Questions to Age

[Magnus Anderson]

Once again, because your own personal beliefs are preventing and stopping you from 'hearing' and 'learning', until you provide 'the definition' that you are, personally, using, here, for the 'reality' word, which you use, here, then everyone else, here, is, literally, only 'pre-assuming' what 'you' are actually meaning, here.

He's saying that my own personal beliefs are preventing and stopping me from listening. That would be an instance of psychological ad hominem, the most common type, also known as a psychologism.

He's also responding BEFORE reading the entire post. At the end of that post of mine, which is a short post, a definition of the word he's asking for is provided. Obviously, he responds as he reads, resulting in a lot of noise that does nothing but distract.

He seems to not understand that in order to completely avoid the possibility of other people presuming, and possibly misunderstanding, the meaning of your words, you have to define every single word you use. He's not bothered by the impracticality of such a feat. And he's also not bothered by the fact that he isn't doing the same himself ( in fact, he's TERRIBLE when it comes to defining his words, as we can clearly see in this thread. )

[Magnus Anderson]

If you still insist on the definition of the word "reality", here's the Google definition. You can also check any other dictionary if you want. They all say the same thing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is another prime example of 'confirmation bias'. 'This one' only 'sees' and 'hears' what it already believes is absolutely true.

If 'this one', really, believes, absolutely, that absolutely every dictionary and absolutely every definition for the word, 'reality', all say the exact same thing, then 'this one' has, once again, just proved, irrefutably, just how absolutely closed 'these human beings', could and were, back when this was being written, and thus how absolutely blind and deaf they really were.

LOL Every dictionary ALL say the same thing in regards to the 'meaning' of the word, 'reality'. LOL

The so-called 'experts', that is, the "scientists" do not even agree on things like what 'reality' is. And, LOL 'they' are meant to be 'the ones' who 'look at' and 'study' 'reality', itself.

He used the word "LOL" six times in total. He keeps using the condescending terms "this one" and "these human beings". He accuses me of confirmation bias. He accuses "these human beings" -- that is to say, me -- of being blind, closed and deaf.

Of course, it's pretty clear he does not understand the difference between the linguistic question "What's the meaning of the word reality?" and the philosophical / scientific question "What's real"? I could have explained this to him but he didn't ask for it, didn't he? A sign of arrogance.

[Age]

From another thread.

From now on, all of the comments pertaining to his misbehavior will be posted here. I want to keep my threads as clean as possible.

Well 'I' suggest that 'you' then begin to start writing them 'cleanly'. That is, Truthful, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

And, until then, expected to be critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged 'in ways' that you may well not like and/or detest.

Also, and by the way, you are dragging my comments from one thread to another, but let 'us' hope that you stop 'this misbehaving', 'from now on', like you just claimed you would.

And, here, 'it' is. The prime example of why 'these human beings', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', HERE.

Calling other people "these humans beings" implies that Age is superior to them.

LOL 'this one', still, has not yet recognized, nor learned, and understood that it is 'the writer' who 'implies', whereas it is 'the reader' who 'infers', instead.

So, you are absolutely Inaccurate, and Incorrect, here, once again. For two reasons, at least.

1. 'I' never ever 'implied' the very thing that 'you' clearly have, here.

2. 'you' are, once more, making an assumption, from what 'you', "yourself", 'inferred'. And, worse, you then 'jumped to a conclusion', and ever worse, still, 'you' then believe 'your' own made up assumption, based upon 'your' own made up 'inference', is absolutely true.

Once again, not a split second of 'thought', and 'consideration', went through 'the head' of 'this one' to 'just check' what 'I', 'the writer', was actually 'implying', let alone in regards to what 'I' was actually 'meaning'.

And, if 'you', really, would 'now' like to claim that there was 'some thought and/or consideration', within 'that head', regarding finding out what the actual Truth is, then 'you', obviously, never ever went ahead with 'just doing that'.

That would be a claim of his own superiority, and indirectly, a claim of other people's inferiority.

What 'this one' is now showing, here, is another example of how if, and when, people had 'nothing', then 'they' would 'try to' garner support, 'from others'. See, 'the bigger' the group, or mob, the more 'weight' 'these people' thought or believed that 'they' had 'behind them'.

But, what people, like 'this one', seemed to completely forget that 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum', were the only real thing that matters, here, are the 'actual words', which are presented, and used.

Now, what 'this one' has just 'tried to' claim, in its desperate wanting of gaining 'more' on "its side" is that there was absolutely no claim, at all, of my own superiority, and absolutely no indirect claim of anyone else's inferiority. 'These' are just 'claims', which 'this one' has made up and is 'trying to' use to deceive and fool you, readers, here.

A kind of personal attack, one can say.

Once more, what 'a reader' 'infers' is never necessarily what 'the writer' 'implied', at all.

And, once again, 'I' will suggest that you, people, do not assume absolutely any thing and always seek out and find clarification, first. Also, remember that you, the reader and listener, 'infer', and what is implied, and meant, can never be known, for sure, without clarification.

Certainly, not a friendly, not a cooperative, not a loving tone. A combative language.

Again, what one 'sees' and 'hears' is never necessarily what is absolutely True, because of the irrefutable Fact that already obtained beliefs and assumptions distort, twist, and alter one's own ability to 'see' and 'hear' absolutely properly, and Correctly.

'they' actually 'believed', not just 'thought', that absolutely every agrees on the exact same 'meanings' for words.

This is an exaggeration. The claim that I made is that everyone agrees on the meaning of the word "reality". I never said everyone agrees on the meaning of every word.

In 'that quote', I, also, never said, 'every one agrees on the meaning of 'every word'. So, why did you say and write what you did, here?

And, even if 'your claim' was only in relation to the word, 'reality', alone, then what you said and claimed is, still, absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, laughingly 'this one' even used the 'reality' word, for, the example.

He uses the word "laughingly". That would be an example of mockery.

The actual Truth is, 'That 'could' be an example of...'. And, not, 'That 'would' be an example of ...'.

Again, you are only presuming and/or believing what you said and claimed, here.

And, again, the very reason why you assumed and/or believed what you just did, here, is because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions. Which, obviously, affect 'the way' you 'look at' and 'see' things.

"This one" is a condescending reference to me.

Again, if this is what you want to see, believe, and claim, then this is perfectly fine and okay, with me.

But, remember, what you see, believe, and/or claim is never ever necessarily True until you provide the actual proof.

And, then, laughingly, 'this one' even 'tries to' use 'the excuse' that there is absolutely 'no need', at all, to define words, in the days when this was being written.

The same exaggeration from earlier repeated.

He accuses me of using an excuse. That's a comment directed at my motives, so it's a kind of ad hominem.

LOL 'kind of ad hominem'.

Again, 'this one' used 'an excuse' for just not defining the 'reality' word, from its own perspective, when it used 'that word'.

All in all, he's employing exaggeration, ad hominem attacks, mockery, belittlement, psychologisms, etc.

Once again, 'these' are just what 'this one' has 'inferred', only. Which, obviously, has come only from its own pre-existing assumptions and beliefs, and not from what 'I' have actually 'meant', at all.

Also, noted is that 'this one' has not actually replied of what 'I' have actually said, written, and meant, at all. And, it has actually done is just responded from its own 'inference/s', only. Which, as always, could all be Wrong, or partly wrong.

He's very clearly not allowing the other side to have a differing opinion.

LOL Once more, 'this one' is just, once again, showing its own assumption and belief, here.

LOL To me, anyway, every one has differing opinions, and there is absolutely no other way out of 'this', here.

So, LOL, what you 'inferred', assume, and believe, here, could, once again, be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, nor more Incorrect.

And he's also not entertaining the possibility that he's wrong.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' just keep showing, and proving, how very, very Wrong 'you' really are, here, "magnus anderson".

