Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 6:46 pmThe fact that it could be either is enough to make any proof of god based on an uncaused cause unsound.
No, that's not logical.
It absolutely is, but that you obviously don't understand the rules goes some way to explaining why your logic is so risible.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:01 pmYou or I "could" have been born a woman. That's not a single step in the direction of being able to say that therefore, you or I were.
Yup; risible.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:01 pmBut I'm remembering that you're trying not to have to answer my question...
I'm not trying not to have to answer your question, I can not have to answer your question with no effort whatsoever.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:01 pm...how do we do science and technology, if we're not allowed to suppose causality? I'm wanting to see that modelled.
Ask someone who says we are not allowed to suppose causality.
My point is proven; you are a detractor, and a vitriolic one at that.
No I'm not, I just gave you the true answer to your question. You asked a question about yourself, you got an answer about yourself. Being thin-skinned about that is a you problem.
I disagree with you fundamentally. Do you have any external evidence to support your truth? Or should I merely take your word for it based on who you are?
What on Earth are you on about? Make some sort of point please.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 7:38 pm
No I'm not, I just gave you the true answer to your question. You asked a question about yourself, you got an answer about yourself. Being thin-skinned about that is a you problem.
I disagree with you fundamentally. Do you have any external evidence to support your truth? Or should I merely take your word for it based on who you are?
What on Earth are you on about? Make some sort of point please.
My apologies; allow me to clarify.
I am politely asking you to provide the external evidence supporting your diagnosis that I am autistic and the other claims that you made about me. You referred to your claims as being "true". I am effectively asking you to back that up.
I disagree with you fundamentally. Do you have any external evidence to support your truth? Or should I merely take your word for it based on who you are?
What on Earth are you on about? Make some sort of point please.
My apologies; allow me to clarify.
I am politely asking you to provide the external evidence supporting your diagnosis that I am autistic and the other claims that you made about me. You referred to your claims as being "true". I am effectively asking you to back that up.
Are you unable to distinguish between the very limited claim I made: "I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh." And an unlimited one that I didn't make such as "I know you won't because you are autistic"?
I don't see much reason to doubt that you have some sort of issue with parsing the written word and lack comprehension skills. The evidence of that is here in the above quote, as well as your inability to master basic dictionary words.
Furthermore your repeated insistence on using computer judgement in place of human judgement is definitely problematic. If you find that controversial, I won't be surprised if you go and talk to your computer friend about it, but I don't think it's doing you a lot of good and I don't think the positive-reinforcement loop that it locks people like you into is healthy.
What on Earth are you on about? Make some sort of point please.
My apologies; allow me to clarify.
I am politely asking you to provide the external evidence supporting your diagnosis that I am autistic and the other claims that you made about me. You referred to your claims as being "true". I am effectively asking you to back that up.
Are you unable to distinguish between the very limited claim I made: "I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh." And an unlimited one that I didn't make such as "I know you won't because you are autistic"?
I don't see much reason to doubt that you have some sort of issue with parsing the written word and lack comprehension skills. The evidence of that is here in the above quote, as well as your inability to master basic dictionary words.
Furthermore your repeated insistence on using computer judgement in place of human judgement is definitely problematic. If you find that controversial, I won't be surprised if you go and talk to your computer friend about it, but I don't think it's doing you a lot of good and I don't think the positive-reinforcement loop that it locks people like you into is healthy.
This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I really don't mind. It's good to hear people's truth and what they really feel inside. However, I don't see any external evidence to support your claims, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective. I am under no obligation to integrate your kind (but subjective) words into my reality.
NB: I'm not ashamed of using AI; it is an excellent resource for philosophy.
For the neutral reader, I'd like to restate my initial argument. It has yet to be addressed on the forum:
Fanman stated:
If we break things down to their most fundamental “action,” “passive state,” or condition, existence (or the universe) is progressing. I don’t attribute a direction to that progression, even though “forward” is the intuitive metaphor.
Within that ongoing state of progress, rather than using causality or randomness as foundational reference frames, wouldn’t it be more coherent to say that the constituents of reality are constantly undergoing changes of state?
Framed this way, we avoid the conflict between causality and randomness — both of which may be human projections imposed onto reality to make sense of things at that scale.
My framing acknowledges reality as a continuous existence of state‑change — with causality and randomness operating as functional tools for interpretation rather than ontological absolutes.
I am politely asking you to provide the external evidence supporting your diagnosis that I am autistic and the other claims that you made about me. You referred to your claims as being "true". I am effectively asking you to back that up.
Are you unable to distinguish between the very limited claim I made: "I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh." And an unlimited one that I didn't make such as "I know you won't because you are autistic"?
I don't see much reason to doubt that you have some sort of issue with parsing the written word and lack comprehension skills. The evidence of that is here in the above quote, as well as your inability to master basic dictionary words.
Furthermore your repeated insistence on using computer judgement in place of human judgement is definitely problematic. If you find that controversial, I won't be surprised if you go and talk to your computer friend about it, but I don't think it's doing you a lot of good and I don't think the positive-reinforcement loop that it locks people like you into is healthy.
This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I really don't mind. It's good to hear people's truth and what they really feel inside. However, I don't see any external evidence to support your claims, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective. I am under no obligation to integrate your kind (but subjective) words into my reality.
NB: I'm not ashamed of using AI; it is an excellent resource for philosophy.
I don't see any external evidence to support your claims about AI, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 8:59 pm
Are you unable to distinguish between the very limited claim I made: "I don't think you will. I think you are probably autistic tbh." And an unlimited one that I didn't make such as "I know you won't because you are autistic"?
I don't see much reason to doubt that you have some sort of issue with parsing the written word and lack comprehension skills. The evidence of that is here in the above quote, as well as your inability to master basic dictionary words.
Furthermore your repeated insistence on using computer judgement in place of human judgement is definitely problematic. If you find that controversial, I won't be surprised if you go and talk to your computer friend about it, but I don't think it's doing you a lot of good and I don't think the positive-reinforcement loop that it locks people like you into is healthy.
This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I really don't mind. It's good to hear people's truth and what they really feel inside. However, I don't see any external evidence to support your claims, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective. I am under no obligation to integrate your kind (but subjective) words into my reality.
NB: I'm not ashamed of using AI; it is an excellent resource for philosophy.
I don't see any external evidence to support your claims about AI, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective.
Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2026 9:34 pm
For the neutral reader, I'd like to restate my initial argument. It has yet to be addressed on the forum:
I did address it. The key word was banal.
That does not amount to a refutation or an argument.
I did explain what was wrong with your argument. You didn't address it, you just told me that Copilot thinks you can read a dictonary well. Your argument, such as it is, has been addressed to the extent that it deserves, and your claim that it "has yet to be addressed on the forum" is incorrect.
This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I really don't mind. It's good to hear people's truth and what they really feel inside. However, I don't see any external evidence to support your claims, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective. I am under no obligation to integrate your kind (but subjective) words into my reality.
NB: I'm not ashamed of using AI; it is an excellent resource for philosophy.
I don't see any external evidence to support your claims about AI, and that is absolutely crucial, which means these claims are wholly subjective.
I didn't claim objectivity.
Suddenly that matters? Why didn't it matter for me?
