Philosophy Now Forum

I think we should be focusing on this:

Whether it’s true that letters are good to be written or not.

You mean longhand versus print?

Yes

So where do you stand on the issue, Ollie?

Familiarization with logical proof is more prevalent when you use it yourself, I feel that a lot of what we know could easily be an imitation of actual knowledge, and that that problem is the cause of mishaps in the realm of philosophy.

Take god for example; an ever present reason to exist with no other besides it. At first it seems like an easy task to understand that that is god. But if you look more closely, you see something that follows all those rules, but fails to be the god of intended meaning

Okay.

What does that have to do with...

Whether it’s true that letters are good to be written or not.

Help me out here. I'd like to converse but I kinda need to know what it is you wanna converse about.

My point was that if you can coherently find something independent of thinking it that you would be able to understand what it is you’re trying to prove more easily than if an AI told you…

What I would like to discuss is the matter of what coherence is, and what things comprise independence of thought

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 11:58 pm What I would like to discuss is the matter of what coherence is, and what things comprise independence of thought

Okay, I'm up for that. Tell me your position.

I'm pretty sure this is either a bot or he wants us to think he's a bot for some reason. He might get frustrated in that sense. His comments are no more incoherent than those of most of the regulars.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:10 am I'm pretty sure this is either a bot or he wants us to think he's a bot for some reason. He might get frustrated in that sense. His comments are no more incoherent than those of most of the regulars.

I'm thinking it's an age-type entity...which could make it a bot or autist or the next 3 Letter Agency patsy.

Concept is a thought of -that- which is can either be known to be true or false. The difference between a concept being true or false is that -that- exists (or doesn’t)

I’d like to propose that “that” which is true maintains its consistency without the thought of it, and that which is false has no element “that” whether thought of or not

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:21 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:10 am I'm pretty sure this is either a bot or he wants us to think he's a bot for some reason. He might get frustrated in that sense. His comments are no more incoherent than those of most of the regulars.

I'm thinking it's an age-type entity...which could make it a bot or autist or the next 3 Letter Agency patsy.

So, what, exactly, is "age", to you "henry quirk"?

Are you even able to clarify any thing, exactly?