I just don't understand Franko [Archive]

Doctor X

23rd February 2003, 10:52 PM

Nothing like a little bit of truth to stike a nerve in a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit.

Dr X. (Idiot A-Theist (sic) fruitcake)

Not even an imaginative argumentum ad hominem

Debate me like a Man then you chickensh*t motherf*cker.

Such the vulgarian. I am afraid I confine my affairs to gentlemen, not to those who apparently discovered speech from the gutter that bore them.

Nevertheless, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit made claims and could not answer them.

He fled from questions asking him to justify his boasts based upon the science of consciousness.

Coward.

Why do you constantly make these ad hominem attacks in lieu of explaining your beliefs?

It was the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit who attempted to apply obscene arguments to other including You Humble Narrator who, of course, remains always "measur'd in manner and speech."

This remains an attempt to deter attention from his crime; his attempt to sully the honor of his betters.

Liar.

On the contrary, he bandies about his beliefs as facts. He should not feel threatened when asked to support them. That he does not makes him a coward at best and dishonest at worst.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

[Two?--Ed.]

See the other post on the Belief in God thread.

[Carry on.--Ed.]

Incidentally, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit kindly provides an example of such behavior:

Why is it that it is okay for your to believe in your ?free willy? god based on NO EVIDENCE, . . .

despite the puerile failure at wit, this attempt to attach opinions and beliefs to others rather exposes him.

That he complains about his treatment whilst behaving in such an excretable fashion does prove quite hypocritical.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

Various non sequitur et argumentum ad hominem whinning follow. . . .

You won?t dare debate me because you just know that I will expose you for the complete idiot and loser that you truly are.

Dear me . . . I have stripped him bare, laid him exposed to the Light of Truth [All Rights Reserved--Ed.] and listen to him gnash his teeth.

If he was honest, a man of honor, and a man of character--if he wished a debate--he would have answered the question or honestly admitted he could not.

He would cease to lie about other posters.

He would not bawl about his reception.

To quote an old Sargent: "There is no shame being born in the *****, but there is ever so much for wanting to stay there."

Apparently, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit enjoys his stye to much to join the League of Gentlemen.

Alas.

--J.D.

subgenius

23rd February 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Nothing like a little bit of truth to stike a nerve in a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit.

Not even an imaginative argumentum ad hominem

Such the vulgarian. I am afraid I confine my affairs to gentlemen, not to those who apparently discovered speech from the gutter that bore them.

Nevertheless, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit made claims and could not answer them.

He fled from questions asking him to justify his boasts based upon the science of consciousness.

Coward.

It was the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit who attempted to apply obscene arguments to other including You Humble Narrator who, of course, remains always "measur'd in manner and speech."

This remains an attempt to deter attention from his crime; his attempt to sully the honor of his betters.

Liar.

On the contrary, he bandies about his beliefs as facts. He should not feel threatened when asked to support them. That he does not makes him a coward at best and dishonest at worst.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

[Two?--Ed.]

See the other post on the Belief in God thread.

[Carry on.--Ed.]

Incidentally, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit kindly provides an example of such behavior:

despite the puerile failure at wit, this attempt to attach opinions and beliefs to others rather exposes him.

That he complains about his treatment whilst behaving in such an excretable fashion does prove quite hypocritical.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

Various non sequitur et argumentum ad hominem whinning follow. . . .

Dear me . . . I have stripped him bare, laid him exposed to the Light of Truth [All Rights Reserved--Ed.] and listen to him gnash his teeth.

If he was honest, a man of honor, and a man of character--if he wished a debate--he would have answered the question or honestly admitted he could not.

He would cease to lie about other posters.

He would not bawl about his reception.

To quote an old Sargent: "There is no shame being born in the *****, but there is ever so much for wanting to stay there."

Apparently, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit enjoys his stye to much to join the League of Gentlemen.

Alas.

--J.D.
His goddess approves of being vulgar, rude, and hateful.

24th February 2003, 02:18 AM

CWL

24th February 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Franko has an important point. There is a lot of A-Theist psychic nonsense that has to be debunked in R&P. I think I am going to have to come back and start posting in this section again.

JK

If you do, perhaps you can have another go at debunking gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9858&pagenumber=2)? Your last attempt was... shall we say... interesting?

Ceinwyn

24th February 2003, 05:11 AM

At least muscleman has some interesting points, he doesn't just go "TLOP=YOU=CAR" etc etc boring *****.

Note to Franko: every time you come into a thread and do that, I roll my eyes and scroll right past.

subgenius

24th February 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by CWL

If you do, perhaps you can have another go at debunking gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9858&pagenumber=2)? Your last attempt was... shall we say... interesting?
Thanks for the link. Its hard to believe that he's even more obstinately stupid than I thought.
He even used the phrase "bodily fluids."

Hypocolius

24th February 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by CWL

If you do, perhaps you can have another go at debunking gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9858&pagenumber=2)? Your last attempt was... shall we say... interesting?

Thanks for posting that link CWL, that was hilarious! Sorry I missed it first time around.:D

Franko

24th February 2003, 07:07 AM

If you do, perhaps you can have another go at debunking gravity? Your last attempt was... shall we say... interesting?

Coming from the gang who think that Humans consist of billions and billions of "Gravitons", and that Gravitons have something to do with a magical little (non-existent) particle called the "Higg's Boson", I find this absolutely f*cking hysterical.

The Fool

24th February 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Coming from the gang who think that Humans consist of billions and billions of "Gravitons", and that Gravitons have something to do with a magical little (non-existent) particle called the "Higg's Boson", I find this absolutely f*cking hysterical.

I noticed that Franko has passed 6000 posts. Compulsive obsessive disorder is truly a wonderful thing...

Doctor X

24th February 2003, 03:31 PM

"Never have so many, been so proud, of accomplishing so little, with so much."

--A Collegue's Comment on MENSA.

Rather applies.

So much volume.

So little substance.

--J.D.

Jedi Knight

24th February 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I noticed that Franko has passed 6000 posts. Compulsive obsessive disorder is truly a wonderful thing...

You are just jealous.

JK

UserGoogol

24th February 2003, 06:12 PM

Coming from the gang who think that Humans consist of billions and billions of "Gravitons", and that Gravitons have something to do with a magical little (non-existent) particle called the "Higg's Boson", I find this absolutely f*cking hysterical.

Um, no. Current scientific theory amd experimentation states that humans are peobably made mostly of quarks and electrons, and that gravitons (maybe) spread the gravatation influence of such particles to other particles at the speed of light. At any rate, gravity does spread one way or another.

I've heard of the "Higg's Boson," but I don't think its so popular as a theory anymore, as, as you state, there isn't a heck of a lot of proof for it.

--

Franko's principle is simple, although, in my opinion, not exactly correct.

He says that atoms (Quarks... whatever.) are completely controlled by the laws of nature, ergo, everything made of atoms are completely controlled by the laws of nature. And, given a sufficiently broad definition of "laws of nature," this might not be wrong.

He goes on to make some statements on conciousness which seem to go along the lines that control of something implies comparatively greater conciousness than the thing controlled. I don't entirely understand this, because he also says that free will does not exist, and that everything is deterministic. (I might agree that there's no free will, personally.)

He then concludes that the laws of nature, (TLOP) can be described as God, (goddess, actually) and that it is more concious than people are.

Franko

24th February 2003, 07:22 PM

UG:

You’re an untouchable I bet …

Um, no. Current scientific theory and experimentation states that humans are probably made mostly of quarks and electrons, and that gravitons (maybe) spread the gravatation influence of such particles to other particles at the speed of light. At any rate, gravity does spread one way or another.

I realize that this is what the current dogma of A-Theism maintains (and make NO mistake – it’s Dogma, and nothing more), you need to understand that a lavish support system evolves by necessity even around the “Theory of Aether” . But then some day a patent clerk, or some other nitwit yells, HEY! The Emperor is naked! Or “The Earth isn’t Flat and Motionless, IT’S ROUND AND MOVES!

And then, shortly afterwards everyone says … Ohh, yes, that was rather obvious now that you think about it. Why didn’t anyone notice that sooner?

I've heard of the "Higg's Boson," but I don't think its so popular as a theory anymore, as, as you state, there isn't a heck of a lot of proof for it.

Yeah, another A-Theist fiasco! Ten billion dollars plus, in search of the Holy Grail.

Franko's principle is simple, although, in my opinion, not exactly correct.

He says that atoms (Quarks... whatever.) are completely controlled by the laws of nature, ergo, everything made of atoms are completely controlled by the laws of nature. And, given a sufficiently broad definition of "laws of nature," this might not be wrong.

First of all … define “sufficiently broad”? Do you have an escape hatch from this Universe when you need to take a break from TLOP? Second of all, what do you mean “might not be wrong”? How could it possible be wrong unless you are claiming that you can control the laws of physics?

He goes on to make some statements on consciousness which seem to go along the lines that control of something implies comparatively greater consciousness than the thing controlled. I don't entirely understand this, because he also says that free will does not exist, and that everything is deterministic. (I might agree that there's no free will, personally.)

Okay, you are right on it. Think about this, you have one of those radio controlled miniature cars. You are driving it around. Which “entity” is controlling, and which entity is being controlled? The situation is exactly analogous with TLOP and You, except now TLOP is the guy with the remote, and You are the miniature Car. Do you see what I am getting at?

Ever seen the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey? Remember the Black Stele? They were supposed to be “Superior Alien life forms”, perhaps a watcher (or guider of humanity). Part of the point of that film was, imagine that you are the “Dog”, or the “Monkey”, now from this POV, what does a superior evolved life form “look” like? How would you perceive him or Her?

… A big old Guy with a beard and a white robe appearing out of the clouds the limit of your imagination on that one? If that is the case, then I’d urge you (sincerely) to think about it a little more.

He then concludes that the laws of nature, (TLOP) can be described as God, (goddess, actually) and that it is more conscious than people are.

Well … maybe now you understand the “why” a little better?

Don’t feel you have to misbehave yourself just because you perceive these other A-Theists doing it. Don’t let their bad karma become your own.

CWL

25th February 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Coming from the gang who think that Humans consist of billions and billions of "Gravitons", and that Gravitons have something to do with a magical little (non-existent) particle called the "Higg's Boson", I find this absolutely f*cking hysterical.

Franko, you are most welcome to set the record straight. You can start by explaining how quantum gravity works and how you came to discover this. There is a whole thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458) waiting for you, remember?

wraith

25th February 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Cowardice.

Dishonesty.

Hypocrasy.

Rather easy to understand, unfortunately.

--J.D.

Take a hike dr dick....
nothing to see here
haha

Franko

25th February 2003, 06:13 AM

Franko, you are most welcome to set the record straight. You can start by explaining how quantum gravity works and how you came to discover this. There is a whole thread waiting for you, remember?

I'm not in the habit of handing loaded guns to children.

... especially "children" who don't believe in consequences for their actions ...

MRC_Hans

25th February 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm not in the habit of handing loaded guns to children.

... especially "children" who don't believe in consequences for their actions ... Har, har, har! "I do have the Sacred Knowledge, but you are not Worthy of it."

Bzzzzt! Kook detector, condition PURPLE.

How sad to see you stoop so low, pal.

Hans

CWL

25th February 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm not in the habit of handing loaded guns to children.

... especially "children" who don't believe in consequences for their actions ...

Franko, I am forced to agree with Hans. With statements like that you are effectively placing yourself in the same category as Sylvia Browne et al. We both know that you don't want that.

Come on Franko, "the gun" cannot be that dangerous. Why would the Truth (tm) be dangerous to anyone? What terrible things would happen if you were to share your secret knowledge of quantum gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458)?

What are you afraid of?

aerosolben

25th February 2003, 06:49 AM

Whoa! Do my eyes deceive me or did Franko refer to Dr. X by (gasp) his actual posting alias! Clearly, he's suffering from some sort of degenerative illness, and his arguments are consequently being weakened by the lack of decent monikers for his opponents! In the interests of humanity, I propose the following:

Dr. X-lax

However, this state of affairs may merely be passing. Franko's earlier use of "c4t-vestite" was well-done; I didn't even bother to read Franko's post, so sure was I that his logic must be flawless and his argument the victorious one following such an impeccable opening.

-aerosol "community service" ben

chulbert

25th February 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm not in the habit of handing loaded guns to children.

... especially "children" who don't believe in consequences for their actions ...

Wow. I haven't heard a response like this since elementary school. Thanks for the blast from the past, Franko.

Put up or shut up.

Franko

25th February 2003, 06:54 AM

Put up or shut up.

ohhh, no -- you go first.

Why don't you prove the existence of your "free willy" god A-theist?

chulbert

25th February 2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Franko

ohhh, no -- you go first.

Why don't you prove the existence of your "free willy" god A-theist?

Because when I do you invariably anthropomorphize the moon and blabber about what it "wants." Then when I point out the flaws in your analogy you fade away.

That's why.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Come on Franko, "the gun" cannot be that dangerous. Why would the Truth (tm) be dangerous to anyone? What terrible things would happen if you were to share your secret knowledge of quantum gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458)?

Indeed, I recall Franko himself asking once, "When has knowing the Truth ever had a negative effect on anyone?" Indeed?

Of course, I'd still like to know where the Progenitor Solipsist came from.

Franko

25th February 2003, 07:10 AM

Because when I do you invariably anthropomorphize the moon and blabber about what it "wants." Then when I point out the flaws in your analogy you fade away.

Say what?

Where is the “You” making the decisions – the “choices”? You are just your physical brain, and your physical brain is simply made of atoms (chemicals) which obey the same laws of chemistry that ALL chemicals obey! How do the chemicals in your brain have any more “free will” than some chemicals in a beaker somewhere?

What makes you believe that the atoms in your brain obey TLOP any less than the atoms in the Moon do? Or are you also claiming that the Moon has “free will”? The only difference I see is that You have a slightly more complex orbit than the moon does.

I guess a little “complexity” makes things magical and supernatural according to you?

What’s the mechanism for your magic? Explain exactly how “You” are able to control TLOP?

Are you honestly claiming that your consciousness does not follow logical rules like an algorithm? Explain what that means? How can consciousness possible be non-algorithmic. That is the same as claiming you think it’s magic (I can always tell when A-Theist post before they think). Explain how non-algorithmic consciousness would work.

Let’s see who “fades away” dipsh*t.

Franko

25th February 2003, 07:12 AM

Of course, I'd still like to know where the Progenitor Solipsist came from.

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

I don't know, Franko...why don't you tell me?

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I don't know, Franko...why don't you tell me?

Edited to add: I would assume that as time is the chronological measure of events, then the concept of "Time" when nothing is happening (such as the era in which your "Progenitor Solipsist" is doing nothing but "floating around" or whatever) is for all intents and purposes meaningless.

But, of course, you're the Answer Man.

Franko

25th February 2003, 07:21 AM

Joshua:
I would assume that as time is the chronological measure of events …

Yeah, I’d say that basically Time is a Sequence.

… then the concept of "Time" when nothing is happening (such as the era in which your "Progenitor Solipsist" is doing nothing but "floating around" or whatever) is for all intents and purposes meaningless.

Right, you would just have naked Time, with a very very low (almost non-existent) level of self-awareness. But if nothing is perceiving the Sequence … does the sequence actually exist?

chulbert

25th February 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Say what?

Where is the ?You? making the decisions ? the ?choices?? You are just your physical brain, and your physical brain is simply made of atoms (chemicals) which obey the same laws of chemistry that ALL chemicals obey! How do the chemicals in your brain have any more ?free will? than some chemicals in a beaker somewhere?

What makes you believe that the atoms in your brain obey TLOP any less than the atoms in the Moon do? Or are you also claiming that the Moon has ?free will?? The only difference I see is that You have a slightly more complex orbit than the moon does.

I guess a little ?complexity? makes things magical and supernatural according to you?

What?s the mechanism for your magic? Explain exactly how ?You? are able to control TLOP?

Are you honestly claiming that your consciousness does not follow logical rules like an algorithm? Explain what that means? How can consciousness possible be non-algorithmic. That is the same as claiming you think it?s magic (I can always tell when A-Theist post before they think). Explain how non-algorithmic consciousness would work.

Let?s see who ?fades away? dipsh*t.

My definition of free will is "doing what I want."

The atoms in my brain interact in such a way to create a phenomenon called conciousness. In turn, conciousness generates sensations called wants that it incorporates into decisions made when opportunities arise. The fact that you can boil it all down into chemical states of my brain is not relevant.

Franko

25th February 2003, 07:44 AM

My definition of free will is "doing what I want."

Okay, so you have defined “Flat Surface” to mean what most people would describe as a “Sphere”, and you have reversed the definition of “Motionless” to the definition of “Moving”, and you have used this semantic game to prove that the Earth is Flat and Motionless, and you have magic “free will” powers, and there is no “god” – good for you.

The atoms in my brain interact in such a way to create a phenomenon called consciousness.

And what makes you so sure that something similar isn’t occurring in the Moon?

In turn, consciousness generates sensations called wants that it incorporates into decisions made when opportunities arise. The fact that you can boil it all down into chemical states of my brain is not relevant.

No it is directly relevant. All you are saying is that the fact you perceive “red”, “green” and “blue” is PROOF that photons don’t exist. You’re nuts!

What makes you believe that the atoms in your brain obey TLOP any less than the atoms in the Moon do? Or are you also claiming that the Moon has “free will”? The only difference I see is that You have a slightly more complex orbit than the moon does.

I guess a little “complexity” makes things magical and supernatural according to you?

What’s the mechanism for your magic? Explain exactly how “You” are able to control TLOP?

Are you honestly claiming that your consciousness does not follow logical rules like an algorithm? Explain what that means? How can consciousness possible be non-algorithmic. That is the same as claiming you think it’s magic (I can always tell when A-Theist post before they think). Explain how non-algorithmic consciousness would work.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Right, you would just have naked Time, with a very very low (almost non-existent) level of self-awareness.

I don't see where you reach this conclusion. How does time suddenly become self-aware?

Let me put it another way. Posit a two-dimensional universe. What meaning does the dimension known as depth have in a two-dimensional universe?

Franko

25th February 2003, 08:22 AM

I don't see where you reach this conclusion. How does time suddenly become self-aware?

If Time exists, but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time in what way does Time actually exist?

Let me put it another way. Posit a two-dimensional universe. What meaning does the dimension known as depth have in a two-dimensional universe?

Space is an extrapolation of Time. Reduce things to their least common denominator (simplest form), and you will find that the “Math” is much easier to understand.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Franko

If Time exists, but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time in what way does Time actually exist?

Time would still exist because events are still occurring, regardless of whether those events can perceive that they came after this and before that. Now, if no events were occurring, then how does time actually exist?

Originally posted by Franko
Space is an extrapolation of Time. Reduce things to their least common denominator (simplest form), and you will find that the “Math” is much easier to understand.

That's fine...now, in a two-dimensional universe, what meaning does the dimension we call depth have?

Franko

25th February 2003, 08:35 AM

Franko:
If Time exists, but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time in what way does Time actually exist?

Joshua Korosi:
Time would still exist because events are still occurring, regardless of whether those events can perceive that they came after this and before that.

