Thread for Kenny and Fairy to hijack for their foreplay

[Age]

[

I agree that now is an illusion.

If you agree that 'now' is an illusion, then you would also, logically, agree that 'past' and 'future' is also an illusion, right?

If no, then why not?

The past is all that exists.

But, to 'who', exactly?

The future is open and still to exist,

if it ever will.

Again, to 'who', exactly?

Obviously to 'those' alive 10 billion light years away from 'you',and who are observing 'you', 'the future', which you claim is open and still to exist, has not just already happened, but is also long gone.

But, while you continue to have a very narrowed and closed field of view, and belief, here, you will not begin to understand this irrefutable fact, right?

Time is how we quantify change.

So, to you, 'time' is not an actual physical thing but is just the word used to describe the act of measuring 'duration', itself, correct?

Yes that is what I think. I believe that each event it relative to other events and that change and relativity are two words for the same idea.

Okay, but what is that 'sane idea', exactly?

I can see where you are coming from; when people talk of "now" or "the present" what we usually mean depends on context; it may mean "today" or "the past three weeks" or "of immediate importance" and so forth depending on the context.

Now exists subjectively but does not exist objectively;

Do you have proof of 'this', and therefore it is an irrefutable fact?

Or, is 'this' just what you believe is true?

Because the proof that 'now' exists, objectively, means that 'now' actually does exist objectively.

there is no subsection of time and change where time and change stands still.

What do you mean by, 'There is no subsection of the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change where the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change stands still, exactly?

[Age]

I know that, but it makes no difference anyway. I think he's in love with me. I've noticed that if I don't comment for a few days he replies to some obscure post I've made, just to make sure that there's a 'red dot' for me to come back to. He's a stalker.

Talk about a prime example of 'ego', imagination, and self-delusion talking.

you have beliefs and make claims, I respond to some of them, we are after all in a public philosophy forum. I respond to show where and why your beliefs and claims are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That you can not counter nor refute what I point and show is just a side note.

Claiming other people’s claims are wrong is wrong. It’s projection sourced from you, not them.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, if any one claims that, 'The sun revolves around the earth', for example, and another claims that that claim is wrong, then it is the latter claim that is wrong.

"fairy", can you se any thing wrong with your claim, here?

[Age]

If you’ve already died, it’s because you are aware you’re born. You know you’ve taken birth.

To know you’ve taken birth is to simultaneously die because these ideas are concepts that know nothing of birth and death.

Are you, still, 'trying to' claim that 'concepts', themselves, do not know things, as though there is a human being who would even think, let alone claim, otherwise?

Nothing can know it is alive just as nothing can know it’s dead.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, absolutely no human being knows that it is alive.

Which, obviously, goes absolutely completely against what just about every adult being thinks, and knows.

And, why did you jump from the fact that concepts, themselves, can not know things to conclude, therefore there is not a thing that knows things?

Are you able to explain the 'logical process' that you took?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

Beyond the illusory nature of every known concept, there’s “ONLY BEING” or, “NOT KNOWING”

Do you 'know' this?

If yes, then how does this not contradict 'your claim' that there is, supposedly, only 'not knowing'?

[Belinda]

[

If you agree that 'now' is an illusion, then you would also, logically, agree that 'past' and 'future' is also an illusion, right?

If no, then why not?


But, to 'who', exactly?



Again, to 'who', exactly?

Obviously to 'those' alive 10 billion light years away from 'you',and who are observing 'you', 'the future', which you claim is open and still to exist, has not just already happened, but is also long gone.

But, while you continue to have a very narrowed and closed field of view, and belief, here, you will not begin to understand this irrefutable fact, right?



So, to you, 'time' is not an actual physical thing but is just the word used to describe the act of measuring 'duration', itself, correct?

Yes that is what I think. I believe that each event it relative to other events and that change and relativity are two words for the same idea.

Okay, but what is that 'sane idea', exactly?

I can see where you are coming from; when people talk of "now" or "the present" what we usually mean depends on context; it may mean "today" or "the past three weeks" or "of immediate importance" and so forth depending on the context.

Now exists subjectively but does not exist objectively;

Do you have proof of 'this', and therefore it is an irrefutable fact?

Or, is 'this' just what you believe is true?

Because the proof that 'now' exists, objectively, means that 'now' actually does exist objectively.

there is no subsection of time and change where time and change stands still.

What do you mean by, 'There is no subsection of the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change where the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change stands still, exactly?

Sorry about that. I mean that there is no period of time that stands between pastand future. Past and future is actually a continuum

[Age]

[

Yes that is what I think. I believe that each event it relative to other events and that change and relativity are two words for the same idea.

Okay, but what is that 'sane idea', exactly?

I can see where you are coming from; when people talk of "now" or "the present" what we usually mean depends on context; it may mean "today" or "the past three weeks" or "of immediate importance" and so forth depending on the context.

Now exists subjectively but does not exist objectively;

Do you have proof of 'this', and therefore it is an irrefutable fact?

Or, is 'this' just what you believe is true?

Because the proof that 'now' exists, objectively, means that 'now' actually does exist objectively.

there is no subsection of time and change where time and change stands still.

What do you mean by, 'There is no subsection of the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change where the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change stands still, exactly?

Sorry about that. I mean that there is no period of time that stands between pastand future. Past and future is actually a continuum

And, to you, is there ever a moment of 'now', or there is not?

[Fairy]

Talk about a prime example of 'ego', imagination, and self-delusion talking.

you have beliefs and make claims, I respond to some of them, we are after all in a public philosophy forum. I respond to show where and why your beliefs and claims are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That you can not counter nor refute what I point and show is just a side note.

Claiming other people’s claims are wrong is wrong. It’s projection sourced from you, not them.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, if any one claims that, 'The sun revolves around the earth', for example, and another claims that that claim is wrong, then it is the latter claim that is wrong.

"fairy", can you se any thing wrong with your claim, here?

Does the earth know it revolves around the sun? No.
Does the sun know the earth revolves around it? No.

Concepts don’t know anything, knowledge doesn’t exist out there in the external world. There is no earth or sun out there, those concepts are simply man-made-up synthetic nothing burgers.

[Fairy]

If you’ve already died, it’s because you are aware you’re born. You know you’ve taken birth.

To know you’ve taken birth is to simultaneously die because these ideas are concepts that know nothing of birth and death.

Are you, still, 'trying to' claim that 'concepts', themselves, do not know things, as though there is a human being who would even think, let alone claim, otherwise?

Nothing can know it is alive just as nothing can know it’s dead.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, absolutely no human being knows that it is alive.

Which, obviously, goes absolutely completely against what just about every adult being thinks, and knows.

And, why did you jump from the fact that concepts, themselves, can not know things to conclude, therefore there is not a thing that knows things?

Are you able to explain the 'logical process' that you took?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

Beyond the illusory nature of every known concept, there’s “ONLY BEING” or, “NOT KNOWING”

Do you 'know' this?

If yes, then how does this not contradict 'your claim' that there is, supposedly, only 'not knowing'?

To answer all your responsive questioning to my comments.

I understand what I’m talking about.

[Age]

Claiming other people’s claims are wrong is wrong. It’s projection sourced from you, not them.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, if any one claims that, 'The sun revolves around the earth', for example, and another claims that that claim is wrong, then it is the latter claim that is wrong.

"fairy", can you se any thing wrong with your claim, here?

Does the earth know it revolves around the sun? No.
Does the sun know the earth revolves around it? No.

Concepts don’t know anything, knowledge doesn’t exist out there in the external world. There is no earth or sun out there, those concepts are simply man-made-up synthetic nothing burgers.

What are you even on about?

Human beings know things, obviously. Therefore, there are things that know things. Which irrefutably proves your claim, here, Wrong.

[Fairy]

So, well to "fairy" anyway, if any one claims that, 'The sun revolves around the earth', for example, and another claims that that claim is wrong, then it is the latter claim that is wrong.

"fairy", can you se any thing wrong with your claim, here?

Does the earth know it revolves around the sun? No.
Does the sun know the earth revolves around it? No.

Concepts don’t know anything, knowledge doesn’t exist out there in the external world. There is no earth or sun out there, those concepts are simply man-made-up synthetic nothing burgers.

What are you even on about?

Human beings know things, obviously. Therefore, there are things that know things. Which irrefutably proves your claim, here, Wrong.

Human being is a known concept.

Concepts know nothing. This understanding is the recognition of Not-Knowing.

That’s just simple metaphysics.

[Age]

If you’ve already died, it’s because you are aware you’re born. You know you’ve taken birth.

To know you’ve taken birth is to simultaneously die because these ideas are concepts that know nothing of birth and death.

Are you, still, 'trying to' claim that 'concepts', themselves, do not know things, as though there is a human being who would even think, let alone claim, otherwise?

Nothing can know it is alive just as nothing can know it’s dead.

So, well to "fairy" anyway, absolutely no human being knows that it is alive.

Which, obviously, goes absolutely completely against what just about every adult being thinks, and knows.

And, why did you jump from the fact that concepts, themselves, can not know things to conclude, therefore there is not a thing that knows things?

Are you able to explain the 'logical process' that you took?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

Beyond the illusory nature of every known concept, there’s “ONLY BEING” or, “NOT KNOWING”

Do you 'know' this?

If yes, then how does this not contradict 'your claim' that there is, supposedly, only 'not knowing'?

To answer all your responsive questioning to my comments.

I understand what I’m talking about.

