Philosophy Now Forum

[quote=Atla post_id=473261 time=1601139142 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473260 time=1601138603 user_id=15238]
Or one can evade the issue by saying "Why doesn't mean what you think it means." without giving an alternate understanding. You constant nay-sayers make me sick. Go find another hobby. You're all fucking useless.
[/quote]
So not only can't you solve the Hard problem, you don't even know what it is. All you did was go crazy about the word 'why', and throw around some wrong scientific guesses. Again you've demonstrated how much you suck at philosophy. :)

You idiots always crack me up. Solved metaphysics my ass.
[/quote]

Not only are you not addressing anything in the OP, you're not even addressing anything about the hard problem. I'm asking, pretty please with a fucking cherry on top, never talk to or near me again.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:59 pm Not only are you not addressing anything in the OP, you're not even addressing anything about the hard problem. I'm asking, pretty please with a fucking cherry on top, never talk to or near me again.

I've simply shown again that not only haven't you 'solved philosophy', you haven't even solved all of its more certain parts, despite your claim in the OP. You aren't even that close. Maybe you wouldn't be that great of a philosopher/king of the world after all.
(This in addition to your obvious personality issues, which would make you a bad philosopher/king.)

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pm'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

'Empirical' is about 'How much?' The 'how' could be anything that is consistent with 'how much'.

_______

The following is a lesson in practicality for someone who refuses to properly use the quote system for the sake of the reader:

I do not think it is a fallacy to question why a person with an IQ of 140 seems incapable of using the QUOTES function!!!

I use the included site feature of not parsing that code for two reasons, that it's an unnecessary addition of complexity, and the ideas should be what matter, not who said them. I feel free to respond to anyone at any time with or without quotations, and you should too.

I also feel free to frolic through the city fountains in my girlfriend’s underwear while singing the title song from the musical Cats.

Oh, really? Is that the truth?

Well, maybe the claim that I have a girlfriend might be a stretch.

Now picture a new PN lurker trying to decipher who said what in the above block of statements.

Not to mention that it completely leaves out the handy little arrow that one can click on to take you back (perhaps 20 pages) to see the original post in its proper context.

Most of our crazy ideas are difficult enough for others to try and figure out without having to complicate the process even further by making it more difficult to read.

I mean, why even post your ideas on a public forum if in fact your self-defeating bullheadedness in how you choose to physically present your post is not only going to trigger a sense of hostility toward your very style of posting,...

(hence, a less sympathetic attitude toward your claims and ideas from the get-go)

...but also cause some of the members and visitors to simply ignore your writings altogether?

Apparently,...

(and this should come as no surprise to anyone with a modicum of common sense derived from life experience)

...an Intelligence Quotient is totally unrelated to a Wisdom Quotient.
_______

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pm'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

'Empirical' is about 'How much?' The 'how' could be anything that is consistent with 'how much'.

That's not the issue, rather empiricism and semantics themselves are.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:12 pmThat's not the issue, rather empiricism and semantics themselves are.

Okie-dokie, so what's the problem?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:17 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:12 pmThat's not the issue, rather empiricism and semantics themselves are.

Okie-dokie, so what's the problem?

Do you know what you are replying to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:20 pmDo you know what you are replying to?

Yes. What is your point?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:20 pmDo you know what you are replying to?

Yes. What is your point?

? What is your point?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:36 pmWhat is your point?

Well Atla, you say:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pm'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

Then I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:54 pm'Empirical' is about 'How much?' The 'how' could be anything that is consistent with 'how much'.

To which you respond:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pmThat's not the issue, rather empiricism and semantics themselves are.

So I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:17 pmOkie-dokie, so what's the problem?

Your answer to which was:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:20 pmDo you know what you are replying to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

So I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:31 pmYes. What is your point?

So we can go back to the top, or you can actually make your point.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:36 pmWhat is your point?

Well Atla, you say:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pm'How' is good, but maybe this 'how' is a mixture of empirical and semantic.

Then I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:54 pm'Empirical' is about 'How much?' The 'how' could be anything that is consistent with 'how much'.

To which you respond:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:00 pmThat's not the issue, rather empiricism and semantics themselves are.

So I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:17 pmOkie-dokie, so what's the problem?

Your answer to which was:

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:20 pmDo you know what you are replying to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

So I say:

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:31 pmYes. What is your point?

So we can go back to the top, or you can actually make your point.

Already have. If you want to comment on the Hard problem, you should first familiarize yourself with it.

Btw I was replying to Advocate's rambling about dividing things into two strict categories.