Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:49 am Very noble of you. A blind boy dedicating his life looking everywhere for sense. Yet, he earned not a penny.

Once again, your so-called 'grammar', here, does not relate to itself.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:56 am Age, I wrote this just for you. Will you critique it for me, every page, every line, and clearly write out your objections to how Sketchpad and Mathcad fucked up in each demonstration?


https://ia601309.us.archive.org/21/item ... 0Quest.pdf

If you do not mind, start on page 70, you will learn I use two kinds of geometry, descriptive and mathematical, which I invented myself. Both give the same answer to the figure but, by your own word, you know that they are wrong, so you can educate not only the people who make Sketchpad, but Mathcad as well.
Now, there are hundreds of thousands of equations in the work, I am sure you can find that these programs made at least one or two mistakes. Take all the time you need.

Firstly, why did you write out a 3,401 document 'just for me'? And, are you absolutely sure that you wrote 'it', just for 'me'?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 11:29 pm
But, you speak as though you already understand 'life'.

Because I understand it better than you.

Yet, you used the word 'man' to speak of, and describe the, 'women', as well. So, could you be more contradictory and/or more hypocritical, here?

Where's the "contradiction"?
Man-Child...the term 'man' can be used as shorthand for hu-man, or as the masculine in the context of a society, that incudes wo-man, as the feminine.
Male/Female are specialized reproductive types. Masculine/Feminine refer to the psychosomatic traits essential to their reproductive roles.
any dysfunction reduces their success....it does not contradict the meaning of words.
A butch lesbian female will suffer a reduction of her reproductive success, which in biology is called 'fitness.' Her hormonal imbalances reducing the probability that she will successfully reproduce....unless she contradicts her own impulses.
Homosexuality is a genetic dead-end.
All examples in other species are the consequence of some kind of imbalance...such as in penguins the imbalance between male and female penguins, or a social imbalance necessitating displays of dominance, or hormonal imbalances etc.

Now run along and go play in traffic...

Here 'we' have another prime example of one choosing and using particular words in an attempt to sound like it knows what it does and/or to sound like it knows more than it really does.

And you are a prime example of an insecure contrarian.....
No matter what is said, you will mock and challenge it with your usual routine.

So, what is 'mind', exactly? And, how does 'mind' work, exactly?

You want "exact" explanations, to piss on them?
The best I can do, for you, is repeat...
Mind is what we call the synthesis of external and internal input, by the nervous system, inducing the brain...
It is not a singularity but a multiplicity.
Simpletons, like you usually refer to the conscious part as the "I"...ego.

But if you want a complete, total, explanation....I don't have one....nor do I have one for life.....

But nothing less will do, for a sophisticated mind, like yourself. So, you piss on everything....and feel better about your own inferiority.
Exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 11:29 pm
But, you speak as though you already understand 'life'.

Because I understand it better than you.

Once again 'this one' could not comprehend and understand what I actually said and meant.

Saying, you speak as though you already understand some thing', is not in relation to another one, but in relation to the thing, itself.

For clarity sake, you speaking as though you already understand 'life' means that you speak as though you already understand 'life', itself. Which you have shown and proved you do not, as well has 'this' has nothing at all to do with if you do or do not understand 'life', itself, in regards to me, nor anyone else.

Also, you also claiming that 'life' is not yet understood, but then going to say and claim that you understand 'life' better than another is, besides just absurd in and of itself, one is obviously False, and Wrong. So, which one is it, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am

Yet, you used the word 'man' to speak of, and describe the, 'women', as well. So, could you be more contradictory and/or more hypocritical, here?

Where's the "contradiction"?

Putting and placing 'women' under the 'man' label is contradictory.

But, what is also contradictory is saying and claiming, 'Man is how we describe the masculine reproductive type within social contexts', but also putting the so-called 'non masculine reproduction type' under the 'man' label.

So, there is where there is two contradictions.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am

Here 'we' have another prime example of one choosing and using particular words in an attempt to sound like it knows what it does and/or to sound like it knows more than it really does.

And you are a prime example of an insecure contrarian.....

If this is what you believe and want to 'see', then okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am No matter what is said, you will mock and challenge it with your usual routine.

Well this is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Do you really believe that 'no matter is said', I will mock and challenge it, with any routine?

Also, what is one thing that has been said, which you believe that I have so-called 'mock'?

