Who is your favorite Physicist?

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what examples from the objective reality of everyday world and life of mankind, Layman will present for us all to read and appreciate: how he understands what is a tautology as he knows of one, namely, the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I think you got it backwards, eh? If you intend to convey some unique knowledge and insight with your statement, why don't you tell us what it is, eh?

As I just said:

layman wrote:

I'm not sure what (all) you might mean by this...

1 Reply

@layman,

Do you notice, dear readers here, I have told Layman that posters always adopt the escape valve of asking me what I mean, because they don't get what I mean; and then they go into flippancy and eventually also into evasiveness, and finally, they end up with not exchanging thoughts with me.

Now, dear Layman, you know what is a tautology and it is of no cogntive profit to you at all.

No need to procrastinate, just present four examples of tautology from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind, okay?

Annex

Quote:

From Layman:

@Susmariosep,
Quote:
Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what examples from the objective reality of everyday world and life of mankind, Layman will present for us all to read and appreciate: how he understands what is a tautology as he knows of one, namely, the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."
I think you got it backwards, eh? If you intend to convey some unique knowledge and insight with your statement, why don't you tell us what it is, eh?

As I just said:

layman wrote:

I'm not sure what (all) you might mean by this...

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Heh, now you want to change the entire subject, for some reason? What's up with that?

I thought the entire purpose of your inquiry was to evaluate the meaning and significance of your #1 proposition. Why don't you elaborate and enlighten us, rather than trying to shift the whole conversation to evaluate *my* thinking, not yours?

What's your claim supposed to mean? Do you have any idea?

Quote:

posters always adopt the escape valve of asking me what I mean, because they don't get what I mean

Do you think it's some kind of shoddy "debate" tactic to ask you what you mean? Maybe you should make more of an effort to articulate and communicate your thoughts, rather than evading that by suggesting that others are trying to somehow abuse you if they don't understand your claims, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman, I started with the idea of getting you to concur with me on the statement from me as for a first premise in thinking on things, namely, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

You say that statement is a tautology, and wherefore it is of no cognitive profit to you.

You see, you bring up tautology, that gets us to for us to work together on what is a tautology.

As you bring up the word tautology, I am asking you to present four examples from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind, that are to you instances of tautology.

There, that is where we are, what is your pleasure at this point of our present exchange?

My point at this moment is for us to get to concur on what is a tautology, as you bring up that word, you have the privilele, right, and burden to tell me what it is, by simply bringing up four examples of tautology from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind.

You see, dear Layman, you do understand whatever it is you understand of the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," from which understanding you issue the judgment that it is a tautology.

That is why I am into your idea of tautology, as a starting point for us two to work together to concur or to not concur on the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

That is why I am asking you to present four examples of tautology from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind.

At this moment my purpose is to know what you know to be a tautology which you judge my statement to be, namely, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Let me read your reaction to this post, okay?

Perhaps you will say that I am deviating from my original issue, in which case, tell me what is my original issue?

Annex

Quote:

@Susmariosep,

Heh, now you want to change the entire subject, for some reason? What's up with that?

I thought the entire purpose of your inquiry was to evaluate the meaning and significance of your #1 proposition. Why don't you elaborate and enlighten us, rather than trying to shift the whole conversation to evaluate *my* thinking, not yours.

What's your claim supposed to mean? Do you have any idea?

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

That is why I am into your idea of tautology, as a starting point for us two to work together to concur or to not concur on the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

No, the "starting point" of your statement is your statement, not mine

What the **** are you trying to say, there? Got any ideas about that which you care to share?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

That is why I am into your idea of tautology, as a starting point for us two to work together to concur or to not concur on the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I concur that red is red, and that "reality exists," if that's all you're asking, by the way.

But the subject here is NOT "what is a tautology?" However, if you're curious about that, I just stated two of them.

1 Reply

@layman,

And, by the way, Parmenides said that what aint, aint. Nuthin aint nuthin. You can't even think of "nothing" because it doesn't exist; it is "no thing."

Seems rather obvious, don't it? A simple matter of definition.

Now he went on to deduce all kinda wild-ass conclusions using that simple observation as a premise, but that's a different story.

0 Replies

@layman,

No need to get to kcuf; you can't think straight with that.

Okay, you give the definition of tautology as a statement where the subject and the predicate are identical, that is a concept in your mind.

I am inquiring whether you can give four examples from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind, outside and independent of your mind's concepts.

You give two examples: red is red, and what exists is what exists.

Those examples of tautology are not from the objective reality of the world and life of mankind; they are all in your mind.

If you are talking with a person who does not know the words/concepts of red, is, what, exists, and you tell him, It is obvious that "red is red" and "what exists is what exists," they are tautologies, he will not even know what you are talking about, except that you are talking English, that much he can make out, because he knows that you are from an English speaking society like in America and in England and in Australia and also in the greater part of Canada.

What do you say, "Isn't tautology all in the mind, but in the objective reality of the world and life of man, there is no such thing as a statement that is a tautology, in the definition you give of a tautology."

You disagree with me?

Okay, then give four examples of tautology in the objective reality of the world and life of man.

So, also I am saying that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," that I admit it is a tautology, but it is not thereby of no cognitive profit at all.