What events? Recall, we are discussing “a Void with nothing but Time itself.

Now, if no events were occurring, then how does time actually exist?

Now – you are starting to perceive it!

That's fine...now, in a two-dimensional universe, what meaning does the dimension we call depth have?

You are putting the cart before the horse. Like I said, once Time achieves a certain level of self-awareness it begins to evolve (and expand). Your “extra” spatial dimensions are the early manifestations of “the matter”, but they are merely the byproduct of Time.

25th February 2003, 08:55 AM

Franko doesn't want you to understand him.

Franko only believes half of what he says himself. The other half is designed to throw you off the track and confuse you, plus helping him look like he knows something you don't.

Franko also has an agenda.

And, man.....if you knew what the agenda was.....!?

Fortunately for us, Franko's agenda will remain Franko's fantasy.

That help?

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What events? Recall, we are discussing “a Void with nothing but Time itself.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Like I said, once Time achieves a certain level of self-awareness it begins to evolve (and expand). Your “extra” spatial dimensions are the early manifestations of “the matter”, but they are merely the byproduct of Time.

My whole point is that since time is a measure of something (chronology of events, in this case), there can be no time without events to chronologically measure.

Take my example...what meaning does "depth" have in a two-dimensional universe? The answer is none, because depth cannot exist if the only measurable dimensions are length and width.

Likewise, if there are no "events" to compare with each other, there is no base with which to determine "time". Your response to this seems to be to personify Time...make it an "entity" rather than a measure or dimension. That's fine - I imagine your cosmology works well if Time is personal. But the problem is, you can't prove time is an entity or "force". Your personification of time is assumption.

How do you KNOW that once time reaches a certain level of self-awareness, it begins to expand? How do you know time can achieve ANY level of self-awareness?

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:01 AM

UCE:
Franko doesn't want you to understand him.

That’s nonsense. If you don’t understand what I am saying then ask a specific question, and I will clarify.

Why don’t you explain your views on Time Elephant? … that would be interesting …

Franko inly believes half of what he says himself.

Magic mind-reading powers?

The other half is designed to throw you off the track and confuse you, plus helping him look like he knows something you don't.

Funny, because a year ago I knew all about FATE, and you didn’t.

Still believe in your magic “free willy” powers now A-Theist?

Franko also has an agenda.

So what? Everyone has an “agenda”.

And, man.....if you knew what the agenda was.....!?

Ohhh, I’m all curious now, what’s the agenda?

Fortunately for us, Franko's agenda will remain Franko's fantasy.

Or yours since “Franko” is just a figment of your imagination.

That help?

I don’t know … you tell me?

I noticed you didn't have any specific comments regarding my points on Time? I wonder why? Do you think that no one notices your logic-dodging tactics UCE?

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:07 AM

Joshua Korosi
My whole point is that since time is a measure of something (chronology of events, in this case), there can be no time without events to chronologically measure.

You certain?

So if you were alone and paralyzed in the Void you could perceive nothing but your own thoughts … no Time (no sequence) passes?

Take my example...what meaning does "depth" have in a two-dimensional universe? The answer is none, because depth cannot exist if the only measurable dimensions are length and width.

Yes, I realize you want to keep coming back to a self-contradictory example that is so complex and removed from the point we are talking about that no one really cares or understands.

Gee, another a-Theist who wants to waste time instead of discuss Religion or Philosophy! Why aren’t I surprised?

Likewise, if there are no "events" to compare with each other, there is no base with which to determine "time". Your response to this seems to be to personify Time...make it an "entity" rather than a measure or dimension. That's fine - I imagine your cosmology works well if Time is personal. But the problem is, you can't prove time is an entity or "force". Your personification of time is assumption.

Whatever. Let me know if you ever muster up the ballz to get back to the original point.

How do you KNOW that once time reaches a certain level of self-awareness, it begins to expand? How do you know time can achieve ANY level of self-awareness?

I was trying to get you there Bud, but it looks like you’re a-Theism is keeping you safely away from the Truth today …

25th February 2003, 09:18 AM

Ohhh, I’m all curious now, what’s the agenda?

Don't tempt me, Frank.

What do you think your reward post-mortem is going to be for all this shenanigins?

At least....I know perfectly well what you think your reward is going to be. I'm fascinated to see what you will tell everybody else.

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:24 AM

My reward is the same day in and day out ... persisting and enjoying existence.

I've told you before I like being the grunt. (or garbageman)

Now, do you want to talk about Time and explain your thoughts on this subject, or did you just pop in here to demonstrate that you are still a hard-core fanatical A-Theist?

At least you are honest enough to admit you are a Mystical A-Theist. I got to give you credit for that. All the A-Theists are mystics (A-Theism is a profoundly mystical religion), it's just that the vast majority never realize or are willing to concede the fact.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Franko

You certain?

So if you were alone and paralyzed in the Void you could perceive nothing but your own thoughts … no Time (no sequence) passes?

I don't know. I've never been alone and paralyzed in a void.

Originally posted by Franko
Yes, I realize you want to keep coming back to a self-contradictory example that is so complex and removed from the point we are talking about that no one really cares or understands.

Gee, another a-Theist who wants to waste time instead of discuss Religion or Philosophy! Why aren’t I surprised?

Whatever. Let me know if you ever muster up the ballz to get back to the original point.

The original point: Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from?

Originally posted by Franko
I was trying to get you there Bud, but it looks like you’re a-Theism is keeping you safely away from the Truth today …

So, you give up. Typical of you, Franko - but then, quitting is a difficult habit to break.

I want you to explain the universe as you see it, sir, and I'm willing to listen attentively - but if you are trying to explain something to me, do it. Don't sit and ask ME questions...I want to know what YOU think; I already know what I think. If you insist on asking me questions, you'll just have to accept the fact that you won't always get the answers you want to hear - so you may as well just explain yourself and stop trying to be the Cosmic Sensei. Who cares whether I think your logic or chain of reasoning is valid...I'm just trying to figure out what it is! Why do you insist on asking me to explain your beliefs? You already know I don't believe what you believe, so of course I won't answer them the same way you would, and you'd end up insulting me. You have a habit of being extremely intolerant of other peoples' opinions or beliefs when they don't jibe with yours. If I already knew the (according to you) "correct" answers, well then I wouldn't need you to explain these things. So rather than asking the Grasshopper a question and then cursing and frothing when he doesn't answer properly, teach him! :D

So tell me what you think about whether time exists or not. You think it can become self aware....fine. When did it start? Did it ever "start", or was it always? What was the first event? If no events came before it, how did it know it was the first? If time is a self-aware entity, why do we think of it in increments of measure? Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from, dammit?

chulbert

25th February 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Okay, so you have defined ?Flat Surface? to mean what most people would describe as a ?Sphere?, and you have reversed the definition of ?Motionless? to the definition of ?Moving?, and you have used this semantic game to prove that the Earth is Flat and Motionless, and you have magic ?free will? powers, and there is no ?god? ? good for you.

You don't have to agree with me, but don't go around telling people no one has ever given you a logically consistent definition of free will.

And what makes you so sure that something similar isn?t occurring in the Moon?

It may be, I suppose, but until I see evidence the moon is thinking I'm going to believe it as much as I beliee in unicorns.

Are you making a claim the moon is conscious? Put up or shut up.

No it is directly relevant. All you are saying is that the fact you perceive ?red?, ?green? and ?blue? is PROOF that photons don?t exist. You?re nuts!

Not quite. I'm saying that red, green, and blue are just as real as photons. Color is a property that emerges when you examine the universe from a higher frame of reference. The same is also true of free will. Free will is not some fundamental property of reality.

Your argument, however, is akin to saying that colors don't exist because they're all just really photons.

What makes you believe that the atoms in your brain obey TLOP any less than the atoms in the Moon do? Or are you also claiming that the Moon has ?free will?? The only difference I see is that You have a slightly more complex orbit than the moon does.

I don't believe that.

Are you honestly claiming that your consciousness does not follow logical rules like an algorithm? Explain what that means? How can consciousness possible be non-algorithmic. That is the same as claiming you think it?s magic. Explain how non-algorithmic consciousness would work.

No, I'm not claiming that.

(I can always tell when A-Theist post before they think)

Half of your post asked for clarification on a position I didn't present and points I did not make. What was that about posting before thinking?

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:34 AM

Joshy you little turd … either you want to play the game … or you don’t.

Either put up or shut up.

I don't see where you reach this conclusion. How does time suddenly become self-aware?

If Time exists, but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time in what way does Time actually exist?

Franko:
If Time exists, but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time in what way does Time actually exist?

Joshua Korosi:
Time would still exist because events are still occurring, regardless of whether those events can perceive that they came after this and before that.

What events? Recall, we are discussing “a Void with nothing but Time itself.

Now, if no events were occurring, then how does time actually exist?

Now – you are starting to perceive it!

If Time exists (a Sequence), but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time (nothing perceiving the Sequence) in what way does Time (the Sequence) actually exist?

25th February 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I've told you before I like being the grunt. (or garbageman)

But you're not going to be a garbageman forever, are you Frankie dear.....?

One day you think you are going to be something else. Don't you?

c4ts

25th February 2003, 09:38 AM

I think I'm the last person on the board to realize that Pillory makes more sense than Franko.

c4ts

25th February 2003, 09:38 AM

I think I'm the last person on the board to realize that Pillory makes more sense than Franko.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Franko
If Time exists (a Sequence), but there is nothing capable of perceiving the passage of Time (nothing perceiving the Sequence) in what way does Time (the Sequence) actually exist?

That's like saying "If I have an apple, but there's no such thing as apples, do I actually have an apple?"

After meditating on the sound of one hand clapping, I have decided that Time wouldn't actually exist at all, in any way.

Shall we continue?

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:52 AM

But you're not going to be a garbageman forever, are you Frankie dear.....?

One day you think you are going to be something else. Don't you?

I don't know ... ? But since I am likely just a figment of your imagination perhaps you'll tell me what Fate has in store for me?

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:54 AM

That's like saying "If I have an apple, but there's no such thing as apples, do I actually have an apple?"

After meditating on the sound of one hand clapping, I have decided that Time wouldn't actually exist at all, in any way.

Shall we continue?

So there you go. Something has to perceive the sequence or the sequence doesn't exist.

Or put another way, the essence of a "Sequence" is that a Sequence must be perceived.

25th February 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I don't know ... ? But since I am likely just a figment of your imagination perhaps you'll tell me what Fate has in store for me?

Oh come now, Frankie. We've discussed this many times and at great length. We both know what you think fate has in store for you. Why are you being so bashfull about telling all the punters?

Tell me what you think of mormonism Franko........

Franko

25th February 2003, 09:59 AM

I'm discussing Time Elephant.

I know you don't want to hear my version of Time because it contradicts yours. I know you don't want to discuss your view of Time because 1) it doesn't make any sense, and 2) your best evidence is a mystical "take my word for it. or you are crazy -- You are not the "choosen one" you are not enlightened enough to comprehend Time".

Okay, so put me on you IGNORE list and run along.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 10:02 AM

I know I'm going to regret this, but:Originally posted by Franko
2) your best evidence is a mystical "take my word for it. or you are crazy -- You are not the "choosen one" you are not enlightened enough to comprehend Time".
How is that any different from your evidence for your alternate definition of "time"?

25th February 2003, 10:04 AM

I'm discussing Time Elephant.

Ah.....so you don't want to talk about mormonism then.....

I know you don't want to hear my version of Time because it contradicts yours.

I just want to watch you tell these good people what you actually believe instead of what you want them to think you believe.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Franko

So there you go. Something has to perceive the sequence or the sequence doesn't exist.

Or put another way, the essence of a "Sequence" is that a Sequence must be perceived.

Good....so, where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from?

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:05 AM

Upchurch,

What "alternate" definition of Time are you refering to?

I've been asking Joshy some questions about his views on Time. If you want to join the conversation, then you can start by explaining your precise views on the subject and specifically what you are talking about.

25th February 2003, 10:07 AM

http://www.studentbodyworld.com/Q%20and%20A/what_is_the_fate_of_mormons.htm

what_is_the_fate_of_franko?

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:10 AM

Elephant:
Ah.....so you don't want to talk about mormonism then.....

Not really. But I like the polygamy part …

Elephant:
I just want to watch you tell these good people what you actually believe instead of what you want them to think you believe.

You don’t seem to be very sure about what you believe, how are you so certain you can read my mind?

Ohh, that’s right, Solipsism is True, and I’m just a figment of your imagination?

I guess you are just embarrassed and scared to put your views regarding “Time” on the table … ? That’s alright Elephant, I understand. Come on … climb up hear on my lap and I’ll give you a hug … doesn’t that feel better?

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:17 AM

http://www.studentbodyworld.com/Q%2..._of_mormons.htm

what_is_the_fate_of_franko?

Damn!

... I guess you really do learn something new every day. I never heard this about the Mormons before. Let me do a little checking around before I comment.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Franko

So your mother is a lesbian now? When did that happen?

Why can't you tell me where the Progenitor Solipsist comes from?

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch,

What "alternate" definition of Time are you refering to?I'm refering to your definition of Time. What is your best evidence?

start by explaining your precise views on the subject and specifically what you are talking about. Fair enough. Time is one of the spacetime dimensions which, locally and at slow speeds and masses, exists at a mutually perpendicular position from the three spacial dimensions. Under various conditions (e.g. high speed, high mass, a long way off, etc.), the dimension labeled as "time" is interchangable with spacial dimensions. In more technical terms, "time" is one axis in a four dimensional metric applied locally to a spacetime manifold.

if you need more clarification, the best I can do is pull out my differential topography text book and try to explain the mathematics (which is really hard on this forum board with it's lack of capacity for symbols).

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:19 AM

Joshua korosi: (Clandestine A-Theist)
Why can't you tell me where the Progenitor Solipsist comes from?

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Akots

25th February 2003, 10:20 AM

I find it very poetic that the world can be described through math. :)

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

I asked you all these questions, Franko. You refused to answer them. Why can't you tell me where the Progenitor Solipsist came from? Are you claiming that the Progenitor Solipsist = Time? How can a dimension be self-aware (you didn't answer that either)?

Doctor X

25th February 2003, 10:24 AM

With some disappointment I note that the "best" that the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit can muster is to shove his "hand" up into himself to manipulate the Sockpuppet of a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to spew thusly:

Take a hike dr dick....
nothing to see here
haha

Not even a decent argumentum ad hominem?

Perchance another restatement of his inability to understand how a steering column functions?

I would indeed be honored by an "X-Lax" if it succeeded in purging the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit of the source of his foolishness.

"Comforting the afflicted" and all of that.

--J.D.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Akots
I find it very poetic that the world can be described through math. :) It only gets more interesting the more you learn about it.

For instance, since time and space are the same thing, you have to consider that since space isn't infinite, neither is time. In fact, as space expands, so does time.

For example, from a purely cosmological point of view, it is impossible to ask "what happend before the big bang" because that's assuming that time existed "before" the big bang. Our common sense concept of time as a sequence of events that must continue forward and backward for infinity doesn't work in such extreme conditions.

Time is easily my favorite physics subject.

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:31 AM

Upchurch:
I'm refering to your definition of Time. What is your best evidence?

What is my best evidence of what? That Jkorsoi assumes Time is the chronological measure of events? I would say that my best evidence is his post from earlier today.

Joshua:
I would assume that as time is the chronological measure of events …

Franko:
Yeah, I’d say that basically Time is a Sequence.

I’m agreeing with Josh, Time is a sequence, a perceivable pattern of Information.

Upchurch:
Fair enough. Time is one of the spacetime dimensions which, locally and at slow speeds and masses, exists at a mutually perpendicular position from the three spacial dimensions. Under various conditions (e.g. high speed, high mass, a long way off, etc.), the dimension labeled as "time" is interchangable with spacial dimensions. In more technical terms, "time" is one axis in a four dimensional metric applied locally to a spacetime manifold.

Yeah, I’d agree with that. Space and Time are essentially the same thing, or more accurately “Space” (and it’s cousin the “matter”) are merely manifestations of extrapolated (evolved) Time.

if you need more clarification, the best I can do is pull out my differential topography text book and try to explain the mathematics (which is really hard on this forum board with it's lack of capacity for symbols).

That’s probably unnecessary. Let’s stick to the 2 + 2 part for now – shall we?

But in LD understanding what Time is, is vitally important to comprehending what consciousness is, and one of the things that I have oft stated around here is that for a consciousness it is meaningless (illogical, incomprehensible) to even attempt to discuss anything happening beyond the context of Time. We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant special appeal.

In other words, I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”. When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist.

Akots

25th February 2003, 10:32 AM

:eek:

Head...! Hurt...!

But it's a good kind of hurt.

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:35 AM

"Doctor" Zzzz: (a-Theist Goon)

With some disappointment I note that the "best" that the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit can muster is to shove his "hand" up into himself to manipulate the Sockpuppet of a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to spew thusly:

Hey when you get done mentally masturbating all over yourself let me know you chickensh*t. I don't like to whack a guy when he's standing there with nothing but his dick in his hand and his thumb up his ass.

Akots

25th February 2003, 10:38 AM

:eek:

Head...! Hurt..!

But it's a bad kind of hurt.

Franko

25th February 2003, 10:38 AM

Joshua K:
How can a dimension be self-aware (you didn't answer that either)?

What’s a “dimension”? I thought we were discussing “Time”? Why do you keep changing the subject? I think part of the reason A-Theists like yourself find things so complex is because they have trouble focusing.

What is a Dimension, and how precisely is that different than “Time”?

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah, I’d agree with that. Space and Time are essentially the same thing, or more accurately “Space” (and it’s cousin the “matter”) are merely manifestations of extrapolated (evolved) Time.
Not essentially. They are the same thing and, in a non-local sense, completely interchangable. What does "manifestations of extrapolated Time" mean? By "evolve" are you refering to the expansion of spacetime or some sort of development? and if development, in what way could time develop other than to expand?

That’s probably unnecessary. Let’s stick to the 2 + 2 part for now – shall we? two of what plus two of what? ;) I don't mind leaving it simple, but with the understanding that the picture is incomplete without an understanding of the mathematics.

We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant special appeal. I disagree. I, as a consciousness, can imagine what it is like for time and space not to exist. All you have to do is imagine something that has no dimension at all. Essentially, it is a point, but a point that is not in anything.

In other words, I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”. When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist. Again, have to disagree. What does non-dimensional space have to do with logic not existing? If you are speaking as a tenet of LD, that's fine. But outside of LD, I don't see the connection

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What’s a “dimension”? I thought we were discussing “Time”? Why do you keep changing the subject? I think part of the reason A-Theists like yourself find things so complex is because they have trouble focusing.

What is a Dimension, and how precisely is that different than “Time”?

A dimension is a measurable trait. Length is a dimension. So is width, depth, and time.

Franko

25th February 2003, 11:08 AM

A dimension is a measurable trait.

What does the "measuring" if no consciousness exist?

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What is a Dimension, and how precisely is that different than “Time”? Time is a subset of dimension, just as length, temperature, charge, and mass are subsets of dimension. They are all scalar measures.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What does the "measuring" if no consciousness exist?