And, how, exactly, did I supposedly 'mock' 'that'?

Once again, if you do not provide any examples, then what you say and claim, here, is just your own unsubstantiated views, opinions, and beliefs.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am

So, what is 'mind', exactly? And, how does 'mind' work, exactly?

You want "exact" explanations, to piss on them?

Once again, 'we' have another prime example of one just expressing what it believes is true, but then just adding a question mark at the end. So, are you asking 'a question', or, making 'a statement and claim'?

Also, when one makes a claim or states some thing but then adds a question mark at the end, then this is huge sign of what 'that one' actually already believes is true.

Which, by the way, then affects its ability to see things clearly, and Correctly, which then just leads to showing and revealing its own 'confirmation biases'.

Which, one of those 'confirmation biases' is, I want to so-call 'piss on exact explanations', which I have never ever done. Obviously you like to so-call 'piss on' others' explanations, correct?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am The best I can do, for you, is repeat...
Mind is what we call the synthesis of external and internal input, by the nervous system, inducing the brain...

So, the 'mind' to 'this one', here, only, is the 'synthesis of external and internal input', 'by the nervous system', 'inducing the brain'.

So, who and/or what, exactly, is the 'we', here, if it is only 'you' who defines the 'mind' word 'this way'?

In other words 'who else' call what you wrote, here, 'Mind'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am It is not a singularity but a multiplicity.

But, how, exactly, is the 'mind' a supposed multiplicity and not a singularity?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am Simpletons, like you usually refer to the conscious part as the "I"...ego.

'This' has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me'. And, does 'you' using the 'simpletons' word to refer to other human beings mean that 'you' actually believe that you are more smarter, more clever, more intelligent, or just more better than others are?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am But if you want a complete, total, explanation....I don't have one....nor do I have one for life.....

Therefore, 'you' do not yet understand 'Life', itself, nor 'Mind', Itself.

So, 'I' suggest instead of 'trying to' fight and argue for what you just think 'you' know, 'you' actually wait until 'you' know, for sure.

See, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is that what you have 'presumed' the 'mind' to mean, or to be referring to, here, could be partly or absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am But nothing less will do, for a sophisticated mind, like yourself.

What are 'you' even on about, here?

Once again, this contradicts what you just claimed was true.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am So, you piss on everything....and feel better about your own inferiority.
Exactly.

Once more 'we' have another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play, here.

Ha!!!
Last one...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:00 pm Once again 'this one' could not comprehend and understand what I actually said and meant.

And you speaking as if you understood what I said and meant, without actually understanding, is why you are so fun.

Saying, you speak as though you already understand some thing', is not in relation to another one, but in relation to the thing, itself.

All men speak as if they know and understand something relative to other men, duffus.
You are doing it right now.

For clarity sake, you speaking as though you already understand 'life' means that you speak as though you already understand 'life', itself. Which you have shown and proved you do not, as well has 'this' has nothing at all to do with if you do or do not understand 'life', itself, in regards to me, nor anyone else.

HA!!!
I don't need to be omniscient, boy, to speak my mind.
I claim a superior understanding, not an absolute one.

Also, you also claiming that 'life' is not yet understood, but then going to say and claim that you understand 'life' better than another is, besides just absurd in and of itself, one is obviously False, and Wrong. So, which one is it, exactly?

Really?
What the fuck are you on?

So, no man can speak about anything because no man is omniscient?
What?

ALL men, retard, speak of what they know and udnerstand, comparing it to what other men claim to know and understand....it's called a dialogue.
No man claims to be omniscient...nor does he have to be, unless he is ill.
What's your ailment, boy?

Putting and placing 'women' under the 'man' label is contradictory.

Really?
Man, once again...may refer to hu-MAN, including both sexes....but it can also be used to refer to male....as in a man, male, and wo-man, fe-male...
Are you thick?

If the above is incomprehensible to you...then your problem is one I cannot help you with.

So, there is where there is two contradictions.

You are funny...and it isn't on purpose.

If this is what you believe and want to 'see', then okay.

No, I do not WANT....how pathetic is your method, man-child.
Does it work on others?

I see what is there...and in your case you are one fucked-up man-child with deep insecurities.
I wish it were not so.

Well this is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Bravo, boy....a declaration.

