Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:02 pm
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.
No, you claim not to be saying anything absolute...which means what you just said is not absolute meaning it is wrong under some contexts...I am quite well aware you contradict yourself by unintentionally arguing my point.
The many exist through one and one through many...we only see transformation by the paradox.
You are a solipsist, your perception is how you know the world...and it is quite very limited as doubt is your world.
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.
No, you claim not to be saying anything absolute...which means what you just said is not absolute meaning it is wrong under some contexts...I am quite well aware you contradict yourself by unintentionally arguing my point.
The many exist through one and one through many...we only see transformation by the paradox.
You are a solipsist, your perception is how you know the world...and it is quite very limited as doubt is your world.
That's because as I said, you make every beginner mistake and don't understand that not saying anything absolute isn't a negation, but an infinite regress. There is no contradiction in what I say.
"The many exist through one and one through many" - you are confusing your own nonsensical thinking with reality.
Knowing the external world by perception isn't the same as solipsism, at all. Philosophy 101. Also, doubt isn't my world, doubt is very negative and one-sided, I assign probabilities to things, like anyone who has matured from childish absolute certainty.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 4:44 am
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.
No, you claim not to be saying anything absolute...which means what you just said is not absolute meaning it is wrong under some contexts...I am quite well aware you contradict yourself by unintentionally arguing my point.
The many exist through one and one through many...we only see transformation by the paradox.
You are a solipsist, your perception is how you know the world...and it is quite very limited as doubt is your world.
That's because as I said, you make every beginner mistake and don't understand that not saying anything absolute isn't a negation, but an infinite regress. There is no contradiction in what I say.
"The many exist through one and one through many" - you are confusing your own nonsensical thinking with reality.
Knowing the external world by perception isn't the same as solipsism, at all. Philosophy 101. Also, doubt isn't my world, doubt is very negative and one-sided, I assign probabilities to things, like anyone who has matured from childish absolute certainty.
And they let you run free in the world?
How can I make a beginner's mistake when according to you their are no absolutes and by default your rules are not absolute? How can you say truth is probabalistic when this probablism is not absolute...as nothing is absolute according to you?
In seeing the senses as senses the senses are mind. Can you see your eyesight with your eyesight or hear your hearing with you hearing?
Only those who see as a child run free....old man.
No, you claim not to be saying anything absolute...which means what you just said is not absolute meaning it is wrong under some contexts...I am quite well aware you contradict yourself by unintentionally arguing my point.
The many exist through one and one through many...we only see transformation by the paradox.
You are a solipsist, your perception is how you know the world...and it is quite very limited as doubt is your world.
That's because as I said, you make every beginner mistake and don't understand that not saying anything absolute isn't a negation, but an infinite regress. There is no contradiction in what I say.
"The many exist through one and one through many" - you are confusing your own nonsensical thinking with reality.
Knowing the external world by perception isn't the same as solipsism, at all. Philosophy 101. Also, doubt isn't my world, doubt is very negative and one-sided, I assign probabilities to things, like anyone who has matured from childish absolute certainty.
And they let you run free in the world?
How can I make a beginner's mistake when according to you their are no absolutes and by default your rules are not absolute? How can you say truth is probabalistic when this probablism is not absolute...as nothing is absolute according to you?
In seeing the senses as senses the senses are mind. Can you see your eyesight with your eyesight or hear your hearing with you hearing?
Only those who see as a child run free....old man.
By basing your whole philosophy, whole worldview on infinite regress. Simple yes-or-no logic is just where we start, it's for everyday life.
The senses are parts of the mind, whether or not they "see the senses as senses".
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:18 am
That's because as I said, you make every beginner mistake and don't understand that not saying anything absolute isn't a negation, but an infinite regress. There is no contradiction in what I say.
"The many exist through one and one through many" - you are confusing your own nonsensical thinking with reality.
Knowing the external world by perception isn't the same as solipsism, at all. Philosophy 101. Also, doubt isn't my world, doubt is very negative and one-sided, I assign probabilities to things, like anyone who has matured from childish absolute certainty.
And they let you run free in the world?
How can I make a beginner's mistake when according to you their are no absolutes and by default your rules are not absolute? How can you say truth is probabalistic when this probablism is not absolute...as nothing is absolute according to you?
In seeing the senses as senses the senses are mind. Can you see your eyesight with your eyesight or hear your hearing with you hearing?
Only those who see as a child run free....old man.