What 'you' are, essentially, 'trying to' do, here, is just deflect, and detract, from what you have previously said and written, here, while also 'trying to' deceive and fool others, while 'trying' your hardest to garner a bigger group of supporters.

Which, really is, very funny to watch, and play out, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

Is there a single person who thinks you're sane, Age?

[Magnus Anderson]

LOL 'this one', still, has not yet recognized, nor learned, and understood that it is 'the writer' who 'implies', whereas it is 'the reader' who 'infers', instead.

You need to learn how to speak ( and stop complaining about other people misunderstanding you. )

Regardless of what you truly mean by "these human beings", it has a distancing, condescending tone in English. Your wording communicates superiority, whether or not you intended it. Particularly in a discussion context, terms such as "these human beings" and "this one" function as belittling. Even if you did not consciously mean it that way, that's how it comes across to readers here.

Your entire defense on every single point is the infinitely idiotic, "LOL! You have no idea what I actually meant! You're not inside my head!" Anyone can use that excuse to pretend they meant nothing bad. That's why it's important to speak clearly.

[Age]

Once again, because your own personal beliefs are preventing and stopping you from 'hearing' and 'learning', until you provide 'the definition' that you are, personally, using, here, for the 'reality' word, which you use, here, then everyone else, here, is, literally, only 'pre-assuming' what 'you' are actually meaning, here.

He's saying that my own personal beliefs are preventing and stopping me from listening. That would be an instance of psychological ad hominem, the most common type, also known as a psychologism.

'Try' as you like "magnus anderson", but continually talking 'about me', instead of 'talking about' 'the words', I actually use, is not helping 'you' at all, here.

Especially considering that 'you' are 'trying' so hard to talk about 'ad hominem', itself.

He's also responding BEFORE reading the entire post.

LOL 'this one' says and writes 'this' as though it reads the entire post, before responding, or, that 'it' is some prerequisite.

At the end of that post of mine, which is a short post, a definition of the word he's asking for is provided. Obviously, he responds as he reads, resulting in a lot of noise that does nothing but distract.

What 'we' can see, here, very clearly is another attempt at 'distraction', itself.

He seems to not understand that in order to completely avoid the possibility of other people presuming, and possibly misunderstanding, the meaning of your words, you have to define every single word you use. He's not bothered by the impracticality of such a feat. And he's also not bothered by the fact that he isn't doing the same himself ( in fact, he's TERRIBLE when it comes to defining his words, as we can clearly see in this thread. )

1. Here, 'we' can clearly see one who just will not concentrate on 'the words', alone, and prefers to just 'talk about' 'the other', instead.

2. When one asks 'me' to define words, then 'I' will, if doing so moves 'the discussion' forward.

3. As 'I' have pointed out many times, previously, 'I' write in 'a way' that shows and proves, 'these people', back when this was being written, would just presume, and believe, 'things', instead of 'seeking out' clarification, first.

[Age]

If you still insist on the definition of the word "reality", here's the Google definition. You can also check any other dictionary if you want. They all say the same thing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is another prime example of 'confirmation bias'. 'This one' only 'sees' and 'hears' what it already believes is absolutely true.

If 'this one', really, believes, absolutely, that absolutely every dictionary and absolutely every definition for the word, 'reality', all say the exact same thing, then 'this one' has, once again, just proved, irrefutably, just how absolutely closed 'these human beings', could and were, back when this was being written, and thus how absolutely blind and deaf they really were.

LOL Every dictionary ALL say the same thing in regards to the 'meaning' of the word, 'reality'. LOL

The so-called 'experts', that is, the "scientists" do not even agree on things like what 'reality' is. And, LOL 'they' are meant to be 'the ones' who 'look at' and 'study' 'reality', itself.

He used the word "LOL" six times in total.

So what?

And, you, still, have not yet learned that seeking out clarification, first, will help you stop being so Wrong, so often.

Even 'now' 'you' are, still, clueless. As you will, eventually, prove 'me', once more, absolutely True, and Right.