Do you really believe that 'no matter is said', I will mock and challenge it, with any routine?

Patterns....behavioral patterns.

Also, what is one thing that has been said, which you believe that I have so-called 'mock'?

See above.
A clueless manchild, declaring things incorrect and contradictory.
Do people actually bother with you?
No arguments, no reasoning...nothing.
Simple declarations.

Also, when one makes a claim or states some thing but then adds a question mark at the end, then this is huge sign of what 'that one' actually already believes is true.

No shit?
You mean people have perspectives?
Wow...amazing insight.

Do you require a disclaimer after every post stating...."the above opinions are in no way claiming to be absolute, but only superior".
How insecure are you, man-child?

Which, by the way, then affects its ability to see things clearly, and Correctly, which then just leads to showing and revealing its own 'confirmation biases'.

Another declaration....
Then the other presents a superior explanation of the subject, if he is so gifted....and the audience judges on the merits of the arguments and reasoning.
Man-child, is this confusing to you?

The question begs an answer...and you offer nothing.
All you do is try to subvert in that childish way of yours....constant badgering, declaring, implying...mocking.

Which, one of those 'confirmation biases' is, I want to so-call 'piss on exact explanations', which I have never ever done. Obviously you like to so-call 'piss on' others' explanations, correct?

Declarative.
You are guilty of confirmation bias, man-child, that is why you use it as an attack.
You already want me to be wrong, but you don't know why or how...so you project.

The questioning is to find an imperfection to reject and dismiss, to piss on it....you stink of confirmation bias.

So, the 'mind' to 'this one', here, only, is the 'synthesis of external and internal input', 'by the nervous system', 'inducing the brain'.

So, who and/or what, exactly, is the 'we', here, if it is only 'you' who defines the 'mind' word 'this way'?

Am I?
I doubt it, but thanks.
And?
Should beliefs be conventional and popular....like yours, man-child?

But, how, exactly, is the 'mind' a supposed multiplicity and not a singularity?

By reducing the fluctuating real into a form it can transmit to the brain, where the data is processed, using a priori methods - evolved over time - as form, sensation, image etc.
Light interacts with a cow, bounces off of it....it then interacts with a sense organ, the eye, where the interaction is converted, using natural selected a priori methods, to neural pulses....in the nervous system....and on.... and on...
I am not going to give you a lesson man-child..

'This' has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me'. And, does 'you' using the 'simpletons' word to refer to other human beings mean that 'you' actually believe that you are more smarter, more clever, more intelligent, or just more better than others are?

What I believe is stated or implied.
Why do you ask stupid questions?
Is this not indicative of the quality of your mind?

Therefore, 'you' do not yet understand 'Life', itself, nor 'Mind', Itself.

So, 'I' suggest instead of 'trying to' fight and argue for what you just think 'you' know, 'you' actually wait until 'you' know, for sure.

Ah...like you?
Until I am absolutely certain?
Who is absolutely certain, boy?
Scientists?
Do they absolutely know what life and mind are?
Does science completely and absolutely know how life began, or what the mind is, imbecile?

So, according to a moron, like you, nobody should talk about anything unless they FEEL.....absolutely CERTAIN.....as if they are omniscient.

Why do you speak of me when you know nothing about me nor my views?
Shouldn't you wait until you are certain?
Or are you already certain, because you feel it?

Do you feel certain, boy?
I bet you feel certain about many things, don''t ya?

See, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is that what you have 'presumed' the 'mind' to mean, or to be referring to, here, could be partly or absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

How would you know, moron....are you certain? Are you absolutely and completely certain, boy?
You don't even udnerstand how the term 'man' is used...
Sometimes referring to hu-man., inducing males and females, and sometimes referring to the biological type, male, where wo-man is used to refer to the biological reproductive type female....this was so difficult for you, that I had to waste my time explaining it to you.

Man....you are dense...

What are 'you' even on about, here?

Even sarcasm is over your head.


Last time I waste my time on you.
Ta, Ta,

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Ha!!!
Last one...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:00 pm Once again 'this one' could not comprehend and understand what I actually said and meant.

And you speaking as if you understood what I said and meant, without actually understanding, is why you are so fun.