You've made an assumption. It doesn't matter whether something is actually doing the measuring, or whether anything that can do the measuring exists; all that is relevant is that something is there which is measurable.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What does the "measuring" if no consciousness exist? "measurable" not "measuring"

Franko

25th February 2003, 11:12 AM

You've made an assumption. It doesn't matter whether something is actually doing the measuring, or whether anything that can do the measuring exists; all that is relevant is that something is there which is measurable.

And if nothing is there to do the measuring, then how do you know that anything is there at all?

Can you tell what happens even when no observation is made?

You really do believe you have magic powers ... don't you?

Franko

25th February 2003, 11:15 AM

You've made an assumption.

No actually YOU are the one making the assumption. Notice that I am the one working very hard NOT to make ANY assumptions.

I’m the one asking You – what makes you believe there is anything to measure when no one is there to measure it?

Does the waveform collapse when no one observes?

How do you know Time exists without anyone to perceive Time?

It doesn't matter whether something is actually doing the measuring, or whether anything that can do the measuring exists; all that is relevant is that something is there which is measurable.

And there is your assumption. You are assuming that without an observer, that existence is a meaningful term.

What is you evidence for this belief?

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Franko

No actually YOU are the one making the assumption. Notice that I am the one working very hard NOT to make ANY assumptions.

I’m the one asking You – what makes you believe there is anything to measure when no one is there to measure it?

Does the waveform collapse when no one observes?

How do you know Time exists without anyone to perceive Time?

Logically, an object doesn't have to be observed to exist.

Originally posted by Franko
And there is your assumption. You are assuming that without an observer, that existence is a meaningful term.

What is you evidence for this belief?

Logic and a dose of common sense. I didn't "assume" it, I arrived at the conclusion through application of logic.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Franko

And if nothing is there to do the measuring, then how do you know that anything is there at all?

Can you tell what happens even when no observation is made?

You really do believe you have magic powers ... don't you?

No, you can only make a prediction through some process or other when direct observation is impossible. The more certain the method used to make the prediction, the more certain you can be that the predicted conclusion will bear out. Logic and mathematics have a near 100% accuracy rate.

Franko

25th February 2003, 11:26 AM

Logically, an object doesn't have to be observed to exist.

But that’s not what we are talking about.

Can ANY objects exist if there is absolutely no one to observe?

In other words, what is you evidence that if there were no consciousnesses in the Universe the Universe would exist anyway? You seem to be doing nothing more than Begging the Question.

Logic and a dose of common sense. I didn't "assume" it, I arrived at the conclusion through application of logic.

What logic? Explain how a pattern of information can be known to exist based on no observation? That’s what you are claiming!

I have a piece of paper in front of me. Without observing it, can you tell me if there is writing on it or not, and if there is writing – what does the writing say?

-----------------------

Upchurch, I'm not ignoring you. I promise I'll get back to yours first chance I get.

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:33 PM

Franko:
I’d agree with that. Space and Time are essentially the same thing, or more accurately “Space” (and it’s cousin the “matter”) are merely manifestations of extrapolated (evolved) Time.

B]Upchurch:[/b]
Not essentially. They are the same thing and, in a non-local sense, completely interchangable. What does "manifestations of extrapolated Time" mean?

In LD everything is a fractal. Some things are the same thing they just manifest as different entities at different levels of recursion within the fractal.

For example: A Sperm has the potential to manifest as a human. A human embryo in the womb will start off looking more like a fish than a human, in a way it appears to go through the various stages of evolutionary development as it grows inside its mother’s body. Eventually when the baby is born it manifest as a human.

By "evolve" are you refering to the expansion of spacetime or some sort of development? and if development, in what way could time develop other than to expand?

I am talking about a self-evolving system of information that starts off very simply and becomes more complex over Time.

I don't mind leaving it simple, but with the understanding that the picture is incomplete without an understanding of the mathematics.

Are you claiming that it is not possible to comprehend what Time is without an understanding of mathematics?

Franko:
We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant special appeal.

Upchurch:
I disagree. I, as a consciousness, can imagine what it is like for time and space not to exist. All you have to do is imagine something that has no dimension at all. Essentially, it is a point, but a point that is not in anything.

Wait a minute, when I imagine a point I see a point – it has dimensions or I wouldn’t ‘see” it. Second of all, it is impossible for me to imagine the point existing alone with nothing at all around it. At very least I am forced to imagine empty space around the point (i.e. the point exist within another “space”). Third, I cannot imagine this point without imagining this point existing in Time.

Can you elaborate a little more on what you meant? Explain precisely what you imagine when you envision this space-less time-less point?

Franko:
In other words, I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”. When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist.

Upchurch:
Again, have to disagree. What does non-dimensional space have to do with logic not existing?

Explain something “logical” to me, but you have zero time to do it?

If you are speaking as a tenet of LD, that's fine. But outside of LD, I don't see the connection

I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”. When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist. We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant Special Plead.

"measurable" not "measuring"

Right, how would you know if anything where “measurable” if there were nothing to do any “measuring”???

Doctor X

25th February 2003, 01:06 PM

The best that the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit can do is bawl about sexual innuendo?

He cannot address the Science of Consciousness.

Indeed, he could not even reconcile his goddess with the Child.

So many promises . . . so many failures.

If an unkind man I would recognize that he fires blanks and posts such drivel out of envy.

Puberty will, perhaps, correct some of his social "issues."

It will not advance his character, but one has to take what one can get with such poor material.

--J.D.

Franko

25th February 2003, 01:14 PM

Doctor Whiney: (A-Theist Stooge)
He [Franko] cannot address the Science of Consciousness.

I’m not a mindreader A-Theist. If you have something to say – say it.

Indeed, he could not even reconcile his goddess with the Child.

You mean birth defects again? Why don’t you just speak in English?

I bet if you A-Theists could talk women into having 10 times as many abortions as they do now, the number of birth defects would decline considerably.

How are birth defects “God’s fault”? Any “good” A-Theist will tell you that birth defects are solely the fault of the mother failing to abort her fetus. Everyone knows that A-Theists are better off never being born.

So many promises . . . so many failures.

Yep … that’s A-Theism all right.

If an unkind man I would recognize that he fires blanks and posts such drivel out of envy.

Envy? As in, I wish I could be an insane hypocrite like you?

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Dr. X, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Dr. X, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, “Doctor”? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Puberty will, perhaps, correct some of his social "issues."

Yeah … look who’s talking …

It will not advance his character, but one has to take what one can get with such poor material.

Boo-hoo-hoo :(

You want to explain your whacky beliefs, or are you going to continue running from me Chickensh*t? I don't care one way or the other, you running serves my purpose just as well.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Franko
In LD everything is a fractal. Some things are the same thing they just manifest as different entities at different levels of recursion within the fractal.
Well, if that is tennet of your belief system, fine. That's not a common usage of the word fractal (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fractal.html), but if that's your definition from your faith, again, I can't argue what you believe.

I am talking about a self-evolving system of information that starts off very simply and becomes more complex over Time.
How does a scalar measurment get more complex? is 20,000 km more complex than 1 km? Is 1 sec less complex than 1 year? What do you mean by complexity?

Are you claiming that it is not possible to comprehend what Time is without an understanding of mathematics?
No, it is perfectly reasonable to have a concept of time without understanding the mathematics, but the concept is incomplete without mathematics. For instance, if one were to claim that time is infinite, how does one understand what that means without mathematics? When I say that time is one dimension in a four dimensional metric on the spacetime manifold, how does one understand what that means without mathematics? Most people understand linear causality, but that is not the sum total of what time is.
Wait a minute, when I imagine a point I see a point – it has dimensions or I wouldn’t ‘see” it.When you "see a point" what you're refering to is the graphic representation of a point. the mark left by the graphite of your pencil is not a true point. A point (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html) is a zero dimensional object. In the given definition, imagine that the n in n-dimensional space is zero. There ya go.
Second of all, it is impossible for me to imagine the point existing alone with nothing at all around it. At very least I am forced to imagine empty space around the point (i.e. the point exist within another “space”).
Well, see above. Understanding geormetry is hard and sometimes takes practice. I spent five years training my mind to work this way. If that doesn't help, try to remember that even if you can't visualize it you can at least understand it conceptually.
Third, I cannot imagine this point without imagining this point existing in Time.But time is just another dimension; one part of the n. Can you imagine a point without any heat or mass? You have to free your mind from the concept that time is nothing more than linear causality before you can understand that time is not boundless (in the classic sense of the word).

Can you elaborate a little more on what you meant? Explain precisely what you imagine when you envision this space-less time-less point?It's hard to put it any more simply than you just did. A point, existing in a 0-dimensional space. The concept of linear progression of events is meaningless. The concept of it "being somewhere" is meaningless.

Here, maybe this will help. You're familiar with Relativistic length contraction and time dialation? The closer you approach the speed of light, the distance parallel to you direction of movement get smaller and the slow down, right? Well, imagine your a photon traveling at the speed of light. length contraction would be so severe that there is no distance between points. Time dialation would be so severe that there would be no progression. Now, remove the photon and the universe, and you're probably pretty close to understanding 0-dimensinal space.

Aside: The really hard one is trying to visiualize 4-dimensional space and 4-dimensional objects in 4-D space. There was a point in college where I could get my head around a hypercube, a hypersphere, and a hyperperimid by taking their unfolded 3-D versions and mentally re-folding them. Not sure I could pull that off anymore....
Explain something “logical” to me, but you have zero time to do it?
...

You mean, communicate a logical system in zero time? that's a fault of yours and my bodies and how we communicate information between us. it is not an aspect of "logic" or a logical system.
I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”.
Isn't that what we're doing in this thread? Having a meaningful discussion about what it would be like without time (a.k.a. 0-D space or ather variations thereof)?
When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist.
Not at all. even in a 0-dimensional space, mathematical rules still apply. Granted, there isn't very much that's applicable, but you can still logically describe it.
We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant Special Plead. To borrow from Inigo, "You keep using that term (unable to even imagine). I do not think that term means what you think it means." Again, above I show how one might imagine just such a thing. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

As for the "Special Plead", I'm holding it to exactly the same standard that I hold 4-dimensional space to.
Right, how would you know if anything where “measurable” if there were nothing to do any “measuring”??? You're speaking of the quantum mechanical interpretation of collapsing a wave function. I wasn't using QM in my discussion, but I was unaware that time or space had an applicable wave function. Do you know of a source that says otherwise?

Doctor X

25th February 2003, 01:24 PM

Seem to have struck a nerve there. . . .

The Coward et Liar et Hypocrit rather dislikes his exposure and tried to pretend ignorance to his history.

Sometime back the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit made claims concerning consciousness. He was invited, numerous times, to attempt to reconcile such claims based on actual science.

Needless to write he did not do that.

He then attempted to hijack discussions on what suffering demonstrates about possible deities.

For some reason, he never attempted to reconcile his with the Child [All Rights Reserv'd--Ed.].

Of course, this failure will not surprise the Readership who have, evidentally, become painfully use to him spewing forth hate and argumentum ad hominem with fatuous claims in place of logic.

Coward.

That he then attempts to ascribe ridiculous arguments to others--as he attempts in his Mein Kampf above--renders him, again, a Liar.

Furthermore, he hurls out complaints against the Noble Readership for kindly directing his attention to his many misdeeds demonstrating that he is, at last, a Hypocrit.

"All other titles thou hast given away."

Quod erat demonstandum times . . . well . . . times a whole lot unfortunately, since this exposure of his character--if it may be elevated to such a distinction--is nothing new.

--J.D.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

No, it is perfectly reasonable to have a concept of time without understanding the mathematics, but the concept is incomplete without mathematics.
As an aside, I'd like to use this as a shameless plug for my ongoing (although, somewhat forgotten from time to time) crusade that an understanding of mathematics is crucial to understanding anything, including philosophy.

Franko

25th February 2003, 02:05 PM

No, it is perfectly reasonable to have a concept of time without understanding the mathematics, but the concept is incomplete without mathematics. For instance, if one were to claim that time is infinite, how does one understand what that means without mathematics?

Infinity? That is the best you can come up with? Isn’t “Infinity” more of a philosophical concept than a strictly mathematical one?

When I say that time is one dimension in a four dimensional metric on the spacetime manifold, how does one understand what that means without mathematics? Most people understand linear causality, but that is not the sum total of what time is.

I have no idea what tangent you are trying to divert this conversation off too. I am simply talking about Time, and nothing else.

You seem to want to claim that it is impossible to talk about cement without first fully defining what a “skyscraper” is, and how cement is relevant to skyscrapers. But if you haven’t even determined precisely what cement is, then how can you talk about the necessity of cement to skyscrapers?

Franko:
Wait a minute, when I imagine a point I see a point – it has dimensions or I wouldn’t ‘see” it.

Upchurch:
When you "see a point" what you're refering to is the graphic representation of a point. the mark left by the graphite of your pencil is not a true point.

I wasn’t imagining a pencil. I was only imagining an “infinitely” small black dot. And when I imagine a point I see a point – it has dimensions or I wouldn’t ‘see” it. Tell me how to imagine a dimensionless point. Explain what you are thinking in your head?

A point is a zero dimensional object. In the given definition, imagine that the n in n-dimensional space is zero. There ya go.

Right, and what does that look like when you imagine it – describe it to us?

Franko:
Second of all, it is impossible for me to imagine the point existing alone with nothing at all around it. At very least I am forced to imagine empty space around the point (i.e. the point exist within another “space”).

Upchurch:
Well, see above. Understanding geormetry is hard and sometimes takes practice. I spent five years training my mind to work this way. If that doesn't help, try to remember that even if you can't visualize it you can at least understand it conceptually.

That’s a Special Plead. Either you can explain how a person can imagine a dimensionless point without anything around it, or you cannot.

Paint me an imaginary picture.

Franko:
Third, I cannot imagine this point without imagining this point existing in Time.

Upchurch:
But time is just another dimension; one part of the n. Can you imagine a point without any heat or mass? You have to free your mind from the concept that time is nothing more than linear causality before you can understand that time is not boundless (in the classic sense of the word).

I see you have channeled the Elephant.

No, I’m sorry Upchurch, unless you can explain how you cannot imagine any time (unless you can demonstrate your ability to cease to exist) than I still have no evidence that it is even possible.

Franko:
Can you elaborate a little more on what you meant? Explain precisely what you imagine when you envision this space-less time-less point?

It's hard to put it any more simply than you just did. A point, existing in a 0-dimensional space. The concept of linear progression of events is meaningless. The concept of it "being somewhere" is meaningless.

Just tell us what you picture in your head when you imagine it.

Either you can tell us what you imagine, or you are full of ****.

Here, maybe this will help. You're familiar with Relativistic length contraction and time dialation? The closer you approach the speed of light, the distance parallel to you direction of movement get smaller and the slow down, right? Well, imagine your a photon traveling at the speed of light. length contraction would be so severe that there is no distance between points. Time dialation would be so severe that there would be no progression. Now, remove the photon and the universe, and you're probably pretty close to understanding 0-dimensinal space.

Aside: The really hard one is trying to visiualize 4-dimensional space and 4-dimensional objects in 4-D space. There was a point in college where I could get my head around a hypercube, a hypersphere, and a hyperperimid by taking their unfolded 3-D versions and mentally re-folding them. Not sure I could pull that off anymore....

Excellent Upchurch, when Joshua saw that the conversation was too easy for him to comprehend he had to try and muddy the waters a little and divert off onto any tangent he could. Now you have done the same predictable thing.

[b]Franko:[/.b]
I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”.

Upchurch:
Isn't that what we're doing in this thread?

No … as far as I am aware Time is flowing in this thread.

Upchurch:
Having a meaningful discussion about what it would be like without time (a.k.a. 0-D space or ather variations thereof)?

I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”.

Franko:
When someone claims that Time did not exist, they are really claiming that Logic did not exist.

Upchurch:
Not at all. even in a 0-dimensional space, mathematical rules still apply. Granted, there isn't very much that's applicable, but you can still logically describe it.

Only if Time exists.

I’m not claiming it is impossible to speculate that there could be no time, a person is certainly capable of speaking the words or having the thought – What if there were no Time? I’m claiming that it is impossible to actually imagine what it would be like if no Time existed. If Time didn’t exist (your perception of Time) YOU wouldn’t exist (your consciousness/perception wouldn’t exist).

Franko:
We (as consciousnesses) are unable to even imagine what it could be like for Time to not exist. And in fact, the only way that anyone can ever discuss a “Timeless period” (or “Timeless Era”) is by making a blatant Special Plead.

Upchurch:
To borrow from Inigo, "You keep using that term (unable to even imagine). I do not think that term means what you think it means." Again, above I show how one might imagine just such a thing. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Either you can explain what it is for “No Time to exist” or you cannot. So far you haven’t, so I’m still assuming you can’t. So far you have done exactly what I predicted you’d do – make one special plead after another.

if you can’t imagine it and I can’t explain it that doesn’t mean it isn’t True.

Understanding complex multi-geometry (mumbo jumbo) is very complicated you probably can’t imagine a timeless period without spending many years in an A-Theist indoctrination center

Either you can explain it Upchurch – or you can’t.

Franko

25th February 2003, 02:09 PM

Upchurch:
As an aside, I'd like to use this as a shameless plug for my ongoing (although, somewhat forgotten from time to time) crusade that an understanding of mathematics is crucial to understanding anything, including philosophy.

You do sound like the Elephant.

Do computer languages count as mathematics? Why or why not? What makes “Math”, Math?

As for Time …

Lets start at the beginning not with Joshy’s diversions into complex-diversion-land. I am a firm believer in the Keep It Simple principle.

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Skeptical Greg

25th February 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

As an aside, I'd like to use this as a shameless plug for my ongoing (although, somewhat forgotten from time to time) crusade that an understanding of mathematics is crucial to understanding anything, including philosophy.

My version of this would be:

' An ability to grasp mathematical concepts would be indicative of one's ability to grasp anything. '

A common denominator in woowooism seems to be a cluelessness regarding the Scientific Method and
mathematical relationships.

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Infinity? That is the best you can come up with? Isn’t “Infinity” more of a philosophical concept than a strictly mathematical one?
Not really. Its origins lie in mathematics (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html). Look up the word and you'll find references to numbers or conecepts like "boundless (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bound.html)" which are also mathematical in origin.

I have no idea what tangent you are trying to divert this conversation off too. I am simply talking about Time, and nothing else.
Not at all. We're talking about time. You asked for me to "start by explaining your precise views on the subject and specifically what you are talking about." I've been presenting what I know about the scientific concept of time. Most of which is based on Einstien's Relativity, for whatever that's worth.

I guess it would make things simpler if you understood that spacial and temporal dimensions are the same thing. Do you see that much, at least?

You seem to want to claim that it is impossible to talk about cement without first fully defining what a “skyscraper” is, and how cement is relevant to skyscrapers. But if you haven’t even determined precisely what cement is, then how can you talk about the necessity of cement to skyscrapers?
You've got that backwards. I'm talking about the nature of the underlying spacetime, a small portion of which is the linear causation that the general population calls "time".
I wasn’t imagining a pencil. I was only imagining an “infinitely” small black dot. And when I imagine a point I see a point – it has dimensions or I wouldn’t ‘see” it. Tell me how to imagine a dimensionless point. Explain what you are thinking in your head?
You think of a dot with absolutely no dimension? no length, no width, no height, and no time? That's it. That's a point (well, without the "black" part. points don't don't specifically have any color).

