Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:01 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:51 pm He didn't provide us with his proof that humans have no minds, that's most certainly the case.

My bad, I thought his comments about GUTOE (grand unified theory of everything) and his TRACK idea (have forgotten what his acronym stands for) were supposed to represent some kind of "proof". Otherwise, it didn't look much like proof to me. So maybe he still needs to provide his "proof".

Your "proof" Age?

Even, here, 'this one's' assumptions and beliefs have led it completely and utterly astray. Which is why it, still, can not work out where the 'proof' is, exactly, here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:21 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:12 pm

Really?

What is 'it', exactly, which supposedly makes 'it' 'pretty clear', to you anyway, that there are many of these so-called 'mind' things?


Really?

If yes, then,

1. What even is a 'mind', exactly?

2. How, do every one of these 'human' things, supposedly, 'have' a 'mind', exactly?

3. What actual proof do you have that absolutely every human has at least one.mind?


Because of how the 'Mind' is defined in 'a way', which 'fits in' with the G.U.T.O.E.


Once again,

1. I do not do 'evidence'.

2. I do not do 'evidence', as 'evidence', itself, only 'suggests' things, and thus is not actual 'proof' of, nor for, absolutely any thing.

3. I much prefer to do 'proof', instead.

4. Only when 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word is 'fitting in' with the G.U.T.O.E., then this is only when 'a definition' is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. When 'a definition' is on T.R.A.C.K., in Life, that is when every one could be in agreement and acceptance, then 'that definition' is a part of the Knowledge, which has and holds the irrefutable Facts, in Life, about Life, and living, Itself. So, once one obtains an irrefutable Fact, then they have 'the proof' necessary to back up and support 'a claim'. The proof I have that there is only One Mind is in 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word, which actually works.

5. When you human beings use the 'mind' word, then what actually comes to light, that is, only when you human beings are being Truly open, honest, and forthright, is that what you are actually referring to, usually, are just 'thoughts', themselves, instead.

So there are over 8 billion human beings on Earth, Age. Most if not all of them surely have minds. If they do not have minds, then fine, humans don't have minds, which sounds pretty absurd to me. So surely you believe humans typically have minds. I suspect there are over 8 billion minds (at the very least) on Earth. Is it unreasonable or misguided for me to think that there are over 8 billion minds out there?

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

He obviously subscribes to the 'fundamental consciousness' theory.

Once more,

I do not do 'theories', 'assumptions', 'beliefs', 'evidence', nor 'debates. So, LOL, what 'this one' claims I, obviously, subscribe to could not be any further from the actual Truth of things.

I much prefer to do 'what is', facts', 'proof', and/or 'logical reasoning', instead.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am He certainly didn't come up with it although he tries to make out that he has some kind of 'special, first-hand knowledge' of it.

LOL Absolutely any one could 'look back' and 'see', very clearly, that I have never ever 'tried to make out' that I have some kind of 'any' knowledge of some so-called, 'fundamental consciousness theory'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am In the meantime, I will continue exposing his antics.

1. Ad hominem #1

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 12:46 am Also, and by the way, here, is another prime example of how and when these adult human beings would 'try' their very hardest to come across as though they were smart and/or intelligent, but in the actual process would just complicate 'that', which is, really, just pure simple, and actually simplicity in and of itself.

He's accusing "these adult human beings" of trying too hard to look smart and intelligent.

When he says "these adult human beings", of course, he's primarily talking about me.

That is an instance of a pscyhological ad hominem. He's addressing the author -- specifically, his motives -- rather than the ideas he's presenting.

I call it indirect because he's using "these adult human beings" instead of "Magnus Anderson".

LOL Here, is another prime example of when one assumes or believes some thing, then it would not matter how False and/or Wrong 'it' is, 'this one' is not able to see the actual Truth of things.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am 2. Ad hominem #2

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 12:46 am 'These people', back when this was being written, had obtained beliefs and presumptions, which they dearly loved to hold onto, and in order to hold onto those beliefs and assumptions they would 'try to' find words, which they hoped would back up and support their beliefs and assumptions in some possible way.

He's accusing "these people" of being excessively defensive of their beliefs.

Again, when he says "these people", he's primarily referring to me.

This is another instance of a psychological ad hominem.

LOL 'This one', again, is presenting and showing another prime example of when, while it is assuming or believing some thing, is not able to see and hear anything else, otherwise.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am 3. Lost in space

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 5:37 am Also, LOL when did 'I' ever employ some so-called 'indirect ad hominem'?

He does not even recognize his own ad hominem attacks.

