Philosophy Now Forum

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:28 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:46 pm
Try me.
EB

Actually then your standard of proof is a continual negation according to your individual interpretation and as such the only proof is your own perspective resulting in muchauuseen trillema with you as point 0.

Yeah, really excellent point as long as no one but you understand what the fuck you mean.

You will act as the interpreter of what is proof and not proof and continually negate everything until "you as point 0" destroy it all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:28 pm Objective standard of proof or gtfo.

I wouldn't know but you still have to prove your claim.
Still, I can already tell you can't explain yourself too good.
So, never mind. Just ignore me, will you?
EB

You ask for proof but provide no standard, it is just subjective intepretation.

There is nothing to ignore considering your absence of standard allows for whatever I say to exist as proof...because it exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pm You ask for proof but provide no standard, it is just subjective intepretation.

I asked for your proof in case I could find it conclusive, however unlikely.
You made a claim, no proof. Fine with me.
I do find that very conclusive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pmThere is nothing to ignore

I suggested you should ignore me, so if you think there's nothing to ignore, then I think I don't exist, which proves the Cogito false. You're god. Oops, sorry, I mean you're good.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pm considering your absence of standard allows for whatever I say to exist as proof...because it exists.

Prove it.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pm You ask for proof but provide no standard, it is just subjective intepretation.

I asked for your proof in case I could find it conclusive, however unlikely.
You made a claim, no proof. Fine with me.
I do find that very conclusive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pmThere is nothing to ignore

I suggested you should ignore me, so if you think there's nothing to ignore, then I think I don't exist, which proves the Cogito false. You're god. Oops, sorry, I mean you're good.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:12 pm considering your absence of standard allows for whatever I say to exist as proof...because it exists.

Prove it.
EB

Prove "proof" otherwise you are just speaking gibberish like the majority of what you post.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:29 pm Prove "proof" otherwise you are just speaking gibberish like the majority of what you post.

Prove prove proof first.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:51 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:29 pm Prove "proof" otherwise you are just speaking gibberish like the majority of what you post.

Prove prove proof first.
EB

Proof.

There.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:52 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:51 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:29 pm Prove "proof" otherwise you are just speaking gibberish like the majority of what you post.

Prove prove proof first.
EB

Proof.

There.

Prove it.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:52 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:51 pm
Prove prove proof first.
EB

Proof.

There.

Prove it.
EB

Prove it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:07 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:52 pm

Proof.

There.

Prove it.
EB

Prove it.

I concur. It is sufficiently proven.

Given the absence of criteria, the bar was very low.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:03 am I concur. It is sufficiently proven. Given the absence of criteria, the bar was very low.

Prove it.
The lowest of objective bars is not certain. I think, therefore I am. Beyond that, who knows?
Maybe you yourself aren't too sure about whether you think at all. Given what you post, I certainly don't have any evidence of that.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:32 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:03 am I concur. It is sufficiently proven. Given the absence of criteria, the bar was very low.

Prove it.
The lowest of objective bars is not certain. I think, therefore I am. Beyond that, who knows?
Maybe you yourself aren't too sure about whether you think at all. Given what you post, I certainly don't have any evidence of that.
EB

Wittgenstein’s ruler applies.

Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table, you may also be using the table to measure the ruler

Are you the ruler or the table?

How do we decide when you refuse to put your money where your mouth is?

How do we decide when you refuse to be held accountable for the bullshit you spew?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:32 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:03 am I concur. It is sufficiently proven. Given the absence of criteria, the bar was very low.

Prove it.
The lowest of objective bars is not certain. I think, therefore I am. Beyond that, who knows?
Maybe you yourself aren't too sure about whether you think at all. Given what you post, I certainly don't have any evidence of that.
EB

Actually the "death of philosophy" thread in the general section gives ample proof to what my premises are.

"I (noun) think (verb), therefore I (noun) am (verb)" is a noun/verb recursion with "I" as a constant state existing through variations of actions.

"Think" is a particular subset of actions that exists as an element of a more general set of "am".

"I (noun) am (verb)" observes a simultaneously passive/active state of consciousness and simplifies Descartes premises to a set of actions that are not just more general in relation to identity not being linked to "thinking" alone, but effectively particular as well considering this state of "I am ...." is linked to an infinite variation of identities."

Descarte is wrong.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:11 pm Actually the "death of philosophy" thread in the general section gives ample proof to what my premises are.

"I (noun) think (verb), therefore I (noun) am (verb)" is a noun/verb recursion with "I" as a constant state existing through variations of actions.

"Think" is a particular subset of actions that exists as an element of a more general set of "am".

"I (noun) am (verb)" observes a simultaneously passive/active state of consciousness and simplifies Descartes premises to a set of actions that are not just more general in relation to identity not being linked to "thinking" alone, but effectively particular as well considering this state of "I am ...." is linked to an infinite variation of identities."

Descarte is wrong.

All Descartes needed to say was "I".

Self-reference is recursive. Recursion is computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:11 pm Actually the "death of philosophy" thread in the general section gives ample proof to what my premises are.

"I (noun) think (verb), therefore I (noun) am (verb)" is a noun/verb recursion with "I" as a constant state existing through variations of actions.

"Think" is a particular subset of actions that exists as an element of a more general set of "am".

"I (noun) am (verb)" observes a simultaneously passive/active state of consciousness and simplifies Descartes premises to a set of actions that are not just more general in relation to identity not being linked to "thinking" alone, but effectively particular as well considering this state of "I am ...." is linked to an infinite variation of identities."

Descarte is wrong.

All Descartes needed to say was "I".

Self-reference is recursive. Recursion is computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

I would agree if "I" can be equated to a "verb" or "active" state...which it can, but not in the common tongue. "I" effectively is equivalent to a form of "Unity in Identity" and can be viewed quantitatively as equal to the pythagorean notion of "1" as both "odd/order" and "even/chaotic".

Under this state all qualities, (qx), effectively are extensions of "I" as a variation of "I" and can be intuitively observed as "I(qx)". Quantitatively this can be observed as 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) ... 1(x).

So a statement such as "The tree is green", as an extension of the observer can effectively be observed as: I(I(The) I(Tree) I(is) I(Green))

where the question of "identity" not only necessitates a form of the above recursion but effectively multiple identities existing through a form of variation that exist through the same source.

Identity is simultaneously progressive and circular and this is its point of origin, hence any sense of psychological order ranging from a standard subjective state to an actual objective form of computation is necessitated through contradiction inherent within the Münchhausen Trillema.

"Acceptance" is a point of origin in the psyche where a phenomenon imprints itself and effectively forms the psyche.

This imprint is continual maintained through repetitive cycling where "Identity" is defined through the power to maintain itself.

This imprint is further projected into the surrounding phenomenon, in turn forming them and in turn cycling back to the observer where axioms are continual "imprinted" through a form of acceptance.

"Acceptance" in turn takes a receptive/passive nature which effectively alternates into an active state of projection. The nature of recursion and computation is grounded in an inherent active state of "limit" and passive state of "no-limit".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:13 pm I would agree if "I" can be equated to a "verb" or "active" state...which it can, but not in the common tongue.

"I" Is not a verb. The verb is the uttering of "I".

In that single utterance the notions of self, awareness and self-awareness, language, self-expression are all synthesised.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:13 pm I would agree if "I" can be equated to a "verb" or "active" state...which it can, but not in the common tongue.

"I" Is not a verb. Uttering "I" is a verb.

In that single utterance the notions of self, awareness and self-awareness are synthesised.

True, "I" as both a constant/relative (approximate of constant state) takes on a triadic nature of "joining/divergence" as synthethic.