Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:41 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 11:41 am "Red" refers to a range of qualia that's probably roughly the same for most people.

Who cares what "red" is if people understand that THIS MEANS STOP and THIS MEANS GO.

... bla bla bla

Gee, so now you suddenly do know which of the two is called red. Did your survival instinct kick in?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:48 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:47 am More bullshit, apparently you can't even differentiate between 'Oneness' and your understanding of 'Oneness'.

You don't even know what it means "to understand".

How would you know that, if your brain can't even understand anything?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:49 am Gee, so now you suddenly do know which of the two is called red. Did your survival instinct kick in?

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters to survival is what it means.

My survival instinct works without linguistic labels

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:50 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:48 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:47 am More bullshit, apparently you can't even differentiate between 'Oneness' and your understanding of 'Oneness'.

You don't even know what it means "to understand".

How would you know that, if your brain can't even understand anything?

How could you assert that if you don't have a meaningful conception of "understanding"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:49 am Gee, so now you suddenly do know which of the two is called red. Did your survival instinct kick in?

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters to survival is what it means.

My survival instinct works without linguistic labels

Owned you again

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:50 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:48 am
You don't even know what it means "to understand".

How would you know that, if your brain can't even understand anything?

How could you assert that if you don't have a meaningful conception of "understanding"?

I have one, but that's not something you can understand either

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:56 am I have one, but that's not something you can understand either

Nobody can understand what you mean by "understanding".

You haven't bothered to explain your meaning.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:55 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:49 am Gee, so now you suddenly do know which of the two is called red. Did your survival instinct kick in?

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters to survival is what it means.

My survival instinct works without linguistic labels

Owned you again

You should claim your noddie badge. Send your mail to i-am-a-retard@philosophynow.org

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:00 am LOL This is what you wrote, before:
I made it clear from the start that not only did I "find it", but I have a better understanding of it than you, idiot.

But now you make the claim:
I made it clear from the start that I roughly know what your understanding is ...

So, at one moment you 'have a better understanding' than me, but when I question you about this, and point out what thee actual Truth IS, you change and suddenly now you only 'roughly know what my understanding is'.

... BLA BLA BLA

More bullshit, apparently you can't even differentiate between 'Oneness' and your understanding of 'Oneness'.

What has this got to do with your OBVIOUS changing of perspectives?

Just saying things like, "more bullshit", without ever actually naming what thee actual thing is that you are claiming is "bullshit", and also without actually expressing your view on WHY you think or believe "it" is bullshit, and also without even saying what is actually true, and thus is not "bullshit" is only lessening your claims about that you have actually previously done what you have claimed you have done.

And, by the way, you are absolutely CORRECT, at the moment I can NOT differentiate what you claim 'Oneness' is and what my understanding of 'Oneness' is. This is obviously for the FACT that I do not YET know what you claim 'Oneness' is.

By the way, your subtle claim that you already KNOW what 'Oneness' is did make me chuckle. So, would you like to share with us all here what your view of 'Oneness' is?

And then, I will be able to very simply and very easily differentiate between what your view of what 'Oneness' is from what my understanding of what 'Oneness' is, OBVIOUSLY.

But if you will not do this, then some will be thinking and/or saying that this is because you are not really able to explain what your view of what 'Oneness' really is, YET.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:56 am I have one, but that's not something you can understand either

Nobody can understand what you mean by "understanding".

You haven't bothered to explain your meaning.

Word salad from someone who can't understand anything; that's why you say "nobody" and "your meaning".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:01 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:55 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:53 am
It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters to survival is what it means.

My survival instinct works without linguistic labels

Owned you again

You should claim your noddie badge. Send your mail to i-am-a-retard@philosophynow.org

I didn't ask for your e-mail address.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:02 am What has this got to do with your OBVIOUS changing of perspectives?

Just saying things like, "more bullshit", without ever actually naming what thee actual thing is that you are claiming is "bullshit", and also without actually expressing your view on WHY you think or believe "it" is bullshit, and also without even saying what is actually true, and thus is not "bullshit" is only lessening your claims about that you have actually previously done what you have claimed you have done.

... BLA BLA BLA

Stop playing the amnesiac, lying piece of shit.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amI have hardly said any thing YET to be agreed with.

If I thought you had one, I'd attribute that to a fabulous sense of mischievous irony.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amI am just in the process of learning how to communicate, and part of this learning is just finding those who are NOT closed.

How do you plan to decide if someone is open to your ideas?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amRemember, that it was YOU who made the claim that NO one can doubt some thing.

Actually it was René Descartes. The point he made was that you can doubt absolutely anything; you can even briefly doubt that you are doubting, but anyone with an ounce of wit about them will quickly realise that in order to doubt that you are doubting, you must be doubting.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amAnd, you are CLOSED OFF from any thing contrary to this claim. So, end of your 'story'.

The claim is that at least one conscious being exists. I know that is true, because I am one. Any 'story' that is consistent with that fact may be true - conceivably even yours. The problem is not that I am not open to it; it is that you lack the balls to tell me what it is.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:44 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:02 am What has this got to do with your OBVIOUS changing of perspectives?

Just saying things like, "more bullshit", without ever actually naming what thee actual thing is that you are claiming is "bullshit", and also without actually expressing your view on WHY you think or believe "it" is bullshit, and also without even saying what is actually true, and thus is not "bullshit" is only lessening your claims about that you have actually previously done what you have claimed you have done.

... BLA BLA BLA

Stop playing the amnesiac, lying piece of shit.

Here is ANOTHER accusation and claim of yours.

Will you, this time, provide information and evidence in regards to what you are actually talking about and referring to now?

If not, then, ONCE AGAIN, some will be thinking and/or saying that this is because you really do not even know what you are talking about.

So, what do you think I am forgetting and/or think I am lying about exactly, AND, what actual evidence do you have for your thinking here?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amI have hardly said any thing YET to be agreed with.

If I thought you had one, I'd attribute that to a fabulous sense of mischievous irony.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amI am just in the process of learning how to communicate, and part of this learning is just finding those who are NOT closed.

How do you plan to decide if someone is open to your ideas?

When will you STOP ASSUMING?

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

How many times do I have to explain to things to you before you start to, learn how to, understand?

I am just looking for people who are OPEN. FULL STOP.

When, and IF, I find a person or people who are OPEN, then my ideas are completely insignificant and totally unnecessary anyway.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amRemember, that it was YOU who made the claim that NO one can doubt some thing.

Actually it was René Descartes.

Actually it was 'YOU', the one known as "uwot". As I will show, below.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:39 pm The point he made was that you can doubt absolutely anything; you can even briefly doubt that you are doubting, but anyone with an ounce of wit about them will quickly realise that in order to doubt that you are doubting, you must be doubting.

This, ONCE AGAIN, has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL with what I have said, and am talking about.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:23 amAnd, you are CLOSED OFF from any thing contrary to this claim. So, end of your 'story'.

The claim is that at least one conscious being exists. I know that is true, because I am one.

That was obviously NOT the claim at all, which can very easily and very simply BE EVIDENCED by just looking back a few posts in this thread.

This is a claim that you are just now bringing up.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:39 pm Any 'story' that is consistent with that fact may be true - conceivably even yours. The problem is not that I am not open to it; it is that you lack the balls to tell me what it is.

I do NOT lack the, so called, "balls" to tell you anything at all.

IF, and WHEN, you ask me a specific clarifying question, then I will answer it. It REALLY IS just this simple and easy.

Discovering, learning, and understanding thee actual Truth of things is REALLY just this simple and easy.

Now, instead of twisting what was said, or deflecting away from it, let us go back to what you ACTUALLY claimed, which was;
" 'fact' is a suitable synonym for 'direct experience' in a wide range of contexts. Again as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that you cannot doubt is that there are direct experiences; ".

I then quoted your second sentence, and replied;
But 'direct experiences' can be doubted quite frequently.

To which you replied, in part with;
but you cannot doubt that there is input,

To which I then said;
Look, you can tell us what 'you' do, but you can NOT always successfully tell "others" what 'I' do, like this time.

When, and IF, you EVER become OPEN enough, then I can and will explain to 'you' how 'I" can doubt that there is input. But until then you will remain with 'your' very OWN story. Remember, that that brain is making up its OWN story about how it can NOT doubt that there is input.

I KNOW what the ONLY thing is that is NOT in doubt, to me. That there is input is NOT it.

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is what you actually did claim, which was;
you cannot doubt that there is input,

And, what I have said in reply, which STILL STANDS.

By the way, I will KNOW when, and IF, you ever become OPEN enough.