My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Sabina looking like 7/(of) 9...joke aside the video is interesting even if trivial!

Thank you, Albuquerque.

I, too, have been thinking about the concepts inherent in discussions of the sort in which we are currently engaged...actually, a lot longer than the last 30 years. I came to the agnostic position at about age 25...so that means I have been at this for the last 60 years.

I honestly do not know if there is a GOD...and I cannot find a cogent argument which suggests it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there is no GOD. By the same token, I cannot find a cogent reason which suggests it is more likely that no god exists than that at least one GOD exists.

When a person asserts that "there is a GOD" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there is not" or "it is more likely that no god exists than that at least one GOD does"...I challenge the assertion.

Mostly, people who assert "there is a GOD" or "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there is not"...simply pass on the challenge...and say, "I 'believe' there is...and that is that."

When I challenge someone who asserts that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one"...the challenge is accepted...and the person making that assertion goes from argument to argument supposedly proving, in some way, that they are correct.

All I ever do is to assert, correctly, that I do not know and that I, personally, cannot arrive at "there is...or that it is more likely that there is" or "there isn't...or that it is more likely that there isn't" using logic, reason, science, or math.

I have never heard a persuasive argument for either of those positions...and although, as I said, the people arguing the former often simply go to, "I just 'believe' there is"...the people arguing the latter refuse that option, and insist that their logic, reason, science or math is valid.

You have done that here...and that is your right.

But I maintain that all you and the others arguing your position are doing is "believing"...which I see as essentially guessing.

If you are going to insist that your logic shows there cannot be a GOD because your logic shows such an existence to be impossible...best we do what you seem to want to do...end the discussion. It has been fun...and I thank your for your time.

I thank you for your civil response and I accept your position on the matter at hand. As far as my position is concerned the arguments I presented are currently the best I can think off, if they did not met your criteria I am sorry, I can't do any better for the time being. Nonetheless they are truly my own reasoning on the matter and for all that I can observe within my cognitive limits there is no flaw in them, at least not any glaring flaw!

Anyway it was a nice little round of back n forth! Enjoy the sun Frank cya later!

South Asia Geo politics quick summary:

Americas 10 year delay to counter the China activity and influence in Africa and other poor nations worldwide:

Me and Parmenides on Eternalism:

I arrived at Parmenides conclusions before I read Parmenides in my young age, and to this day I have yet to disagree with him on anything...when I read him I was astounded with the similarity of my own thought process and the one he had! I posed the same questions, I arrived to the same conclusions, I to started with the problematic on the illusory concept of nothingness, non being, and from there I derived all the ramifications from what Is-ness must mean...by the time I read Einstein and got to the idea of a 4D block Universe, where Is-ness is indeed permanent, where the magical concept of "emergence" is nonsense, I was convinced on just how premonitory and what an intellectual giant Parmenides was for his day and age! Moreover on how he did it with such clear cut Occam's Razor approach without complications...the simplicity of his arguments is to my eyes extremely elegant!

As years passed by all my very personal, very informal journey through Philosophy was made under the scrutiny of Parmenides principles, the very ones I started with on my own accord and self inquiry, for a serious thinking about the ultimate nature of Reality!

PS - As some of you well know by now the most thinking I do is on foundational topics, on first principles, on Ontology, I have very little interest on other subjects of debate, which I revise en passent now and then but that can't caught my genuine attention before I get the basics, the pillars of language and thought, thus what really draws my energy my inquiry is always related to peeling of concepts to their bare bones or pair them, associate them, with other hidden similar concepts that at a first glance do not seem relatable.

This interview is particularly informative to some Scientists...take it away Sean!

A final note on my previous post:

Science is at odds with its own clumsy philosophizing not with Philosophy at large from which it depends from first principles in conceptual languaging!

It can be the case that it is true, it can be the case that it was planted to try to scare red neck zombies into abandoning Trump...whatever is the case given what Trump is is justified IMO!

Universal computation and counterfactual computation with Sabina:

"Potential outcomes" steam from epistemic uncertainty and incompleteness! It assumes things could be different but when you look at your entire past all you had is one outcome at a time for every so called "hypothetical" two your epistemic uncertainty raised...a very persistent illusion...I would go further and claim, one illusion that is essential for all living creatures computing through the idea they are in control of their own actions! Life is thus a fundamentally flawed illusion, and still a phenomenological fact that is part of the bigger set Reality with a capital R contains!

Conclusion illusions are real things to!
(just like a cartoon is a real cartoon, or a dream is a real dream!...)

Bullshizz jobs:

I will quote myself from another debate I had on this topic, namely about minds creating Realities, and the paradox such thought entails...to the point:

Wrote in the 80's and forgotten by Cronenberg by many years, finally filmed now, Crimes of the future is a must see! Here is the interview:
(Warning some spoilers ahead)

A trivial visit to Time and Space only recommended because you can enjoy a calm well composed voicing and good sound editing, a rarity these days...

As far as I've been preaching for the last decade it is broccoli all the way down!
Anyway, take it away Sabina: