This might be an interesting read for Jamest as it's cautionary on a few levels ( ie we might not recognize - even top math minds might not recognise value ).

Aside from that ...it's a fine story

WHO WAS RAMANUJAN?

THE UNLIKELY TALE OF A MYSTERIOUS LETTER, AND ITS PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF MATHEMATIC

https://www.wired.com/2016/04/who-was-ramanujan/

The movie was good as well.

jamest wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Hopefully, jamest will be back soon to guide the discussion into more metaphysical territory, with an example of what we ought to be thinking about.

I'm happy enough to have inspired intelligent discussion amongst yourselves, for now. Once you're all congregated at one spot, I'll come back.

Yeah, I mean why answer a simple question when you can just take credit for people getting around your meaningless OP?

What is metaphysical value and how does one acquire it?

Metaphysically, of course.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Hopefully, jamest will be back soon to guide the discussion into more metaphysical territory, with an example of what we ought to be thinking about.

I'm happy enough to have inspired intelligent discussion amongst yourselves, for now. Once you're all congregated at one spot, I'll come back.

Yeah, I mean why answer a simple question when you can just take credit for people getting around your meaningless OP?

The OP was clearly respectful of mathematicians

Nobody said you weren't. What does that have to do with anything? Specifically, what does it have to do you with you not explaining what "metaphysical value" could possibly be in relation to math, and why anyone should give a fuck? That's what my post was about, since you obviously missed it.

and I'm sat here acquiring any metaphysical value I can from the ensuing discussion between you.

Which is completely useless to anyone else in the thread. Again, you're asking people to discuss something (metaphysical value of math) that you haven't explained and is, as far as anyone can tell, completely pointless.

Don't be a dick, is my best advice.

Take your own advice and answer the question.

You misunderstand. Most of us trust your sincerity (indeed, a brief review shows the mistrust runs the other way - try it yourself with the forum search function on words like "disingenuous").

I'd be happy to engage seriously with you, but you don't take yourself seriously. You don't reason from your premises, you don't respond to criticism of your attempted arguments or admit faults with them. I don't suppose other people feel differently. In reality though, we saw what your "best" effort was, I'll repeat it again if you like:

jamest wrote:A simple overview of my idealist philosophy

None of this will suffice as a proof of my opinions, as the brevity of an overview prohibits me from providing such. It’s intended – and I have been requested to do it (indeed, I have banned myself from this forum until I respond to that request) – to give the reader a general insight into my mindset.

I start at a place similar to Descartes. That is: I experience, therefore I am.

… The awareness of a series of orchestrated/related sensations/qualia (red; pain; cold; itchy; sweet; etc.) suffices as evidence of ‘my’ existence. It must do, because there has to be something privy to these events (‘nothing’ cannot be aware). However, none of this suffices to disclose my actual nature/identity. Though I interpret my sensations/qualia to read as “I am jamest in the world”, I cannot (nor should I) trust my interpretation to be indicative of my true nature/identity. At this juncture, the metaphysical field is open to all partygoers.

I have explained a thousand times why science is of zero metaphysical value in supporting the biased anti-theist opinions of the physicalists/materialists. Experienced B is not B itself (upgraded from observed B is not B itself, due to pedantry surrounding the concept of observation) renders the physicalist/materialist devoid of any support whatsoever for their beliefs in the reality of humanity and/or the world. Their beliefs are wholly questionable, putting them on a par with those who simply believe anything. Order and commonality of experience do nothing to substantiate the claim that the objects of experience must [therefore] exist independently of their experience.

At this juncture, the reader is cordially invited to question their brainwashed mindset and objectively open their mind, prior to actually reading anything else I have to say on the matter. Your truth mill is kaput. Shut the fucker down. If you want to judge my philosophy, do it reasonably. You cannot do this if you judge what I have to say in the light of the existence of the world itself being a fucking given. It isn’t.

At this juncture, I can move in one of two directions. One of those directions is to show why the world itself cannot exist. Or, alternatively, why existence must be indivisible (existence is absolutely singular). I have provided different arguments for each. I’m not going to go over them again here in an overview.

