which in this case is due to ignorance and stupidity.

1. 'I' is NOT Age.
2. Your BELIEF that the statement, 'I do NOT have any BELIEFS is a false belief', IS, in itself, a false belief because that statement is neither a BELIEF nor a DISBELIEF, therefore, and contrary to YOUR BELIEF, it is NOT any sort of BELIEF. So, 'that statement' can NOT be either a false belief, nor a true belief. For any thing to be a false, or true, BELIEF firstly a BELIEF has to exist. No such BELIEF exists, therefore YOUR BELIEF is NOT even for question.
3. Is YOUR conclusion of "ignorance" and "stupidity" 100% the actual real Truth? In other words are you at all OPEN, to any thing other than YOUR own BELIEF/S here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How about you provide just ONE, what you BELIEVE is a BELIEF of MINE,
and then provide what you BELIEVE are the "supporting evidences" for "what your provide" and also argue for that. THEN we ALL can take a LOOK AT IT, and then decide if you are making reasonable, sound arguments based on critical thinking, or, in fact if you are making stupid fallacious arguments (based solely upon your, previously held, BELIEFS)?

I BELIEVE your BELIEF is you do not have any BELIEFS [your own declaration].

THAT, what you call "a BELIEF", is a VIEW or as you now say, "a declaration".

A VIEW or a declaration is NOT necessary a BELIEF, as I do NOT BELIEVE 'it' is True. A 'BELIEF', to me, is some thing which is BELIEVED to be true, right, and/or correct. I am OPEN to my views and declarations to being NOT TRUE.

Present some sort of credible EVIDENCE to show that I BELIEVE that my VIEWS are true, right, and correct, then me and others readers can LOOK AT it, and then we will decide what we will.

NO evidence has been provided that I BELIEVE that that VIEW (or any other VIEW I have) is true, right, and correct.

If you CAN provide some EVIDENCE contrary to what I say, then provide it and let us SEE it. Until then I await for you to do it.

I have already explained [sable-toothed tiger example] how humans are evolved with an inherent faculty of believing to facilitate survival.

I KNOW you have provided THAT. Do you recall I RESPONDED to it? Do you recall that you NEVER responded to what THAT what I responded with?

I can only wonder WHY you did NOT?

Your BELIEF i.e. 'I [Age] do not have any BELIEFS' is a false belief which in this case is due to ignorance and stupidity.

1. 'I' is NOT Age.
2. Your BELIEF that the statement, 'I do NOT have any BELIEFS is a false belief', IS, in itself, a false belief because that statement is neither a BELIEF nor a DISBELIEF, therefore, and contrary to YOUR BELIEF, it is NOT any sort of BELIEF. So, 'that statement' can NOT be either a false belief, nor a true belief. For any thing to be a false, or true, BELIEF firstly a BELIEF has to exist. No such BELIEF exists, therefore YOUR BELIEF is NOT even for question.
3. Is YOUR conclusion of "ignorance" and "stupidity" 100% the actual real Truth? In other words are you at all OPEN, to any thing other than YOUR own BELIEF/S here?

I am going to waste time on the above until you have present your beliefs or your thesis.

Your views are one of a kind that is unique to you. I suspect a schizo will claim the same thing for his hallucinations.

I suggest you present your thesis in some journals or write a book to prove your point, then I will rely on that to discuss provided they qualify Justified True Beliefs* therein.
* or whatever that specific mental process you want to label it.

[Age]

Thee Truth is evidenced within its self, and is thus self-supporting. That is thee Truth does not lie on, nor rely on, "others" or any thing else. in other words, thee Truth speaks for itself.

Learning HOW to find and SEE (understand) this Truth, for and by your Self, is just what I am here learning how to communicate better.

Have you considered the possibility, that this "self-evidenced Truth" / "universe knowledge" you keep going on about, is simply your own intuition, and it may be wrong too?

YES, I HAVE. (Did you ASSUME otherwise? Your following writings come across as though you have).

Absolutely EVERY or ANY thing I saying could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG. I have reiterated this already.

Obviously, you have MISSED the part WHERE I explained exactly HOW this 'self-evidenced Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge' arises from and is KNOWN.

If you had READ and UNDERSTOOD that part, then you would NOT have asked this question.

And you are desperate and delusional enough to believe it to be something more and infallible?

Well, obviously, if some thing, like a statement for example, was unambiguous, was NOT in dispute by any thing, and thus irrefutable, was in agreement with absolutely EVERY thing, and obviously was a fact, then that 'statement' would NOT be any thing other, nor more, than just A Truth, which some might call 'Thee Truth'. Nothing hard nor complicated to understand here, right?

Now, for if I am desperate and delusional enough to believe "IT' to be something more and infallible?, I am NOT absolutly sure what the "IT" is that you are referring to here. BUT if "IT" is the 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', then OF COURSE 'IT' could NOT be some thing MORE. 'IT' is at the highest and fullest it could BE. But 'IT' is also, obviously, infallible. How could a Universal Truth or Knowledge be fallible? That would sort of defeat the purpose of 'IT', 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', being self-evident Truth / Universal Knowledge. Do you not agree, or, do you agree?

Did you MISSED the parts WHERE I say, 'I do NOT have BELIEFS'? If you have, then there is NO use you writing the words "to believe ..." here. If I do NOT believe any thing, then I could NOT be any thing. to write, "to believe ..." in regards to Me only confuses the issue here.

As for me being 'desperate', then I do NOT think so. But maybe you could show Me WHERE I am, if, in fact, you are saying I am.

As for me being 'delusional', then OBVIOUSLY I would have absolutely NO idea of this. By definition if I was 'delusional enough' I would NOT have a clue that i was delusional, and without help from "others" I would NEVER KNOW.