Now that if you really want to claim that I have not actually understood what you have said and meant, here, then,

1. Explain what part, exactly, which you believe that I have not actually understood.

2. Explain what, exactly, 'it' is that you are saying, and meaning.

If you do not, then what you claim, here, is just another unsubstantiated claim of yours.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Saying, you speak as though you already understand some thing', is not in relation to another one, but in relation to the thing, itself.

All men speak as if they know and understand something relative to other men, duffus.
You are doing it right now.

you have obviously missed the actual point I was making, once again.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

For clarity sake, you speaking as though you already understand 'life' means that you speak as though you already understand 'life', itself. Which you have shown and proved you do not, as well has 'this' has nothing at all to do with if you do or do not understand 'life', itself, in regards to me, nor anyone else.

HA!!!
I don't need to be omniscient, boy, to speak my mind.

you have missed the point, again.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm I claim a superior understanding, not an absolute one.

you are absolutely free to claim absolutely any thing you like. However, you are proving that you do not understand 'life', itself, as good as you believe you do.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Also, you also claiming that 'life' is not yet understood, but then going to say and claim that you understand 'life' better than another is, besides just absurd in and of itself, one is obviously False, and Wrong. So, which one is it, exactly?

Really?
What the fuck are you on?

Again you are not understanding, here.

1. you claimed that 'life' is not yet understood.

2. you claimed that you understand 'life', better than another.

So, which one is it;

Is 'life' not understood, OR, is 'life' understood, by you?

This is what I am on about. And, I am not sure that I could make this any clearer, simpler, and easier, for you.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm So, no man can speak about anything because no man is omniscient?
What?

What a Truly absurd and ridiculous thing to say and point out, here.

Absolutely no one has ever thought, let alone said and talked about any man, woman, nor child being omniscient.

So, what was 'it', exactly, that has brought you down this line of thinking.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm ALL men, retard, speak of what they know and udnerstand, comparing it to what other men claim to know and understand....it's called a dialogue.

1. Why do you only refer to 'men', only, here?

2. Sure human beings speak and talk about 'things', and what they understand in regards to 'those things'. But, let 'us' not forget that it was 'you' who said and claimed that 'life' is not yet understood. And, that it was not 'me' who said and claimed this.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm No man claims to be omniscient...nor does he have to be, unless he is ill.
What's your ailment, boy?

No one, here, has ever claimed that they are omniscient. And, besides 'you' being influenced, and controlled by another one in this forum, why are you 'stuck' on talking about 'omniscience', here?

Again, no one besides you is even thinking about 'omniscience', here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Putting and placing 'women' under the 'man' label is contradictory.

Really?
Man, once again...may refer to hu-MAN, including both sexes....but it can also be used to refer to male....as in a man, male, and wo-man, fe-male...
Are you thick?

Of course it can. This is blatantly obvious. But why add more confusion, here? What is the purpose in doing this?

Why not just speak in 'the way' that is less confusing and relates to just what the actual Truth is, only?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm If the above is incomprehensible to you...then your problem is one I cannot help you with.

But it is you who has not been comprehending and understanding, here.

And, again, you have just been pre-assuming that I have not been comprehending, and this is just because when I ask you to clarify things, you presume that I am not comprehending and understanding.

But, why 'I' ask 'you' to clarify things is for a completely different reason. Which will come-to-light, and be fully understood, soon enough.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

So, there is where there is two contradictions.

You are funny...and it isn't on purpose.

Okay. But, I still showed where you made two contradictions. Although you appear to still not having seen, understood, and comprehended them.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

If this is what you believe and want to 'see', then okay.

No, I do not WANT....how pathetic is your method, man-child.
Does it work on others?

Now, what is my, supposed, 'method', here, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm I see what is there...and in your case you are one fucked-up man-child with deep insecurities.
I wish it were not so.

If this is what you believe and want to 'see', then okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Well this is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Bravo, boy....a declaration.

Why do 'you' call 'me' a 'boy'?

Also, what I declared you can not counter nor refute, correct?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Do you really believe that 'no matter is said', I will mock and challenge it, with any routine?

Patterns....behavioral patterns.

Again, I just ask a question, which is only asking for a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but again 'this' is just not provided and given.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Also, what is one thing that has been said, which you believe that I have so-called 'mock'?

See above.
A clueless manchild, declaring things incorrect and contradictory.
Do people actually bother with you?
No arguments, no reasoning...nothing.
Simple declarations.

So, again, 'this one' can not provide absolutely any thing that could even begin to back up and support its claim, here.

Obviously, just declaring what another is saying and claiming things incorrectly and contradictory, which by the way I can and will back up and support when asked and/or challenged to, is not 'mocking' at all.

Also, in regards to you question about whether people actually bother with me, or not, then that all depends on 'the person' and whether they can actually counter or refute my claims, or not, and/or, whether they can actually back up and support their beliefs and claims, when I question and/or challenge them on their beliefs and claims, or not. If they can not, then they will not 'bother' with me. Because of the consequences, for them, obviously.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Also, when one makes a claim or states some thing but then adds a question mark at the end, then this is huge sign of what 'that one' actually already believes is true.

No shit?
You mean people have perspectives?
Wow...amazing insight.

No, I do not mean you people have perspectives. What I mean is in what I said. Which was when you people add question marks onto the end of your statements and claims, then this means that 'that' is just what you believe is already true, and that you are not open to anything contrary.

The Truly unnecessary question mark means that you are just pretending, only, to be somewhat open, here, when the Truth is you are not at all.

Now, as any one can see what I actually meant, here, is nothing like what 'this one' just presumed and/or believed I meant.

Which was a very common occurrence among these posters, here, and among the adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Do you require a disclaimer after every post stating...."the above opinions are in no way claiming to be absolute, but only superior".
How insecure are you, man-child?

Once again, this one makes a claim, (which, again, is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but believes it is absolutely true, and right),
and then goes on to believe another assumption that it just made up "itself" is absolutely true, and right, as well.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Which, by the way, then affects its ability to see things clearly, and Correctly, which then just leads to showing and revealing its own 'confirmation biases'.

Another declaration....
Then the other presents a superior explanation of the subject, if he is so gifted....and the audience judges on the merits of the arguments and reasoning.
Man-child, is this confusing to you?

Why do 'you' believe that 'you' are far, far superior, here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm The question begs an answer...and you offer nothing.
All you do is try to subvert in that childish way of yours....constant badgering, declaring, implying...mocking.

Once again, 'this one' is not actually 'saying' any thing at all, here.

it just believes, absolutely, that it is better and superior, but has yet to provide absolutely any thing that could show and prove this.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Which, one of those 'confirmation biases' is, I want to so-call 'piss on exact explanations', which I have never ever done. Obviously you like to so-call 'piss on' others' explanations, correct?

Declarative.
You are guilty of confirmation bias, man-child, that is why you use it as an attack.

If 'I' am, supposedly, guilty of 'confirmation bias', then show and prove how, where, when, and what, exactly.

Again, if you do not, then you are showing and proving nothing at all other than you have very strong beliefs, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm You already want me to be wrong, but you don't know why or how...so you project.

But 'I' do not want 'you' to be wrong. That is what 'you' want 'me' to be, here.

'I' am just showing where and when, exactly, what you are saying and claiming is wrong. And, 'I' am doing this by just asking 'you' to back up and support your beliefs, and claims, and when you can not or do not, then 'you' are showing and proving where, when, and what is wrong in what you are saying and claiming, here

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm The questioning is to find an imperfection to reject and dismiss, to piss on it....you stink of confirmation bias.

Well, obviously, if one comes to a 'philosophy forum', of all places, but does not want or does not expect to be critiqued, questioned, and/or challenged on their views, beliefs, or claims, then they are certainly in the wrong place.

'I' will question 'you' when and where 'I' want to. Is this understood?

Now, if you can not back up and support your views, beliefs, or claims, then 'I' will, again, suggest that you do not express them until you have the absolute proof, which will back up and support them, before you express and make your claims, here. This is really very simple and easy, actually.

Oh, and by the way, the questioning is, actually, to find and see if you can actually actually back up and support your views, beliefs, and claims, or not. And, I do this in order to find out and see if you really do know what you are talking about, or not. Obviously if you can not back up and support your own views, beliefs, and claims, here, then you really do not understand well enough what you believe you did,

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

So, the 'mind' to 'this one', here, only, is the 'synthesis of external and internal input', 'by the nervous system', 'inducing the brain'.

So, who and/or what, exactly, is the 'we', here, if it is only 'you' who defines the 'mind' word 'this way'?

Am I?
I doubt it, but thanks.
And?
Should beliefs be conventional and popular....like yours, man-child?

Once more 'this one' fails, absolutely, in just answering and clarifying. Thus, showing and/or proving that it does not actually know and understand what it is saying and claiming, here.

1. Yes, 'you' are the only one, here, who is defining the 'mind' word in 'the way' that you have, here.

2. Why would you say, 'thanks', for such a trivial thing as what you did, here?

3. Why did you put a question mark at the end of the 'And' word?

4. I do not have any beliefs, here.

5. I do not do beliefs, so asking me whether beliefs should be 'this' or 'that', like for example 'conventional and popular', is just a Truly illogical question to ask me'.

I will say this, again, beliefs, like assumptions, prevent and stop you human beings from 'finding', 'seeing', and 'recognizing' the actual and irrefutable Truths, in Life. So, it is best, or at least much better, if you human beings just stopped believing things.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

But, how, exactly, is the 'mind' a supposed multiplicity and not a singularity?

By reducing the fluctuating real into a form it can transmit to the brain, where the data is processed, using a priori methods - evolved over time - as form, sensation, image etc.

Okay. But, how could and does 'this' occur and happen, exactly?

Also, why would the so-called 'real' need to be so-called 'reduced' into 'a form' to just be transmitted to the brain, exactly?

The 'real', by the way is not so-called 'fluctuating', as 'what is Real' remains 'the same' or in 'the one way', always. And, what is wrong with 'the brain' that it can not comprehend 'Reality' for and as It is, exactly?

By the way what the actual and irrefutable Truth, here, is, exactly, is very, very different.

But, you are not wanting, ready, nor willing to change nor learn any thing different, more, nor anew, here, correct?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Light interacts with a cow, bounces off of it....it then interacts with a sense organ, the eye, where the interaction is converted, using natural selected a priori methods, to neural pulses....in the nervous system....and on.... and on...
I am not going to give you a lesson man-child..

Okay, if 'you' do not or can not give 'me' a lesson, here, then this is perfectly all right and okay, with 'me'.

Oh, and by the way, if you did not answer and clarify before, why do 'you' call 'me' a 'man-child' for, exactly?

Let 'us' see if you can answer and clarify at least this one question.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

'This' has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me'. And, does 'you' using the 'simpletons' word to refer to other human beings mean that 'you' actually believe that you are more smarter, more clever, more intelligent, or just more better than others are?

What I believe is stated or implied.

Okay, but you, still, can not just answer and clarify, here, correct.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Why do you ask stupid questions?

What 'you' call 'stupid questions' others do not.

And, why I ask 'the questions' that I do is, again, to find out and see if you actually do now and understand as good, or at all, what you 'try to' claim you do know and understand.

Now, what the actual Truth is, here, is that you believe that 'you' are better, more intelligent, more clever, and more smarter than others, here.

Which does fit in, perfectly, with what is being seen and observed, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Is this not indicative of the quality of your mind?

Once again for the very slow of learners, here, 'I' do not have nor own 'a mind'. Exactly like 'you' human beings do not have nor own 'a mind'

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

Therefore, 'you' do not yet understand 'Life', itself, nor 'Mind', Itself.

So, 'I' suggest instead of 'trying to' fight and argue for what you just think 'you' know, 'you' actually wait until 'you' know, for sure.

Ah...like you?

Not at all.

'I' unlike 'you' do know, and understand, 'Life' and 'life'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Until I am absolutely certain?

Again, you are making a statement, but putting an, unnecessary, question mark at the end of it.

For what reason do you keep doing this, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Who is absolutely certain, boy?

1. Does 'you' calling 'me' 'boy' make 'you' feel superior in any way at all?

2. Me.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Scientists?

I do not yet know since 'I' have not yet asked, and challenged, every so-called "scientist".

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Do they absolutely know what life and mind are?

Again, 'I' am not yet sure, since 'I' have not yet had a discussion with every one of them.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Does science completely and absolutely know how life began, or what the mind is, imbecile?

1. Why are 'you', 'now', calling 'me', 'imbecile'? How did 'you' feel when you did it?

2. 'Life' never began.

3. 'I' have not yet seen any written text in any 'scientific literature' where it is even close to knowing and understanding what the 'Mind' is, exactly? So, it appears that in the days when this is being written that the people who do 'science' have, still, not yet worked out what the 'Mind', Itself, actually is, exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm So, according to a moron, like you, nobody should talk about anything unless they FEEL.....absolutely CERTAIN.....as if they are omniscient.