The opposite direction to move is to show why only ‘you’ exist and to prove that ‘you’ are God. The first thing to note is that I do argue that there is an objective/reasonable way of defining God such that the concept has meaning within philosophy. That is, philosophy can disassociate itself from all religious connotations of the divine concept. The second thing to note is that since one’s identity/nature is in doubt, what one thinks/experiences of oneself must at all times be put on the shelf whilst assessing these arguments. ‘You’ transcend what you experience/think (you transcend your consciousness). The very fact that you cannot account for the content of your consciousness, proves this. Which is why, on several occasions, I’ve explained why solipsism is fubar. Indeed, amongst several terms I’ve coined over the years, ‘naïve solipsism’ is prominent.

With that in mind, I have produced many arguments for the existence of God. Again, I’m not going to go over them here in an overview. My philosophy is quite expansive, as any search of the threads I’ve started will show.

What I will say is that this is all a work in progress. I’ve been doing this for about 15 years now. I’ve constantly gained new insights; I’ve acquired new knowledge; I’ve learnt how to present myself better. I’m neither averse to criticism nor revision. I’ve learnt a lot from my discussions with many members here and elsewhere.


Clearly, the above would not suffice as the intro to a book. Something I’ve been half-heartedly threatening for about a decade. Yet, the readers of any book I might write will not have access to the search engine you lot have here. If you’re genuinely interested in the details, then go and look for them.

The only reason I have done this overview is to regain access to the forum. I’ve done it, so I’m back. Tough shit.


Edited: had to correct "existence cannot must be indivisible".

Even you admitted that you half arsed this, and it was as good as it gets as far as your "philosophy" goes. Don't get me wrong - there's time to improve and I think everyone, including you, would love that. So... let's do that? Let's improve the quality of debate.

jamest wrote:At some point, I need to acquire a diplomacy qualification obviously, as none of you trust me.

I'm not sure what trust has to do with anything, but you'd find less need for diplomacy qualifications if you'd just answer straightforward, incredibly relevant questions when they're put to you.

I've spent two decades of my limited experience trying to get to know and understand you all sufficient to the point that you would SERIOUSLY engage with a theist. For the most part, that's been a failure, though not entirely.

My last attempt to seriously engage with you ended with you refusing to answer my questions, beating your chest and running away. How do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

It's almost an impossible sell, I admit, but at some point one of you guys will realise, even after this, that I was just james doing God stuff.

And at some point you will realize that you're just jamest doing jamest stuff. See how pointless unqualified declarations like this are? Why do you insist on using them? Why don't you do something useful, like answer the question that's directly relevant to your OP and will help people have a meaningful discussion about it? Why does it seem like you're always trying as hard as you can to not do this?

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:At some point, I need to acquire a diplomacy qualification obviously, as none of you trust me.

I'm not sure what trust has to do with anything, but you'd find less need for diplomacy qualifications if you'd just answer straightforward, incredibly relevant questions when they're put to you.

I've spent two decades of my limited experience trying to get to know and understand you all sufficient to the point that you would SERIOUSLY engage with a theist. For the most part, that's been a failure, though not entirely.

My last attempt to seriously engage with you ended with you refusing to answer my questions, beating your chest and running away. How do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

It's almost an impossible sell, I admit, but at some point one of you guys will realise, even after this, that I was just james doing God stuff.

And at some point you will realize that you're just jamest doing jamest stuff. See how pointless unqualified declarations like this are? Why do you insist on using them? Why don't you do something useful, like answer the question that's directly relevant to your OP and will help people have a meaningful discussion about it? Why does it seem like you're always trying as hard as you can to not do this?

I'll buy you a pint if I ever meet you, but I won't be wasting my money on fly-repellent any more.

I've been doing this for two decades. Nobody visits the forest to visit a fly.

So that's a "no" to answering straightforward, directly relevant questions to the OP then. Got it.

You've failed for two decades, why stop now?

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I'm not sure what trust has to do with anything, but you'd find less need for diplomacy qualifications if you'd just answer straightforward, incredibly relevant questions when they're put to you.

