
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Regina wrote:Are you still ordering people around?
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.
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.
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....
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.
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE I've merged a duplicate of this thread into this one. There are enough of these centred around the same subject, so please keep the discussion here. Extra threads are not necessary for continuations of the same topic. If there are further questions, please contact me by private message. Do not discuss this modnote here. Spinozasgalt |
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Destroyer wrote:
Flawed logic. It is possible that there is no immunity.
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?
Cito wrote:
I won't reveal any details of the design of my undershorts,
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.
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.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests