@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:LOL. therefore you have an inate and very strong preference for self-preservation... But imagine you have time to think? Like if a car was not-so-slowly rolling in your direction. What do you do, and what is your thought process?
I behave pretty much the way anyone else behaves in that situation. My past experiences tell me that getting hit by large objects hurts. It looks like you're still trying to construct yet another bizarre straw man. For a brief while there, I thought we had a chance at a mutually respectful rational discourse. I can't understand why you insist on creating one straw man after another.
Quote:I don't know about Pyrrhon, but you do doubt your own sensory input: your sensation of your self, your experience of self.
Where did I say that I doubted the sense of self or my experience of it? Either you're honestly misunderstanding me or deliberately making another straw man out of another
non sequitur, or maybe something else, but whatever it is, you're still not actually, accurately addressing anything I've said.
Quote:IOW, why do you not doubt the existence of a referent in the case of a thing outside of you, and independant from you, but you do doubt the existence of the referent when it is "in" or equal to you? That seems absurd.
No, it seems contradictory (to you, anyway). Absurd means something else. Check a dictionary.
You seem to still be working on the assumption that being skeptical (doubting in the sense of questioning, investigating, not claiming) is equivalent to claiming that something doesn't exist. I didn't say the self doesn't exist, I don't say cars don't exist.
If you read what I actually say, and respond to what I actually say, instead of jumping to conclusions and making unfounded assumptions, we might actually be able to make progress here. Might I suggest that instead of assuming that I mean X, how about just asking me if I mean X? That would prevent a lot of this confusion, I think.
