Self-evidence (main q)

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#381  Postby GrahamH » Apr 15, 2012 1:07 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?


Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

A=/=A?
You aren't doing too well at presenting a coherent concept.
Tell me what "non-existence" IS.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#382  Postby LucidFlight » Apr 15, 2012 1:07 pm

What about things that are only partially self-evident, like half a tree? Perhaps I have been playing too much Minecraft.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#383  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 1:09 pm

Or the lumberjacks have been lazy.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#384  Postby GrahamH » Apr 15, 2012 1:10 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.


Well, you and I agree that reality isn't everything, since there is unreality to deal with, at least discursively. Discourse exists. But you would never say that non-existence and unreality are the same thing. Would you? You'd probably say everything is everything.

When I say that non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely, what I mean is that existence is now entirely illusory.

:Lol:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#385  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:10 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?


Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

A=/=A?
You aren't doing too well at presenting a coherent concept.
Tell me what "non-existence" IS.

Non-existence means that no one or no thing exists in reality. But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#386  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 15, 2012 1:11 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


Says the man who hasn't read the books. :lol:
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32084
Age: 69
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#387  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 1:13 pm

Destroyer wrote:
But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.


:whine: I really hate that. I've been working so hard to overcome my illusionary state, and now you say it was all in vain! :whine:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#388  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:14 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


Says the man who hasn't read the books. :lol:

You are sounding very much like Teuton... Where is the authority in any book, about life and all that exists?
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#389  Postby GrahamH » Apr 15, 2012 1:16 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?


Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

A=/=A?
You aren't doing too well at presenting a coherent concept.
Tell me what "non-existence" IS.

Non-existence means that no one or no thing exists in reality. But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.

Does illusion exist?
What non-existent causes illusion to exist?
How have you jumped from existence to perception? How can non-existent perceive non-existent illusion?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#390  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 1:18 pm

@ Destroyer: You , on the other hand, sound like some of my teenage pupils: " Blah, I never read books. Not even the ones I'm supposed to read for classes!"
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#391  Postby SpeedOfSound » Apr 15, 2012 1:20 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


Says the man who hasn't read the books. :lol:

You are sounding very much like Teuton... Where is the authority in any book, about life and all that exists?


Who the fuck said the authority is IN the books? It's in your head after you read and understand a little bit about what others have discovered. Then you have a think. Teuton quotes. I seldom do.

You? Bleaver I suspect. Ya just knows it.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32084
Age: 69
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#392  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:22 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

A=/=A?
You aren't doing too well at presenting a coherent concept.
Tell me what "non-existence" IS.

Non-existence means that no one or no thing exists in reality. But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.

Does illusion exist?
What non-existent causes illusion to exist?
How have you jumped from existence to perception? How can non-existent perceive non-existent illusion?

Illusion does indeed exist. That is the paradox at the base of existence. Forget about perception if you want to. But non-existence in reality could not be experienced as an illusion of existence without the senses.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#393  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Regina wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b] Destroyer:[/b][/color] You , on the other hand, sound like some of my teenage pupils: " Blah, I never read books. Not even the ones I'm supposed to read for classes!"

I am a very ignorant man indeed.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#394  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:26 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


Says the man who hasn't read the books. :lol:

You are sounding very much like Teuton... Where is the authority in any book, about life and all that exists?


Who the fuck said the authority is IN the books? It's in your head after you read and understand a little bit about what others have discovered. Then you have a think. Teuton quotes. I seldom do.

You? Bleaver I suspect. Ya just knows it.

Books contain much valuable information. Unfortunately those information do not pertain to life and existence.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#395  Postby GrahamH » Apr 15, 2012 1:29 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
A=/=A?
You aren't doing too well at presenting a coherent concept.
Tell me what "non-existence" IS.

Non-existence means that no one or no thing exists in reality. But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.

Does illusion exist?
What non-existent causes illusion to exist?
How have you jumped from existence to perception? How can non-existent perceive non-existent illusion?

Illusion does indeed exist. That is the paradox at the base of existence. Forget about perception if you want to. But non-existence in reality could not be experienced as an illusion of existence without the senses.

As I said, incoherent. You assume something exists in order to "explain the cause of existence".

Non-existence is not experienced.
Non-existence is not a state of being.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#396  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Books contain much valuable information. Unfortunately those information do not pertain to life and existence.

I find that books tell you a lot about life and existence. Especially biology books. But not only those.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#397  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:31 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence means that no one or no thing exists in reality. But all that can be percieved to exist by our senses, does indeed exist as an illusion.

Does illusion exist?
What non-existent causes illusion to exist?
How have you jumped from existence to perception? How can non-existent perceive non-existent illusion?

Illusion does indeed exist. That is the paradox at the base of existence. Forget about perception if you want to. But non-existence in reality could not be experienced as an illusion of existence without the senses.

As I said, incoherent. You assume something exists in order to "explain the cause of existence".

Non-existence is not experienced.
Non-existence is not a state of being.

Continue to believe as you will. The time for humanity's education about life and existence is soon at hand.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#398  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:33 pm

Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Books contain much valuable information. Unfortunately those information do not pertain to life and existence.

I find that books tell you a lot about life and existence. Especially biology books. But not only those.

Information that pertains to the superficial do not even begin to scratch the surface.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#399  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Destroyer wrote:
The time for humanity's education about life and existence is soon at hand.

Care to elaborate?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#400  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The time for humanity's education about life and existence is soon at hand.

Care to elaborate?

Yes. When the time comes.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest