The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:07 am There wasn't anything to answer. Just a bunch of misunderstanding, from somebody with no information.

That's your excuse for not answering simple questions, such as:
Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?

It's a question invented by you, based on nothing but your own imagination. It doesn't deserve an answer.

Now, go read a book.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 1:57 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:07 am There wasn't anything to answer. Just a bunch of misunderstanding, from somebody with no information.

That's your excuse for not answering simple questions, such as:
Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?

It's a question invented by you, based on nothing but your own imagination.

The question was based on recent discussions about one truth vs. many truths (remember?)... discussions which you were fully engaged in? But apparently, you only want to tell everyone how it is, and then hide when asked directly what you believe about the things you think and say yourself. Perhaps you realize the revelations that would take place.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 1:57 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:54 am
That's your excuse for not answering simple questions, such as:
Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?

It's a question invented by you, based on nothing but your own imagination.

The question was based on recent discussions about one truth vs. many truths

No, it was based on you assuming something I never said, and in fact, never even thought. You made it up, out of the thin stuff inside your own head. Nothing like it is in the transcript. So it isn't worth any time.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:29 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:04 am The question was based on recent discussions about one truth vs. many truths

No, it was based on...

I know what I was basing the question on.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:29 am ... you assuming something I never said, and in fact, never even thought.

You mean like when I mocked you and said: GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so! The desperation of such zealots demands it!?

I was describing what it's like to talk with you. WHY DO you present your views as if your answers reign supreme and you are infallible? You know many people have pointed this out on this forum over the years.

So, I wanted to find out if you could answer what you think about your own views in the context of one truth vs. many truths. Are you the one with truth while others are wrong... OR, might you acknowledge that different views can be based on other truths (just as valid)?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 12:54 am Hey, you too, Walker... what's your answer?

Here’s the big picture, Lacy:

“All we know for sure is, I AM is true. All else is inference.”

Comment:
In order to effectively communicate inferences with minimal static, transmitters and receivers should be tuned to the same frequency.
The frequency is the big picture that the above quote, makes clear.

Communicating inferences is fine. It's the point of communicating. What folks often call word salads are actually explanations of inferences. To get on the same frequency, the transmitter should present a hypothesis, or premise. That's the inference. To discuss, the receiver rather than the transmitter needs to fiddle with the tuning to get on the frequency of the inference, and that requires suspension of disbelief in order to first understand the premise and the transmission, before switching frequencies back to the preconception channel.

The frequency:

Question to AI:
What are the rules of inference?

AI's Answer:
"Rules of inference are methods used in formal logic to derive conclusions from premises. They are essential for constructing valid arguments and include various patterns like modus ponens and modus tollens."

Comment: Inference is the process of thinking, often done so quickly it's subliminal, which is a source of knowledge, not to be confused as the only source of knowing this and that.

So the question of the day to Walker is: Is it good or bad that Trump is currently in power? Is Trump a good or bad President? Is Trump better or worse than Biden?

I say it is not good that Trump is in power. Trump is a bad person and therefore a bad person is president, and Biden, though flawed, was more humane and considerate.

What is your position on Trump, Walker? Has it modified any? Has anything about you changed? Or are you stuck to forever defend your loyalty to a monster?

Awaiting subject change, question evasion, and obfuscating Buddhist junk sayings. Whatever the case, Walker can't answer questions regarding whether or not he was wrong about Trump.

Walker's the man with the plan. Lead the way, oh great swammi!

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 4:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:29 am ... you assuming something I never said, and in fact, never even thought.

You mean like when I mocked you and said: GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so!

Yes, that sort of petty stupidity...and your total ignorance of logic. One can't get very far with people who have a contempt for logic and merely a penchant for empty mockery. So carry on as you see fit...I have no reason to see in you anything serious any more, or to invest any more time in even replying to such empty rhetoric.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 10:54 am

By every objective measure, Trump is a far better president than Biden, or whoever was making the decisions in the White House during the Biden administration.

This has been litigated for years on the forum, and proven by events.

If you haven’t yet deduced that from the evidence, you have been mistaken … which is understandable. Trump has also saved you from the bomb, a threat that your information sources ignored which made you oblivious.

Apparently, you wanted the bomb to blow up a Western city, for verification that the threat was real.

(continued)

Because many people think many things, if you scratched around long enough you could find someone who would say Biden is a president sent from the gates of hell.

The evidence would begin with this link, captured as he was emerging, and then move on to actions that support the inference deduced from his occupancy.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09 ... ne3000.jpg

Gary, do you think that just because someone somewhere probably has that view, based on the observation that many people think many things, that such an extreme view is valid?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 10:54 am Walker's the man with the plan. Lead the way, oh great swammi!

Another shade of Hasan Piker, applied to a label that gets used in traditions other than Christianity.

*

Open borders have effects. Big effects. The Biden administration’s official position was that the borders were under control. Yes, they were under control as defined by the Biden administration, not by Trump and those who voted for Trump. Thus, the subjectivity of The Party was the justification for the open borders. Protecting the country, which is in the objective job description of the executive branch, was not The Party's justification for open borders.

Trump immediately stopped the open border policy controlled by the Biden administration. It was easy.

All Trump had to do was stop the bad doing put in place by Biden and voila, the good healing began. Trump simply shut off the flood of illegal, unvetted immigration that was crushing the social systems put in place by citizens, for citizens and visitors, some of whom might someday aspire to citizenship. The process to do that was already in place by Congress and ignored by Biden, just like the process is in place to wipe Iran off the face of the earth ... however Trump is the constraint on that power.

The Big Effects of the Biden occupancy were Big Injuries to the country in many ways, beginning with loss of trust which was caused by … those who know to do better but think it's cute to declare the border is under control, without saying what the purpose of that control is. These folks likely compare their official function to some subjective measure, such as being a nice guy.

Or, maybe they don’t know better anymore. They say that Washington corrupts, and I think that applies to those intent on achieving The Throne of Incumbency, with all its perks.

Because of that, Trump is the most objective president you’re ever going to find, based on his focus of exercising the Powers of the Constitution as interpreted by the Declaration of Independence, and patiently accepting the push-back from corruption in order to get that done, corruption being the power of bad ... that has been institutionalized into status quo.

Rather than dismiss explanations that you ungraciously request and dismiss as word salads, which is a wont that is your own childish style, understanding an explanation may require you to objectively educate yourself, and ask the questions of yourself, rather than just focusing on some unsophisticated method of trying to be cute that does little more than expose your ignorance, bias, and lack of propriety.



How was that?

Apparently, starting a war against the wishes of the people and persecuting undocumented immigrants (as well as some documented ones) count as "better".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 2:33 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 4:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:29 am ... you assuming something I never said, and in fact, never even thought.

You mean like when I mocked you and said: GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so!

Yes, that sort of petty stupidity...and your total ignorance of logic. One can't get very far with people who have a contempt for logic and merely a penchant for empty mockery. So carry on as you see fit...I have no reason to see in you anything serious any more, or to invest any more time in even replying to such empty rhetoric.

You forgot to include the last sentence: The desperation of such zealots demands it!

Very insightful mockery, actually. And you've validated it by being unwilling to answer basic questions that would clarify your self-righteous position. Thank you for your participation with this experiment.

I do not have total ignorance of, nor contempt for, logic. And if you have any intelligence, you know that. My crime is that I don't follow what you do. You have no tolerance of that. It's your way, or no way. As I've shown.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 7:24 am To get on the same frequency, the transmitter should present a hypothesis, or premise.

To discuss, the receiver rather than the transmitter needs to fiddle with the tuning.

That's imaginative.

However, everyone is transmitting and receiving. And they don't need to follow rules.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 6:19 pm I do not have total ignorance of, nor contempt for, logic.

Have a nice day.