Draft I

[Atla]

The realm outside the mind is thought and a though is a thought by its limits. The realm outside the mind is strictly a thought of the unknown, thought as potentiality as a thought.

How much unknown, 100%? Prove this solipsistic, evil, total fucking nonsense if you can. Your thought about the realm outside the mind, is a thought. But again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.

Proof is merely a thought.

And that's why you can't prove it.

[Eodnhoj7]

How much unknown, 100%? Prove this solipsistic, evil, total fucking nonsense if you can. Your thought about the realm outside the mind, is a thought. But again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.

Proof is merely a thought.

And that's why you can't prove it.

That's why I do, the nature of the proof you need is a thought which justifies my stance.

[Atla]

Proof is merely a thought.

And that's why you can't prove it.

That's why I do, the nature of the proof you need is a thought which justifies my stance.

Nope, a thought is not proof. You gave up your humanity (if you had any) for solipsism.

[Eodnhoj7]

And that's why you can't prove it.

That's why I do, the nature of the proof you need is a thought which justifies my stance.

Nope, a thought is not proof. You gave up your humanity (if you had any) for solipsism.

I did not say a thought is a proof I said the nature of a proof is a thought.

Okay if it is not a thought point to the act of interpretation which is what a proof is.

[Atla]

That's why I do, the nature of the proof you need is a thought which justifies my stance.

Nope, a thought is not proof. You gave up your humanity (if you had any) for solipsism.

I did not say a thought is a proof I said a proof is a thought.

Okay if it is not a thought point to the act of interpretation which is what a proof is.

You don't get it. There IS NO absolute proof for choosing between different circular philosophical systems, such as your Kantian-Buddhist-solipsistic-crap, or direct realism, or the indirect realism/representationalism I subscribe to, etc. Absolute proof / absolute certainty is just a wet dream of some thinkers.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope, a thought is not proof. You gave up your humanity (if you had any) for solipsism.

I did not say a thought is a proof I said a proof is a thought.

Okay if it is not a thought point to the act of interpretation which is what a proof is.

You don't get it. There IS NO absolute proof for choosing between different circular philosophical systems, such as your Kantian-Buddhist-solipsistic-crap, or direct realism, or the indirect realism/representationalism I subscribe to, etc. Absolute proof / absolute certainty is just a wet dream of some thinkers.

No my friend I fear you are the one who does not understand what you are saying.

Absolute proof exists within contexts. Under a specific context 1+1=2...always. Absolute proof is the expression of a context of interpretation. If you claim their is no absolute proof, you would need an absolute proof to prove such a claim otherwise your statement is relative and wrong under certain contexts..thus you refute yourself.

[Atla]

I did not say a thought is a proof I said a proof is a thought.

Okay if it is not a thought point to the act of interpretation which is what a proof is.

You don't get it. There IS NO absolute proof for choosing between different circular philosophical systems, such as your Kantian-Buddhist-solipsistic-crap, or direct realism, or the indirect realism/representationalism I subscribe to, etc. Absolute proof / absolute certainty is just a wet dream of some thinkers.

No my friend I fear you are the one who does not understand what you are saying.

Absolute proof exists within contexts. Under a specific context 1+1=2...always. Absolute proof is the expression of a context of interpretation. If you claim their is no absolute proof, you would need an absolute proof to prove such a claim otherwise your statement is relative and wrong under certain contexts..thus you refute yourself.

Pft you make every beginner mistake. "There is no absolute proof" isn't an absolute statement, that's what it says.

[Eodnhoj7]

You don't get it. There IS NO absolute proof for choosing between different circular philosophical systems, such as your Kantian-Buddhist-solipsistic-crap, or direct realism, or the indirect realism/representationalism I subscribe to, etc. Absolute proof / absolute certainty is just a wet dream of some thinkers.

No my friend I fear you are the one who does not understand what you are saying.

Absolute proof exists within contexts. Under a specific context 1+1=2...always. Absolute proof is the expression of a context of interpretation. If you claim their is no absolute proof, you would need an absolute proof to prove such a claim otherwise your statement is relative and wrong under certain contexts..thus you refute yourself.