Right, and what does that look like when you imagine it – describe it to us?
the very best description I can give is:
dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0. Anything else I could tell you would be an inexact metaphore.

Either you can explain how a person can imagine a dimensionless point without anything around it, or you cannot.

Paint me an imaginary picture. Did you check out the links I posted? This would be much easier if you had a better concept of geometry. I can't force you to open your mind to the possibility so that you could visualize it. It's a point in 0-dimensonal space.

Is anyone else having problems with this?
No, I’m sorry Upchurch, unless you can explain how you cannot imagine any time (unless you can demonstrate your ability to cease to exist) than I still have no evidence that it is even possible. Poorly phrased. I said that I can imagine a situation with no time, not that I cannot imagine any time.

Let's try a progression of ideas:

1. Take a piece of paper and draw a box on it. You see that it has length and width and, because you drew it, an element of duration.
2. On that same paper, draw a straight line on it. You see that it has length and duration but no width. It has one dimension less than the box.
3. On that same paper, draw a dot. You see that it has duration but no length and no width, but still has duration. It has two dimensions less than the box.
4. now imagine that there is a dot that you didn't draw. On that has one less dimension than the dot you drew. as well as not having any spacitial dimensions it has no temporal dimension either.

By mathematically removing one dimension at a time from the model we come to the conept of a zero-dimensional object.

No … as far as I am aware Time is flowing in this thread.
"The map is not the territory." --Alfred Korzybski.

Dont' confuse what we are discussing with the discussion itself.
I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”.
Ah. you mean that it is impossible to discuss something without the presense of time? (I'm really biting my tongue about how brilliant that comment is) Yes, Franko. You are correct. We can't have a linear discussion without a temproal dimension. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a meaningful conversation about the absense of time.

I’m not claiming it is impossible to speculate that there could be no time, a person is certainly capable of speaking the words or having the thought – What if there were no Time? I’m claiming that it is impossible to actually imagine what it would be like if no Time existed. If Time didn’t exist (your perception of Time) YOU wouldn’t exist (your consciousness/perception wouldn’t exist).You mean you can't even imagine what it would be like if "Franko" didn't exist? What about all this talk about solipism? Even if you don't believe in it, you can't even imagine it?

I honestly don't know what to say to that. It didn't even occur to me that you didn't have the capacity to imagine something that doesn't include yourself, Franko.

That's got me floored. I don't even know how to respond to something like that.

I'm not sure there's any point in going on with this line of discussion then, really. Unless someone else has a question?

edited to add: Try though I might, I guess I really don't understand Franko....

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
My version of this would be:

' An ability to grasp mathematical concepts would be indicative of one's ability to grasp anything. '
I like that, may I quote you?

Actually, it's more than that. If you are really going to understand something you must understand all aspects of it, including the mathematics and science of it. Any philosophy or religion that includes a scientific principle (like, say, time), should also account for the scientific and mathematical aspects of the principle.

Skeptical Greg

25th February 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I like that, may I quote you?

Actually, it's more than that. If you are really going to understand something you must understand all aspects of it, including the mathematics and science of it. Any philosophy or religion that includes a scientific principle (like, say, time), should also account for the scientific and mathematical aspects of the principle.

I am honored sir.. Glad I thought of that.:D

Upchurch

25th February 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Glad I thought of that.:D
Thank you. At least all that writing wasn't a complete waste of my time. (pun intended) :D

Franko

25th February 2003, 04:15 PM

Upchurch,

Why is it that you A-Theists ALWAYS avoid the very simple, very directest of questions?

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Jedi Knight

25th February 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch,

Why is it that you A-Theists ALWAYS avoid the very simple, very directest of questions?

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Hey Franko, me Rikzilla and Headscratcher are going to try and meet in Washington DC for lunch sometime soon. Want to come down there and jam with us for an afternoon?

JK

Tricky

25th February 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Where did Time come from?
Not directed at me, but do you mind if I take a stab at it?

Many cosmologists think time came from the Big Bang. Since time is a measurement of how things happen in sequence, it appeared the same time as "things" did.

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?
If nothing exists, then time, by definition does not exist, for if nothing exists, how would you tell time? What events would be measured? I know this is a hard concept for most people, but it is logically consistant. Really.

How long can Time not exist for?
This statement is a self contradiction, like "Can God make a rock so big that He/She/It can't pick it up?" By asking "how long" you are asking "for what length of time was there no time?"

Franko

25th February 2003, 04:53 PM

Franko:
Tell me how to imagine a dimensionless point. Explain what you are thinking in your head?

Upchurch:
You think of a dot with absolutely no dimension? no length, no width, no height, and no time? That's it. That's a point (well, without the "black" part. points don't don't specifically have any color).

Well what does a “colorless” dimensionless point look like exactly, Upchurch?

Personally I don’t have magic A-Theist vision, so I have never observed anything, which I would describe as “colorless”. Unless you mean “clear”, but even clear always exist with something around it which has Color.

Now maybe you mean “invisible”, in which case you are asking me why I can’t imagine what an invisible object “looks like”?

I made this prediction many posts ago … but that is called a Special Plead it is a logical fallacy Mr. Mathematics.

(How can someone who doesn’t understand basic logic claim an expertise in Math? Without Logic there is no Math.)

Franko:
Right, and what does that look like when you imagine it – describe it to us?

Upchurch:
the very best description I can give is:
dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0. Anything else I could tell you would be an inexact metaphore.

All those symbols don’t invoke an image of “nothing” in my head. Without a consciousness and/or time are you saying those symbols are some how “meaningful”?

This doesn’t even have anything to do with Time.

Upchurch:
I said that I can imagine a situation with no time, not that I cannot imagine any time.

Okay, so you claim that “You can imagine a situation with no time”.

How long (approximately) did this timeless period last for? (please explain EXACTLY what you mean)

Upchurch:
Let's try a progression of ideas:

1. Take a piece of paper and draw a box on it. You see that it has length and width and, because you drew it, an element of duration.
2. On that same paper, draw a straight line on it. You see that it has length and duration but no width. It has one dimension less than the box.
3. On that same paper, draw a dot. You see that it has duration but no length and no width, but still has duration. It has two dimensions less than the box.
4. now imagine that there is a dot that you didn't draw. On that has one less dimension than the dot you drew. as well as not having any spacitial dimensions it has no temporal dimension either.

By mathematically removing one dimension at a time from the model we come to the conept of a zero-dimensional object.

Hey Upchurch, I can come up with the “concept” of Dragons, and Faeries, and Santa Claus, and 4-sided triangles, but that doesn’t mean that such things exist in reality. The first rule for a thing to exist in reality, is that it cannot be logically contradictory, and what you are claiming is failing the test of Logic. So far all I see is a couple Special Pleads, and a few Question Beggings, but no actual valid logical argument for your line of reasoning.

4. now imagine that there is a dot that you didn't draw. On that has one less dimension than the dot you drew. as well as not having any spacitial dimensions it has no temporal dimension either.

Right now just imagine that the dot you are talking about is called “god”.

See that “dot” doesn’t exist in reality. Was that so hard to admit?

Franko:
I am claiming that it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss things in the “absence of Time”.

Upchurch:
Ah. you mean that it is impossible to discuss something without the presense of time?

I am saying that it is meaningless to discuss the existence of anything existing or not existing if you are assuming (working under the hypothesis) that Time did not exist during the “period” under discussion.

You cannot imagine a Sequence of ANY sort in the absence of the concept of Time.

(I'm really biting my tongue about how brilliant that comment is) Yes, Franko. You are correct. We can't have a linear discussion without a temproal dimension. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a meaningful conversation about the absense of time.

No, you’ve shown you are a bias religious moron, and you haven’t demonstrated anything other than you like burning your hand on the hot stove because it’s “fun”.

Franko:
I’m not claiming it is impossible to speculate that there could be no time, a person is certainly capable of speaking the words or having the thought – What if there were no Time? I’m claiming that it is impossible to actually imagine what it would be like if no Time existed. If Time didn’t exist (your perception of Time) YOU wouldn’t exist (your consciousness/perception wouldn’t exist).

Upchurch:
You mean you can't even imagine what it would be like if "Franko" didn't exist?

Dodging Upchurch? What are you scared of?

1) I don’t exist. If you’re reading this, You’re imagining me.
2) What I was saying (what You imagined I was saying …) is that “Franko” cannot imagine how one could ever know anything regarding the nature of a timeless period. It is an inconceivable concept … like a 4-sided triangle.
3) How long would a timeless period last for? If it lasted for zero Time, then did if ever really exist? Once again, without Time observation is impossible, and without information how can you claim to “know” information?

What about all this talk about solipsism? Even if you don't believe in it, you can't even imagine it?

Sure you can, and You just know it has to be True. You see Solipsism is EXACTLY like materialism (A-Theism). It makes EXACTLY ALL the same predictions. The only thing that is really different about Solipsism – the thing that actually makes it better (more logical) than materialism is that in materialism you have to account for an Entire Universe Full of Energy and Matter, and Billions of real people, and a completely Functioning set of The Laws of Physics, where with Solipsism all you have to account for, is You magically appearing. Then you just imagined the rest with an algorithm in your subconscious mind.

I honestly don't know what to say to that. It didn't even occur to me that you didn't have the capacity to imagine something that doesn't include yourself, Franko.

You tell me? I don’t really even have the capacity to imagine “me”, only You can do that!

That's got me floored. I don't even know how to respond to something like that.

Well if I am wrong, then why don’t you just demonstrate that by providing a single example of something observable that would be True (or False) under Materialism, but the reverse if Solipsism were True?

I'm not sure there's any point in going on with this line of discussion then, really. Unless someone else has a question?

I have a question.

Why do you believe you have “free will”? What does it mean when you assert that you “make choices” amongst “options”? Aren’t you really obeying a set of deterministic rules just like a computer algorithm? Do all algorithms have “free will”? What is special about your “algorithm” that makes you believe it has “free will”? Or are you claiming that your conscious behaves “non-algorithmically”? Can you explain precisely what that means? Is it any different than claiming your actions are “magical”? How so?

Franko

25th February 2003, 05:07 PM

Where did Time come from?

Tricky:
Not directed at me, but do you mind if I take a stab at it?

Many cosmologists think time came from the Big Bang. Since time is a measurement of how things happen in sequence, it appeared the same time as "things" did.

Okay, so prior to the “Big Bang” there was no Time, and therefore no “Things”; ergo, according to the Dogma of A-Theism (Pseudo-Materialism) One Day Long Ago The Universe magically appeared out of the Void (appeared out of no where supernaturally).

If my interpretation of your creation myth is inaccurate could you please correct it for me?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

If nothing exists, then time, by definition does not exist, for if nothing exists, how would you tell time?

But that is my whole point. Without “something” which is perceiving a Sequence … there is no Time.

What events would be measured? I know this is a hard concept for most people, but it is logically consistent. Really.

Take your word for it Tricky?

Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories, just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

How long can Time not exist for?

Tricky:
This statement is a self contradiction, like "Can God make a rock so big that He/She/It can't pick it up?" By asking "how long" you are asking "for what length of time was there no time?"

Doesn’t that tell you something?

If the “Timeless period” lasted for “Zero Time”, then isn’t it safe to say that there was No Timeless Period! Or are you going to tell me that I am the one with the Logical contradiction like that nitwit Upchurch?

Loki

25th February 2003, 06:07 PM

Franko,

I made this prediction many posts ago … but that is called a Special Plead it is a logical fallacy Mr. Mathematics
Progenitor Solipsist = Special Plead

"All things have a creator - except time (and gravity?)" = Special Plead

Okay, so prior to the “Big Bang” there was no Time, and therefore no “Things”; ergo, according to the Dogma of A-Theism (Pseudo-Materialism) One Day Long Ago The Universe magically appeared out of the Void (appeared out of no where supernaturally).

If my interpretation of your creation myth is inaccurate could you please correct it for me?

Actually, that's reasonably accurate (although phrased in reasonably inflammatory terms). The thing to note is the two underlined words - 'void' and 'supernaturally'. What the Big Bang proposes is that the Universe appeared out of "somehting which does not obey TLOP". Since this "supernatural void" doesn't obey TLOP, we can't make *any* valid comment on it, other than it was/is "not-TLOP".

c4ts

25th February 2003, 07:19 PM

I have a different idea about what time is, but it may end up supporting Franko since it's rather insane, and I'm probably subconsciously plagarizing from something anyway...

My idea is that time is entirely a function of consciousness. Everything exists simultaneously, even the things that don't really exist, and the things that can't really exist, but it's all separated out into different universes so they can't coincide or change each other. Consciousness, then, is this thing that is limited to a certain set of connected universes where you (and others) exist. Consciousness has a beginning, and it has ends, but it's not exactly linear. You, in each universe, can only hold as much information as you can contain in that kind of instant universe, so in order to hold more, you consciously link one part to another adjascent one. You would end up linking everything, but that would be incomprehensible, so you get one at a time from A to B to C or D (etc)... you don't access all your existences this way, but you go from beginning to end and everything looks coherent and you get to make decisions. Time is one way to measure this transitional phenomenon.

Have fun with that one.

Checkmite

25th February 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko

But that’s not what we are talking about.

Can ANY objects exist if there is absolutely no one to observe?

In other words, what is you evidence that if there were no consciousnesses in the Universe the Universe would exist anyway? You seem to be doing nothing more than Begging the Question.

What logic? Explain how a pattern of information can be known to exist based on no observation? That’s what you are claiming!

I have a piece of paper in front of me. Without observing it, can you tell me if there is writing on it or not, and if there is writing – what does the writing say?

It's called application of experience. For example, let's say your wife is about to have a baby. The baby, not having been born yet, cannot possibly know anything. If there's a car you drive around in, the baby doesn't know it exists. After the baby is born, it observes the car and becomes aware of its existence. However, the car existed before the baby was born - whether this particular baby recognizes the car's existence is irrelevant - in other words, the existence of an object that a baby observes is not dependent on whether the baby observes it. Try the "experiment" with any number of babies.

Now, since I was a baby once, and there was a time I didn't know anything (like our newborns), it logically follows that some things existed before I was aware of them, too. This logic can be followed back to my father, grandfather, and on up the greats, to the first conscious organism. We can prove through what we observe NOW that things existed before the first life forms evolved on earth, even though we can't directly observe the earth 2 billion years ago (or whatever). How do you know NOW that the Progenitor Solipsist existed back THEN, even though you weren't there?

Now, all that aside - your hypothetical game of "If there is a void where nothing but Time exists, but no one can observe it, does Time really exist?" is another matter, and it is fatally flawed by an impossible premise.

As I said, time is a dimension - like length, width, and depth (or height, they're interchangable). Dimensions are physical traits of an object. Therefore, time would not exist in your hypothesized void - but NOT because "no one was around to observe it". Rather, it's because if by void you mean "absolutely nothing", then there is no object for "time" to apply to.

You can try to say "what if there was a thing (like the Solipsist) that existed, but whose only observable dimension was time - but no one was capable of perceiving it because no one was around" - then the premise is still flawed, because time is necessarily a fourth-dimensional concept. Let me break it down, so to speak:

The 1st Dimension is Length. If we posit the existence of a one-dimensional object, that one dimension is always length, by definition.

The 2nd Dimension is Width. If an object has only two dimensions, those dimensions must be Length and Width. An object cannot have "width" unless it also has Length.

The 3rd Dimension is Height/Depth. If an object is three-dimensional, those three dimensions can only be (you guessed it) Length, Width, and Height. And of course, an object cannot have Height unless it has both Length and Width as well.

The 4th Dimension is Time (as far as my knowledge goes at this point, they may have moved it higher, but I don't think so). In order for an object to have Time, it without exception also has Length, Width, and Height.

The 5th Dimension is a 60's light rock group. Everybody! "Leeeeeet the sun shiiiine......leeeeeet the sun shine in...."

Actually, the posited 5th-and-higher dimensions are beyond the scope of my knowledge, and nevertheless irrelevant here. Franko, you probably already know this scale; know that I'm posting it not just for you but for the benefit of readers unaware.

But to bring this to a point, something has to have measurable length, width, and height if it has "time". Therefore, it is impossible - even hypothetically - for a void where "only Time exists" to exist itself - "conscious observers" nonwithstanding.

It is equally impossible for Time to become self-aware...unless you believe that Length, Width, and Height can become self-aware. They are concepts which, like all other concepts, have no "self" to become aware of.

Franko

25th February 2003, 07:43 PM

Progenitor Solipsist = Special Plead

"All things have a creator - except time (and gravity?)" = Special Plead

I’m not sure what you are talking about Loki? Who’s asking YOU to believe there was ever a Progenitor Solipsist? You are imagining things again.

Actually, that's reasonably accurate (although phrased in reasonably inflammatory terms). The thing to note is the two underlined words - 'void' and 'supernaturally'. What the Big Bang proposes is that the Universe appeared out of "somehting which does not obey TLOP". Since this "supernatural void" doesn't obey TLOP, we can't make *any* valid comment on it, other than it was/is "not-TLOP".

Now that is a Special Plead – The Universe Magically and Supernaturally appeared out of No where, we can’t prove it, but trust us because we aren’t really religious nitwits with an unproveable mystical dogma (fanatics) we are really not a religion at all! We are “Sighantist” for God’s sake! We are not really a religion like all of those other False illogical religions of the past, we are representatives of the “One True Faith”. Look, just because we don’t believe that there are any consequences for our actions, and the only logically consistent thing about our belief system is a steady constant pursuit of the most pessimistic view possible (based on no evidence (based on anti-evidence)) doesn’t mean that we would lie to you. You need to trust us, just because we can’t prove to you that our “free willy” god exist, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t it! You have to prove that our “free willy” god doesn’t exist or he does because we want to believe in him. He makes us happy, and so few things make us happy. Ohh, and by the way, you are stupid believing in your god. There is no evidence for your “false little god” and unless you have concrete irrefutable evidence for your “god” your “god” doesn’t exist. But that isn’t really a double standard … you just don’t understand as much about Logic as we do. We’re a-theist! We are always the “smartest”! We are smart because we don’t believe in your false “god”, we only believe in our “free willy god” – the one “true” god!

evildave

25th February 2003, 10:39 PM

So loony about anthropomorphizing things that he can't imagine people having a concept without a "being" attached to it.

The "god of free will". The "god of physics". Franko probably believes there's a special god of plumbing that plumbers believe in that makes the toilet go "fwoosh".

MRC_Hans

25th February 2003, 11:49 PM

And yet another thread where several people tried, in a patient and friendly way (le Docteur excluded, hehe), to discuss logic and sense with Frank, cometh to its conclusion. And the conclusion is: Franko simply doesn't want to discuss logic and sense, especially not in a friendly way. :rolleyes:

Franko simply cannot partake in a discussion without twisting people's arguments, without resorting to ad hominem, without launching strawmen. It is his way of life.

