Are you still ordering people around?

Regina wrote:Are you still ordering people around?

No, I just want them to read my reworded opinion.

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?

Or I you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?

No one - like yourself - who are already familiar with my entire philosophy need ask me any further questions.

I didn't find it coherent. I mostly forgot what it was but something about "consciousness can't be explained...(then I heard) derp-a-derp derp". The usual fare around here.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:...
Anyone who believes that the answer to the origination of consciousness can be found in any books are obvously living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?

Or I you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?

No one - like yourself - who are already familiar with my entire philosophy need ask me any further questions.

I didn't find it coherent. I mostly forgot what it was but something about "consciousness can't be explained...(then I heard) derp-a-derp derp". The usual fare around here.

Yes. The brain does have a tendency to ignore unwelcomed logic.

asdfjkl wrote:OK I am tired of people criticizing the way I post (no one on other forums does it) so I'll talk normally.
At first I believed that everything in the universe obeyed 1 law (the law of identity) and the logic that complements that law.
Then I realized that there are paradoxes that are self-evident. That would mean that logic is not a universal absolute and that self-evidence trumps it. Then I realized that self-evident things (the ones you directly perceive) are irrefutable; eg no matter how you put it, when you're observing a computer you're not observing a goose. Self-evident things exist for sure and self-evidence and existence sort of became synonymous in my mind, with logic becoming a flawed process....

What paradoxes?

How is logic flawed?

WTF? How did this post get here?

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Oh really? Have you read the books? Do you have some knockout argument for why you don't have to be bothered with the books?

Or I you like another recent poster here who 'just knows... derp'?

No one - like yourself - who are already familiar with my entire philosophy need ask me any further questions.

I didn't find it coherent. I mostly forgot what it was but something about "consciousness can't be explained...(then I heard) derp-a-derp derp". The usual fare around here.

Yes. The brain does have a tendency to ignore that which contradicts unwelcomed logic.

Or it could just be that your logic is flawed. Actually what what I found is that it was incomplete and assumptive.

asdfjkl wrote:...

testing, testing...

Ahh! That explains it.

asdfjkl wrote:...
Now with an object that is NOT self-evident, I'm not perceiving it in any way. I'm not touching it, seeing it, feeling it, etc. To me, it self-evidently makes no difference whether it exists or not. This is my worry: if the existence of self-evident objects is 100% irrefutable, is the nonexistence of non-self-evident objects equally 100% irrefutable?
The main reason it worries me is if it also applies to time (temporal solipsism) then that would mean that I am alone PLUS I'm eternally frozen in time (no past no future, just the present self-evident moment).
I actually had various other reasons to worry about this idea before (paradoxes of motion) so I got used to the idea (it isn't THAT bad) but an eternity of anything isn't exactly present.
So, do you think that this proves solipsism or not? And why?

lobawad responded quite well to this point. Your current self-evident sensory input is not the end of the story. We have reason and such. But if it's solipsism it's a damned fine one don't you think? Why not just run with it?

asdfjkl wrote:OK I am tired of people criticizing the way I post (no one on other forums does it) so I'll talk normally.

It's annoying to know that you can write like this. This is a philosophy forum, not facebook. Please respect that fact and continue to make the maximum amount of effort to make yourself as intelligible as possible, especially when you've got serious points to make or questions to ask. Now we know you are actually capable of communicating properly (I suspect, like me, many of us thought you were just uneducated or somehow impaired), please do not backslide.

Then I realized that there are paradoxes that are self-evident.

What paradoxes? You cannot make a comment like this without explaining yourself.

That would mean that logic is not a universal absolute and that self-evidence trumps it.

What? Fuck me, no thing can be 'evident' to the self which has not been rationally assessed. Do you think that the observation of [say] 'a tree', requires no thought in order to comprehend that it is a tree?

Without thought/judgement, observations would be meaningless, since you wouldn't have a clue about anything you were witnessing. You wouldn't even have a clue about your [relational] self.

... So, saying self-evidence trumps logic/reason, is akin to saying that guns trump weapons.