LOL 'This one' actually believes that 'it' is so special and/or unique that when 'I' use words like, 'these people' and/or 'these adult human beings', 'it', literally, believes, absolutely, that 'I' am referring to 'it', directly, and only.

Which is another example of how 'self-centered', some people in the days when this was being written, had become. 'This one' actually believes that 'it' is the one being 'talked about' and 'referred to'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:08 am Of course, he can always try to defend himself by saying, "I did not say that! That's merely your misinterpretation!" But that's not a valid defense.

LOL Once again, 'this one' believes that 'it' is so special, in Life, that when it 'infers' some thing, then that is the actual truth of things. And, it does not matter one iota even when 'the writer or speaker' informs 'it' that 'its own inference' is not what was actually ever meant, nor intended.

LOL 'This one' is so 'self-centered' that 'it' actually believes that what it interprets, in others speaking or writings, is the absolute truth. Could 'this one' become any 'confident' of "itself"?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 10:29 am So what?

Using the word LOL six times in a single post indicates a level of laughter that is six times greater than that of a single LOL.

Once again, 'this one' has managed to misinterpret, absolutely. And, again, 'this' is because it just will not seek out and obtain actual clarification, before it just assumes and believes things.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:25 am You're laughing at something someone else wrote with no intention to cause laughter.

That is indicative of ridicule.

That's why it's a punishable offence ( or rather, that's why it should be punishable on this forum. )

LOL In this forum people can say and write absolutely any thing, put 'that' under 'the label' of another, and nothing happens to them.

So, using the three L.O.L., and then just presuming you know what 'they' mean, without every getting clarification, first, and then, based upon your own made up presumption, you then interpreting 'those' as to intend for something else, which is even further False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, then your first misinterpretation and presumption, is a 'punishable offence' is absolutely beyond absurdity.

Also, 'this one' is, still, believing, absolutely, and 'trying to' claim that you readers can always know the actual True 'intention' behind other's writings. Which is obviously 'delusion' in the utmost extreme.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:25 am And that's why I call you a cockroach

LOL
LOL
LOL

Are 'you', really, 'trying to' call 'me' 'a cockroach, here, as though 'doing so' would have any bearing on anything at all, here?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:25 am . . . you can only survive in dirty, abandoned, places; places that noone cleans and maintains.

Do 'you', now, wish 'you' had chosen more 'mature words', here?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 10:29 am 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.

I am talking about you only because you're talking about me.

And no, it's not an ad hominem. It's called moderation. It's called, "Explaining why other people don't enjoy having a conversation with you, why they perceive you as being disruptive and annoying, and why they sometimes end up calling you all sorts of names."

So, while you are, supposedly, 'explaining' why other people do not enjoy having a conversation 'with me', you just keep having 'a conversation', 'with me', correct?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:49 am 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?

There's a difference between what you SAY and what you MEAN.

How would you 'know' if you never clarify?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am What you SAY refers to how your words will be interpreted by your audience.

How does one 'know' how others will interpret 'their words'?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am What you MEAN refers to what you attempted to convey.

So, what you are actually 'saying', here, is that what you mean can never be 'known', because what you mean can never be conveyed and it can only ever be 'attempted to be conveyed' And, thus what you actual 'mean', here, is just 'that', which you are, still, 'attempting to convey', right?

Or, is 'this' wrong?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am Your goal is to SAY what you MEAN. Otherwise, you will either be misunderstood or not understood at all.

What do you mean, here? I do not understand what you are saying, nor meaning, here, at all.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am Since noone can read your mind,

Here, is another one, who believes, absolutely, that it and others 'have minds'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am and since you can lie, the sole responsibility of your readers is to interpret your words the way they are meant to be interpreted in English language.

Here, is another prime example of one who will 'look for', and 'grab onto', absolutely 'any words', which they hope will back up and support their already very strongly held onto and maintained assumptions and beliefs.

From a Truly 'logical perspective' what you just said, here, is absolutely illogical, nonsensical, irrational, ridiculous, and just plain old absurd.

And, if absolutely any one would like to have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion about all of 'the way' that 'this one's' sentence and claim is all of what I just said, and meant, then let 'us' have 'that discussion', here. For all to 'look at', and 'see'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am That's why, instead of making excuses, you should AVOID speaking in a way that is offensive in the English language.

If you believe that 'I' have made any excuses absolutely anywhere in this forum, and, really, would like to claim that I have, then will you present 'those, supposed, excuses'?

if no, then why not?

Once more for the very slow of learners, here, I have never said absolutely any thing 'offensive', here.

But, and once again, you are absolutely free to interpret any thing that I have said and written, here, in absolutely any way you like.