You too are just a human being through and through.

Talking about 'being a human being through and though', you have just provided one of the greatest examples of WHAT human beings do, in the days of when this is written. That is; Jump to a CONCLUSION based on an ASSUMPTION, ask a question to another, NOT wait for their response/answer, ASSUME what the answer WILL be, and then further write accordingly with and from a CONCLUSION based on that ASSUMPTION.

To come to the CONCLUSION of; "You too are just a human being through and through' IS a totally WRONG ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION.

'Human being', as, once again, exampled above;
1. ASSUME what the "ANSWER" is.
2. Come to a CONCLUSION, based on that ASSUMPTION.
3. Write a question around what the self-made up CONCLUSION is, derived from an ASSUMPTION, with NO regards to what the actual answer will be, and thus NO regards to what its actual truthfulness IS.
4. NO patience, at all, to wait for the TRUE, RIGHT, CORRECT response/answer, from the "other", who IS after all the only ONE with the TRUE, RIGHT and CORRECT knowledge.
5. BELIEVE they already HAVE and KNOW the Truth.
6. Just present a so called "ARGUMENT", for one's own CONCLUSION and ASSUMPTION, and BELIEVE that that is thee Truth, before any actual investigation is made.
7. Continually have and hold those ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS as BELIEFS, and BELIEVE wholeheartedly that those BELIEFS are beyond dispute nor question.
8. Fight as vigorously and as hard as one can for those already gained BELIEFS.
9. Some times fight to the "death" for those BELIEFS, as though they are WHO and WHAT the person actually IS.

[Atla]

Thee Truth is evidenced within its self, and is thus self-supporting. That is thee Truth does not lie on, nor rely on, "others" or any thing else. in other words, thee Truth speaks for itself.

Learning HOW to find and SEE (understand) this Truth, for and by your Self, is just what I am here learning how to communicate better.

Have you considered the possibility, that this "self-evidenced Truth" / "universe knowledge" you keep going on about, is simply your own intuition, and it may be wrong too?

YES, I HAVE. (Did you ASSUME otherwise? Your following writings come across as though you have).

Absolutely EVERY or ANY thing I saying could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG. I have reiterated this already.

Obviously, you have MISSED the part WHERE I explained exactly HOW this 'self-evidenced Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge' arises from and is KNOWN.

If you had READ and UNDERSTOOD that part, then you would NOT have asked this question.

And you are desperate and delusional enough to believe it to be something more and infallible?

Well, obviously, if some thing, like a statement for example, was unambiguous, was NOT in dispute by any thing, and thus irrefutable, was in agreement with absolutely EVERY thing, and obviously was a fact, then that 'statement' would NOT be any thing other, nor more, than just A Truth, which some might call 'Thee Truth'. Nothing hard nor complicated to understand here, right?

Now, for if I am desperate and delusional enough to believe "IT' to be something more and infallible?, I am NOT absolutly sure what the "IT" is that you are referring to here. BUT if "IT" is the 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', then OF COURSE 'IT' could NOT be some thing MORE. 'IT' is at the highest and fullest it could BE. But 'IT' is also, obviously, infallible. How could a Universal Truth or Knowledge be fallible? That would sort of defeat the purpose of 'IT', 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', being self-evident Truth / Universal Knowledge. Do you not agree, or, do you agree?

Did you MISSED the parts WHERE I say, 'I do NOT have BELIEFS'? If you have, then there is NO use you writing the words "to believe ..." here. If I do NOT believe any thing, then I could NOT be any thing. to write, "to believe ..." in regards to Me only confuses the issue here.

As for me being 'desperate', then I do NOT think so. But maybe you could show Me WHERE I am, if, in fact, you are saying I am.

As for me being 'delusional', then OBVIOUSLY I would have absolutely NO idea of this. By definition if I was 'delusional enough' I would NOT have a clue that i was delusional, and without help from "others" I would NEVER KNOW.

You too are just a human being through and through.

Talking about 'being a human being through and though', you have just provided one of the greatest examples of WHAT human beings do, in the days of when this is written. That is; Jump to a CONCLUSION based on an ASSUMPTION, ask a question to another, NOT wait for their response/answer, ASSUME what the answer WILL be, and then further write accordingly with and from a CONCLUSION based on that ASSUMPTION.

To come to the CONCLUSION of; "You too are just a human being through and through' IS a totally WRONG ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION.

'Human being', as, once again, exampled above;
1. ASSUME what the "ANSWER" is.
2. Come to a CONCLUSION, based on that ASSUMPTION.
3. Write a question around what the self-made up CONCLUSION is, derived from an ASSUMPTION, with NO regards to what the actual answer will be, and thus NO regards to what its actual truthfulness IS.
4. NO patience, at all, to wait for the TRUE, RIGHT, CORRECT response/answer, from the "other", who IS after all the only ONE with the TRUE, RIGHT and CORRECT knowledge.
5. BELIEVE they already HAVE and KNOW the Truth.
6. Just present a so called "ARGUMENT", for one's own CONCLUSION and ASSUMPTION, and BELIEVE that that is thee Truth, before any actual investigation is made.
7. Continually have and hold those ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS as BELIEFS, and BELIEVE wholeheartedly that those BELIEFS are beyond dispute nor question.
8. Fight as vigorously and as hard as one can for those already gained BELIEFS.
9. Some times fight to the "death" for those BELIEFS, as though they are WHO and WHAT the person actually IS.

Your post is a nonsensical mess.

You still seem to believe that you have access to some kind of "universal knowledge", that is objectively true. Even though such an infallible knowledge doesn't exist.

And if not, then what are you talking about?