Hans

CWL

26th February 2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

As an aside, I'd like to use this as a shameless plug for my ongoing (although, somewhat forgotten from time to time) crusade that an understanding of mathematics is crucial to understanding anything, including philosophy.

This is an interesting contention Upfunk, worthy of a thread of its own. As someone who is schooled solely within law and the humanities (thus having no credentials whatsoever within physics or mathematics), I for one am not certain that I can agree with that contention. If you want to explore the issue in a new thread I certainly would be eager to participate.

26th February 2003, 02:37 AM

Franko is now on my ignore list. He is an immature, monotonous broken record. He adds nothing to the conversation except repetative verbal diahrea. He does not have an original thought in his noggin and his only agenda it to disrupt every single thread.

Some advice to you Franky....get some pictures of naked women or men and do your masturbating on your own time.

Loki

26th February 2003, 02:52 AM

Franko,

Now that is a Special Plead – The Universe Magically and Supernaturally appeared out of No where, we can’t prove it, but trust us ... blah blah blah... only believe in our “free willy god” – the one “true” god!
...Oh, sorry, did you say something? I must have nodded off momentarily. Now, could you repeat your question?... What, you mean you didn't have a question? ... never mind then ...

wraith

26th February 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Not even a decent argumentum ad hominem?

lol
it was an ad hominem to the max!

It was a beauty and you know it...

Put your pimple stuff on and go to bed....got it? :rolleyes:

wraith

26th February 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by jimmygun
Franko is now on my ignore list. He is an immature, monotonous broken record. He adds nothing to the conversation except repetative verbal diahrea. He does not have an original thought in his noggin and his only agenda it to disrupt every single thread.

Some advice to you Franky....get some pictures of naked women or men and do your masturbating on your own time.

Before you go and start tossing off, how about answering this question?!

How can you exist in a "no-time" period?

Checkmite

26th February 2003, 04:31 AM

So I typed out that long, beautiful post for nothing. It's all my fault I suppose... :D

wraith

26th February 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by evildave
So loony about anthropomorphizing things that he can't imagine people having a concept without a "being" attached to it.

The "god of free will". The "god of physics". Franko probably believes there's a special god of plumbing that plumbers believe in that makes the toilet go "fwoosh".

Hey dave, how many rolls of toilet paper do you use when you take a dump?

Im guessing 2 to 3?

wraith

26th February 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Not really. Its origins lie in mathematics (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html). Look up the word and you'll find references to numbers or conecepts like "boundless (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bound.html)" which are also mathematical in origin.

Can you imagine infinity?
When you think of infinity, you can think of an enormous period of time, then add on a "day" then another "day" etc....
but thats not really "infinity"

You think of a dot with absolutely no dimension? no length, no width, no height, and no time? That's it. That's a point (well, without the "black" part. points don't don't specifically have any color).

You might aswell desribe a 4-sided tri to me Upchurch :rolleyes:

the very best description I can give is:
dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0. Anything else I could tell you would be an inexact metaphore.

You have drawn a point, yet there is no point?
Like a dead and alive person?

Let's try a progression of ideas:

1. Take a piece of paper and draw a box on it. You see that it has length and width and, because you drew it, an element of duration.
2. On that same paper, draw a straight line on it. You see that it has length and duration but no width. It has one dimension less than the box.
3. On that same paper, draw a dot. You see that it has duration but no length and no width, but still has duration. It has two dimensions less than the box.
4. now imagine that there is a dot that you didn't draw. On that has one less dimension than the dot you drew. as well as not having any spacitial dimensions it has no temporal dimension either.

By mathematically removing one dimension at a time from the model we come to the conept of a zero-dimensional object.

thats like having an alive and dead person...

Skeptical Greg

26th February 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by evildave
Franko probably believes there's a special god of plumbing that plumbers believe in that makes the toilet go "fwoosh".

Are you suggesting there's not?:confused:

wraith

26th February 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
It's called application of experience. For example, let's say your wife is about to have a baby. The baby, not having been born yet, cannot possibly know anything. If there's a car you drive around in, the baby doesn't know it exists. After the baby is born, it observes the car and becomes aware of its existence. However, the car existed before the baby was born - whether this particular baby recognizes the car's existence is irrelevant - in other words, the existence of an object that a baby observes is not dependent on whether the baby observes it. Try the "experiment" with any number of babies.

What existed before the very first consciousness? Lets say that nothing existed...absolute nothingness.
Lets assume that the baby was the first consciousness, would the car still exist?

Lets say that the baby was never born, would the car still exist to the baby?

Now, since I was a baby once, and there was a time I didn't know anything (like our newborns), it logically follows that some things existed before I was aware of them, too.

They didnt exist to you at this point in time...

This logic can be followed back to my father, grandfather, and on up the greats, to the first conscious organism. We can prove through what we observe NOW that things existed before the first life forms evolved on earth, even though we can't directly observe the earth 2 billion years ago (or whatever). How do you know NOW that the Progenitor Solipsist existed back THEN, even though you weren't there?

Thats the point of TIME....
If you can say that time and consciousness are bound, then you can say that the PS existed before you did...

If you say that time can exist without a consciousness, isnt this like saying that a car can exist to you, before you were born?

As I said, time is a dimension - like length, width, and depth (or height, they're interchangable). Dimensions are physical traits of an object. Therefore, time would not exist in your hypothesized void - but NOT because "no one was around to observe it". Rather, it's because if by void you mean "absolutely nothing", then there is no object for "time" to apply to.

But is that whats being said?
Where I stand, Franko is saying that consciousness and time are bound.....you cant have consciousness without time, or time without consciousness

You can try to say "what if there was a thing (like the Solipsist) that existed, but whose only observable dimension was time - but no one was capable of perceiving it because no one was around" - then the premise is still flawed, because time is necessarily a fourth-dimensional concept. Let me break it down, so to speak:

[b]The 1st Dimension is Length. If we posit the existence of a one-dimensional object, that one dimension is always length, by definition.

The 2nd Dimension is Width. If an object has only two dimensions, those dimensions must be Length and Width. An object cannot have "width" unless it also has Length.

The 3rd Dimension is Height/Depth. If an object is three-dimensional, those three dimensions can only be (you guessed it) Length, Width, and Height. And of course, an object cannot have Height unless it has both Length and Width as well.

The 4th Dimension is Time (as far as my knowledge goes at this point, they may have moved it higher, but I don't think so). In order for an object to have Time, it without exception also has Length, Width, and Height.

To bring this to a point, something has to have measurable length, width, and height if it has "time". Therefore, it is impossible - even hypothetically - for a void where "only Time exists" to exist itself - "conscious observers" nonwithstanding.

But isnt length, width and height concepts of consciousness?
If consciousness and time are bound, there is no problem...

...except for the "timeless period" believer aka atheists ;)

It is equally impossible for Time to become self-aware...unless you believe that Length, Width, and Height can become self-aware. They are concepts which, like all other concepts, have no "self" to become aware of.

as I said

length, width and height are concepts of consciousness...they would be meaningless concepts without time/consciousness

Upchurch

26th February 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

[b]The 1st Dimension is Length. If we posit the existence of a one-dimensional object, that one dimension is always length, by definition.

The 2nd Dimension is Width. If an object has only two dimensions, those dimensions must be Length and Width. An object cannot have "width" unless it also has Length.

The 3rd Dimension is Height/Depth. If an object is three-dimensional, those three dimensions can only be (you guessed it) Length, Width, and Height. And of course, an object cannot have Height unless it has both Length and Width as well.

The 4th Dimension is Time (as far as my knowledge goes at this point, they may have moved it higher, but I don't think so). In order for an object to have Time, it without exception also has Length, Width, and Height.
Joshua,

Small correction. There is no structural hierarchy of the dimensions. "Length" is not always first, "width" isn't always the second, etc. What you have are four mutually purpendicular axis where you label three of them spacial and one of the temporal. But that assignment of labels is purely a local phenomenon and isn't applicable to all points in spacetime.

If your actually accelerating, forget about it!

Franko

26th February 2003, 05:57 AM

Loki:

...Oh, sorry, did you say something? I must have nodded off momentarily. Now, could you repeat your question?...

Sure thing …

Loki: (gone)
Actually, that's reasonably accurate (although phrased in reasonably inflammatory terms). The thing to note is the two underlined words - 'void' and 'supernaturally'. What the Big Bang proposes is that the Universe appeared out of "somehting which does not obey TLOP". Since this "supernatural void" doesn't obey TLOP, we can't make *any* valid comment on it, other than it was/is "not-TLOP".

Now that is a Special Plead – The Universe Magically and Supernaturally appeared out of No where, we can’t prove it, but trust us because we aren’t really religious nitwits with an unproveable mystical dogma (fanatics) we are really not a religion at all! We are “Sighantist” for God’s sake! We are not really a religion like all of those other False illogical religions of the past, we are representatives of the “One True Faith”. Look, just because we don’t believe that there are any consequences for our actions, and the only logically consistent thing about our belief system is a steady constant pursuit of the most pessimistic view possible (based on no evidence (based on anti-evidence)) doesn’t mean that we would lie to you. You need to trust us, just because we can’t prove to you that our “free willy” god exist, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t it! You have to prove that our “free willy” god doesn’t exist or he does because we want to believe in him. He makes us happy, and so few things make us happy. Ohh, and by the way, you are stupid believing in your god. There is no evidence for your “false little god” and unless you have concrete irrefutable evidence for your “god” your “god” doesn’t exist. But that isn’t really a double standard … you just don’t understand as much about Logic as we do. We’re a-theist! We are always the “smartest”! We are smart because we don’t believe in your false “god”, we only believe in our “free willy god” – the one “true” god!

Franko

26th February 2003, 05:59 AM

Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories, just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

Checkmite

26th February 2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories, just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

No, because if I had no feeling, sensation, input, or memory, then I just plain wouldn't exist at all.

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:12 AM

No, because if I had no feeling, sensation, input, or memory, then I just plain wouldn't exist at all.

Really? So people who are sleeping, unconscious, or in a coma don’t exist either then?

Do people in sensory deprivation tanks also not exist?

What memories do newborn infants possess? Does that mean newborn infants don’t exist? How about when the infant is in the womb? Does he exist then? The infant is NOT conscious in any way A-Theist?

Upchurch

26th February 2003, 06:14 AM

(no pun intended that time)
Originally posted by wraith

You have drawn a point [dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0], yet there is no point?

(dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0) is a space.

(x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) is a point,

as is:

(x=x1, y=x2, z=x3, t=x4) for any x1, x2, x3, x4.

the "d" before a coordinate stands for "differential", meaning a small difference in (or "wiggle" along) the coordinate. In the above situation, dx = 0 indicates that there is no distance along x.

By saying (dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0), I am describing a space with no length, no width, no height, and no duration. By saying (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0), I am describing a point at the origin of a 4-dimensional coordinate system.

Checkmite

26th February 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Really? So people who are sleeping, unconscious, or in a coma don’t exist either then?

Do people in sensory deprivation tanks also not exist?

People in those states still have memory and sensation. That's why a loud noise can wake someone up. And brainwave monitoring of comatose people indicates there is still brain activity - "feeling" - even if those people cannot physically react.

Originally posted by Franko
What memories do newborn infants possess? Does that mean newborn infants don’t exist? How about when the infant is in the womb? Does he exist then? The infant is NOT conscious in any way A-Theist?

Newborn infants, and even infants in the womb, have input and sensation.

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:27 AM

People in those states still have memory and sensation. That's why a loud noise can wake someone up.

Yeah, but what if there are no loud noises?

And brainwave monitoring of comatose people indicates there is still brain activity - "feeling" - even if those people cannot physically react.

So you are contradicting what you claimed earlier.

Newborn infants, and even infants in the womb, have input and sensation.

So what about a brand new baby with no memories yet … they fall asleep immediately after they are born …

Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories, just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

Checkmite

26th February 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yeah, but what if there are no loud noises?

There's still memory.

Originally posted by Franko
So you are contradicting what you claimed earlier.

Where?

Originally posted by Franko
So what about a brand new baby with no memories yet … they fall asleep immediately after they are born …

Um, no, they don't...and there is still sensation inside the womb.

Originally posted by Franko
Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories, just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

If the void was truly absolute, I couldn't be in it. :D

And what the heck is "the Quiet of your own mind"?

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:49 AM

If the void was truly absolute, I couldn't be in it.

You're right Josh, perhaps you should run along and play with the other A-Theists now?

I'm bored with ya ...

Loki

26th February 2003, 01:43 PM

Franko,

Now that is a Special Plead – The Universe Magically and Supernaturally appeared out of No where, we can’t prove it,... blah ... blah ... blah ... we only believe in our “free willy god” – the one “true” god!
...huh?, Oh, sorry, dozed off again. Could you repeat that?...

Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing,...
See, now this is a typical example of your approach - you have immediately confused the issue in the very first sentence. Are we imagining :

1. An Absolute Void - this, of course, means ther can be no You involved. Wouldn't be an Absolute void otherwise.

2. A Total lack of perception - There's a You (I), but absolutely no input whatsoever.

Please clarify.

Upchurch

26th February 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Loki

1. An Absolute Void - this, of course, means ther can be no You involved. Wouldn't be an Absolute void otherwise.

Would "Absolute" Void mean that there would be nothing at all, including space and time? Seems to me that a void with spacetime is not quite "absolute"...

Franko

26th February 2003, 03:39 PM

Imagine an absolute Void, You see nothing, you hear nothing, you feel nothing, no sensations, no inputs, no Memories (of this universe), just the Quiet of your own mind in the Darkness. Is Time passing … ? Would you be able to perceive it? Could you feel time passing with nothing around you but You?

Loki:
1. An Absolute Void - this, of course, means there can be no You involved. Wouldn't be an Absolute void otherwise.

Loki, when you close your eyes, you aren’t receiving any visual sensory input. Does that mean that you cannot imagine seeing things? In other words, when you close your eyes, can you “picture” things in your mind still? Do you need your eyes open to “see”?

In an analogous fashion … if there was nothing around you, you could not even sense your own “body”, you had no points of reference … under such circumstances do you believe you would still sense the passage of Time? Would you still be able to tell, that one moment occurred after the next?

2. A Total lack of perception - There's a You (I), but absolutely no input whatsoever.

Exactly, You exist, but you are receiving No external (sensory) inputs. Just your mind and your “imagination”.

Have you ever been half asleep … almost asleep, but not yet dreaming, not really thinking about anything, not quite feeling the surface you are lying on, feeling like you are floating perhaps?

Franko

26th February 2003, 03:44 PM

Upchurch:
Would "Absolute" Void mean that there would be nothing at all, including space and time? Seems to me that a void with spacetime is not quite "absolute"...

I’m starting with only one assumption for this little thought experiment – not 5 or 12 or 33!

Forget “space”, and “Time” is the point we are debating!!! If you existed – if you were “self-aware” (if You could sense your own consciousness), but you could perceive Nothing else, would you still sense the passage of Time?

In other words, does the existence of Consciousness require the existence of Time? Or can consciousness “exist” in some form without sensing (perceiving) time?

Doctor X

26th February 2003, 04:29 PM

This is becomming too easy. . . .

Doctor Whiney: (A-Theist Stooge)

Would he feel happier if I refer'd to him at:

Wanko: Felator of Voles

{Thought he felated wolverines.}

This scans better. [Get on with it.--Ed.]

He [Franko] (sic) cannot address the Science of Consciousness.

I?m not a mindreader A-Theist (sic). If you have something to say ? say it.

Will note the irony that the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit mades the following ignorant claim:

Yeah, but what if there are no loud noises?

A slight familiarity with The Science of Consciousness would--as suggested some time ago--correct such innocence.

Yet does the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit continue to make eroneous claims concerning consciousness WITHOUT addressing The Science of Consciousness [All Rights Reserv'd.--Ed.]

What does he fear?

The really big words?

Does the Reticular Formation loosen his grip on his muscular sphincters?

Moi: Indeed, he could not even reconcile his goddess with the Child.

Coward et Liar et Hypocrit: You mean birth defects again? Why don?t you just speak (sic) in English?

As noted, before, with some redundancy, this represents a Lie, an attempt to attach an obnoxious opinion to someone else.

It merely represents his FEAR to reconcile his goddess with the implication of The Child with the Pontine Tumor [DVD available soon.--Ed.]

I bet if you A-Theists (sic) could talk women into having 10 times as many abortions as they do now, the number of birth defects would decline considerably.

Should, at this stage, gently remind the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit, that a pontine tumor is not a birth defect.

Not to confuse him with science, since it frightens him so.

Anyways, the represents another version of the same attempt to attack through a ridiculous argument.

I am still waiting for him to explain why he enjoys giving oral pleasure to voles. [Wolverines.--Ed.] {He changed it because "voles" scans better than "wolverine."}

How are birth defects ?God?s fault??

I must refer the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to the Case of the Child with the Metencephalic Tumor--remove "pontine glioma" and insert "birth defect."

Any ?good? A-Theist (sic) will tell you that birth defects are solely the fault of the mother failing to abort her fetus.

No one light a match . . . too many strawmen about--not to mention the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit appears to be generating considerable methane with that one.

[quoe]Everyone knows that A-Theists (sic) are better off never being born.[/quote]

If "everyone" consists of the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit perhaps if it spares them from experiencing his behavior.

quote:So many promises . . . so many failures.

Moi: If an unkind man I would recognize that he fires blanks and posts such drivel out of envy.

Coward et Liar et Hypocrit: Envy? As in, I wish I could be an insane hypocrite like you?

The Coward et Liar et Hypocrit would have to mature greatly, develop honesty, develop integrity, and probably find a large crane to ascend to such a lofty level.

What is your evidence for the existence of ?free will??

Non sequitur with the old attachment of argument to someone else. Rather trite now. . . .

What is your evidence for the non-existence of ?god??

Would direct the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to the Problem of the Progeny with Pontine Tumor which provides five possible outcomes.

Granted, the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit has yet to engage them. Perhaps if he sounds out the big words?

Various ranting non sequitur and puerile argumentum ad hominem[i] follow. . . .

Moi:Puberty will, perhaps, correct some of his social "issues."

Coward et Liar et Hypocrit: Yeah ? look who?s talking ?

While I consider this a written medium of sorts, I am flattered to serve as an example for this Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to strive to.

More attempts to avoid the points that distemper him follows.

--J.D.

Marquis de Carabas

26th February 2003, 04:53 PM

Absolut Void n. The state or condition of being out of vodka

Loki

26th February 2003, 05:25 PM

Franko,

Hey - this is almost an interesting exchange!

Loki, when you close your eyes, you aren’t receiving any visual sensory input. Does that mean that you cannot imagine seeing things?
No.

In other words, when you close your eyes, can you “picture” things in your mind still?
Yes.

Do you need your eyes open to “see”?
Well, yes if by "see" you mean "see the world around me". No, if by "see" you mean "bring up a mental image".

...if there was nothing around you, … under such circumstances do you believe you would still sense the passage of Time?
Yes.

Would you still be able to tell, that one moment occurred after the next?
Yes.