He keeps using the condescending terms "this one" and "these human beings".

LOL Once again, 'this one' is assuming and believing things, which have never ever been said and meant.

He accuses me of confirmation bias. He accuses "these human beings" -- that is to say, me -- of being blind, closed and deaf.

And, 'this one', obviously, keeps talking 'about me', instead of just focusing on 'my words'. Which, in and of itself, is a pure of 'ad hominem', or of 'looking at' and focusing on the speaker/writer, instead of the 'actual words', only, and instead.

Of course, it's pretty clear he does not understand the difference between the linguistic question "What's the meaning of the word reality?" and the philosophical / scientific question "What's real"?

Will 'this one' just stop talking 'about me', and just start focusing on 'my words', alone, and then just respond 'to them', only?

I could have explained this to him but he didn't ask for it, didn't he? A sign of arrogance.

And, yet 'we' have another example of 'arrogance', itself.

[Age]

Is there a single person who thinks you're sane, Age?

The less that do, here, then the more of what 'I' have been, actually, 'talking about', and 'meaning', here, gets further proved absolutely True, and Right,

Oh, and by the way, that is 'a question' that 'you' would 'have to' ask 'them'.

[Fairy]

My question to Age today is...

Age, you you think the mind is solipsistic by it's very nature? is there anything outside, or inside the mind?

[Age]

LOL 'this one', still, has not yet recognized, nor learned, and understood that it is 'the writer' who 'implies', whereas it is 'the reader' who 'infers', instead.

You need to learn how to speak ( and stop complaining about other people misunderstanding you. )

But, 'I' am not complaining, at all. 'I' have said, while just pointing out, that 'you' have not yet recognized, nor learned, and understood, that 'the listener/reader' 'infers', whereas it is 'the speaker/writer' 'implies', instead.

Obviously, you could not refute 'this', or, if you could, you did not, and instead just made some ridiculous and absurd claim that 'I' need to learn how to speak.

Regardless of what you truly mean by "these human beings", it has a distancing, condescending tone in English.

LOL Once again, 'this one' has just shown, and proved irrefutably True, again, that instead of just considering to seek out and obtain actual clarification, first, it preferred to just not to.

LOL 'This one', still, after all of its back and forward responses 'with me' has absolutely no idea nor clue what 'I' Truly 'mean' by 'these human beings'.

LOL Which makes some wonder how long till 'this one' considers what has been 'suggested', to it, here, numerous times already.

Your wording communicates superiority, whether or not you intended it.

Once again, so it does not matter one iota what a speaker/writer actually intends, implies, or means, what matters, to you, absolutely is that what you perceive/infer is what is absolutely true and right, correct?

Particularly in a discussion context, terms such as "these human beings" and "this one" function as belittling.

Once again, what 'this one' has 'inferred' as 'belittling' is not necessarily at all.

Only the speaker/writer knows, for sure, what was intended/meant. What you, a listener/reader infers'/interprets can always be completely Wrong, and False.

Even if you did not consciously mean it that way, that's how it comes across to readers here.

And, once again, what 'comes across' is never necessarily what was meant/intended.

I am not sure how many times 'this' has to be be re-repeated before you come to comprehend, and understand, here.

Your entire defense on every single point is the infinitely idiotic, "LOL!

Even, here, 'this one's' interpretation/inference is is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

You have no idea what I actually meant! You're not inside my head!" Anyone can use that excuse to pretend they meant nothing bad. That's why it's important to speak clearly.

LOL
LOL
LOL

[Age]

My question to Age today is...

Age, you you think the mind is solipsistic by it's very nature?

'This' is a statement and claim, with a question mark at the end of it.

Now, and as always, what 'you' mean, and/or are referring to, when you use the word, 'mind', here, might well be very, very different to how others use that word to mean, and/or to refer to, exactly.

For example, to some, 'Someone who's solipsistic is so focused on their own wants and needs that they don't think about other people at all. You could also call a solipsistic person selfish or self-centered'.

