3
   

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

 
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:06 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
If you really 'knew' what you were writing about you wouldn't have to hide behind 'logic'.
Well, that's the first clue.

Quote:
I am clearly not a scientist and neither are you
That's the second clue, because the definition used the phrase 'the science', not 'a scientist'. Science follows a set of investigative principle, which a scientist is trained in, but which anyone can follow.

Quote:
'Reason'? What is reason, where is reason? I've surely never come across it in my travels
That's the next clue - because all up you are trying to establish reasons not to answer the question

Quote:
'System' - what system? Where is this 'system'? Is there a place you can go to view this 'system'?
That's the fourth clue, said despite the fact that we have to use a system of language to communicate

Quote:
What 'principles'? Have you in your life ever come across any 'principles'? I surely have not, and 'correct'?
The fifth clue, because you have principles that help guide your life, help determine the style of your writing etc.

Quote:
'Persuasiveness' is another hint in the direction of these words giving you a certain conceptualization attached with them.
That's the sixth clue - All words have conceptual attachments. That's just a given. Trying to use a given for all words as grounds to argue away the usefulness of a single word is silly, considering you find many other words useful to establish your 'logic'. Now if you wanted to argue that a word doesn't quite encompass what you are trying to convey - that would be wonderful...but in this case you are just trying to avoid answering a question, or giving a sensible answer....hence it being the sixth clue.

Quote:
Don't 'you' have to be there for 'logic' to even be an option?
And despite your objections to you, you now admit the concept exists. And were you to use logic, and I to read it then we would both have used logic. Two 'you' (s) if you prefer, were there for logic to be an option.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:15 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
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.
Your theory that 'you are the only one who is alive'. It's a theory that by it's very definition, must deny the life in others'. As others obviously exist, you need to see whether they are alive or not. Hence you need to test that (though logic would save you from the need to test it).

Quote:
'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.
Another assumption? You would think by now that you would be getting tired of stating things that you can't justify. Mathematics is the purest form of logic. Please explain how anyone using maths
Quote:
wants to give the illusion(thought) of 'smartness' to all who would hear it. Nothing more, nothing less.
. And please explain what happens when you buy multiple things at a store and get overcharged (or shortchanged) or have to take inventory of items together with another person (and they get something wrong and you have to explain it to them), or any similar thing involving maths? Are you then just wanting to give the illusion of smartness to all who would hear it? Or are you just stating mathematical fact (ie. logic)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:16 pm
@vikorr,
You really take the time to go step by step in dismantling is argument...I don´t know how you can bare it...are n´t you tired ?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:17 pm
@vikorr,
What point-of-view are you defending and what are you getting out of it by defending?

'Language' is an expression of Be-ing. 'System' is a label(word) used to categorize or to 'sum up' whatever it is attributed to.

I have absolutely no principles that help 'guide my life' in any way shape or from. Now, maybe you do, but that's because you're afraid to go 'off on your own' because you've always relied on the approval of the crowd.

Words do have conceptual attachments, and 99.99% of the population are merely 'living' off of the attachments. They refuse to see where they came from and that just maybe things are only 'done' this way because we've agreed upon it.

This is also why you post in the way you do, by speaking in 'clues' you are attempting to give me the illusion(and pass it off as 'logic', 'theory' or 'facts') that 'I' am in the wrong and are in need of your correction. However if you were really secure in who you are, you wouldn't try to correct my posts but add to them. If we are truly going to penetrate into the field of study, all of our 'thoughts' need to be for the subject. Not in any defense of a commonly accepted/agreeable point-of-view.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:27 pm
@vikorr,
It does not 'deny the life in others' but shows to each one that reads it that 'he/she' is the only one alive. If you 'caught' that conceptualization you would see how it is accurate.

Everyone makes 'assumptions', yet they don't stop doing it or stop making them. When you turn on the water faucet to take a shower, do you not 'assume' the water will be hot? Or rather, that water will come out at all? When you talk to other people, do you not 'assume' that they will respond? When you attempt to argue with 'JPLosman0711', do you not 'assume' he will argue back?

My 'assumptions' are far more justifiable than 'logic' or 'mathematics', and so are yours. You just keep making the mistake that they need the approval of others.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:35 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
However if you were really secure in who you are, you wouldn't try to correct my posts but add to them.

By the way, 'correcting' is adding to, literally. Unless of course the 'correcting' is not understood, or is itself in error.
Quote:
If we are truly going to penetrate into the field of study,
I thought you objected to being called a scientist?
Quote:
all of our 'thoughts' need to be for the subject. Not in any defense of a commonly accepted/agreeable point-of-view.
Ah the last clue. I must agree with you, and help you develop your theory, despite any flaws that are apparent to me. In order to do this I must not question you, or ask you to explain how (the flaws I see in) your theory works.... but must then somehow add to a thing that makes no sense to anyone but you.

JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:42 pm
@vikorr,
No. The 'correcting' is you finding your own flaws in the 'ground' you are standing on.

You read 'If we are truly going to penetrate into the field of study' and it gave you the conceptualization of a 'scientist' and because we were just talking about it you spat it back in my face, nice try.

There is no 'theory to develop', nor is there anyone to develop it for. That last statement was you attempting to have 'me' running around in circles with you, and because you'd have me 'dizzy' I'd either end up agreeing with you or storming away with my arms folded. You'd win either way.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:43 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Everyone makes 'assumptions', yet they don't stop doing it or stop making them. When you turn on the water faucet to take a shower, do you not 'assume' the water will be hot?
What a wonderful picture...and if the water did not come out, I would stop assuming that water was going to come out (perhaps until the problem that lead to it not coming out was fixed)
Quote:
It does not 'deny the life in others' but shows to each one that reads it that 'he/she' is the only one alive. If you 'caught' that conceptualization you would see how it is accurate.
Ah I see, you don't want yourself or others to read the language you used as is...go back and read what I wrote at the start...if your theory were the case, then you would get two people looking at each other, each thinking 'I'm the only that's alive, so he can't be alive'. Which of course is a nonsense. Rephrase your theory and it would probably be accepted.

So I guess, unless you are willing to rephrase your theory, and use language that has accepted structure and definitions (which is almost the only way in language that proper communication can happen without misunderstanding), then there is little point continuing.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Hi Fil,

Despite JPL's continued problems with imagining nefarious motivations for my posts (the fears stuff is very amusing - he really should ask himself why he keeps imagining those things), I find myself quite mellow towards others points of view, even if I disagree with them. Of course, at times there comes a point where it loses it's amusement factor, and loses any meaning in continuing, and I think it has reached that point now Smile
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 03:49 pm
@vikorr,
You would stop assuming, but then as you took your first step to go fix the problem you would 'assume' that the ground will be there to catch your foot.

As these 'two people' are staring at eachother, who is it that has noticed them? Who is it that is now commenting/reporting the fact that each one of them being the only one who is alive is nonsense? Where is all this taking place?

You have obviously 'understood' everything you've read so far, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to respond.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Feb, 2011 04:18 pm
@vikorr,
As long as you keep having fun go for it...I in turn am getting old for this degree of noise...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 11:12:09