You on the opposite hand, are of the view that for being a tautology, it is of no cognitive value.

There, that is how things stand between you and me.

My position is that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is of cognitive profit to mankind.

Your position is that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is of no cognitive profit, because it is a tautology.

Let us both take time out to sort out our thoughts, okay?

Annex

Quote:

From Layman:
@Susmariosep,

Quote:
From Susmariosep:

That is why I am into your idea of tautology, as a starting point for us two to work together to concur or to not concur on the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I concur that red is red, and that "reality exists," if that's all you're asking, by the way.

But the subject here is NOT what a tautology is. However, if you're curious about that, I just stated two of them.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," that I admit it is a tautology, but it is not thereby of no cognitive profit at all.

Well, good, at least we settled the tautology question.

Now do you care to elaborate on the "cognitive profit" that you seem to think it very important in this statement?

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear readers here, this is the text I had at the end of my preceding message:

Quote:

There, that is how things stand between you [Layman] and me [Susmairiosep].

My position is that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is of cognitive profit to mankind.

Your position is that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is of no cognitive profit, because it is a tautology.

Let us both take time out to sort out our thoughts, okay?

Okay, dear everyone here, in particular Layman, I have sorted out my thoughts.

So, dear Layman, let us we two start to work together to resolve the issue we are concerned with, namely:

Quote:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is of no cognitive profit, because it is a tautology.

Dear Layman, the issue is stated as coming from your part.

Is that all right with you Layman, or you want to resolve something else?

Or you want to draft the resolution in another fashion?

Dear readers here, this is an adventure of working together to resolve an issue, between me and Layman.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

That was a pretty long-ass post, just to end up saying nothing new, eh, Susie? If you really want to try to "resolve" anything, you could simply respond to my previous question (posed several times), to wit:

layman wrote:

Now do you care to elaborate on the "cognitive profit" that you seem to think it very important in this statement?

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman, are you going to work on a a draft of the issue or not?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

Dear Layman, are you going to work on a a draft of the issue or not?

Why would I? It aint my claim, and I don't even pretend to understand what it's supposed to mean.

It's your proposition, you explain it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman. you understand my statement that "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," as to judge it to be a tautology and wherefore of no cognitive profit to you.

Do you now deny that, namely, that you understand my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," and that you judge it to be a tautology, wherefore of no cognitive profit to you?

Dear readers here, we are now witnessing a behavior from Layman, which is to be stubbornly evasive to the issue at hand, namely, that we two work to resolve his contention which I take exception to, namely, his contention, that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," that for him it is a tautology, wherefore of no cognitive profit to him.

Let us sit back and await with bated breath, to witness what he will or how he will behave now: work on his draft of the issue to be resolved by us two, or continue with stubborn evasiveness.

1 Reply

@fresco,

BTW fresco, did you know that Rorty predicted the rize of Trump?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/19/donald-trump-us-election-prediction-richard-rorty

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

Let us sit back and await with bated breath, to witness what he will or how he will behave now: work on his draft of the issue to be resolved by us two, or continue with stubborn evasiveness.

Heh. You've got a lot of nerve accusing someone else of "stubborn evasiveness" when that's all you've done post, after post, after post, for the last 6-8 posts you've made.

Obviously you are totally incapable of even trying to say why you think your statement is meaningful or significant.

I can see why, because it aint.

Take your chickenshit games elsewhere, eh, Susie?

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman, you say:
"Obviously you [Susmariosep] are totally incapable of even trying to say why you think your statement is meaningful or significant."

Okay, dear Layman: first, you are getting to be impassioned in an disorderly manner, that is not the way to think straight at all.

Now, at this point, will you just enlighten everyone here, starting with yours truly, what is my original statement, then I will tell you why it is meaningful and significant.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness: first, whether Layman will calm down, and then take some concentration to tell everyone here starting with me, what is my original statement, for he says:
"Obviously you are totally incapable of even trying to say why you think your statement is meaningful or significant."

And dear Layman, no need to use unseemly language, okay?

By the way, dear Layman, you are now into the kind of behavior that you bemoan in Fresco and in Maxcondana.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Now, at this point, will you just enlighten everyone here, starting with yours truly, what is my original statement, then I will tell you why it is meaningful and significant.

He did tell you.

Your statement was: "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Layman asked: "Now do you care to elaborate on the "cognitive profit" that you seem to think it very important in this statement?"

Your answer is:

1 Reply

! Warning !

Persistent Troll Loose
(banned on other forums)

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Dear Glenn, thanks for your presence.

You see, Layman already understands the statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," in fact he judges it to be a tautology.

That is why I am at a loss why he still insists that I explain the statement.

My proposal is that we move on to exchange thoughts on how the statement for being a tautology is of no cognitive profit to him: that is his contention; my contention is that it is of cognitive profit.

But the man would not care to proceed to the next phase of the exchange, namely, how is my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, for being a tautology, how is it of no cognitive profit (or of cognitive profit), to mankind at all?

So, there, dear Glennn, what is your comment, or helpful intervention at this point?

Dear Layman, will you return and let us continue onward to discuss how a tautology that is to you with my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," how is it for you of no cognitive profit, but for me it is of cognitive profit?

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness, what is the reaction of Layman to my present post.

0 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know