Philosophy Now Forum

If Henry had any sense he would be citing the fact that Fairy veered between 'Harbal's a saint' and 'Harbal's a dastardly demon' as EVIDENCE that her version of events might not be ENTIRELY reliable.

You hear it all the time. ''Do you have any PROOF that blah blah stole blah blah....?' You can't have a 'piece of proof'. Proof is definitive and something that you arrive at based on a PIECE or PIECES of EVIDENCE. Evidence is information that leads you to believe something has been PROVEN to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Using the two words as synonyms is ridiculous and imbecilic.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pm IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:32 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pm IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

Nope. It's to do with you being dishonest. You are intelligent enough to know when you are being dishonest (unless you are also dishonest with yourself). You don't 'challenge' my views in any way, shape or form (unless you mean my patience). When you aren't resorting to dishonest ideology then yes, we do agree on some topics (although that could still be ideology-driven on your part). 'Abusive' Yet another word that's been ABUSED to the point that it's now meaningless. I don't think I have antipathy towards you in general. In fact I occasionally like the way you argue. It's just that your fanatical religious ideology gets in the way and you can't help being dishonest when it comes to that i.e. when the facts and logic and reason don't correspond with it.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 9:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 9:31 pm

Hearsay.

No it’s not hearsay it’s fact ask H for actual evidence it’s not hearsay.

Just the fact that he seems to be trying to goad people into showing him ACTUAL pms and emails says that he wants to side with the male no matter what. If his buddy IC said anything similar it would be believed no questions asked. IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I agree.. about Henry and…yes….

IC is the most dishonest poster …even H said the exact same thing. H The very person IC revered and held in highest esteem.

It just amuses me no end how people only see what they want to see in other posters. When they actually know nothing about them.

H didn’t think IC ever believed in what he believed… you are right accelafine to say IC is dishonest because of his beliefs. They are simply beliefs without proof.

Just hearsay in fact.


No one knows anything about a God existing, it’s just a made up fictional character.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:32 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pm IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

How enormously judgmental of you.

Why you don’t practice what you preach is mentally unhinged.

IC who told you there is a God?

Hearsay IC…simply hearsay.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:32 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pm IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

You claim to another that you don't know me. And that would be correct, no one knows another, no one knows only itself in this conception known, as a concept known, exactly in the same instance the knowing arises in the reader/knower.

And yet IC you go on to judge others based only on what they have written. You form their identities based on what they have written. And that's all that's happening here. It's the only way a character's ID can exist, as and through an identity that you yourself have believed is there as it is written.

One can only judge a character you are interacting with based on what they have written, or spoken, there is no other frame of reference in which to identify an agent or ID-entity...You are basically drawing a mental picture and interpretation of a character purely based on their words. That is a false knowing, and that false knowing would be actual truth. The actual truth is prior to knowing, prior to knowledge, prior to any concept known.

Emotional lunacy is just what's happening, it's the body reacting to stimuli, it's what the body does automatically, no person is making that emotional lunacy happen. There's simply reactions known, never actions. No one is acting an immediate action, which is always one unknown unitary event... only reactions are known, not actions.

Knowledge, or knowing, is representational, never presentational. Life is unknowing, it's a presentation, never a representation, except in this conception, albeit illusory.

If you are simply basing and grounding peoples characters soley on what they have written, you are only forming a fictional character, and so then the same can be applied to you IC as another fictional character.. For example: by what you yourself have written, this fictional character known as Fairy is now going to base your IC fictional character soley on what you have written, and that is you are an extreme case of toxic positivity.

And yet, words are not who we are in reality. Who told you who you are? Who told them who they are? If you say god, then who told god he was god? See the dilemma? No one knows anything, no one knows who or what they are except as a concept known.

Words are our stories, our ID ..they are known appearances within what can never be known, that we all read about, but are never what we are.

What's reading is not what's read. What's being read, knows nothing of its existence because concepts are things, and things know nothing. Can words read? NO.....
The words are being read by every one, same one. Even the word 'one reader' is being read. Tag you're IT you're the ONE neo.

You are no one, and every one, same one.

Any one who claims to know another...




Or maybe you have an alternative way of knowing another.




Who told you you exist? Another perhaps?



Who told them, the other, that they exist?

That which apparently knows it exists, doesn't actually know.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:50 am You hear it all the time. ''Do you have any PROOF that blah blah stole blah blah....?' You can't have a 'piece of proof'. Proof is definitive and something that you arrive at based on a PIECE or PIECES of EVIDENCE. Evidence is information that leads you to believe something has been PROVEN to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Using the two words as synonyms is ridiculous and imbecilic.

One cannot even prove they are alive.

Proof is a fictional word it’s not real but appears as though it’s real as the word “proof”itself dictates. Proof is just another word for Truth.

In this conception truth is all there is. All that’s known. Not seen physically, only known mentally.

So concepts/words are empty. Just as a character in a nightly dream is empty. The concept I is an empty word.

No I has ever been seen, I is only known as a concept that knows nothing.