Solipsistic, however, has a different meaning if you hear it in a philosophy class. In this case, it describes the theory that the only thing you can know for sure is that your own mind exists.[I/]

But, then again, 'you' could be meaning, and/or referring to, here, something else entirely.

By the way, the only 'thing', which can be known, for sure, are 'thoughts', themselves. Now, if 'the thoughts' are actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or not, is a completely other issue.

is there anything outside, or inside the mind?

What exists is the Universe, which is eternal and infinite.

The Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of two things,

1. Some thing, for lack of explaining further.

2. No thing, for lack of explaining further.

There, obviously, exists A 'Mind'. The Mind, although invisible, and thus to some 'no thing', is what allows perception, awareness, and consciousness to exist. So, it could be said and argued that any thing other than the 'Mind', Itself, could, in fact, just be a 'figment of imagination'.

[Fairy]

My question to Age today is...

Age, you you think the mind is solipsistic by it's very nature?

'This' is a statement and claim, with a question mark at the end of it.

Yes, that's correct.

Now, and as always, what 'you' mean, and/or are referring to, when you use the word, 'mind', here, might well be very, very different to how others use that word to mean, and/or to refer to, exactly.

Yes, I agree.

For example, to some, 'Someone who's solipsistic is so focused on their own wants and needs that they don't think about other people at all. You could also call a solipsistic person selfish or self-centered'.

Yes, I agree, if that's how solipsism is being understood by the solipsist. Then there is nothing else for a solipsist to focus on except solipsism.

Solipsistic, however, has a different meaning if you hear it in a philosophy class. In this case, it describes the theory that the only thing you can know for sure is that your own mind exists.[I/]

But, then again, 'you' could be meaning, and/or referring to, here, something else entirely.

By the way, the only 'thing', which can be known, for sure, are 'thoughts', themselves. Now, if 'the thoughts' are actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or not, is a completely other issue.

I agree.

is there anything outside, or inside the mind?

What exists is the Universe, which is eternal and infinite.

The Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of two things,

1. Some thing, for lack of explaining further.

2. No thing, for lack of explaining further.

There, obviously, exists A 'Mind'. The Mind, although invisible, and thus to some 'no thing', is what allows perception, awareness, and consciousness to exist. So, it could be said and argued that any thing other than the 'Mind', Itself, could, in fact, just be a 'figment of imagination'.

I agree, and thanks for answering my question.

[Gary Childress]

My question to Age today is...

Age, you you think the mind is solipsistic by it's very nature?

'This' is a statement and claim, with a question mark at the end of it.

Now, and as always, what 'you' mean, and/or are referring to, when you use the word, 'mind', here, might well be very, very different to how others use that word to mean, and/or to refer to, exactly.

For example, to some, 'Someone who's solipsistic is so focused on their own wants and needs that they don't think about other people at all. You could also call a solipsistic person selfish or self-centered'.

Solipsistic, however, has a different meaning if you hear it in a philosophy class. In this case, it describes the theory that the only thing you can know for sure is that your own mind exists.

But, then again, 'you' could be meaning, and/or referring to, here, something else entirely.

By the way, the only 'thing', which can be known, for sure, are 'thoughts', themselves. Now, if 'the thoughts' are actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or not, is a completely other issue.

is there anything outside, or inside the mind?

What exists is the Universe, which is eternal and infinite.

The Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of two things,

1. Some thing, for lack of explaining further.

2. No thing, for lack of explaining further.

There, obviously, exists A 'Mind'. The Mind, although invisible, and thus to some 'no thing', is what allows perception, awareness, and consciousness to exist. So, it could be said and argued that any thing other than the 'Mind', Itself, could, in fact, just be a 'figment of imagination'.

If something acquires the ability to use and seemingly understand language, such as a computer (also often likened to a metal machine) do you think it has a mind? Or are you not sure if it has a mind or not? Or do you think that computers aren't or can't be conscious?

[Age]

My question to Age today is...

Age, you you think the mind is solipsistic by it's very nature?