Pft you make every beginner mistake. "There is no absolute proof" isn't an absolute statement, that's what it says.

I am glad you agree that your statement is not absolute, that means it is not always right.

[Atla]

No my friend I fear you are the one who does not understand what you are saying.

Absolute proof exists within contexts. Under a specific context 1+1=2...always. Absolute proof is the expression of a context of interpretation. If you claim their is no absolute proof, you would need an absolute proof to prove such a claim otherwise your statement is relative and wrong under certain contexts..thus you refute yourself.

Pft you make every beginner mistake. "There is no absolute proof" isn't an absolute statement, that's what it says.

I am glad you agree that your statement is not absolute, that means it is not always right.

No, that's not what it means. It means we can't know if it's always right or not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Pft you make every beginner mistake. "There is no absolute proof" isn't an absolute statement, that's what it says.

I am glad you agree that your statement is not absolute, that means it is not always right.

No, that's not what it means. It means we can't know if it's always right or not.

You have no absolute proof of that...so you stand on shifting sands.

[Atla]

Self-deception and solipsism. How admirable.

[Eodnhoj7]

Self-deception and solipsism. How admirable.

How can you absolutely say such things when there are no absolutes according to you?

I think you speak merely for your self as you measure the limits of the world by your thoughts of doubt, it all fits in whether you can doubt it or not. You use to mind to see reality and what you see does not occur without the mind. If appears you are the solipsist.

Solipsism claims it is all your own mind. But self is merely a thought, as well as non-self. Solipsism is a thought. What is not Solipsism is also a thought. Thoughts go beyond the self and they do not.

Thought is merely a paradox. Why?

It is distinction through distinction as a more central distinction, division through further division as division.

In other terms what occurs occurs through other occurences and this is all an occurencs.

[Atla]

Self-deception and solipsism. How admirable.

How can you absolutely say such things when there are no absolutes according to you?

I think you speak merely for your self as you measure the limits of the world by your thoughts of doubt, it all fits in whether you can doubt it or not. You use to mind to see reality and what you see does not occur without the mind. If appears you are the solipsist.

Solipsism claims it is all your own mind. But self is merely a thought, as well as non-self. Solipsism is a thought. What is not Solipsism is also a thought. Thoughts go beyond the self and they do not.

Thought is merely a paradox. Why?

It is distinction through distinction as a more central distinction, division through further division as division.

In other terms what occurs occurs through other occurences and this is all an occurencs.

I'm not saying anything absolutely. Okay whatever.

[Eodnhoj7]

Self-deception and solipsism. How admirable.

How can you absolutely say such things when there are no absolutes according to you?

I think you speak merely for your self as you measure the limits of the world by your thoughts of doubt, it all fits in whether you can doubt it or not. You use to mind to see reality and what you see does not occur without the mind. If appears you are the solipsist.

Solipsism claims it is all your own mind. But self is merely a thought, as well as non-self. Solipsism is a thought. What is not Solipsism is also a thought. Thoughts go beyond the self and they do not.

Thought is merely a paradox. Why?

It is distinction through distinction as a more central distinction, division through further division as division.

In other terms what occurs occurs through other occurences and this is all an occurencs.

I'm not saying anything absolutely. Okay whatever.

I am quite well aware.

[Atla]

How can you absolutely say such things when there are no absolutes according to you?

I think you speak merely for your self as you measure the limits of the world by your thoughts of doubt, it all fits in whether you can doubt it or not. You use to mind to see reality and what you see does not occur without the mind. If appears you are the solipsist.

Solipsism claims it is all your own mind. But self is merely a thought, as well as non-self. Solipsism is a thought. What is not Solipsism is also a thought. Thoughts go beyond the self and they do not.

Thought is merely a paradox. Why?

It is distinction through distinction as a more central distinction, division through further division as division.

In other terms what occurs occurs through other occurences and this is all an occurencs.

I'm not saying anything absolutely. Okay whatever.

I am quite well aware.

In your last comment you said the opposite. Also, thought is not a paradox. Your thinking gets paradoxical if you misprocess the same thing like three times over (like x through x as a more central x) even though it's one thing. Also, I couldn't be further from solipsism. Whatever.