Once again 'this one' could not have presented a more False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect presumption or belief, here. Unless, of course, there is 'another moron', like 'me', who has said that, 'nobody should talk about unless they feel absolutely certain, as if they are omniscient', because I have, obviously, never ever said absolutely any thing like 'that' at all. In fact 'I' have never ever thought absolutely any thing like 'that', let alone would say any thing like 'that'.

But, again, you are absolutely free to believe absolutely any thing you like.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Why do you speak of me when you know nothing about me nor my views?

Why do 'you' believe, absolutely, that 'I' know absolutely nothing at all about 'you', nor of 'your views'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Shouldn't you wait until you are certain?

But, 'I' am, already.

But, 'you' might be thinking that 'I' am implying in regards to every thing about 'your views', which, if 'you' were, then 'you' would be wrong, again.

But, in regards to 'you', exactly, then it is in regards to every thing 'about you'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Or are you already certain, because you feel it?

But, this question does not make sense, because no one knows some thing, for certain, because of 'feelings'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Do you feel certain, boy?

1. Do 'you' feel certain that 'I' am a 'boy'?

2. Actually are 'you' even certain that 'I' am a 'boy'?

3. If 'I' asked 'you' a question, and added the word, 'cat', at the end of it, then, if you answered the question would that then mean that 'you' are admitting that 'you' are, actually, a 'cat'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm I bet you feel certain about many things, don''t ya?

Once again what you believe is absolutely true will never necessary be absolutely true.

And, which by the way, notice how 'this one's' belief/s, here, just keep leading it completely astray, and completely off the topic and questions, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

See, what the actual Truth is, exactly, is that what you have 'presumed' the 'mind' to mean, or to be referring to, here, could be partly or absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

How would you know, moron....are you certain?

Notice how 'I', once again, just asked 'it' a very, very simple and easy question, for clarification, here, but, which it just completely and utterly failed to just answer, and clarify?

Besides this Fact, if I answer 'this question', here, would 'I' be admitting to being a so-called "moron"?

What the actual answer is, is very easy and simple to provide, and to clarify.

'I' wonder how 'this one' would respond if 'I' called it a 'moron', 'man-child', 'imbecile', 'boy', or any other name when 'i' was 'trying' to make 'me' feel more superior about 'the other' and/or better about "my" own 'self'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Are you absolutely and completely certain, boy?
You don't even udnerstand how the term 'man' is used...

Once again, you are so side-tracked by your own made up assumptions and beliefs, here, that you appear to be completely lost and utterly confused, now.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Sometimes referring to hu-man., inducing males and females, and sometimes referring to the biological type, male, where wo-man is used to refer to the biological reproductive type female....this was so difficult for you, that I had to waste my time explaining it to you.

Again, 'this one' has proved once more that it makes up these Truly absurd assumptions, concludes to "itself" that its own assumption is true, and right, and correct, and accurate, and then believes its own assumption to be absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct.

When the fact is that 'it' was absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect from the very beginning.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Man....you are dense...

'We' are well aware what you believe is absolutely true, here. But, now 'you' are just showing 'us' how your own 'confirmation biases', here, work, fully, and exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm

What are 'you' even on about, here?

Even sarcasm is over your head.

you say this as though you have comprehended and understood each and every case of sarcasm that you have come across, here, in discussing, here.

Now, will you present just one sarcasm, here, that has not 'gone over your head', as you say and call it?

If no, then why not?

What are you so afraid of, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:33 pm Last time I waste my time on you.
Ta, Ta,

So, again, what 'we' have, here, is another one who has not backed up nor support just one of its beliefs and claims, here, and because it has not been able to counter nor refute any thing that I have said, and meant, here, it will just 'run away', as well.

people, like 'this one', really do not yet seem to understand what a 'philosophy forum' is, exactly, nor how they are intended to actually work, exactly.

Again, if one can not back up and support its beliefs and/or claims, fully, before they decide to present them, here, then I suggest they do not present them, here, at all.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am
Now run along and go play in traffic...

worked for Steve Winwood...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:48 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 11:00 am
Now run along and go play in traffic...

worked for Steve Winwood...

-Imp

SOL