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who clearly can not back and support its beliefs and claims, here, and will 'try to' deflect away from the fact that it does not actually know what it is talking about.

it even actually believes that it could fool the readers, here.

[Age]

Does the earth know it revolves around the sun? No.
Does the sun know the earth revolves around it? No.

Concepts don’t know anything, knowledge doesn’t exist out there in the external world. There is no earth or sun out there, those concepts are simply man-made-up synthetic nothing burgers.

What are you even on about?

Human beings know things, obviously. Therefore, there are things that know things. Which irrefutably proves your claim, here, Wrong.

Human being is a known concept.

Known by who and/or what, exactly?

Concepts know nothing.

Once again, you say this as though there is a human being who would disagree with this.

This understanding is the recognition of Not-Knowing.

That’s just simple metaphysics.

'That' is just simple absurdity.

Lol you claim to know things, but then also 'try to' claim that there are no things that know things.

you are 'trying to' claim that there is no thing that knows things, right?

[Fairy]

Are you, still, 'trying to' claim that 'concepts', themselves, do not know things, as though there is a human being who would even think, let alone claim, otherwise?


So, well to "fairy" anyway, absolutely no human being knows that it is alive.

Which, obviously, goes absolutely completely against what just about every adult being thinks, and knows.

And, why did you jump from the fact that concepts, themselves, can not know things to conclude, therefore there is not a thing that knows things?

Are you able to explain the 'logical process' that you took?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?



Do you 'know' this?

If yes, then how does this not contradict 'your claim' that there is, supposedly, only 'not knowing'?

To answer all your responsive questioning to my comments.

I understand what I’m talking about.

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who clearly can not back and support its beliefs and claims, here, and will 'try to' deflect away from the fact that it does not actually know what it is talking about.

it even actually believes that it could fool the readers, here.

I don’t need to back up my understanding of metaphysics. I understand it, and that’s enough.

I understand what I’m talking about. If you don’t want to accept that, then that’s your problem, not mine.

I understand that there’s nothing right or wrong about concepts known, there’s simply listening and understanding what’s being heard.

[Fairy]

What are you even on about?

Human beings know things, obviously. Therefore, there are things that know things. Which irrefutably proves your claim, here, Wrong.

Human being is a known concept.

Known by who and/or what, exactly?

Concepts know nothing.

Once again, you say this as though there is a human being who would disagree with this.

This understanding is the recognition of Not-Knowing.

That’s just simple metaphysics.

'That' is just simple absurdity.

Lol you claim to know things, but then also 'try to' claim that there are no things that know things.

you are 'trying to' claim that there is no thing that knows things, right?

I said I understand what I am talking about. I know that knowledge is an empty synthetic structure of the mind. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, knowledge is an artificial construct, but that doesn’t mean reality doesn’t exist, because it does, obviously.

[Fairy]

So, well to "fairy" anyway, if any one claims that, 'The sun revolves around the earth', for example, and another claims that that claim is wrong, then it is the latter claim that is wrong.

"fairy", can you se any thing wrong with your claim, here?

Does the earth know it revolves around the sun? No.
Does the sun know the earth revolves around it? No.

Concepts don’t know anything, knowledge doesn’t exist out there in the external world. There is no earth or sun out there, those concepts are simply man-made-up synthetic nothing burgers.

What are you even on about?

Human beings know things, obviously. Therefore, there are things that know things. Which irrefutably proves your claim, here, Wrong.

What I’m on about is a truth I understand.

What you need to understand is you have to genuinely care about truth and stop asking others for answers that you could find out on your own. You can't know anything by asking anyone.

Human beings is a known concept. The known know nothing. That’s true Not-Knowing metaphysics, when that’s understood properly. It’s an advanced metaphysical knowledge that everyone can understand, only if they truly want to.
Most people don’t care about metaphysical truth, and those people just continue to monkey around, and that’s their prerogative.

Philosophy is about the search for truth, and those who choose to pursue it, will eventually understand it.

[Age]

To answer all your responsive questioning to my comments.

I understand what I’m talking about.

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who clearly can not back and support its beliefs and claims, here, and will 'try to' deflect away from the fact that it does not actually know what it is talking about.

it even actually believes that it could fool the readers, here.

I don’t need to back up my understanding of metaphysics. I understand it, and that’s enough.

Lol, imagine going anywhere and claiming I understand this or that, and when another you to show and prove that you do, you then reply back with, 'I understsnd it, and that is enough'.

Look "fairy" I understand that you do not yet understand metaphysics. And, I understand this, and this is enough.

Claiming that you know there is nothing that knows things is about one of the funniest self-contradictory and self-refuting claims, here

I understand what I’m talking about. If you don’t want to accept that, then that’s your problem, not mine.

No problem at all, here, well not on my part anyway.

I understand that there’s nothing right or wrong about concepts known, there’s simply listening and understanding what’s being heard.

But, you know there is no knowing, right?