'This' is a statement and claim, with a question mark at the end of it.

Now, and as always, what 'you' mean, and/or are referring to, when you use the word, 'mind', here, might well be very, very different to how others use that word to mean, and/or to refer to, exactly.

For example, to some, 'Someone who's solipsistic is so focused on their own wants and needs that they don't think about other people at all. You could also call a solipsistic person selfish or self-centered'.

Solipsistic, however, has a different meaning if you hear it in a philosophy class. In this case, it describes the theory that the only thing you can know for sure is that your own mind exists.

But, then again, 'you' could be meaning, and/or referring to, here, something else entirely.

By the way, the only 'thing', which can be known, for sure, are 'thoughts', themselves. Now, if 'the thoughts' are actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or not, is a completely other issue.

is there anything outside, or inside the mind?

What exists is the Universe, which is eternal and infinite.

The Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of two things,

1. Some thing, for lack of explaining further.

2. No thing, for lack of explaining further.

There, obviously, exists A 'Mind'. The Mind, although invisible, and thus to some 'no thing', is what allows perception, awareness, and consciousness to exist. So, it could be said and argued that any thing other than the 'Mind', Itself, could, in fact, just be a 'figment of imagination'.

If something acquires the ability to use and seemingly understand language, such as a computer (also often likened to a metal machine) do you think it has a mind?

Not at all.

Once more, even you human beings do not have minds, nor a mind.

Once again, there is only One Mind, only.

Or are you not sure if it has a mind or not?

There is only One Mind, and, again, absolutely nothing 'owns' nor 'has' this Mind.

Or do you think that computers aren't or can't be conscious?

I will suggest that if people are to ask questions, for clarity sake, about whether some thing exists, or not, then they are absolutely clear, "them" 'self', what the 'thing' is, exactly, which they are asking about.

For example, if I was to now ask you what is the 'mind', and, 'conscious', exactly, to you, are you absolutely clear about what 'these things' are, exactly?

[Gary Childress]

'This' is a statement and claim, with a question mark at the end of it.

Now, and as always, what 'you' mean, and/or are referring to, when you use the word, 'mind', here, might well be very, very different to how others use that word to mean, and/or to refer to, exactly.

For example, to some, 'Someone who's solipsistic is so focused on their own wants and needs that they don't think about other people at all. You could also call a solipsistic person selfish or self-centered'.

Solipsistic, however, has a different meaning if you hear it in a philosophy class. In this case, it describes the theory that the only thing you can know for sure is that your own mind exists.

But, then again, 'you' could be meaning, and/or referring to, here, something else entirely.

By the way, the only 'thing', which can be known, for sure, are 'thoughts', themselves. Now, if 'the thoughts' are actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or not, is a completely other issue.


What exists is the Universe, which is eternal and infinite.

The Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of two things,

1. Some thing, for lack of explaining further.

2. No thing, for lack of explaining further.

There, obviously, exists A 'Mind'. The Mind, although invisible, and thus to some 'no thing', is what allows perception, awareness, and consciousness to exist. So, it could be said and argued that any thing other than the 'Mind', Itself, could, in fact, just be a 'figment of imagination'.

If something acquires the ability to use and seemingly understand language, such as a computer (also often likened to a metal machine) do you think it has a mind?

Not at all.

Once more, even you human beings do not have minds, nor a mind.

Once again, there is only One Mind, only.

Or are you not sure if it has a mind or not?

There is only One Mind, and, again, absolutely nothing 'owns' nor 'has' this Mind.

Or do you think that computers aren't or can't be conscious?

I will suggest that if people are to ask questions, for clarity sake, about whether some thing exists, or not, then they are absolutely clear, "them" 'self', what the 'thing' is, exactly, which they are asking about.

For example, if I was to now ask you what is the 'mind', and, 'conscious', exactly, to you, are you absolutely clear about what 'these things' are, exactly?

If "consciousness" is the wrong word, then will "mind" do adequately instead? Do you believe that computers have "minds" if they can intelligently use language?