So, if you believe, absolutely, that I am speaking in 'a way' that is offensive, in any language, then 'this' is, exactly, what you will 'see', and 'hear', here.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am That's why you should STOP referring to other people with "this one", "these human beings", "these adult human beings" and so on.

I will speak, and write, in absolutely any way that I like. And, again, you are absolutely free to interpret absolutely any thing I say and write, here, in absolutely any way you like, without ever once just stopping to consider whether it would be 'better' to seek out and obtain clarification, before you, once again, start making assumptions and/or start jumping to conclusions.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:55 am That's why you should STOP referring to them in the third person.

Is there any thing that you 'should' STOP doing, here?

If no, then are you absolutely sure?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 6:14 am Age…it’s rude to laugh at people, okay. It’s ridiculing, they don’t like it.

Once more I will suggest that you, people, start seeking out and obtaining actually 'clarity' before you presume, or believe, absolutely any thing.

I have been suggesting 'this' for quite a while 'now'. One day 'these posters' might let 'it' 'sink in', so that 'it' is Truly, and fully, understood, exactly.

By the way, 'I' also agree, absolutely, that it is rude, and Wrong, to laugh 'at' people.

And, 'I' would suggest that removing 'ridicule', completely, from all of human society would be a goal that 'we' all moved towards.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 6:14 am But it’s okay to fling odious, often extremely offensive slanderous hyperbole at people, and getting off on watching other peoples reactions to being the butt end of their sickening jokes, yeah, that’s perfectly acceptable behaviour at this forum.

xxx

Are you blowing kisses to your girlfriend Fairy? I need a barf bag.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 2:51 pm Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

Would you agree that because "Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind", then this means that the brain and also the body function as an organic receiver and translator of mind … in much the same way that a radio receiver does not have a song, but is an inorganic receiver of song, and potentially all songs.

There could be a case for saying, and then arguing, that the brain and body are organic receivers and translators of the 'Mind', Itself. But, there would need to be more clarification in regards to what you mean by 'mind', exactly, first?

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:58 am The One Mind would explain where thoughts were before folks discovered them, even though ego will insist that it created the thoughts.

The One Mind explains a lot of things, but not necessarily 'these things'. But, again, what the actual Truth is, exactly, only comes-to-light through Truly open and honest 'discussing', with absolute 'logical reasoning'.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:40 am Are you blowing kisses to your girlfriend Fairy?

No.

Now you only have about a trillion other possibilities, which you could assume or believe, and wonder about, before you just stopped and sought out and obtained actual clarity, first.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:40 am I need a barf bag.

Okay, but if you did not jump to the Wrong conclusion and believe 'that' to be true, then you would not have needed 'a barf bag'.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:21 am Once more for the very slow of learners, here, I have never said absolutely any thing 'offensive', here.

You just did. You just told us we are "slow learners".

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:21 am I will speak, and write, in absolutely any way that I like.

I am sure you will. Very infantile.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:31 am Once more I will suggest that you, people, start seeking out and obtaining actually 'clarity' before you presume, or believe, absolutely any thing.

How about you do the same when someone calls you a shut-in autistic faggot who admits he has no mind?

And if they tell you they meant nothing bad, you better believe them.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 10:31 am I have been suggesting 'this' for quite a while 'now'. One day 'these posters' might let 'it' 'sink in', so that 'it' is Truly, and fully, understood, exactly.

How about you start practicing what you preach yourself instead of being a poser?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 11:56 am
I am sure you will. Very infantile.

Infants don’t speak or write.

And Harbal isn’t a gadfly.

Why don’t you start practicing what you preach.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 9:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:01 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:51 pm He didn't provide us with his proof that humans have no minds, that's most certainly the case.

My bad, I thought his comments about GUTOE (grand unified theory of everything) and his TRACK idea (have forgotten what his acronym stands for) were supposed to represent some kind of "proof". Otherwise, it didn't look much like proof to me. So maybe he still needs to provide his "proof".

Your "proof" Age?

Even, here, 'this one's' assumptions and beliefs have led it completely and utterly astray. Which is why it, still, can not work out where the 'proof' is, exactly, here.

So Age, is there only one mind in the universe? Or are there many minds?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:26 am Did 'you' not think it would be a 'good moment' to ask "gary childress" to define the word, 'mind'? Or, is the word, 'mind', another one of 'those words', which you claim every one already knows what the definition is, anyway, and thus another one of 'those words' that, laughingly do not need to be defined?

Nice dodge.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 12:35 pm Infants don’t speak or write.

And Harbal isn’t a gadfly.

Why don’t you start practicing what you preach.

I am practicing it. But that does not entail being nice to people who are rude ( such as Age, Harbal, etc. )