You are the only one who is 'alive'.............

eh ? just words on the screen ? bravo...

Very well done JP. I think we should both take my advice and go to the profiles of Fil and Vikorr and click on "Ignore User". We both know this isn't heading anywhere of value and the responses we make will only be more ammunition for the 'ground' they stand on.

It looks like it will take some time before they 'get' it, if they ever do. As I said previously 99.999% of the time they will take what you say and "spit it back in your face". You don't have to play pattycake with their 'turd'. I for one have already made the trip to their profile page.

I wish you would have the smallest insight of wisdom to simply notice how your pretension spits in everybody´s faces around the forum...not that such trait is exclusively yours unfortunately...

Yes but remember what you told me earlier? "Philosophy is about the people in the seats."

If 'they' want to keep running into the 'wall', that's fine. It's just 'our' job to continue to show them the way around.

Where is it that you misinterpret 'his' words as spitting in the face of everyone on the forum? If what you were stating was truly valid, then wouldn't 'everyone on the forum' be greater than his words? Are you all 'slaves' to his words? His words come from his 'thoughts', are you saying that everyone on this forum are subject to his 'thoughts'? So now 'one man's thoughts' have gained dominion and power over everyone on the forum? I believe it is YOU who have allowed 'his thoughts(words)' to effect you in this way.

Again, you're just reading text on a screen. If what YOU read 'hurts' YOU, then who's really 'hurting' who here? And why? - LMFAO

Oh my god, this conversation has seriously decended into farce - amusing in a way, but still a farce... your theory - you know the one you started - the title of this thread?
For that to make sense there would have to be an assumption that any desire to correct flaws in logic is itself flawed and in need of correction (feel free to correct me if that is interpreted wrongly). Take that assumption down to to it's end path, and mathematics would not be engaged in, physics would be done away with, and laws would suffer the same problem...and the world would probably end in chaos

Your words between the two quotes of yours I posted...they contain such erroneous assumptions that I can't be bothered addressing them.

Dasein - it certainly would be fine if you put me on ignore - your 'behaviour' here has been wonder making for it's hmmm....deceptiveness (though that isn't the encompassing word, if one exists). It's a challenge talking with people that engage in such, because they usually believe they are not engaging in it, but if they can't eventually see their own behaviour for what it is, it does eventually lose it's appeal - there's only so much you can do to point out their behaviour.

It's not a 'theory', it's a post. Like I said, text on a computer screen. If YOU so feverishly feel the need to categorize it as a 'theory', well then I can't possibly be expected to live up to your own categorizations.

'Making sense' is a funny thing, when you require what you read/see/hear to 'make sense' you are asking for proof. Categorize what you see/read/hear to making sense/not making sense and watch your 'self' become limited to two choices. All you're doing here is trying to create certainty where there simply isn't any. When some'thing' 'makes sense', that means it is understandable/provable and you can easily go running around telling everyone how much 'sense' you make.

I also fail to see the 'sense'(wink) in your statement about how a mere assumption could possibly end the world in chaos. Text on a screen only does as much 'damage'(metaphorically) as YOU say it does, obviously as you are the only one who is reading it. There is no one else sitting at your computer, is there?

How is this text affecting any 'laws'? Laws? What laws? - LOL

I only wonder why we still are in this Thread...you, I don´t really know but I probably must have started the first Alzheimer´s symptoms only by keeping up in the nonsense with this guys...

Hi Fil - there are many reasons that I visit these forums, and this thread has contained some things of interest to me also. Among other things :
- I enjoy having my thoughts challenged. A healthy mind contributes to a healthy body and a healthy spirit
- I enjoy being exposed to other ideas, other concepts.
- I have a particular interest in self deception, and of the methods used to self decieve, I find the use of diversionary tactics particularly interesting.
- I also have an interest in 'the whole picture'.

That said, some parts of this thread are growing old.
Ah I see - once again you don't wish to test your assumption/theory against the whole. If that assumption were true, and applied, then the results would be...

Saying 'it's just words' on a page (which of course the words on the page exist, as also does the concepts and idea's that you are putting forth with the words) is a convenient excuse not to test nor apply logic to your theories when asked. Remember you are the one that started this thread, and the one who keeps making further assumptions. Having created assumptions etc - test them, apply logic to them, and see if they stand up...but if not, don't expect that others will just fall over themselves to agree with you.
Your definitions have undergone a massive shift in this quoted post of yours :
From Dictionary.com
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Actually, firstly and at the very least - I'm asking for logic from you (because as you mentioned - it's words here). Physical tests wouldn't be needed because your theory fails the logic test. But if you couldn't comprehend the flawed logic, then a physical test is a good way to test your theory (and sometimes it's the simplest way to say - hey, here's how you've got it wrong)... but here's the definitions of logic :
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move

Stop hiding behind 'logic'.

If you really 'knew' what you were writing about you wouldn't have to hide behind 'logic'.

Let's take a look at how the dictionary and the rest of the world defines 'logic':

Logic - noun

1. The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2.A particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3.The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4.Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5.Convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

Now let's take a look at them more closely.

1. The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

I am clearly not a scientist and neither are you. A 'scientist' is a word that was created by people who wanted to make 'all who heard it' depict them as a source of knowledge. What 'principles'? Have you in your life ever come across any 'principles'? I surely have not, and 'correct'? Who is it that is deeming these 'governing principles' correct? The person who made the original assertion is the same one who deems it 'correct'?? I am sorry but I fail to see the 'logic' there!(LMAOO)

2.A particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

'Method of reasoning or argumentation' - what is it that these words signify? Are they not just thoughts? Don't YOU have to be there for these words to have their 'meaning'?

3.The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

'System' - what system? Where is this 'system'? Is there a place you can go to view this 'system'? Do they have it on display at the local museum? Where is this knowledge that we are attempting to apply this 'branch' of principles? Aren't these just words that are 'designed' to give you certain thoughts so you will stay 'in your place'?

4.Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

'Reason'? What is reason, where is reason? I've surely never come across it in my travels. 'Sound' judgment, who is it that is deeming it 'sound'? Is it really anyone's business what her 'moves' are? Why are we limiting her by contesting that all her movements should be 'logical'?

5.Convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

This has to be my personal favorite. 'Convincing forcefulness', I don't know about you but I'd hate to have someone 'convincing' me something 'forcefully'. Regardless of how 'logical' they are. 'Persuasiveness' is another hint in the direction of these words giving you a certain conceptualization attached with them. When they hit you with 'inexorable truth', you are expected to stand at attention(metaphorically) and automatically and unquestionably take what is said thereafter as 'true'(due to the 'inexorable').

Now having said all that, it seems to me that 'logic' is just another word used by 'philosophy buffs' like you who want to fit in with that crowd and the thoughts/conceptualizations attached with your 'gatherings'.

Don't 'you' have to be there for 'logic' to even be an option? What about right now, who is reading this right now? Isn't it you? Who else could it be?

Seek logical/illogical explanations and watch your 'self' become limited to two choices.

Is not Logic the object to attain in your very own reply to others ? How do you expect to convince them ?

I am not trying to 'convince' anyone of anything, and neither should you. Trying to 'convince' someone come from a lack of certainty on the 'ground' you are standing on. It's sort of like a drowning person who is 'convincing' the one who was swimming next to him that he ought to drown with him - LMAOO!!

Honestly look at you...you just did tried to convince me of that !

Did I?

Or did I just post what I posted and because 'you' are still on the previous couple of threads, your 'mind/conceptualization' is still on the topic of 'convincing' and therefor you spit it right back out?

Dunn dunnn dunnnnnnnnnnnnn

Was I not addressed to make sure you were not trying to convince anyone ?
That is to convince me that you were not trying to convince me ???
Pathetic !!!

If you were secure in who you are, you wouldn't use such words as 'pathetic'.

Listen did you READ the post above ??? Is there anything SOLID you want to counter in it ? No ?
So just get lost then !

Well JPL, now that we have established that I have correctly used the word Theory...what do you find wrong with testing your theory against the whole?

2ndly, if you don't wish to apply logic (and I do see you trying to do this, despite your attempts to imply it doesn't exist, or you can't use it, or some such), what is the point of you posting here?

As much of a waste of time it would be for 'me' to do so, I'd be glad to(just for you) if you could explain to me what 'whole' you are talking about here.

'Logic' is word used by people who want to give the illusion(thought) of 'smartness' to all who would hear it. Nothing more, nothing less.