Göbekli Tepe

[Eodnhoj7]

So what, he himself said that he was autistic. ...

And so knowing this you thought you'd bait him did you. Like I say, nasty, nasty little mind you have there and all because of your own feeble insecurities.

You go easy on these people unless they won't leave you alone with their bullshit even after you told them to a dozen times....

"These people" is it? So much for the great non-dualist.

It's a Philosophy forum numbnuts but if you can't cope with replies or critique then use the ignore function or even better show some willpower and don't read and reply.

So now you have difficulty coping with members if you have them on ignore?

In that regard you are much like him.

Dear oh dear! You really aren't suited to a Philosophy forum are you. Maybe you should find one of the fruitcake new age/nondual/conspiracy sites where you can all bask in agreement and awe at each others awesomeness.

[Eodnhoj7]

You would need to have some vague understanding of philosophy and computers to see how mixing them like that is not even wrong.

Is that like mixing up science and philosophy?

"Not even wrong" is a pejorative applied to purported scientific arguments that are perceived to be based on invalid reasoning or speculative premises that can neither be proven correct nor falsified and thus cannot be discussed in a rigorous, scientific sense.

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for rigor or science without using an assumption.

You assume too much.

[Eodnhoj7]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Please read more than 1 paragraph. Read at least the first half of the page.
"Not even wrong" aptly describes most of your computer arguments.

That's funny. Since computers are real, ostensible, empirical things. They are the physical realizations of logic/mathematics. Computers are time-variant systems and so everything I say about them is empirically testable AND falsifiable.

If you are going to use a phrase like "not even wrong", try to understand what it means.

Man is also a computer under this definition as man has many mathematically observable properities... so does carbon and helium...so does that make them time variant systems as well considering they converge and diverge as finite properities?

It is just label cutting...time variant system, input out-put, etc. are just language games and mean nothing.

If man is a computer and man just assumes his own nature, then what you say by default is just an assumption.

Computers are a replication of the source that created them, and man barely know his own identity.

Isn't it funny, speaking of empiricism that many studies link digital devices and there rise in culture with mental illness? Or maybe that is assumed as well....

Finally, "testable" and "falsifiable" are built on assumptions...you cannot test 1 or 0 as they are strictly assumed. Testing and falsifying are the connection and separations of assumptions into forms we assume.

[Arising_uk]

So now you have difficulty coping with members if you have them on ignore?

I've never used the ignore function.

[Arising_uk]

So there is an ignore function for the weak minded, and I am on ignore, does that mean you are weak minded and a loon...by your own standards?

What are you babbling on about now?

You think too much of yourself.

[Skepdick]

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for rigor or science without using an assumption.

You assume too much.

*sigh* silly foundationalist!

Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'definition'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'agreement'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'universally'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'assumption'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'provide'.

I am going to have to turn my anti-foundationalism on maximum with you.

Use is meaning. Meaning is use.
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.c ... -language/

[Eodnhoj7]

So there is an ignore function for the weak minded, and I am on ignore, does that mean you are weak minded and a loon...by your own standards?

What are you babbling on about now?

You think too much of yourself.

So if I am not on ignore...you are claiming to listen to a loon?

[Eodnhoj7]

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for rigor or science without using an assumption.

You assume too much.

*sigh* silly foundationalist!

Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'definition'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'agreement'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'universally'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'assumption'.
Provide a universally agreed upon definition of 'provide'.

I am going to have to turn my anti-foundationalism on maximum with you.

Use is meaning. Meaning is use.
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.c ... -language/

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for definition that is not an empty circular context.....other wise the questions are useless.

Putting labels on phenomenon is a foundation of coherency and coherency is an empty context.. Use is meaning and meaning is use is an empty circular context.

The answer to your question is this and not this (as your questions are "mu": •

[Skepdick]

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for definition that is not an empty circular context.....other wise the questions are useless.

I don't have to. Coherentism rejects the circularity of definitions.

What I am saying makes perfect sense to me. And it works in practice.

I should only care that it's incomprehensible to you if I was selling you stuff.

[Eodnhoj7]

Provide a universally agreed upon definition for definition that is not an empty circular context.....other wise the questions are useless.

I don't have to. Coherentism rejects the circularity of definitions.

Because circular definitions are not coherent? Hahahahaha!!!!

[Skepdick]

Because circular definitions are not coherent? Hahahahaha!!!!

The act of defining things is circular. Define •

[Eodnhoj7]

Because circular definitions are not coherent? Hahahahaha!!!!

The act of defining things is circular. Define •

But coherentism requires definition if there is to be coherency, but does not allow circularity according to you.

Answer: Assumptive logic thread.

[Skepdick]

But coherentism requires definition if there is to be coherency.

No, it doesn't. it only requires differentiation from foundationalism (which requires definitions).

but does not allow circularity according to you.

You are welcome to define it. The definition will be incomplete. Like all definitions.

[Arising_uk]

So if I am not on ignore...you are claiming to listen to a loon?

By an' large I listen to all and sundry.

[Eodnhoj7]

But coherentism requires definition if there is to be coherency.

No, it doesn't. it only requires differentiation from foundationalism (which requires definitions).

Thus foundationalism can be defined, and exists according to a coherentist?

but does not allow circularity according to you.

You are welcome to define it. The definition will be incomplete. Like all definitions.

Incomplete is incomplete by default, thus self negating.