By basing your whole philosophy, whole worldview on infinite regress. Simple yes-or-no logic is just where we start, it's for everyday life.
The senses are parts of the mind, whether or not they "see the senses as senses".
You forgot the circularity part and the point of spontaneous occurence too....
The senses only occur through mind as the information is mind.
How can I make a beginner's mistake when according to you their are no absolutes and by default your rules are not absolute? How can you say truth is probabalistic when this probablism is not absolute...as nothing is absolute according to you?
In seeing the senses as senses the senses are mind. Can you see your eyesight with your eyesight or hear your hearing with you hearing?
Only those who see as a child run free....old man.
By basing your whole philosophy, whole worldview on infinite regress. Simple yes-or-no logic is just where we start, it's for everyday life.
The senses are parts of the mind, whether or not they "see the senses as senses".
You forgot the circularity part and the point of spontaneous occurence too....
The senses only occur through mind as the information is mind.
Information is just an abstract concept, "information" is just sense data, part of the mind. There are circularities in philosophy but not as many as you think.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:27 am
By basing your whole philosophy, whole worldview on infinite regress. Simple yes-or-no logic is just where we start, it's for everyday life.
The senses are parts of the mind, whether or not they "see the senses as senses".
You forgot the circularity part and the point of spontaneous occurence too....
The senses only occur through mind as the information is mind.
Information is just an abstract concept, "information" is just sense data, part of the mind. There are circularities in philosophy but not as many as you think.
Spontaneous occurence of what?
If information is just an abstract concept and the distinction of the empirical is a form of information than the distinction of the empirical is an abstract concept.
You forgot the circularity part and the point of spontaneous occurence too....
The senses only occur through mind as the information is mind.
Information is just an abstract concept, "information" is just sense data, part of the mind. There are circularities in philosophy but not as many as you think.
Spontaneous occurence of what?
If information is just an abstract concept and the distinction of the empirical is a form of information than the distinction of the empirical is an abstract concept.
There are no distinctions in nature, only in the mind. So in that sense all distinctions are a kind of abstract.
Information is just an abstract concept, "information" is just sense data, part of the mind. There are circularities in philosophy but not as many as you think.
Spontaneous occurence of what?
If information is just an abstract concept and the distinction of the empirical is a form of information than the distinction of the empirical is an abstract concept.
There are no distinctions in nature, only in the mind. So in that sense all distinctions are a kind of abstract.
If information is just an abstract concept and the distinction of the empirical is a form of information than the distinction of the empirical is an abstract concept.
There are no distinctions in nature, only in the mind. So in that sense all distinctions are a kind of abstract.
Nature is a distinction of the mind.
Prove it. Why should I take this Buddhist/Kantian thing seriously, instead of thinking that mind is a part of nature, part of the natural world?
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:58 pm
Prove it. Why should I take this Buddhist/Kantian thing seriously, instead of thinking that mind is a part of nature, part of the natural world?
First point where the nature of proof is in the empirical given you value the senses so much.
What do you mean by "in the empirical"? Empirical as in 18th century empiricism? Empirical as in empirical evidence of modern science? Something else?
First point where the nature of proof is in the empirical given you value the senses so much.
What do you mean by "in the empirical"? Empirical as in 18th century empiricism? Empirical as in empirical evidence of modern science? Something else?
Point to where proof is empirically.
Again, "empirical" has different meanings, not sure which one you mean.
But either way, "Point to where proof is empirically" is word salad. Again, we can't prove any philosophical stance with absolute certainty. "Prove it" means, convincingly argue that one philosophical system is probably more rational, more reasonable that another philosophical system. So argue convincingly for your anti-realist, mind-dependent view.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 04, 2025 4:26 am
What do you mean by "in the empirical"? Empirical as in 18th century empiricism? Empirical as in empirical evidence of modern science? Something else?
Point to where proof is empirically.
Again, "empirical" has different meanings, not sure which one you mean.
But either way, "Point to where proof is empirically" is word salad. Again, we can't prove any philosophical stance with absolute certainty. "Prove it" means, convincingly argue that one philosophical system is probably more rational, more reasonable that another philosophical system. So argue convincingly for your anti-realist, mind-dependent view.
Proof has many meanings, not sure which one you mean.
Empirical knowledge is knowledge through the senses...start with that.
If no philosophical stance can be proved with absolute certainty that is a philosophical stance and your point implodes.
Why should I take this Buddhist/Kantian thing seriously, instead of thinking that mind is a part of nature, part of the natural world?