In other words, does the existence of Consciousness require the existence of Time?
"Consciousness requires time" is my vote. This leads to ..???

Sorry, but you've lost me here - just what exactly are you getting at with these questions (places head in trap, waits patiently...)

evildave

26th February 2003, 09:23 PM

Absolut void. What a pisser that'd be.

How would I drink my orange juice?

Checkmite

26th February 2003, 09:42 PM

Since Loki just paraphrased what I said, and Franko responded to him but not me, I'll just respond to Franko's response to Loki.

Originally posted by Franko

Loki, when you close your eyes, you aren’t receiving any visual sensory input. Does that mean that you cannot imagine seeing things? In other words, when you close your eyes, can you “picture” things in your mind still? Do you need your eyes open to “see”?

I understand the what you're trying to say, but you're still wrong. I can close my eyes and imagine seeing my car - but I remember what my car looks like. You could ask me to visualize a house I had never seen before, and I could - but I could only visualize a house that is a conglomerate of features and structures I had seen before and therefore remember.

For example - right now I'm imagining a two-story house with the dark wood-trim accents typical of Dutch colonial sets, and a gambrel roof with two gables facing the front. I've never seen this particular house, in reality or through photos or TV...but since I've seen the dark trim of Dutch colonial houses, and gambrel roofs, and gables, either personally, or on TV or in pictures (etc), I can mash them together and come up with a product.

What's the point? The point is, you said that in this void there would be no Memory. No Memory means no library from which to draw images - in which case NO, I could not imagine seeing anything, because I wouldn't know what it is like to see.

Originally posted by Franko
In an analogous fashion … if there was nothing around you, you could not even sense your own “body”, you had no points of reference … under such circumstances do you believe you would still sense the passage of Time? Would you still be able to tell, that one moment occurred after the next?

No...with no perceptions to compare, I wouldn't even be aware there was such a thing as Time, because I had never before experienced or been made indirectly aware of its existence. Perhaps I could if you had said "You still have all your memories up to this point, but suddenly you find yourself in a void without sensory perception" - but you didn't, you said "no Memory". Without memory, I wouldn't know what "time passing" was like, I wouldn't know who or what I was, I couldn't think about anything (what could I possibly think about?). In short, I wouldn't exist. Thus, of course I couldn't sense the passage of time.

Originally posted by Franko
Exactly, You exist, but you are receiving No external (sensory) inputs. Just your mind and your “imagination”.

Imagination requires a pool of data to work with. Like I said, you can't imagine something that isn't at least a collage of things known to exist. Don't believe me? Imagine discovering a new color no one had ever seen before - what would it look like?

No data at all = no imagination.

Originally posted by Franko
Have you ever been half asleep … almost asleep, but not yet dreaming, not really thinking about anything, not quite feeling the surface you are lying on, feeling like you are floating perhaps?

No.

Doctor X

26th February 2003, 10:17 PM

Hans:

. . . where several people tried, in a patient and friendly way (le Docteur excluded, hehe)

"Measur'd in manner and speech, sir! Measur'd in manner and speech."

I did not even bother to slap the Sockpuppet of a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit.

Now regarding sight and whether or not someone can imagine sight with the eyes closed, here is an interesting syndrome--Cortical Blindness.

Damage just the primary visual cortices and leave the secondary intact and the person becomes blind but does not know he is blind.

He thinks he can see. . . .

He will confabulate. Ask him if he can see your fingers, he will say, "yes!" He will even "count" them.

--J.D.

c4ts

26th February 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by evildave
So loony about anthropomorphizing things that he can't imagine people having a concept without a "being" attached to it.

The "god of free will". The "god of physics". Franko probably believes there's a special god of plumbing that plumbers believe in that makes the toilet go "fwoosh".

Nah, even a plumber knows that the toilet obeys TLOP, and because you obey TLOP, the toilet controls YOU!

Marquis de Carabas

26th February 2003, 10:55 PM

Sometimes, after a long night of creating an Absolut Void, I often feel that the toilet does exert some powerful influence over my life.

MRC_Hans

26th February 2003, 11:05 PM

"Measur'd in manner and speech, sir! Measur'd in manner and speech."

I did not even bother to slap the Sockpuppet of a Coward et Liar et Hypocrit. The noble art of administering mortal insults that pass just over the head of the victim. Very amusing to more insightful bystanders.

We could (but I think we won't [Thanks!--Ed]) have the philosophical discussion whether an insult is an insult if nobody understands it. -- And if everybody but the victim understands it? Heheh.

Hans :cool:

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The noble art of administering mortal insults that pass just over the head of the victim. Very amusing to more insightful bystanders.

We could (but I think we won't [Thanks!--Ed]) have the philosophical discussion whether an insult is an insult if nobody understands it. -- And if everybody but the victim understands it? Heheh.

Hans :cool:

Screw Ed!

It's all subjective. Imagine an Absolut void in which there is nothing but the Quiet of your unsophisticated mind, and in which someone you can't perceive hurls an insult that goes right over your head. Since don't understand the insult, have you really been insulted? Do insults really exist at all? Or is Time necessary to perceive an insult?

MRC_Hans

27th February 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Screw Ed!

Mmmm, sorry, not my preference.

It's all subjective. Imagine an Absolut void in which there is nothing but the Quiet of your unsophisticated mind,

I resent this, what is your EXACT evidence that my mind is unsopisticated? [Are you sure you wanna do that?--Ed.]

and in which someone you can't perceive hurls an insult that goes right over your head.

Define "over" in an Absolut vodka. --sorry, void.

Since don't understand the insult, have you really been insulted? Do insults really exist at all?

Maybe they're just a figment of your imagination?

Or is Time necessary to perceive an insult?

Are you claiming that Time can percieve an insult without being conscious? How can you do this without accepting a double standard?

Hans

Skeptical Greg

27th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Screw Ed!

It's all subjective. Imagine an Absolut void in which there is nothing but the Quiet of your unsophisticated mind, and in which someone you can't perceive hurls an insult that goes right over your head. Since don't understand the insult, have you really been insulted? Do insults really exist at all? Or is Time necessary to perceive an insult?

I've always ( well, the last few years anyway) said, an insult is not an insult unless you accept it.

I have to deal with my, soon to be, 9 year old son coming home from school, and telling me about someone who is
teasing him.

He seems to comprehend that someone calling him something, doesn't make him so, and makes a liar or an idiot of the
person doing the calling, if in fact, they are in error.

If they happen to be correct, it becomes a matter of whether change or acceptance is in order.

Doctor X

27th February 2003, 06:58 AM

If a tree insults you in a forest, and you are not around to hear it. . . .

--J.D.

Franko

27th February 2003, 07:25 AM

Dr.X: (A-Theist Imbecile)

Wanko: Felator of Voles

Ohhh, so you are just another of Trixy's pathetic sock-puppets?

surprise, surprise ... :rolleyes:

run along Troll-boy www.infidels.org

Franko

27th February 2003, 07:31 AM

Loki:
"Consciousness requires time" is my vote. This leads to ..???

Big trouble for your worldview … if you are an A-Theist.

Loki:
Sorry, but you've lost me here - just what exactly are you getting at with these questions (places head in trap, waits patiently...)

Loki, are you predicting the future now? You can’t be doing that while you believe in “free will” … don’t you know predicting the future accurately is impossible??

Franko

27th February 2003, 07:34 AM

Jishousa Kawaski: (A-Theist Boob)

It's all subjective. Imagine an Absolut void in which there is nothing but the Quiet of your unsophisticated mind, and in which someone you can't perceive hurls an insult that goes right over your head. Since don't understand the insult, have you really been insulted? Do insults really exist at all? Or is Time necessary to perceive an insult?

Gee, I wonder I why no one is wasting time on you?

Stick to A-Theism you brain dead moron. Obviously you have found the "one True Faith" no need for Skepticism, no need to look any further. The "truth" stops right here ... :rolleyes:

Franko

27th February 2003, 07:36 AM

c4tv: (Can't think for himself)
Nah, even a plumber knows that the toilet obeys TLOP, and because you obey TLOP, the toilet controls YOU!

Well, if you are an A-Theist, then who knows ... maybe this is ultimately True?

Akots

27th February 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Gee, I wonder I why no one is wasting time on you?

You imply that it is possible to talk to franko and somehow avoid wasting time... ;)

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I have to deal with my, soon to be, 9 year old son coming home from school, and telling me about someone who is
teasing him.

He seems to comprehend that someone calling him something, doesn't make him so, and makes a liar or an idiot of the
person doing the calling, if in fact, they are in error.

If they happen to be correct, it becomes a matter of whether change or acceptance is in order.

Indeed. The trouble is, every so often we encounter a person who is unable or unwilling to determine whether a peer offering criticism is correct or not. There are several reasons for this failing when it occurs, most often including vanity or narcissism, or dislike of another person to such a degree that anything that person says is disagreed with, regardless of validity. There are also cases in which what others consider a flaw is considered a virtue by the subject (as is often the case with the "faithful").

I believe the problem with the subject in this case (that is, our good friend the Sage) is the "dislike" syndrome discussed above. For reasons of pride, or fear of imperfection and therefore perceived inferiority, our friend is loathe to acknowledge any criticism coming from those he considers most capable of "exposing" said imperfection - namely, those he considers atheists. He seems to feel he genuinely has something to lose if he makes a concession to an "enemy". Such a person will do anything to maintain his illusion of superiority, if not in one manner, then in another - most already understand that after a particular poster destroys enough of his arguments (and thus is a threat to Franko's intellectual "superiority"), he insists upon belittling them with grammar-school epithets designed to restore his own perceived place "at the top". Note, for example, that when I mentioned a few posts ago that "if I were in an absolute void, it wouldn't be an absolute void", he refused to respond coherently - however, when a person he didn't have as much contempt for - and isn't as "threatened" by - (namely Loki) made the exact same remark in paraphrase, he tried to explain. Loki responded in kind - and although Franko hasn't replied yet, I would expect his response to Loki to be more than a rude and arrogant shove-off like he gave me. Thus, we may infer that he doesn't simply define everyone he dislikes as an inferior "atheist", but has a subtle "grading system" in which one atheist may be more or less inferior than others.

One doesn't have to be a real atheist, of course, to call attention to an "imperfection" of Franko's. While it seems to me that he genuinely interprets my concept of God to be, for all intents and purposes, "atheistic" - a common interpretation of Deism, I might add - you will note that the poster named "Akots" is firmly and decidedly an "atheist" in Franko's mind - for absolutely no other reason than that Akots happened to criticize Franko's knee-jerk "you're all morons" reactions to nearly any post an atheist submits. But of course, consistency is not one of Franko's forte's, as evidenced by his ridicule of atheists for "not being able to respond to a direct question", while at the same time being unable to himself directly answer the question "Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from?"; or his assertion that "If you label yourself (X), then you are (X)", while at the same time he has no qualms about re-labeling Deists, and now a Baha'i, as "atheists" when he sees fit, regardless of their protests.

I must add a small correction. After having posted this, I see that Franko has just now responded to a few posters, including Loki. As expected, he responded to all the "bad guys" with juvenile platitudes, while entertaining Loki with a serious (if brief) response.

Franko

27th February 2003, 08:13 AM

Akots: (A-Theist deadbeat)
You imply that it is possible to talk to franko and somehow avoid wasting time...

Depends on how attached you are to the idea of "ceasing to exist".

Personally I think you should stop wasting your time in here A-Theist and run along and enjoy your existence while you can.

Relatively speaking it will be over in the blink of an eye ...

Franko

27th February 2003, 08:21 AM

Joshy: (A-Theist goon)
I must add a small correction. After having posted this, I see that Franko has just now responded to a few posters, including Loki. As expected, he responded to all the "bad guys" with juvenile platitudes, while entertaining Loki with a serious (if brief) response.

Ohhh, Joshy, I’m so sorry I don’t find you more interesting, but you lie and obfuscate so much you’re just not worth talking too most of the time. Besides, 99% of what you post is the exact same nonsense that at least 20 other a-Theists (some of whom may actually have a clue) say more concisely and earnestly.

Why do you even care what I believe? Your apparent obsession with me borders on worrisome.

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohhh, Joshy, I’m so sorry I don’t find you more interesting, but you lie and obfuscate so much you’re just not worth talking too most of the time. Besides, 99% of what you post is the exact same nonsense that at least 20 other a-Theists (some of whom may actually have a clue) say more concisely and earnestly.

I apologize for not meeting your expectations. Of course, you can point out a particular instance where I lied, I'm sure. And I suppose I can counter by rejoinding that 99% of what you post is cut-and-paste of what you've already posted at least a dozen times before. :D

If you would be so kind to directly answer: Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from? If you will not answer the question because I am the one asking it, would you answer if someone else asked?

Originally posted by Franko
Why do you even care what I believe? Your apparent obsession with me borders on worrisome.

As you have pointed out in the past, you don't like to "talk to yourself". I assume you are posting your ideas on an internet forum because you would like feedback about them - unless you're just looking for a crowd to indoctrinate.

Franko

27th February 2003, 08:48 AM

Joshua Koroski: (A-Theist stooge)
Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from? If you will not answer the question because I am the one asking it, would you answer if someone else asked?

I tried to have this conversation with you twice, and once we got beyond the preliminaries and you started to realize it was going to go against your dogmatic A-Theistic beliefs you got all scared and decided it would be more fun to insult me and joke with your little A-Theist chums.

Go back, and try responding where you failed to the last time if you are sincere about wanting to have this conversation with me.

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I tried to have this conversation with you twice, and once we got beyond the preliminaries and you started to realize it was going to go against your dogmatic A-Theistic beliefs you got all scared and decided it would be more fun to insult me and joke with your little A-Theist chums.

Go back, and try responding where you failed to the last time if you are sincere about wanting to have this conversation with me.

No, you decided to ask me questions instead of answering my question. And I did answer your questions, but apparently my answers were "insufficient" for you. I didn't start joking with my friends until you got flustered and gave up.

I already told you...don't ask me where I think the Progenitor Solipsist came from - obviously I don't understand it, which is why I'm asking you to clarify. Do you think Time is necessary for consciousness? Fine - tell me so, instead of asking whether I agree. You could explain in one or two posts what it takes us whole threads to dance around, if you would just answer directly instead of playing the "what do you think" game.

For example, it took us each about 5 posts a piece discussing "Time in a void" before you finally said

Originally posted by Franko

So there you go. Something has to perceive the sequence or the sequence doesn't exist.

Or put another way, the essence of a "Sequence" is that a Sequence must be perceived.

Why couldn't you just say that to begin with?

Now, I may not necessarily agree with you on that point - I say my car is still sitting in my driveway, even if nobody is perceiving it right now (because it's 13 degrees out and everybody is inside their own houses or at work). But that doesn't matter. This is about what you think.

So, let's get on with it.

Task: Explain where the Progenitor Solipsist came from, using as many points as necessary.

[list=1]
The essence of a Sequence is that a Sequence must be perceived.[/list=1]

Continue, Franko, if you would.

Franko

27th February 2003, 09:21 AM

Joshua korosi: (Clandestine A-Theist)
Why can't you tell me where the Progenitor Solipsist comes from?

Franko:
Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Joshua korosi:
I asked you all these questions, Franko. You refused to answer them. Why can't you tell me where the Progenitor Solipsist came from? Are you claiming that the Progenitor Solipsist = Time? How can a dimension be self-aware (you didn't answer that either)?

Franko:
Goto Main

… some time elapses 3 or 4 pages on the thread with Joshy posting lots of A-theist Fluff, lots of A-Theist insults, lots of woo-woo! … then …

Joshua Koroski: (A-Theist stooge)
Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from? If you will not answer the question because I am the one asking it, would you answer if someone else asked?

Franko:
I tried to have this conversation with you twice, and once we got beyond the preliminaries and you started to realize it was going to go against your dogmatic A-Theistic beliefs you got all scared and decided it would be more fun to insult me and joke with your little A-Theist chums.

Go back, and try responding where you failed to the last time if you are sincere about wanting to have this conversation with me.

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Where did Time come from?

... or did Time always exist ... by necessity?

Is it possible for Time not to exist?

Really?

How long can Time not exist for?

Well? What are the answers? You're supposed to be directly answering questions, not asking them.

If it helps, I think the proper answer to "Is it possible for Time not to exist?" is "Yes", because you said that "The essence of a Sequence is that a Sequence must be perceived" - therefore, without anything to perceive it, Time doesn't exist.

We've now wasted two posts answering a question that's already been answered.

Anyway, continue please.

Franko

27th February 2003, 09:29 AM

Homey don't play dat A-Theist!

quid pro quo

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 09:31 AM

Read edit above.

You don't play dat? You don't directly answer questions? Well then, you can't fairly complain about the A-Theists doing the same thing, can you?

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Well? What are the answers? You're supposed to be directly answering questions, not asking them.

If it helps, I think the proper answer to "Is it possible for Time not to exist?" is "Yes", because you said that "The essence of a Sequence is that a Sequence must be perceived" - therefore, without anything to perceive it, Time doesn't exist.

We've now wasted two posts answering a question that's already been answered.

Anyway, continue please.

I also think that, fairly, the answer to "Where did Time come from" has to come from you, since it seems you place a close link between Time and the PS.

As for "How long can Time not exist for", I think the answer to that is supposed to be "For as long as no one is around to perceive it" - but if I'm wrong, correct me.

Getting on...

Doctor X

27th February 2003, 10:05 AM

Moi: Humbly offer'd so that the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit would not feel left out in his puerile witless attempt to besmirch names:

Wanko: Felator of Voles

Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit:Ohhh, so you are just another of Trixy's pathetic sock-puppets?

So, he does not deny his "special relationship."

Progress, there, I gather.

--J.D.

Doctor X

27th February 2003, 10:08 AM

Joshua Korosi:

Well, of course, for then he would lose his cherished title of Hypocrit.

He would then begin to walk the road towards maturity. Perchance he would aquire a concept of honesty, even courage.

He may begin to judge people by their merits rather by his jealousy.

Of course, I am an optimist; I fear he would find this process, "too dark altogether."

--J.D.

Franko

27th February 2003, 10:20 AM

Joshua korosi:
You don't play dat? You don't directly answer questions? Well then, you can't fairly complain about the A-Theists doing the same thing, can you?

I can’t communicate with you unless I know how you define the terms we are using. A-Theist (like yourself) don’t like to be “pinned down” by agreeing to a stance at the start of a discussion.

This is the concept of Intellectual Honesty a quality that you have clearly demonstrated you lack. Girls like yourself (or Dr. X) want to pretend that you don’t believe anything because then you think you don’t have to actually defend anything.

In other words it’s easy to pretend you are aren’t wrong about anything when you first pretend that you don’t believe anything.

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I can’t communicate with you unless I know how you define the terms we are using. A-Theist (like yourself) don’t like to be “pinned down” by agreeing to a stance at the start of a discussion.

This is the concept of Intellectual Honesty a quality that you have clearly demonstrated you lack. Girls like yourself (or Dr. X) want to pretend that you don’t believe anything because then you think you don’t have to actually defend anything.

In other words it’s easy to pretend you are aren’t wrong about anything when you first pretend that you don’t believe anything.

Fine.

I think (as I've said before) that Time is a measurable dimension, like length and width.

Franko

27th February 2003, 11:13 AM

I think (as I've said before) that Time is a measurable dimension, like length and width.

I thought Time was when one thing happened ... and then something else does ... and then something else ...

Does Time have to be "measured" to be "sensed"? Are you claiming that animals do not experience Time because they have nothing to measure Time with (no watches or clocks)?

How about a rock? Can a rock measure Time?

How about an atom?

Loki

27th February 2003, 12:47 PM

Franko,

Should I even ask?

(if consciousness requires time in order to exist it leads to ...) Big trouble for your worldview ... if you are an A-Theist
How so?

Loki, are you predicting the future now?
No more than usual - and with about the same success rate.

You can’t be doing that while you believe in “free will” …

Logical Deists can't do that either - and you don't believe in "free will". Kinda makes "free will" irrelevant in the "prediction" game, doesn't it?

... don’t you know predicting the future accurately is impossible??
Well, yes, as an absolute. Of course, there are plenty of well bounded situations in which prediction is 100% accurate - my heart will one day stop beating being one such.

Doctor X

27th February 2003, 01:53 PM

This is the concept of Intellectual Honesty a quality that you have clearly demonstrated you lack.

Clear only to a Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit who has fled from invitations to defend his blatherings.

As clear as frosted glass. . . .

--J.D.

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Franko

I thought Time was when one thing happened ... and then something else does ... and then something else ...

Does Time have to be "measured" to be "sensed"? Are you claiming that animals do not experience Time because they have nothing to measure Time with (no watches or clocks)?

How about a rock? Can a rock measure Time?

How about an atom?

See, now we're spinning off on a tangent because you asked me what I thought Time was, and it differs with your definition. Forget about what I think...why don't you just tell me your definition of Time, and let's proceed from there. We're discussing your theory after all - what I think is irrelevant.

Franko

27th February 2003, 05:29 PM

Dr. De-Bungler:

Clear only to a Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit who has fled from invitations to defend his blatherings.

As clear as frosted glass. . . .

What are you finally making good on your promise to spam the forum endlessly you pathetic little pissant!

You're just too high strung sweetheart.

R u n A l o n g .................... www.infidels.org

Franko

27th February 2003, 05:33 PM

Joshua Korossosi:
See, now we're spinning off on a tangent because you asked me what I thought Time was, and it differs with your definition. Forget about what I think...why don't you just tell me your definition of Time, and let's proceed from there. We're discussing your theory after all - what I think is irrelevant.

We're talking about my theory??? :confused:

Why are we talking about that? I am more interested in learning about A-Theism, because I keep hearing how all of the really, really super smart people -- like ALL the "real" scientists, and almost all the Nobel prize winner -- are ALL A-Theists. They are all believers in the magical powers of their "free willy".

Only Theists and Deists are stupid enough to believe in "Gods". Think about it ... you'd just have to be retarded to believe something based on no evidence ...

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Franko

We're talking about my theory??? :confused:

Uh, YEAH....here's a little something to jog your memory:

Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from???

So far, you've made one point:

The essence of a Sequence is that a Sequence must be perceived.

Shall we resume?

Franko

27th February 2003, 07:47 PM

Joshieua …

What the f*ck do you want from me? If you are reading this YOU are the Progenitor, and I’m just a figment of your imagination. I mean … seriously, it’s like I’ve been saying what is more realistic … an entire Universe and completely functioning set of rules magically appears out of No Where and for No Reason!?!? … o r … YOU magically appeared (self-existing Time) and are just imagining it all yourself?

How in the hell is an insignificant little figment like me, gonna explain anything to an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD like YOU?

Tricky

27th February 2003, 07:50 PM

Uh oh. Franko is having another spasm of figmentism. This is a common side effect of being backed into the corner of a hole he has dug for himself.

But to correct you a bit, Josh, Franko has said that the PS was created by time. He still hasn't shown where time came from.

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Uh oh. Franko is having another spasm of figmentism. This is a common side effect of being backed into the corner of a hole he has dug for himself.

But to correct you a bit, Josh, Franko has said that the PS was created by time. He still hasn't shown where time came from.

I admit; when Franko launches into the whole figmentism thing, I casually wonder whether he does so because he doesn't know the answer to the question, or whether he's afraid to answer the question...or even if he just wants to be juvenile and not "feel like" answering the question. But in any case, this is where his "answers" (if they can be labeled such) about the relevant topics usually end, giving way to a series of KKK-style monologues about "them damn A-Theists".

It's my fault, I suppose. :D

As far as Time creating the PS...I heard him mention something to that effect once; yet, in this thread, he has pointedly explained that time cannot exist unless there's some consciousness around to perceive it. If the PS was the first consciousness, how can Time have created him when Time didn't exist until he was able to perceive it? This is the conundrum I wish Franko would explain - if he could. But no - "figments".

Sigh.

c4ts

27th February 2003, 08:08 PM

I looked up every line of Franko's dogma an Google, including phrases like "logical Goddess," and I have reached the conclusion that Logical Deism is entirely the invention of Franko!! I don't know whether to applaud his originality, or laugh any harder because it's already starting to hurt. HE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS BUT LOOK... HE IS SERIOUS!!

Franko

27th February 2003, 08:36 PM

A-Theist
I admit; when Franko launches into the whole figmentism thing, I casually wonder whether he does so because he doesn't know the answer to the question, or whether he's afraid to answer the question...or even if he just wants to be juvenile and not "feel like" answering the question.

You have all the evidence for the Progenitor that I can give you. If you are claiming that the universe is not a figment of your imagination, kindly explain why not?

(other figments ... pretend to help him)

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You have all the evidence for the Progenitor that I can give you. If you are claiming that the universe is not a figment of your imagination, kindly explain why not?

(other figments ... pretend to help him)

You claimed it IS a figment - and you did so first - so you have to prove your claim first. :p

Franko

27th February 2003, 09:02 PM

Only You exist.

How can "I" claim anything?

Look, I would like to help you, but I can only obey your commands. Perhaps if you can demonstarte for me by proving that your wife/girlfirend/buddy exists, then I can "see" how You did it, and I'll just emmulate you?

Checkmite

27th February 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Only You exist.

How can "I" claim anything?

Look, I would like to help you, but I can only obey your commands.

Very good. I command you to explain, in detail, where the Progenitor Solipsist came from.

Loki

27th February 2003, 11:04 PM

Franko,

(In case you missed this...)

(if consciousness requires time in order to exist it leads to ...) Big trouble for your worldview ... if you are an A-Theist

How so?

wraith

28th February 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Loki
How so?

Youre the one saying that consciousness can exist without time...you might aswell claim that youre a rock...

"Im not a rock!" you say...

Why is that? Is it because that you perceive Time?

That kinda shuts down your whole matter creates consciousness argument ;)

wraith

28th February 2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
(no pun intended that time)

(dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0) is a space.

(x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) is a point,

as is:

(x=x1, y=x2, z=x3, t=x4) for any x1, x2, x3, x4.

the "d" before a coordinate stands for "differential", meaning a small difference in (or "wiggle" along) the coordinate. In the above situation, dx = 0 indicates that there is no distance along x.

By saying (dx=0, dy=0, dz=0, dt=0), I am describing a space with no length, no width, no height, and no duration. By saying (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0), I am describing a point at the origin of a 4-dimensional coordinate system.

So there is a point in space, yet at the same time, there is no point in space?

28th February 2003, 01:26 AM

I don't understand Franko either, but.............If he brought me a jref coffee mug I'd love him forever:D pleasssssssssse

The TLOP has me all confused and I wish he didnt keep saying free willy it gets me all excited, but his free will thing is correct there isnt anything like free will it's all controlled by some means or other.

Logic I can grasp but worshipping a logical deity:confused: confused again.

c4ts

28th February 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Pie
I don't understand Franko either, but.............If he brought me a jref coffee mug I'd love him forever:D pleasssssssssse

The TLOP has me all confused and I wish he didnt keep saying free willy it gets me all excited, but his free will thing is correct there isnt anything like free will it's all controlled by some means or other.

Logic I can grasp but worshipping a logical deity:confused: confused again.

Franko made up his own religion for the very purpose of p*ssing off JREF forum members. I don't think he actually worships his logical goddess. And don't let him bribe you with coffee mugs.

28th February 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

Franko made up his own religion for the very purpose of p*ssing off JREF forum members. I don't think he actually worships his logical goddess. And don't let him bribe you with coffee mugs.

Lol c4ts You can buy me a jref gift too pigus pin would be lovely ;)

But I want Franko to buy me a jref coffee mug so I can drink my early morning tea and think of him while I am in my Pjs

Franko

28th February 2003, 08:05 AM

c4tv: (Explosive-(A-Theist)-Transvestite)
Franko made up his own religion for the very purpose of p*ssing off JREF forum members.

Translation: Franko made up his own religion for the very purpose of p*ssing off members of the Cult of A-Theism. (Cynics pretending to be Skeptics)

c4tv: (Explosive-(A-Theist)-Transvestite)
I don't think he actually worships his logical goddess.

How the hell does Nimrod here know what “I” think?

(A-Theist and their “magic mind powers” :rolleyes: )

And don't let him bribe you with coffee mugs.

Yeah, Pie what’s with the panhandling? I thought you were a serious person, you want to talk Religion & Philosophy, or you want to pretend you are one of the “boys”?

pillory

28th February 2003, 08:11 AM

maybe i should apologize Franko, cause there's so much more i don't understand,maybe the'r no need for that but...

(I ain't still understand,although i haven't tried to. )

Franko

28th February 2003, 08:19 AM

pillory:
maybe i should apologize Franko, cause there's so much more i don't understand,maybe the'r no need for that but...

If you don't mind me asking a question, my friend?

We haven't chatted (I don't think) ... why don't the A-Theist like you?

c4ts

28th February 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Franko

If you don't mind me asking a question, my friend?

We haven't chatted (I don't think) ... why don't the A-Theist like you?

Are you kidding?? Pillory rocks!

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 09:52 AM

The Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit ignores the exhortation to argue the point and blathers thusly:

What are you finally making good on your promise to spam the forum endlessly. . . .

Never made such a promise. I merely demonstrate the manefest COWARDICE et cetera of the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit.

I could not do this so easily if he ceased behaving in such an odious manner.

Incidentally, note the argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum.

. . . you pathetic little pissant!

Almost an aliterative argumentum ad hominem. If he had wit he could have used "puny" or "pompously punctilious in his pathetic pissantness." ["Pissantness?"--Ed.]

Just trying to help the boy.

Now:

You're just too high strung sweetheart.

While I could not possibly replace the vole in his affections, I note that ALL THE Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit can offer is argumentum ad hominem.

That an one or two of the rather uninteresting fallacies. . . .

The Score Thus Far:

1. Asked to Explain his Views on Consciousness in Light of the Science of Consciousness:

Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit FAILS!

1. Asked to Address the Pathetic Problem Posed by the Progeny Persecuted Profoundly by Prodigeous Pontine Tumor: Note the alliteration! [Get on with it!--Ed.]

Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit FAILS!

Quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

As for his fascination with www.infidels.org one can only imagine why he ran away from there.

--J.D.

Franko

28th February 2003, 02:12 PM

Doctor De-Bungler-X: (thinks he’s smart)
Asked to Explain his Views on Consciousness in Light of the Science of Consciousness

Otay … we finally have something intelligible. Look every body HE CAN SPEAK!

What specifically are you referring to by the phrase “Science of Consciousness”? Could you elaborate a bit perhaps?

Dr. D-X:
Asked to Address the Pathetic Problem Posed by the Progeny Persecuted Profoundly by Prodigeous Pontine Tumor

Yes, I can see you are so concerned about that poor child that you make stupid little rhymes about her on the internet. You’re right she probably would have been better off if her mother had just aborted her. When will women learn – they really need to have less children, and more abortions. Why can’t the human race just go extinct for the sake of the Children!

28th February 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah, Pie what’s with the panhandling? I thought you were a serious person, you want to talk Religion & Philosophy, or you want to pretend you are one of the “boys”?

Panhandling???????????

Dont be so grouchy Franko, Pillory says he doesnt understand you and neither do I and I have said that enough times, if I cant be honest about that, without you going all huffy on me:rolleyes:

If your having a bad day fine don;t take it out on me, go buy me jref cup and make me feel happy:D(joking)

Franko I can be one of the 'boys' and be serious too, dont tell me to chose coz I won't.

Shut up smile and help me and pillory understand you more :D

Franko

28th February 2003, 02:35 PM

Pie:
Shut up smile and help me and pillory understand you more.

This is a command that I am happily bound by Fate to obey.

But what, specifically, don’t you understand?

28th February 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Franko

This is a command that I am happily bound by Fate to obey.

But what, specifically, don’t you understand?

Good we are freinds again I het it when yuo go all hissy onme:( go to my thread I asked a question there about your logical bits

please:D

Franko

28th February 2003, 03:04 PM

Pie:
go to my thread I asked a question there about your logical bits

Mmm ... I must be having a bit of trouble with the mindreading today Darling. What thread were you refering to?

28th February 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Mmm ... I must be having a bit of trouble with the mindreading today Darling. What thread were you refering to?
sweetlips;) go here now (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14459)

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 04:01 PM

Apparently a light dawneth on the marblehead. . . .

Doctor De-Bungler-X: (thinks he?s smart)

I find it best not to fly in the face of public opinion.

Otay (sic) ? we finally have something intelligible.

Apparently, I had to state this only about seventeen times for him to undestand it. Perchance if he spent some time with "Hooked on Phonics" his reading comprehension would improve?

Perhaps if he approached debate honestly?

Look every body (sic) HE CAN SPEAK!(sic)

Seems a written medium . . . perchance he has had his ear or whatever orifice he employs for hearing up against his monitor. . . .

What specifically are you referring to by the phrase ?Science of Consciousness?? Could you elaborate a bit perhaps?

There.

A reasonable question will generate a reasonable answer.

Sometime ago, the individual made various opinions concerning consciousness and whether or not consciousness results from the brain. These did not coincide with what is known, scientifically, about consciousness. At the time, I invited the individual--in words "measur'd in manner and speech" of course--to justify his opinions based on the science. I even provided links to texts and to some internet-based information.

I must confess I found the failure to do this, and the continued ignorance of repeated reminders, a form of avoiding the question.

Similarly:

Yes, I can see you are so concerned about that poor child that you make stupid little rhymes about her on the internet.

Alliteration is not rhyme.

You?re right she probably would have been better off if her mother had just aborted her.

Here we go again. Another attempt to avoid the question. At least we had reason for an entire sentence. As noted above, repeatedly, with some redundancy, by Other Posters, not only have I not made that opinion or argument, this represents another ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE QUESTION by trying to attach a ridiculous non sequitur in order to attack it rather than address the point--a form of argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandum.

The individual can continue in this Dishonest fashion, or he can try addressing the question.

I would have accepted a simple, "you know, I do not have a way to justify the tumor in light of what I believe." Fair enough.

Now, I remind, again, to underscore the inherent ridiculousness of the individual's fallacy, that Pontine Tumors Are Not Congenital. Such would be reportable.

Thus, the:

When will women learn ? they really need to have less children, and more abortions. Why can?t the human race just go extinct for the sake of the Children!

represents nothing more than an attempt to expand the argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandum.

One can only hope his vole has better satisfaction from his efforts with it.

--J.D.

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 04:14 PM

I still didn't see where you explained what you mean by "Science of consciousness".

Moi: Sometime ago, the individual made various opinions concerning consciousness and whether or not consciousness results from the brain. These did not coincide with what is known, scientifically, about consciousness. At the time, I invited the individual--in words "measur'd in manner and speech" of course--to justify his opinions based on the science. I even provided links to texts and to some internet-based information.

I am unaware how to render that clearer.

If the individual is unhappy with his reception of his claims on consciousness, he should think just a mite bit more prior to making them. Perchance he hoped they were forgotten.

Nevertheless, he is free to retract them now.

Your magic words have no effect on me. . . .

No magic intended, unless the individual feels overwhelmed by truth.

. . . until you explain what the hell you are babbling about religious fanatic.

Argumentum ad hominem

Ohhh, that's right -- no point, you just Hate (sic) God.

Et Poisoning the Well. Not to mention another attempt at argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum. Such opinion was not render'd in the discussion involving consciousness. Now with regards to The Other Question that Frightens Him, the five possible answers do not imply hate or malice whatsoever.

Perchance if he just addressed the point or conceded he cannot?

--J.D.

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 04:52 PM

It has become clear that the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit cannot defend himself.

De-bungler,

Argumentum ad hominem.

I suppose I should retort with Wanko the Vole Felator again.

what's you're point?

As made clear even to him, he makes statements he cannot defend. Even now, rather than take the opportunity to defend them, he has a temper-tantrum.

We (sic) all understand you Hate God and all Theist (sic).

Presumably the plural refers to himself and his vole . . . wait . . . he does have his sockpuppet. Nevertheless, this represents another Lie, another argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum, making clear that he has no defense.

He cannot defend himself.

Thank you for "contributing" to the R & P forum.

I am honored he recognizes my exposure of him as a Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit as quite a contribution.

ATheism (sic) <> Skepticism

Non sequitur

Run along --> www.infidiels.org

Perhaps it is an understanding of noblese obligue that I stay to defend the sensibilities of The Readership by thrashing the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit when he behaves in manners that justify his titles.

If you even want to explain your magic "free will" powers or why handicap people are better off dead, let me know

I am under no obligation to "explain" arguments I have not made, particularly arguments made by the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit in order to create an argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum.

Since he does not feel any obligation to defend arguments he has made, this rather demonstrates he is, indeed, a Hypocrit.

Quod erat demonstrandum et nauseum.

--J.D.

Unas

28th February 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko
We all understand you Hate God and all Theist.Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.
Originally posted by Franko
you’re a lunatic.Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.
Originally posted by Franko
Run along De-Bungler, you are only embarrassing the other A-TheistArgumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.

Loki

28th February 2003, 07:24 PM

wraith,

Youre the one saying that consciousness can exist without time.
Er...this is potentially embarassing, since I have claimed that you are my sock-puppet - but you don't seem to understand at all! No, I'm not saying that consciousness can exist without time. In fact, it's the other way around. Pay close attention - see if you can get it this time :

I said "consciousness requires time".

Franko said "then that means Big Trouble (BT - (tm)) for A-Theists".

I said "How so?".

Note the confusion - I said the word "requires", which you interpreted to mean "can exist without". Is this more of the Logical Lexicon? Should I take it from now on that if you use the word "requires" then you mean "not necessary?".

Would you or Franko care to have a second try - and perhaps this time answer the question that was asked, rather than the opposite question?

Franko

28th February 2003, 08:13 PM

Loki:
Er...this is potentially embarassing, since I have claimed that you are my sock-puppet - but you don't seem to understand at all!

Here’s the thing, if you can pretend that figments of your imagination are real people, so must I. That includes any figments that you “consciously” create.

Loki:
No, I'm not saying that consciousness can exist without time. In fact, it's the other way around. Pay close attention - see if you can get it this time :

I said "consciousness requires time".