If one could prove they are alive, one would have to have been present at their own conception. But that’s impossible.no concept is alive or dead. It only appears to be in this conception known.

Reality is A.I.

And a machine can never know its creator because life is a mechanical synthetic process only. Nothing was born and nothing can die.

All that’s known are empty concepts/ words.

Emptiness is an epistemological fact not an ontological entity

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:34 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:50 am You hear it all the time. ''Do you have any PROOF that blah blah stole blah blah....?' You can't have a 'piece of proof'. Proof is definitive and something that you arrive at based on a PIECE or PIECES of EVIDENCE. Evidence is information that leads you to believe something has been PROVEN to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Using the two words as synonyms is ridiculous and imbecilic.

One cannot even prove they are alive.

Proof is a fictional word it’s not real but appears as though it’s real as the word “proof”itself dictates. Proof is just another word for Truth.

In this conception truth is all there is. All that’s known. Not seen physically, only known mentally.

So concepts/words are empty. Just as a character in a nightly dream is empty. The concept I is an empty word.

No I has ever been seen, I is only known as a concept that knows nothing.

If one could prove they are alive, one would have to have been present at their own conception. But that’s impossible.no concept is alive or dead. It only appears to be in this conception known.

Reality is A.I.

And a machine can never know its creator because life is a mechanical synthetic process only. Nothing was born and nothing can die.

All that’s known are empty concepts/ words.

Emptiness is an epistemological fact not an ontological entity

Yes, but Fairy lives in a relative world where we must all willy nilly use concepts like proof and evidence.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:28 pmJust the fact that he seems to be trying to goad people into showing him ACTUAL pms and emails says that he wants to side with the male no matter what.

As I say, DAM is not a reliable source and I won't condemn hm or sympathize with her based solely on her account of what passed between them. And I don't think you should either.

If his buddy IC said anything similar it would be believed no questions asked.

Mannie wouldn't bring dirty laundry to a public forum.

IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

Mannie is one of the most honest people I know.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:41 pm If Henry had any sense he would be citing the fact that Fairy veered between 'Harbal's a saint' and 'Harbal's a dastardly demon' as EVIDENCE that her version of events might not be ENTIRELY reliable.

Can't see why I have to lay out the details when anyone with a mind to can review her posts and see what's what for themselves. There's ample evidence she's a loon. There's no evidence to support her account of what passed between them.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:34 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:50 am You hear it all the time. ''Do you have any PROOF that blah blah stole blah blah....?' You can't have a 'piece of proof'. Proof is definitive and something that you arrive at based on a PIECE or PIECES of EVIDENCE. Evidence is information that leads you to believe something has been PROVEN to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Using the two words as synonyms is ridiculous and imbecilic.

One cannot even prove they are alive.

Proof is a fictional word it’s not real but appears as though it’s real as the word “proof”itself dictates. Proof is just another word for Truth.

In this conception truth is all there is. All that’s known. Not seen physically, only known mentally.

So concepts/words are empty. Just as a character in a nightly dream is empty. The concept I is an empty word.

No I has ever been seen, I is only known as a concept that knows nothing.

If one could prove they are alive, one would have to have been present at their own conception. But that’s impossible.no concept is alive or dead. It only appears to be in this conception known.

Reality is A.I.

And a machine can never know its creator because life is a mechanical synthetic process only. Nothing was born and nothing can die.

All that’s known are empty concepts/ words.

Emptiness is an epistemological fact not an ontological entity

Yes, but Fairy lives in a relative world where we must all willy nilly use concepts like proof and evidence.

Yes that’s correct, so it appears. But then you can delve deeper into the origins of selfing …a concept or word…can a conceptual thing know anything about itself?

This thing that seems to know it exists… does not know how or what it is without turning itself into a thing again which knows nothing.

Ultimately nothing not a thing, no thing knows itself.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:34 pm

One cannot even prove they are alive.

Proof is a fictional word it’s not real but appears as though it’s real as the word “proof”itself dictates. Proof is just another word for Truth.

In this conception truth is all there is. All that’s known. Not seen physically, only known mentally.

So concepts/words are empty. Just as a character in a nightly dream is empty. The concept I is an empty word.

No I has ever been seen, I is only known as a concept that knows nothing.

If one could prove they are alive, one would have to have been present at their own conception. But that’s impossible.no concept is alive or dead. It only appears to be in this conception known.

Reality is A.I.

And a machine can never know its creator because life is a mechanical synthetic process only. Nothing was born and nothing can die.

All that’s known are empty concepts/ words.

Emptiness is an epistemological fact not an ontological entity

Yes, but Fairy lives in a relative world where we must all willy nilly use concepts like proof and evidence.

Yes that’s correct, so it appears. But then you can delve deeper into the origins of selfing …a concept or word…can a conceptual thing know anything about itself?

This thing that seems to know it exists… does not know how or what it is without turning itself into a thing again which knows nothing.

Ultimately nothing not a thing, no thing knows itself.

It's true self is a concept i.e.self is a device for evaluating and interpreting.
There is something you can be in no doubt about. You can be in no doubt that experience exists and is more than a concept.