lifegazer, what's the problem?

[hgc]

You've started a few threads, to discuss some big, meaty issues.

They don't seem to go anywhere. Sure some people, such as myself, have mostly responded with sarcasm and jokes, but some have also taken you seriously enough to get into substantive discussion.

But, you always say that people aren't addressing your point, not taking the issue head-on. What do you think the problem is? Do people here not understand what you're talking about? Is that because they don't have intellectual skills or the knowledge? Are they intentionally not addressing your point?

I'm wondering about other places where you discuss your philosophy, such as other Internet forums, or with people gathered in your dorm room. Do they ever have satisfying exchanges? Does anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you ever contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion?

[c4ts]

Sometimes you have to know your audience before you bring up anything for serious discussion. Since your audience is mostly skeptics, I suggest you start with something more down to earth and work your way up.

[lifegazer]

I'm not out for a personality award here, despite what Geoff might have said. My efforts are made to help shift human conciousness towards its final state. I want no reward or acclaim for myself.
It's a difficult job simply because of the goal and the attitudes of the time. But it's a job that has to be done by somebody.

[Yahweh]

Go spend some time on the Community forum, its good fun (that's where all the skepchicks hang out).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Go spend some time on the Community forum, its good fun (that's where all the skepchicks hang out).
Skepchicks are sexy. I live with one. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm not out for a personality award here, despite what Geoff might have said. My efforts are made to help shift human conciousness towards its final state. I want no reward or acclaim for myself.
It's a difficult job simply because of the goal and the attitudes of the time. But it's a job that has to be done by somebody.

I hate to burst your bubble Lifegazer but you are doing the same thing that has already been done to pieces by every newbie mystic in the world. But a flashlight does one no good if you just turn it towards your face and see what is solely in your mind.

So far your ideas have been older than the hills and smacking of an over monothiestic viewpoint.

What if the world ain't that way, and the vast Eternal Mind lies the other way for other people.

The true vision of mysticism is to help all finf thier own vision, not to cram them into your vision.

I rejoice in your vision, it is yours, now open your mind to the fact the it is yours. And therefore you are denying the Mind you speak of becaus eyou want to tell us all that your vision is the ONLY vision.
You seem to be reasonable, I try to understand you, but you seem to be here for a monolouge solely.

[lifegazer]

[i]Originally posted by Dancing

You seem to be reasonable, I try to understand you, but you seem to be here for a monolouge solely.
It's impossible to get anyone to address the actual content of my initial arguments. Anyone who browses through my latest thread will see exactly what I mean.
You too are guilty of avoiding the content of my argument. Though the guy called Billy is the most guilty.
So this "monologue" thing you mention is complete nonsense.

The deconstruction of an argument does not happen by imposing an opposite set of beliefs upon the proceedings.

[Wudang]

I think what anyone will see is that Upchurch and Mercutio are patiently trying to help you to understand the assumptions you are making, and you are either ignoring them or completely failing to understand what they are saying. It seems that your definition of "address the actual content of my initial arguments" is to agree with your naive assumptions.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's impossible to get anyone to address the actual content of my initial arguments. Anyone who browses through my latest thread will see exactly what I mean.
You too are guilty of avoiding the content of my argument. Though the guy called Billy is the most guilty.
So this "monologue" thing you mention is complete nonsense.

The deconstruction of an argument does not happen by imposing an opposite set of beliefs upon the proceedings. This relates to my question. You say that nobody here has addressed the actual content of your argument, but I can't see it. It seems to me that people have actually addressed your argument. So can you help me out by giving an example of where someone, somewhere has debated you and addressed the actual content of your argument? I am very curious.

I would also note, that a lot of what people have questioned your initial assumptions, which you had claimed should be agreeable to all. Is this the problem? If you can't get agreement on your initial assumptions, then can the argument ever progress?

[lifegazer]

Addressing the content of my argument is showing why the reasoning processes are wrong in that argument.
My previous argument, for example, about space & motion, simply states that the space between two points of existence cannot be nothing. Therefore, external space must be something. Therefore, this something must be indivisible or divisible, in itself.
This is obvious and simple logic to follow and is the basis of my conclusion. The methods of refutation, thus far, have amounted to me explaining away the pain of a kick in the nuts; me being told that I am assuming that I have sensation; and me trying to explain why differing perceptions can exist within the same greater Mind.
None of this is relevant to the initial argument about external space. Surely you can see this?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Wudang
I think what anyone will see is that Upchurch and Mercutio are patiently trying to help you to understand the assumptions you are making, and you are either ignoring them or completely failing to understand what they are saying. It seems that your definition of "address the actual content of my initial arguments" is to agree with your naive assumptions.

This happens frequently here, in my view, with a few posters.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Addressing the content of my argument is showing why the reasoning processes are wrong in that argument.
My previous argument, for example, about space & motion, simply states that the space between two points of existence cannot be nothing. Therefore, external space must be something. Therefore, this something must be indivisible or divisible, in itself.
This is obvious and simple logic to follow and is the basis of my conclusion. The methods of refutation, thus far, have amounted to me explaining away the pain of a kick in the nuts; me being told that I am assuming that I have sensation; and me trying to explain why differing perceptions can exist within the same greater Mind.
None of this is relevant to the initial argument about external space. Surely you can see this?

Before we tackle the "reasoning process" we should verify the initial postulates that the "reasoning process" starts from. Otherwise we might as well all be Kumar.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's impossible to get anyone to address the actual content of my initial arguments. Anyone who browses through my latest thread will see exactly what I mean.
You too are guilty of avoiding the content of my argument. Though the guy called Billy is the most guilty.
So this "monologue" thing you mention is complete nonsense.

The deconstruction of an argument does not happen by imposing an opposite set of beliefs upon the proceedings.

To merely state that"it must be divisible or indivisible" is not an argument either. That is an assertion, and an a priori assumption at that.

Logic and reason are tools, just becaus ethey are your logic and tolls does not make them better tools than anybody else.

The construction of an argument does not rest upon the endless repitition of an unprovable assertion.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
To merely state that"it must be divisible or indivisible" is not an argument either. That is an assertion, and an a priori assumption at that.

Logic and reason are tools, just becaus ethey are your logic and tolls does not make them better tools than anybody else.

The construction of an argument does not rest upon the endless repitition of an unprovable assertion.
Will somebody in here please explain to David that an entity is either divisible, or it is indivisible. Simple either/or choice David.
I don't want to make you look silly so please stop repeating this in every thread. You're wrong and need to accept this simple fact before you can proceed to follow my initial argument from the aforementioned thread.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Will somebody in here please explain to David that an entity is either divisible, or it is indivisible. Simple either/or choice David.
I don't want to make you look silly so please stop repeating this in every thread. You're wrong and need to accept this simple fact before you can proceed to follow my initial argument from the aforementioned thread.

So you say, lets see you prove it.

Oh I see , you mistake your finger fot the moon, and we didn't need the Apollo program, all we had to do was say the word moon and BOOM there we were. No need for rockets just point your finger and say moon.

Do you disappear when you close your eyes too?

Please make me look silly, it reflects on you as much as me, a pair of silly twins are we.

I dare you to post a poll and we will see who the community agrees with, hmmm....

Nyah Nyah nayh nyah

nanny nanny boo boo

[lifegazer]

Are you living in an institution by any chance? :p

Why is it so hard for you to realise that an entity/medium is either fragmentable/breakable/divisible... or that it is not?
Would it be easier for you to understand a similar statement: I am either right about this issue, or I am not.
Understand? Only two choices.

[MRC_Hans]

OK, lets try. I'm for trying.

Lifegazer:

Will somebody in here please explain to David that an entity is either divisible, or it is indivisible. That is what we call a tautology. Either an entity is divisible or it is not. Either it rains tomorrow or it does not. Perfectly true statements. And perfectly useless.

Hans

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Addressing the content of my argument is showing why the reasoning processes are wrong in that argument.
My previous argument, for example, about space & motion, simply states that the space between two points of existence cannot be nothing. Therefore, external space must be something. Therefore, this something must be indivisible or divisible, in itself.
This is obvious and simple logic to follow and is the basis of my conclusion. The methods of refutation, thus far, have amounted to me explaining away the pain of a kick in the nuts; me being told that I am assuming that I have sensation; and me trying to explain why differing perceptions can exist within the same greater Mind.
None of this is relevant to the initial argument about external space. Surely you can see this? I saw a lot more in that thread than kick in the nuts, assumption of sensation and differing perceptions in the same greater Mind, but I'm not going to attempt, in this thread, to recapitulate all the counter-arguments, as it has been done already in that thread.

What I do ask, again, is can you supply an example of where someone has supplied a relevant argument in disagreement to yours? I am truly mystified as to why you won't even acknowledge that anyone here has supplied a relevant argument in disagreement with yours, and I'm beginning to wonder if there is such a thing. Is there? Has there ever been? Has anyone disagreed with you before (on this topic)? Did they supply relevant arguments? Did you ever discuss this before? Please supply an example.

[lifegazer]

[i]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
That is what we call a tautology. Either an entity is divisible or it is not. Either it rains tomorrow or it does not. Perfectly true statements.

David, are you there?

And perfectly useless.

The statement isn't useless in relation to the argument I presented. Indeed, I made use of this truth to make a profound conclusion, as you probably know.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
What I do ask, again, is can you supply an example of where someone has supplied a relevant argument in disagreement to yours?

Not many. Here's something I found where Aoidoi at least had the decency to address, directly, individual points of a post of mine. Pity he didn't talk sense
too. ;)


ME: It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity.

HIM: Why must existence be enveloped by anything? It's not like you fall off the edge of the earth into nothing, why think you would fall off the edge of the universe into nothing?

ME:Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

Him: People have already used a sphere as an example. From the standpoint or the surface of the sphere the entire universe seems a slighly curved plane. If you walk far enough you end up back where you started. If there is no way off the sphere then it is a self contained exististance without being bounded by anything but the surface of the sphere, which exists.

So if the universe operates the same way, and we sent a probe out to the edge of the universe and it ends up coming back to us from the other direction, what does that show? (mind you the distances involved make this rather less than feasible as an actual experiment)

Me:There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.

HIM: ... they're both assumptions, and while it's possible to form an argument from them it seems many people in this thread dispute the second one. As far as I know it is not a "fact" as for it to be a fact it needs to be verifiable, and I don't believe there's a way to verify it. Perhaps someone else has an idea on that.

Though we disagree, he argues my points directly.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer



The statement isn't useless in relation to the argument I presented. Indeed, I made use of this truth to make a profound conclusion, as you probably know. No, I'm sorry, I guess it went over my head. Could you explain again, in simple terms: Which (profound) conclusion do you draw from the observation "an entitiy is either divisible or undivisible"?

Hans

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

David, are you there?

The statement isn't useless in relation to the argument I presented. Indeed, I made use of this truth to make a profound conclusion, as you probably know.

Maybe you lifegazer should look up tautology in the dictionary!

I dare you Lifegazer

Devise a test to decide if something is indivisible? Use unlimited resources. How does the test work?

The statement is totaly useless, I am trying to talk about the facts:
1. the nature of space time is not well defined. (Ask if a blobby shape has corners. What if it is a blurry shape?)
2. the nature of space/time may be that it is unified on one level and divisible on another. So what does that do for your cute little statement.
3. Space requires that things happen in it, but that does not mean that space is a medium like an atmosphere. What if particles carry thier own three dimensions with them and so space if fragmented for particles, but gravity is unifying, so space is unified for gravity.

The statement 'It will rain tomorrow or not rain tomorrow. ' is missing a qualifier that makes it possible to test. Can you find the missing qualifier Lifegazer?

[Dancing David]

I am arguing your point directly Lifegazer. You just assume your definition to be true, prove that the word indivisible has meaning.

Define a test for indivisible, then we can talk about applying it to the notion of space.

And no I don't live in an institution, sigh... they closed the Discordian Support House long ago, I now work at a Matriarchal Vision Center, I help children who are the victims of domestic violence. I also have a wife, two kids , a dog and a cat.

No institutions for me, I don't want another degree of education.