The Paradox of Understanding

[Age]

Ok look, my worldview is a universal coherent system that is probability and Occam's razor based. There are no self-evident things to me. I don't just accept my experiences and reject other people's experiences either.

Is it possible that your Platonic abstract points and lines are as real as physical things, and they actively do all these things you think they do? Yes, anything is possible.

Do I think it's likely to be true? No. Do I think it's a rational, reasonable possibility? No.

What do I think? That you seem to conflate abstracta with concreta, like I said like 6 years ago. And that you might be missing the forest for the trees, you figure out the self-referentiality of X and then of Y and then of Z and so on and every time you make a big deal out of it, but all human cognition is more or less self-referential, so these aren't big discoveries to me.

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

BECAUSE you do NOT 'look at' and 'see' ALL things, EXACTLY, as 'they' ACTUALLY ARE, OBVIOUSLY.

[Eodnhoj7]

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone. Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

I never said you did, I asked you about whether "the occurence of experience is universally self-evident?"

Don't divert from the question, please, I am trying to see if there is anything interesting about your line of thought.

And the question remains "is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?"

This question applies in another respect as the occurence of experience needs no proof or human reasoning.

[Atla]

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone. Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

I never said you did, I asked you about whether "the occurence of experience is universally self-evident?"

Don't divert from the question, please, I am trying to see if there is anything interesting about your line of thought.

And the question remains "is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?"

This question applies in another respect as the occurence of experience needs no proof or human reasoning.

I still don't know what the question is.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to me? No. Nothing is universally self-evident according to me.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some people? Yes.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some other people? No.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, to all humans? No.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone. Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

I never said you did, I asked you about whether "the occurence of experience is universally self-evident?"

Don't divert from the question, please, I am trying to see if there is anything interesting about your line of thought.

And the question remains "is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?"

This question applies in another respect as the occurence of experience needs no proof or human reasoning.

I still don't know what the question is.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to me? No. Nothing is universally self-evident according to me.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some people? Yes.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some other people? No.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, to all humans? No.

We can start here, to avoid going in every direction:

Nothing is the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things, this absence is a distinction that is self-evident to you...as you claim "nothing is universally self-evident" to you.

Absence is universally self-evident.

[Atla]

I never said you did, I asked you about whether "the occurence of experience is universally self-evident?"

Don't divert from the question, please, I am trying to see if there is anything interesting about your line of thought.

And the question remains "is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?"

This question applies in another respect as the occurence of experience needs no proof or human reasoning.

I still don't know what the question is.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to me? No. Nothing is universally self-evident according to me.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some people? Yes.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some other people? No.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, to all humans? No.

We can start here, to avoid going in every direction:

Nothing is the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things, this absence is a distinction that is self-evident to you...as you claim "nothing is universally self-evident" to you.

Absence is universally self-evident.

No, I did not mean nothing as in "the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things", I used the primary meaning of nothing. It's what we do in English.

[Eodnhoj7]

I still don't know what the question is.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to me? No. Nothing is universally self-evident according to me.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some people? Yes.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some other people? No.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, to all humans? No.

We can start here, to avoid going in every direction:

Nothing is the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things, this absence is a distinction that is self-evident to you...as you claim "nothing is universally self-evident" to you.

Absence is universally self-evident.

No, I did not mean nothing as in "the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things", I used the primary meaning of nothing. It's what we do in English.

So "nothing" does not mean the absence of a thing or things?

[Age]

Given you cannot give a coherent account of your views, I see little weight to your words other than folly to alleviate boredom.

Anyhow:

So is occurence universally self-evident?

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

To who and/or what, EXACTLY?

And, can 'that one' or 'those ones' be Inaccurate and/or Incorrect in what 'they' CLAIM is 'universally self-evident'?

Or, is this NOT A POSSIBILITY in your OWN 'little story' and 'little world', here, "eodnhoj7"?

[Atla]

We can start here, to avoid going in every direction:

Nothing is the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things, this absence is a distinction that is self-evident to you...as you claim "nothing is universally self-evident" to you.

Absence is universally self-evident.

No, I did not mean nothing as in "the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things", I used the primary meaning of nothing. It's what we do in English.

So "nothing" does not mean the absence of a thing or things?

No, that's the 2nd or 3rd or so meaning. The primary meaning is a the total lack of anything, there isn't even the "conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things".

[Age]

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Talk about 'this one' providing of 'one' being ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, here.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone.

LOL Well considering the Fact that there are things that ARE 'Self-evident' TO EVERY one, that 'this one' OBVIOUSLY ACTUALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that there are ABSOLUTELY NO things, then 'this' is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS.

Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

you might want to 'look up' what 'dumb' ACTUALLY MEANS, ALSO, AS WELL.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, I did not mean nothing as in "the conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things", I used the primary meaning of nothing. It's what we do in English.

So "nothing" does not mean the absence of a thing or things?

No, that's the 2nd or 3rd or so meaning. The primary meaning is a the total lack of anything, there isn't even the "conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things".

Wow...a lack is an absence.

And "a total lack of anything" is an absence of things.

And an absence is a distinction.

[Atla]

So "nothing" does not mean the absence of a thing or things?

No, that's the 2nd or 3rd or so meaning. The primary meaning is a the total lack of anything, there isn't even the "conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things".

Wow...a lack is an absence.

And "a total lack of anything" is an absence of things.

And an absence is a distinction.

You simply can't process pointers, metaphors, can you. A pointer like "lack/absence" is only a literal thing when you reify it to be a literal thing. For the n-th time, you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart, you have a fundamental cognitive problem.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, that's the 2nd or 3rd or so meaning. The primary meaning is a the total lack of anything, there isn't even the "conceptualization of an absence of a thing or things".

Wow...a lack is an absence.

And "a total lack of anything" is an absence of things.

And an absence is a distinction.

You simply can't process pointers, metaphors, can you. A pointer like "lack/absence" is only a literal thing when you reify it to be a literal thing. For the n-th time, you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart, you have a fundamental cognitive problem.

Pointers and metaphors are distinctions....apparently those are self-evident to you if "nothing" is those things.

Why should I tell them apart if self-evidence is not universal to you?

[Age]

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone. Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

I never said you did, I asked you about whether "the occurence of experience is universally self-evident?"

Don't divert from the question, please, I am trying to see if there is anything interesting about your line of thought.

And the question remains "is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?"

This question applies in another respect as the occurence of experience needs no proof or human reasoning.

I still don't know what the question is.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to me? No. Nothing is universally self-evident according to me.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some people? Yes.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, according to some other people? No.

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident, to all humans? No.

Talk ABOUT A PRIME example of being ABSOLUTELY STUPID.

TO 'this one' It is NOT even 'evident' that 'it' IS even, ACTUALLY, 'experiencing'.

[Atla]

Wow...a lack is an absence.

And "a total lack of anything" is an absence of things.

And an absence is a distinction.

You simply can't process pointers, metaphors, can you. A pointer like "lack/absence" is only a literal thing when you reify it to be a literal thing. For the n-th time, you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart, you have a fundamental cognitive problem.

Pointers and metaphors are distinctions....apparently those are self-evident to you if "nothing" is those things.

Why should I tell them apart if self-evidence is not universal to you?

Word salad. Sorry but you can't tell abstracta and concreta apart.

[Age]

The other posters, here, having NOT YET even FULLY UNDERSTOOD what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS, and IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, could this thread have been more aptly named?