What is Time Loki? I’d say that Time is a Sequence. A Sequence requires a change in state, you must be able to discern a difference from one moment to the next, if there is no change from one moment to the next, then there is no sequence. This notion of change requires the notion of memory, and the notion of memory requires the notion of perception.

Perception does not exist in the absence of Time, nor does Time exist in the absence of Perception. Why do you think that reality doesn’t exist … unless someone is looking (perceiving)?

Franko said "then that means Big Trouble (BT - (tm)) for A-Theists".

I said "How so?".

Because unlike the Cult of “free willy”, as LD neither our God, nor our Universe magically appears out of no where for unfathomably supernatural “reasons”.

Note the confusion - I said the word "requires", which you interpreted to mean "can exist without". Is this more of the Logical Lexicon? Should I take it from now on that if you use the word "requires" then you mean "not necessary?".

A consciousness that doesn’t perceive Time is a non-existent consciousness. … or to put that another way, if your consciousness stopped perceiving Time you “cease to exist”. If you stop perceiving Time temporarily, then you cease to exist temporarily.

But the inverse is also True. How can a sequence exist with nothing denoting the sequence? Or, How can Time (a sequence) exist with nothing perceiving (denoting) the Time? Does a universe completely unobserved exist in any place other than your imagination Loki? Explain how it does?

Would you or Franko care to have a second try - and perhaps this time answer the question that was asked, rather than the opposite question?

You in that much of a rush to find out that Solipsism is True A-Theist?

Tell me why a universe magically appearing is more likely than you just imagining it all? I bet you don't remember learning to "walk" either, what makes you think you would have allowed yourself to remember building this algorithm?

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 09:45 PM

I refer the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit to the answer I have given previously.

Since he has offered nothing new or of substance it rather covers it . . . again.

--J.D.

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 10:15 PM

I can, again, refer the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit, to the answer I have given him previously since he has, again, offered nothing of substance or, apparently wit.

--J. "The Man . . . The Man . . . with . . . the Midas Touch!" D.

Checkmite

1st March 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Because unlike the Cult of “free willy”, as LD neither our God, nor our Universe magically appears out of no where for unfathomably supernatural “reasons”.

Right...only the Progenitor Solipsist seems to enjoy that ability.

Doctor X

1st March 2003, 07:11 AM

See above. . . .

Indeed, I must confess a tiny patience with Cowards who are also Liars and Hypocrits.

I certainly can find no respect for Bigots as well.

Nevertheless, I see I have succeeded in reducing his temper-tantrum to a level of name-calling witnessed on some of the lower priced kindergartens for the continence-challenged.

"Interesting demonstration, Mr. Goldfinger, you may turn off your machine now."

"Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond, it may be your last."

"Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?"

"No! Mr. Bond! I expect you to DIE!"

--J. "Ah the Classics" D.

Franko

1st March 2003, 12:23 PM

Right...only the Progenitor Solipsist seems to enjoy that ability.

You know … that is what your other sock puppet said, but I still don’t understand why you believe you appeared magically? I already told you, Time doesn’t exist unless you do. Time denotes a perceivable change, and what is a perceivable change without a “perceiver”?

No there was nothing supernatural about your creation. At least, nothing that “I” can see. Why do you keep claiming you are magical?

Unas

1st March 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Why do you keep claiming you are magical? Joshua has made no claim that he is "magical".

Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?

Franko

1st March 2003, 01:28 PM

Joshua has made no claim that he is "magical".

Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?

Can a figment of your imagination accumulate bad Karma? Not any more than any of your other sock-puppets.

Unas

1st March 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Originally posted by Unas
Joshua has made no claim that he is "magical".

Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?
Can a figment of your imagination accumulate bad Karma? Not any more than any of your other sock-puppets. Evasion noted. You're a true coward, aren't you, Franko? You are absolutely terrified at the thought that anyone would hold you responsible for your actions.

Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?

Run away again, little coward...

Franko

1st March 2003, 01:44 PM

Sock-puppet:
Evasion noted. You're a true coward, aren't you, Franko?

What did I evade? Specifically? You aren’t asking any questions? You are merely attributing your claims to me falsely. The members of this forum are well aware of my beliefs on these matters. You “Fool” no one, your post are only an embarrassment to yourself.

You are absolutely terrified at the thought that anyone would hold you responsible for your actions.

Actually I have stated repeatedly that I am fully prepared to be judged for my actions. As a Fatalist, I believe in the concept of Karma, and my actions reflect that belief.

You obviously hold an opposite viewpoint. You are the type of person who likes to burn your hand on the stove, and you are trying to tell me that I am the “crazy” one for not liking it. Fortunately Gravity provides an objective standard of judgment. I have no problem taking your energy if you are so happy to give it away.

Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?

Run away again, little coward...

Who’s running little Graviton? It’s so nice to have our favorite little dancing monkey back to perform for Us.

Unas

1st March 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Franko
What did I evade? Specifically?You evaded these two questions, Franko:
Originally posted by Unas
Why do you continue to lie about what others have said? Aren't you accumulating some massive bad "Karma" by doing so?Those are the questions you have evaded. Will you answer them now, or will you continue to evade them?
Originally posted by Franko
You aren’t asking any questions?Obviously, I am asking questions. You are just as obviously evading those questions -- and several others, in other threads.
Originally posted by Franko
You are merely attributing your claims to me falsely.I have attributed no claims to you falsely. I have asked questions of you based upon your own statements.

I have demonstrated that you have falsely attributed claims and opinions to myself and others. It appears that you are unwilling to take responsibility for those own actions.
Originally posted by Franko
Actually I have stated repeatedly that I am fully prepared to be judged for my actions. As a Fatalist, I believe in the concept of Karma, and my actions reflect that belief.How should you be judged for your dishonesty? How much "bad Karma" have you accumulated by your dishonest accusations?
Originally posted by Franko
You obviously hold an opposite viewpoint.You don't know what my viewpoint is, Franko, because I have not expressed one. You have invented a viewpoint, claimed that it is mine, and are using it to excoriate me with. You have done this to many others in these forums. The tactic is dishonest. How should you be judged for your dishonest actions, Franko?
Originally posted by Franko
You are the type of person who likes to burn your hand on the stove, and you are trying to tell me that I am the “crazy” one for not liking it.And you've just provided another example of your dishonesty. At no time have I referred to you as "crazy".

How should you be judged for your dishonest actions, Franko?
Originally posted by Franko
Who’s running little Graviton?As I indicated: You are running, Franko. You evade the questions put to you. You fear taking responsibility for your actions.

When you start thinking of others as actual people, and not as particles to be lied about, perhaps the way you are perceived by others will change. Maybe you can even accumulate a little "good Karma".

Franko

1st March 2003, 02:19 PM

Unas,

I don't know what planet you are from, but unless you explain EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY why and where you disagree with me, and your reasons for disagreeing with me, then there is no way for me to explain why you are wrong.

Just saying you disagree for reasons you are unable to specifiy is not a logical argument that anyone can refute.

This is a skeptics forum, Not Infidels.org. If you don't understand the rules here, perhaps you should run along?

Unas

1st March 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I don't know what planet you are from, but unless you explain EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY why and where you disagree with me, and your reasons for disagreeing with me, then there is no way for me to explain why you are wrong.

Just saying you disagree for reasons you are unable to specifiy is not a logical argument that anyone can refute.You are once again evading the questions put to you, Franko.

I haven't said that I disagree with you. I haven't said that I agree with you. I have noted certain claims that you have made, and challenged you to provide supporting evidence.

You seem awfully eager to assume that I must be wrong before you even know what I believe. In fact, it appears that you are more eager to crow about how "wrong" others are than you are to provide evidence for your own claims.

That's not very responsible or logical of you, now is it?

Franko

1st March 2003, 02:40 PM

Unas/Titanpout/Fool/De-bungler/Elephant/Joshua/Dr. X:[/b]
You are once again evading the questions put to you, Franko.

I haven't said that I disagree with you. I haven't said that I agree with you.

That’s what I mean! I have no idea what you are saying you are just babbling illogically.

You don’t agree, you don’t disagree? What does that mean Unas? Why are you spamming this forum and making yourself look so foolish in the process? Do you honestly believe that no one notices?

I have noted certain claims that you have made, and challenged you to provide supporting evidence.

Which claims SPECIFICALLY?, and on what logical basis are you challenging them? Don’t just make vague unsupported accusations regarding things that everyone KNOWS I never said.

That is called you having to lie and resort to logical fallacy because you know (realize) than your own position is unsupportable. It is called being a hypocrite. It is the kind of thing that a person is ashamed of doing, so they might post as a sock-puppet, to hide that shame. But it is pretty transparent to any objective observer.

You seem awfully eager to assume that I must be wrong before you even know what I believe.

I wasn’t even talking to YOU. You came in and announced that I was all wrong. When I asked you what you meant, you claimed that you never really disagreed with me. In short you are acting EXACTLY like a crazy person.

In fact, it appears that you are more eager to crow about how "wrong" others are than you are to provide evidence for your own claims.

That's not very responsible or logical of you, now is it?

I’ll put my beliefs against your any day, time, or place. You are just scared sh*tless to put your cards on the table against me. You know that I’d annihilate you. So you resort to these pathetic gestures. It’s to your ultimate loss, and my ultimate gain … so it suits my purpose. I don’t see how it suits yours, but you should be the one concerned about that, I can only assume you are also “happy” with the arrangement.

Unas

1st March 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Franko
That’s what I mean! I have no idea what you are saying you are just babbling illogically.Wrong, Franko. I have posed very specific, clear challenges to you. You don't want to address those challenges, so you make another false accusation -- in this case, that I am "just babbling illogically".
Originally posted by Franko
You don’t agree, you don’t disagree? What does that mean Unas?I have no idea, since that isn't what I said. You are again inventing statements and falsely attributing them to me.
Originally posted by Franko
Which claims SPECIFICALLY?, and on what logical basis are you challenging them?You stated that Joshua claimed he was "magical". I have challenged you to back up that claim with facts.

You stated that I told you that you were "crazy". I have challenged you to back up that claim with facts.

You stated that Soubrette tried to censor the thread "A website for Franko". I have challenged you to back up that claim with facts.

I challenge those claims on the logical basis that there are no facts to support them. There are several more claims that you have made that I have challenged -- but we can start with just these three.
Originally posted by Franko
Don’t just make vague unsupported accusations regarding things that everyone KNOWS I never said.

That is called you having to lie...That is called a lie, Franko. You have never once provided any evidence that I have lied about your statements.
Originally posted by Franko
I wasn’t even talking to YOU.False. You were responding directly to me when you said "there is no way for me to explain why you are wrong". You addressed my BY NAME, Franko. It's quoted just above.
Originally posted by Franko
You came in and announced that I was all wrong.False. I have never stated that you are "all wrong". That is called you having to lie, Franko.
Originally posted by Franko
When I asked you what you meant, you claimed that you never really disagreed with me.False. I have never stated that I never really disagreed with you. That is called you having to lie, Franko.
Originally posted by Franko
You are just scared sh*tless to put your cards on the table against me.You haven't shown any "cards", Franko. Start producing the facts to back up your accusations -- those will be some actual "cards".

Doctor X

1st March 2003, 03:14 PM

What did I evade? Specifically?

The Child with the Pontine Tumor

The Science of Consciousness

Both of which have been indicated to the Bigotted Coward et Liar etHypocrit numerous times on more than one thread.

The members of this forum are well aware of my beliefs on these matters.

Given their responses, they do, indeed, seem well aware of his Cowardice, his Lies and his Hypocrisy

--J.D.

Unas

1st March 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Just cite the SPECIFIC point your disagree on...I have posted my questions and challenges to you, Franko. I have just restated three specific questions.

You continue to evade.

Franko

1st March 2003, 03:19 PM

The Child with the Pontine Tumor

Yes, I would say that She was better off having had the experience of Life so that She could be judged and assessed.

Now you are claiming She would have been better off having never existed at all? How do you come to that conclusion?

Doctor X

1st March 2003, 03:33 PM

I am forever an optimist, despite evidence that I should not be such:

Moi:The Child with the Pontine Tumor

F:Yes, I would say that She was better off having had the experience of Life so that She could be judged and assessed.

That does not actually respond to the question. No one, to my knowledge, has asked whether or not the child should have lived prior to her condition--since it can develop in the teens, this should be obvious.

What was asked, long ago with frequent reminders, was which conclusion. To remind, yet again, that since the child unjustifiably suffers to such a degree and extent we are left with the following possible conclusions:

1. No gods exist.
2. A god exists and he is evil.
3. A god exists and he is incompetent.
4. A god exists and he is irrelevant.
5. Some combination of 2-4.

This, of course, is a "gender-neutral" conclusion.

One is free to choose any of them.

If one does not wish to accept the, admitedly unpleasant, conclusions, then one must justify the suffering of the child.

That, rather, is that.

Thus:

Now you are claiming She would have been better off having never existed at all?

No. Never have. Nor, as noted to my knowledge, has anyone else. Other posters have demonstrated this as well.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I cannot arrive at a conclusion I do not arrive at.

--J.D.

Franko

1st March 2003, 04:33 PM

Doctor X:
That does not actually respond to the question. No one, to my knowledge, has asked whether or not the child should have lived prior to her condition--since it can develop in the teens, this should be obvious.

Good and bad are relative to each other (opposite ends of a spectrum). The degree to which you comprehend one end of the scale, is directly proportional to the degree which you comprehend the scale overall.

What makes you assume that it is possible to understand the concept of opposites when only one alternative (one perception) is available?

What was asked, long ago with frequent reminders, was which conclusion. To remind, yet again, that since the child unjustifiably suffers to such a degree and extent we are left with the following possible conclusions:

Why is this girls suffering God’s fault? If I take you to Disney world, and you fall down and skin your knee while we are there, do you hate me for taking you to Disney world?

Only a dire pessimist (an A-Theist) can think this way. You're nuts, my friend.

1. No gods exist.
2. A god exists and he is evil.
3. A god exists and he is incompetent.
4. A god exists and he is irrelevant.
5. Some combination of 2-4.

Jesus Christ! You are one naïve, arrogant, close-minded, stupid motherf*cker.

Hey … are the guys who make up the game Quake evil because I got beat the last time I played and I really, really had wanted to win really badly and that Michael Richards from down the street he was mouthing off, and I really wanted to beat him bad, but he’s better than me and it’s just not fair! I can’t help it that his computer is faster. And it’s all the stupid programmers fault for putting that shot gun up in the lockers, because Michael can always get his guy to jump up there, but I can’t do it, so it’s not fair – It’s The Programmers Fault That I didn’t Win! They are EVIL, those programmers are Incompetent!, They are Irrelevant! ITS GODS FAULT DAMNIT! ITS ALL GODS FAULT!

Is that about right “Doctor”?

If one does not wish to accept the, admitedly unpleasant, conclusions, then one must justify the suffering of the child.

Suffering is a relative term, but I’m sure you are correct “Doctor”, She would have been better off had She never been born. God was “obviously Evil” for bringing her here. I bet her parents wished they could go back and abort. If not I guess her parents are just as Evil and irrelevant as God. :rolleyes:

Unas

1st March 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Franko
You're nuts, my friend. Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.
Originally posted by Franko
You are one naïve, arrogant, close-minded, stupid motherf*cker.Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.

neutrino_cannon

1st March 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Unas
Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.
Argumentum ad hominem. Franko cannot address the points made, so he hurls fact-free accusations.

Indeed, it seems that Franko can be quite reasonable (within certain topics), but when disscussing A-theism becomes quizically upset. See http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14554

In all honesty I find it hard to accept Franko when he/she is being reasonable, and a quick cross-section of other poster's opinions would probably reveil the same thing.

Franko

1st March 2003, 05:46 PM

Unas/Dr.X/De-Bungler: (A-Theist who has to hide)
Wrong, Franko. I have posed very specific, clear challenges to you. You don't want to address those challenges, so you make another false accusation -- in this case, that I am "just babbling illogically".

Just cite the SPECIFIC point your disagree on, and your SPECIFIC reason for disagreeing. I can't argue with your wishful thinking though.

Either Put up, or Shut up.

Unas

1st March 2003, 05:55 PM

Several specific questions have already been asked of Franko. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=359739#post359739)

He continues to evade those questions.

Doctor X

1st March 2003, 10:37 PM

Such a suprise.

When cornered the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit throws another tantrum.

Moi:That does not actually respond to the question. No one, to my knowledge, has asked whether or not the child should have lived prior to her condition--since it can develop in the teens, this should be obvious.

BCLH: Good and bad are relative to each other (opposite ends of a spectrum). The degree to which you comprehend one end of the scale, is directly proportional to the degree which you comprehend the scale overall.

Does not respond to the point. The point in the passage quoted was that no one, other than the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit raised the question of whether or not the child should have ever lived as a form of argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum.

What makes you assume. . . .

No assumption made. What makes him wish to felate voles?

. . . that it is possible to understand the concept of opposites when only one alternative (one perception) is available?

Incorrect.

Why is this girls suffering God?s fault? If I take you to Disney world, and you fall down and skin your knee while we are there, do you hate me for taking you to Disney world?

The child did not "fall." This is a false analogy. The extent and degree of the suffering is unjustifiable. Either a deity does not exist to intervene, wishes the suffering to happen, does not want it to happen but cannot intervene or does not know how or even does not care.

The five choices then follow.

Only a dire pessimist (an A-Theist) can think this way.

Ipse dixit and, of course, incorrect. I rather optimistically felt he may have grown a spine. Reality does not depend on opinion.

You're nuts, my friend.

I am not a friend to bigots, cowards, liars, and hypocrits. Certainly, I do not trust the hate driven opinion of such.

Jesus Christ! You are one naïve, arrogant, close-minded, stupid motherf*cker.

Quite the vulgarian, it appears the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit CANNOT CHOOSE. HE CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Does the fear of the implications distemper him?

Apparently they do. For all he can do is bleat a stream of profanity in the hopes that no one will notice that HE CANNOT CHOOSE. HE CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Various fallacy follows that do not, in anyway, Justify the Suffering of the Child

Is that about right "Doctor?"

As demonstrated above, "Wanko the Vole Felator is, indeed, "wrong."

Suffering is a relative term, . . .

Indeed, and to the child it proves rather severe, prolonged, and, yes, unjustified.

. . . but I'm sure you are correct "Doctor", She (sic) would have been better off had She (sic) never been born.

As noted above, even if he adds an argumentum ad hominem, the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit pulls this argument from his nethers since no one other than he has made it.

He Appears Trapped. The Logical Implications for his Deity have Proven Rather "Too Dark Altogether"

God was ?obviously Evil? for bringing her here.

Wrong again. He is evil only if he exists and wanted her to develop the tumor.

I bet her parents wished they could go back and abort.

Demonstrates a singular lack of empathy. Rather in character of a Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit

If not I guess her parents are just as Evil and irrelevant as God.

The parents tried to comfort her. The God of the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit did not.

I appreciate other posters for recognizing that the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit had, indeed, fallen into the trap.

Watch him wriggle.

Watch him squirm.

It is amusing whilst the ads are on. . . .

--J.D.