My last attempt to seriously engage with you ended with you refusing to answer my questions, beating your chest and running away. How do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

And at some point you will realize that you're just jamest doing jamest stuff. See how pointless unqualified declarations like this are? Why do you insist on using them? Why don't you do something useful, like answer the question that's directly relevant to your OP and will help people have a meaningful discussion about it? Why does it seem like you're always trying as hard as you can to not do this?

I'll buy you a pint if I ever meet you, but I won't be wasting my money on fly-repellent any more.

I've been doing this for two decades. Nobody visits the forest to visit a fly.

So that's a "no" to answering straightforward, directly relevant questions to the OP then. Got it.

You've failed for two decades, why stop now?

The difference between me and you

is that I actually answer questions. I can only assume you avoid them because answering would show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

is that when it comes to serious debate you need laugh emoticons to sustain your view to uphold your identity.

Do you seriously not get how fucking stupid it sounds when you talk about serious debate while failing to answer basic, important questions about the OP of your own thread?

I need fuck all. I stand here, utterly alone, a theist hated by all other theists and atheists.

Nobody gives a shit about your lone wolf martyr fetish. I doubt anyone can summon the energy to hate you, some random guy on the internet. All anyone cares about is answering the question so we can have a meaningful conversation about the topic. When will this get through your head?

I no longer need anybody on the Earth to define me, nor (therefore) to sustain me.

I'm here to shove a frozen badger fire up...

Well then for fuck's sake get on with it, because all you ever do is talk about doing it.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I'm not sure what trust has to do with anything, but you'd find less need for diplomacy qualifications if you'd just answer straightforward, incredibly relevant questions when they're put to you.

My last attempt to seriously engage with you ended with you refusing to answer my questions, beating your chest and running away. How do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

And at some point you will realize that you're just jamest doing jamest stuff. See how pointless unqualified declarations like this are? Why do you insist on using them? Why don't you do something useful, like answer the question that's directly relevant to your OP and will help people have a meaningful discussion about it? Why does it seem like you're always trying as hard as you can to not do this?

I'll buy you a pint if I ever meet you, but I won't be wasting my money on fly-repellent any more.

I've been doing this for two decades. Nobody visits the forest to visit a fly.

So that's a "no" to answering straightforward, directly relevant questions to the OP then. Got it.

You've failed for two decades, why stop now?

The difference between me and you

Oh look, the difference between me and you!

is that when it comes to serious debate you need laugh emoticons to sustain your view to uphold your identity.

...whereas you just refuse to debate. Why won't you answer questions?

I need fuck all. I stand here,

...in nothing but your underpants?

utterly alone,

Oh, sorry.

a theist hated by all other theists and atheists.

Quick, someone pipe Land of Hope and Glory in here. Hated, yeah sure. I can pretty much guarantee that you don't engender strong emotion like that from people on the internet, if those people even do hate which, by the way, I do not.

I no longer need anybody on the Earth to define me, nor (therefore) to sustain me.

I'm here to shove a frozen badger fire up...

Whatever that means. Why won't you answer questions?

Do you really think you've posted in a way that engenders the kind of respect you seem to desire? Squire? I mean, all anyone's got left is taking the piss, since you'll never actually say or answer anything relevant to any of your OP's.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Do you really think you've posted in a way that engenders the kind of respect you seem to desire? Squire? I mean, all anyone's got left is taking the piss, since you'll never actually say or answer anything relevant to any of your OP's.

I don't desire anything, I demand it.

If you're demanding it, then you desire it. Unless you're demanding something you don't want, which would be weird.

If you do not comply, I'll simply treat you with the same contempt you dish out to me.

If you acted with the respect you desire from others, you wouldn't find yourself having to demand it. The forum didn't approach you, you approached the forum.

I won't be bullied. How much proof do you need of this? Another two decades, perhaps?

So you're demanding that people respect you, and calling names and shit talking is the first (and many times only) thing you have to offer, but you think other people are the bullies. Interesting.