Then I realized that self-evident things (the ones you directly perceive) are irrefutable; eg no matter how you put it, when you're observing a computer you're not observing a goose.

When I'm observing Tom, I'm not observing Jerry. Does this mean that Tom & Jerry exist? No. So, of what relevance to metaphysics (and yes, every one of your threads is essentially an exploration into the metaphysical) is the term 'self evident', as you use it? It's of no relevance at all.

I tried explaining this to you in the other thread, but you don't appear to understand.

Self-evident things exist for sure

That's bollocks. You're not taking into account that the reality of something must be independent of your observation of it. That is, observing something is not synonymous with the thing's actual existence.

and self-evidence and existence sort of became synonymous in my mind, with logic becoming a flawed process.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
No one - like yourself - who are already familiar with my entire philosophy need ask me any further questions.

I didn't find it coherent. I mostly forgot what it was but something about "consciousness can't be explained...(then I heard) derp-a-derp derp". The usual fare around here.

Yes. The brain does have a tendency to ignore that which contradicts unwelcomed logic.

Or it could just be that your logic is flawed. Actually what what I found is that it was incomplete and assumptive.

Flawed logic. It is possible that there is no immunity.

asdfjkl wrote:@ Little Idiot: look, i was thinking 1 day and i realized that one thing that there is no way in hell you can contradict is the existence of selfevident observation.
and it seems like i observe that things that i cant sense don't exist.
for example it seems like i observe the nonexistence of xrays, you, etc.

Yes, I understand that. But I am trying to show you the difference between what it seems like and what you know.

We can not observe X-rays directly. We can observe the effects of X-rays, and conclude X-rays exist without observing them.
Please answer this question with a direct simple response.
Do you believe X-rays exist?

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

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.

Destroyer wrote:
Flawed logic. It is possible that there is no immunity.

For working in this forum, I wear a special Borsalino fedora lined with aluminum foil, expressly for the purpose of keeping out flawed logic. I won't reveal any details of the design of my undershorts, but I do have to protect future generations from this awful scourge.

Little Idiot wrote: But I am trying to show you the difference between what it seems like and what you know.

We can not observe X-rays directly. We can observe the effects of X-rays, and conclude X-rays exist without observing them.
Please answer this question with a direct simple response.
Do you believe X-rays exist?

It's the Flawed-Logic Rays (FLR) that you really have to watch out for. Invisible, silent. Tasteless, in a manner of speaking.

Cito wrote:
I won't reveal any details of the design of my undershorts,

A pity, that.

Regina wrote:

Cito wrote:
I won't reveal any details of the design of my undershorts,

A pity, that.

Why, do you see a business opportunity? I've already observed that you have a good head for business with all this stuff about budding science fiction authors. My stuff on special undershorts is as good as it gets until I generate hard copy, so to speak.

We've also got special foil tape for women for abdominal wrapping. One side effect is that this accentuates the disparity in diameter between the waist and the hips, so we find many wearers asking, "Does this foil tape make my butt look fat?"

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

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.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Flawed logic. It is possible that there is no immunity.

For working in this forum, I wear a special Borsalino fedora lined with aluminum foil, expressly for the purpose of keeping out flawed logic. I won't reveal any details of the design of my undershorts, but I do have to protect future generations from this awful scourge.

Little Idiot wrote: But I am trying to show you the difference between what it seems like and what you know.

We can not observe X-rays directly. We can observe the effects of X-rays, and conclude X-rays exist without observing them.
Please answer this question with a direct simple response.
Do you believe X-rays exist?

It's the Flawed-Logic Rays (FLR) that you really have to watch out for. Invisible, silent. Tasteless, in a manner of speaking.

I guess that we should all be extremely grateful to have your wisdom policing this forum.

Edit: spelling mistake

@ Cito: I do indeed see a business opportunity.
And about the abdominal wrapping for females: I can't help but feeling that if said wrapping is used wisely, it can in fact make one's bum look smaller.
It's ultimately a question of marketing.

Sorry to bum your high, I think you'll find that the market for abominable rapping is well saturated.