Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Well, I am saying that anyone who obfuscates a tautology by requesting a variation of its meaning is guilty of obfuscation. So
there.

If you can provide a defintion of existence that varies from, and does not include, "to exist" or to "be" then, mystery solved.

Destroyer wrote: Does anyone have another definition of existence that is not synonymous with "to be" or "to exist"?

To exist is to phrastulate or to phrasticate. HTH.

Please do bear in mind that I am a simple man.

Define 'man', Man. For that matter, define 'simple' and 'mind'. And while you're at it, define 'define'.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
If you can provide a defintion of existence that varies from, and does not include, "to exist" or to "be" then, mystery solved.

Destroyer wrote: Does anyone have another definition of existence that is not synonymous with "to be" or "to exist"?

To exist is to phrastulate or to phrasticate. HTH.

Please do bear in mind that I am a simple man.

Define 'man', Man. For that matter, define 'simple' and 'mind'.

Enough of the frivolity for one day, for me. Time for me to relax.

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:



To exist is to phrastulate or to phrasticate. HTH.

Please do bear in mind that I am a simple man.

Define 'man', Man. For that matter, define 'simple' and 'mind'.

Enough of the frivolity for one day, for me. Time for me to relax.

Onset of a nervous condition, perhaps? Hope you got what you came here for.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote;
"That man is an idiot" could very well be reversed for "that man is a unique genius".

Quite right. It all depends on how much you revel.
Or is revelate the word I'm looking for?

I think that "phrasticate" is the word you want. In the present case, we have repetological phrastication going on.

I'll add those to my personal lexicon!
This thread is so educational

In response to jamest's reply to my post: so what you're saying is, without your brain interpreting data, you wouldn't be aware of the fact that when you were observing a computer you were, indeed, observing a computer?
Wouldn't that mean the same as saying "w/o a brain, you wouldn't be able to observe a computer"?
Also two examples of paradoxes:
1. Some things exist in more than one place (ie properties like color).
2. Any object you see you can visualize divided in 2. but you can't see infinitesimal parts.

asdfjkl wrote:In response to jamest's reply to my post: so what you're saying is, without your brain interpreting data, you wouldn't be aware of the fact that when you were observing a computer you were, indeed, observing a computer?
Wouldn't that mean the same as saying "w/o a brain, you wouldn't be able to observe a computer"?

No it would not. Your brain is what connects the word 'computer' with an object you call a computer. I would have thought that a bit obvious, but perhaps you are not aware of neuroscience research on the role of the brain in verbal behaviour.

But wouldn't it still be irrefutable that the observation of a computer is not an observation of a goose then?
(I mean without brain processing)

Cito wrote:


Define 'man', Man. For that matter, define 'simple' and 'mind'. And while you're at it, define 'define'.

What with Destroyer having retired, it's time for yet another musical interlude.
Strictly on topic, of course:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btDdFbQu4tw[/youtube]

asdfjkl wrote:But wouldn't it still be irrefutable that the observation of a computer is not an observation of a goose then?
(I mean without brain processing)

Since it seems that "brain processing" is what detects sensory patterns characteristic of geese as distinct from patterns characteristic of computers you won't be "observing" things without a brain.

Regina wrote:
What with Destroyer having retired, it's time for yet another musical interlude.

Define 'pleasant'. No, it's not the same as 'peasant'. Don't you forget about me. Me. Me, me, me.

asdfjkl wrote:But wouldn't it still be irrefutable that the observation of a computer is not an observation of a goose then?

Perhaps you wish to say that an observation of one thing is not an observation of something else. The law of identity. That takes balls. Or maybe you want to talk about 'categories', but you just don't have the words yet.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is devastating, even compared with the effects of OCD.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
What with Destroyer having retired, it's time for yet another musical interlude.

Define 'pleasant'. No, it's not the same as 'peasant'. Don't you forget about me. Me. Me, me, me.

Don't worry. I won't.

Regina wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
What with Destroyer having retired, it's time for yet another musical interlude.

Define 'pleasant'. No, it's not the same as 'peasant'. Don't you forget about me. Me. Me, me, me.

Don't worry. I won't.

You ruin it. Worrying gives purpose to my life.

Fine by me. You can worry as much as you like if you need purpose in your life.

Regina wrote:Fine by me. You can worry as much as you like if you need purpose in your life.

You keep ruining it by saying that everything is OK. What is the matter with you?

No, no, no. It's wrong to blame you. I should just kill myself, and then I'd have nothing to worry about. [Queue Hamlet soliloquy.]

I'm a happy pessimist. Always pleasantly disappointed. Try it!

Regina wrote:I'm a happy pessimist. Always pleasantly disappointed. Try it!

I find your lack of unhappiness disturbing.

Oh, it's just a question of time, and I'll be unhappy for a while.
But then again: In fünfzig Jahren ist alles vorbei. Well, I hope for more, but you gotta be realistic.

Regina wrote:Oh, it's just a question of time, and I'll be unhappy for a while.
But then again: In fünfzig Jahren ist alles vorbei. Well, I hope for more, but you gotta be realistic.

Я буду иметь двадцать.

Me no speak Russki, only the basics: Mir! Drushba! Völkerfreundschaft!