Much Ado About Nothing

[Iacchus]

So, why are we here?

[Robin]

Basically nobody really knows, it might be accident, it might be design.

But because nobody knows we may as well just make the best of it, make our own meaning or just enjoy ourselves.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Iacchus]

*delete*

[Iacchus]

Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain from whence we go? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there was nothing, there would be no order, and without order there would be no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

[The Cats Venm]

Why do salmon swim upstream?

I don't know for sure, but I thought it was to spawn in the waters where they were born.


Why do we have an origin at all?

Do you assume we do, aside from the literal sense of being born? Maybe time loops back on itself, removing the need for a beginning or end.


What's the point?

I don't think there is a 'point'.


If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain from whence we go?

Maybe we simply can't. We can only guess, as everything gets cloudier the farther we look from the 'now'.


Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around.

Obviously?
I build my life around the simple continuation of existence in the most pleasant manor possible. Does mere existence necessitate meaning? I don't think so.


But where does that meaning come from? Nothing?

Perhaps. What is this 'meaning' you see?


Except if there was nothing, there would be no order, and without order there would be no meaning. Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

So basically what you’re saying is that if there is any 'meaning' in the world then it necessitates that there was always 'meaning'.
Of course, conversely, if there never was any 'meaning', then it need never have existed.

And none of that goes anywhere toward explaining what the 'meaning' might be if it does indeed exist.


So, why are we here?

I would look to one who sees 'meaning' for the answer to that question.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, why are we here?

Because we're here.

The meaning is what you make of it.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Because we're here.

The meaning is what you make of it.

That's my take on it, anyway. Where do the notion of ethics come from then? Are we to take that as totally arbitrary as well?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

So basically what you’re saying is that if there is any 'meaning' in the world then it necessitates that there was always 'meaning'.

Of course, conversely, if there never was any 'meaning', then it need never have existed.Which seems to be more meaningful though? :D

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which seems to be more meaningful though? :D

You tell me. You're the one who seems to see meaning in everything.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

You tell me. You're the one who seems to see meaning in everything. However, if you don't believe in meaning, what would be the point? Sounds to me like it's none of my business.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, if you don't believe in meaning, what would be the point? Sounds to me like it's none of my business.

The point would be to demonstrate that you have some substance behind your empty rambling.

How is it none of your business to seek an answer to your own question? I just humbly ask if you might fill me in once you find it.

Belief, for or against something, has no bearing on the thing itself.
If there is meaning, it will be there whether I believe it is or not.

[Kitty Chan]

If there is no meaning in life then why it is popular for those around 40ish to want to change jobs to a more meaningful one so that they can have an affect on this earth before they leave.

(Or the regression to starting over with younger ones to avoid the end, which would be the flip but thats for another thread.)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

The point would be to demonstrate that you have some substance behind your empty rambling.However, demonstrate is a verb, that implies motive which, can only be derived from meaning.


How is it none of your business to seek an answer to your own question? I just humbly ask if you might fill me in once you find it.How is it that what ... ?


Belief, for or against something, has no bearing on the thing itself.
If there is meaning, it will be there whether I believe it is or not. Oh, is that what you believe?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

If there is no meaning in life then why it is popular for those around 40ish to want to change jobs to a more meaningful one so that they can have an affect on this earth before they leave.

(Or the regression to starting over with younger ones to avoid the end, which would be the flip but thats for another thread.) What do they call that altruism?

[Max560]

Check my signature line.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560

...the feeling you get is that you're one of those space monkeys. You do the little job you're trained to do.
Pull a lever.
Push a button.
You don't understand any of it, and then you just die.
Except that it meant something to the guys that sent the monkey up there didn't it? Or, do you mean something in the relative sense which, of course still implies meaning.

So tell me this. How is it that we can use meaning to imply the lack thereof? If there was no meaning, we wouldn't be able to do even that would we? Of course I think it would take more than a machine -- which, is merely what the intellect is -- to figure that out. This is why we have feelings, I think, to add value to our thoughts.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, why are we here?

Because we like a place where we can post our thoughts with relative ease.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is why we have feelings, I think, to add value to our thoughts.
Sorry to rain inconvenient facts on your mental masturbation parade, but other animals have feelings too. Do they also, then, have thoughts? And how far down do you puh this? Very primitive creatures have feelings. Thoughts there, too?

If you are going to try to use the material universe to justify your bizarre whatever the hello you think you're espousing, you'd better get your facts straight first.

I mean, lest you appear stupid.

[BillHoyt]

Agnus daddy,
qui tollis "obey yo mamma,"
nobis pablum.

god gotta daddy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Because we like a place where we can post our thoughts with relative ease. Very interesting. Where's "here" by the way? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Agnus daddy,
qui tollis "obey yo mamma,"
nobis pablum.

god gotta daddy. Actually, we may get around to this one of these days, if we can ever get past your attempts to confound and confuse. Which, is all you can hope to accomplish by berating and belittling someone ... Bully. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Sorry to rain inconvenient facts on your mental masturbation parade, but other animals have feelings too. Do they also, then, have thoughts? And how far down do you puh this? Very primitive creatures have feelings. Thoughts there, too?No thanks, I'd rather use may hand. Or better yet, get somebody to do it for me.


If you are going to try to use the material universe to justify your bizarre whatever the hello you think you're espousing, you'd better get your facts straight first.Or, how about we begin with the facts which are in front of our face?


I mean, lest you appear stupid. What, did somebody just call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063) :D

[BillHoyt]

Dolt,

This is the protocol Randi laid down here many months ago regarding claims, calls for evidence and cries of bullying. He sees no problem in skeptics demanding evidence for woo claims unless the credophile

o acknowledges that he believes despite a lack of evidence,
o states that he refuses to provide such evidence or
p provides the evidence.

Those are your choices at JREF. Choose wisely.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Where do the notion of ethics come from then? Are we to take that as totally arbitrary as well?

You sure do jump around from subject to subject.

What about the color blue? How can we tell it's not square?!?!?!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Dolt,

This is the protocol Randi laid down here many months ago regarding claims, calls for evidence and cries of bullying. He sees no problem in skeptics demanding evidence for woo claims unless the credophileExcept I'm not demanding anyone to believe anything. That's called bullying and harassment.


o acknowledges that he believes despite a lack of evidence,
o states that he refuses to provide such evidence or
p provides the evidence.

Those are your choices at JREF. Choose wisely. If you're looking for the physical evidence of life -- in other words, what is life? -- it's all around us. ;)

By the way, isn't this why they hung the guy on the cross 2,000 years ago? Because they demanded physical proof? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43087)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

What about the color blue? How can we tell it's not square?!?!?! Besides using my God given ability to discern?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Dolt,

This is the protocol Randi laid down here many months ago regarding claims, calls for evidence and cries of bullying. He sees no problem in skeptics demanding evidence for woo claims unless the credophile

o acknowledges that he believes despite a lack of evidence,
o states that he refuses to provide such evidence or
p provides the evidence.

Those are your choices at JREF. Choose wisely. This is an appeal to authority by the way (or fear). Besides, this a philosophy forum where matters are to be discussed, not coerced out of each other. Also, if I had a specific claim to present, it would be to James Randi, not you. :p I mean if you want to play True Detective, why don't you sign up with the police academy or something?

[Iacchus]

Life is slippery is it not? ...

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Very interesting. Where's "here" by the way? ;)

Here is a website on the world wide web.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is an appeal to authority by the way (or fear). Besides, this a philosophy forum where matters are to be discussed, not coerced out of each other. Also, if I had a specific claim to present, it would be to James Randi, not you. :p I mean if you want to play True Detective, why don't you sign up with the police academy or something?
Answer the question, brainlacchus. You are on a skeptic's forum, brainlacchus. Get used to people laughing at nitwits who make claims and dance madly when evidence is requested.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides using my God given ability to discern?

What the lord giveth, he can taketh away.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Answer the question, brainlacchus. You are on a skeptic's forum, brainlacchus. Get used to people laughing at nitwits who make claims and dance madly when evidence is requested. I'm not here to appease you, if that's what you think. What was the question anyway? ;)

[Kitty Chan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kitty Chan

If there is no meaning in life then why it is popular for those around 40ish to want to change jobs to a more meaningful one so that they can have an affect on this earth before they leave.

(Or the regression to starting over with younger ones to avoid the end, which would be the flip but thats for another thread.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Iacchus
What do they call that altruism?

I guess you could call it that, I was thinking more of the desire for one to behave such a way, it is quite common. Why would people be that way if there was no meaning to life??

[Kitty Chan]

sorry double post computer crazy

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

I guess you could call it that, I was thinking more of the desire for one to behave such a way, it is quite common. Why would people be that way if there was no meaning to life?? Of course this is probably about the time that the kids have flown the coop too, and they still feel like they need to take care of somebody. That's what I would say anyway. ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this is probably about the time that the kids have flown the coop too, and they still feel like they need to take care of somebody. That's what I would say anyway. ;)

By the way, did you know that yellow mallow custard rarely drips from a dead dog's eye? What can that possibly mean?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

By the way, did you know that yellow mallow custard rarely drips from a dead dog's eye? What can that possibly mean? Yin and Yang. Which is to say -- or mean :D -- you can't have nothing, except in relation to something.

[dmarker]

Simple question to Iacchus:


Why do you post in this message board?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Simple question to Iacchus:

Why do you post in this message board? To allow others the opportunity to snipe at me perhaps, because it seems this is what this forum was set up to do?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To allow others the opportunity to snipe at me perhaps, because it seems this is what this forum was set up to do?

Yeah, that's right- Randi has nothing better to do than create a foundation with a forum devoted to insulting you. :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Yeah, that's right- Randi has nothing better to do than create a foundation with a forum devoted to insulting you. :rolleyes: Well, let's just say it all begins with that. ;) And you know I don't mean sniping at me necessarily.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To allow others the opportunity to snipe at me perhaps, because it seems this is what this forum was set up to do?
JREF is an educational foundation. In one of Randi's latest messages to the forum, here is how he describes JREF:

"The purpose of the JREF is delineated in a brochure we circulate. Briefly, these are the five major, general, aims we have:

(1) to create a new generation of critical thinkers,

(2) to instruct in the consequences of uncritically accepting paranormal and supernatural claims,

(3) to to support and initiate research into paranormal claims,

(4) to provide reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, and

(5) to assist those who are being attacked due to their criticism of those who make spurious claims."

Nobody is taking potshots at you. They are taking potshots at your spurious claims. To complete the picture, you need to know that most skeptics view the perpetual spouting of spurious claims as taking potshots at the truth.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, why are we here?
Y'know...I finally figured out what it is that you (and your recent posts/threads) remind me of...

Years ago, I had a conversation with a young cousin of mine (who eventually, as it turns out, went on to go to Oral Roberts University, but that is another story), who had just been stung by a wasp. "What is the purpose of wasps!?!?", she asked...

"Purpose?", says I--"what do you mean?"

"Everything in life has a purpose--we eat some plants and animals, other plants feed animals which we eat, bees pollinate our flowers and give us honey...everything has a purpose!"

"Wait a minute--do you really think all these things have a purpose that revolves around us? It seems to me that the purpose of wasps is to have baby wasps...and that is pretty much the purpose of any of the other things you have named. The purpose you see is one you impose on these other things."

"But my teacher says everything has a purpose! It has to! "

*******
This went on for quite some time....I know I could see her point of view, but I could see that she could not fathom mine. Her world-view would not accept the possibility that we (humans) were not the ultimate recipients of all activity in the universe. It simply could not be that there was no human-serving purpose to any organism at all.

I think perhaps her teacher had recognised a foot-in-the-door problem, and built a defense around it. If wasps had no purpose, perhaps honeybees had no true human-serving purpose, and we had simply taken advantage of a serendipitous discovery. If honeybees had no purpose....oh, my...maybe we have no purpose. Maybe the only answer to "why are we here?" is "pure dumb luck. chance. ***** happens. Billions of accidents, and here we are."

So, Iacchus...you are a big one for seeing the obvious stuff right in front of our faces...isn't it obvious? The only purpose is one we invent, whether individually or as some group (religious, perhaps). Any of those billions of accidents goes the other way and we are not here to ask the question "why are we here?".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

JREF is an educational foundation. In one of Randi's latest messages to the forum, here is how he describes JREF:

"The purpose of the JREF is delineated in a brochure we circulate. Briefly, these are the five major, general, aims we have:

(1) to create a new generation of critical thinkers,

(2) to instruct in the consequences of uncritically accepting paranormal and supernatural claims,

(3) to to support and initiate research into paranormal claims,

(4) to provide reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, and

(5) to assist those who are being attacked due to their criticism of those who make spurious claims."

Nobody is taking potshots at you. They are taking potshots at your spurious claims. To complete the picture, you need to know that most skeptics view the perpetual spouting of spurious claims as taking potshots at the truth. Yes, and you're an unmittigated lying piece of sh*t! Now, does that sound like an attack to you? While I certainly don't come across this way towards others on this board do I? Not that flagrantly anyway. Of course now that I've said it it's going to get everybody all worked up, but that's just too bad now isn't it? ;) I mean I don't care. Fine. But if that's the way it is I'm going to call it the way I see it. Thank you very much and have a nice day!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Y'know...I finally figured out what it is that you (and your recent posts/threads) remind me of...

Years ago, I had a conversation with a young cousin of mine (who eventually, as it turns out, went on to go to Oral Roberts University, but that is another story), who had just been stung by a wasp. "What is the purpose of wasps!?!?", she asked... Yeah, White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants? You got that right! Just kidding! :D However, that does apply to Oral Roberts University and the number 666 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823) by the way. ;)


"Purpose?", says I--"what do you mean?"

"Everything in life has a purpose--we eat some plants and animals, other plants feed animals which we eat, bees pollinate our flowers and give us honey...everything has a purpose!"

"Wait a minute--do you really think all these things have a purpose that revolves around us? It seems to me that the purpose of wasps is to have baby wasps...and that is pretty much the purpose of any of the other things you have named. The purpose you see is one you impose on these other things."

"But my teacher says everything has a purpose! It has to! "What purpose would you suggest an eco-system serves, if not to sustain the livlihood of everything within it? Indeed, what's wrong with considering how the Universe operates as a whole?


*******
This went on for quite some time....I know I could see her point of view, but I could see that she could not fathom mine. Her world-view would not accept the possibility that we (humans) were not the ultimate recipients of all activity in the universe. It simply could not be that there was no human-serving purpose to any organism at all.

I think perhaps her teacher had recognised a foot-in-the-door problem, and built a defense around it. If wasps had no purpose, perhaps honeybees had no true human-serving purpose, and we had simply taken advantage of a serendipitous discovery. If honeybees had no purpose....oh, my...maybe we have no purpose. Maybe the only answer to "why are we here?" is "pure dumb luck. chance. ***** happens. Billions of accidents, and here we are." I can see your point of view, however I don't agree, because it's only one-sided.


So, Iacchus...you are a big one for seeing the obvious stuff right in front of our faces...isn't it obvious? The only purpose is one we invent, whether individually or as some group (religious, perhaps). Any of those billions of accidents goes the other way and we are not here to ask the question "why are we here?". No, the mind is like a two-way receiver, and is capable of both acknowledging purpose, as well as transmitting it. Consider the relationship we have with the sun in the sky (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43091). Where in effect the sun is the source of meaning for everything which, is what it broadcasts. While everything which is living on this planet receives this information differently which, is what it then broadcasts via the form that it takes, towards every other living thing around it.

In other words everything has meaning relative to a central source, as well as meaning relative to those things which exist locally around it. Now why is that so hard to fathom? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus

In other words everything has meaning relative to a central source, as well as meaning relative to those things which exist locally around it. Now why is that so hard to fathom? ;) This is what made the United States of America so great by the way. :D

[scribble]

Originally posted by Piscivore
By the way, did you know that yellow mallow custard rarely drips from a dead dog's eye? What can that possibly mean?

There's a bustle in your hedgerow, but don't be alarmed. It's just a spring clean for the may queen. What can that possibly mean?


(* of course, it means "SATAN IS YOUR MASTER" - just play it backwards)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants? You got that right! Just kidding! :D However, that does apply to Oral Roberts University and the number 666 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823) by the way. ;)
Hey, I have a neat idea! Instead of you throwing 666 at us constantly, how about actually putting some thoughts together? And I swear this is the last time I am going to click on any of your imbedded links, until and unless somebody convinces me there is something on the other end of it besides the same tripe in another thread!

What purpose would you suggest an eco-system serves, if not to sustain the livlihood of everything within it? Indeed, what's wrong with considering how the Universe operates as a whole?
Ah...more questions. I would say "it serves no purpose at all!" The fact that you see purpose in it is your own problem, and you need to convince others that there is more to your view than your own fevered imagination. (I would also suggest that you are confusing "purpose" with "function".) And why your second question? What is right with assuming (and that is all that you are doing) a purpose to the Universe? What does that add?

I can see your point of view, however I don't agree, because it's only one-sided.
This would be the place where you back up your statement. How is it one-sided? What is missing? What does "purpose" add to the picture, other than making you feel better? I would genuinely like to know.

No, the mind is like a two-way receiver, and is capable of both acknowledging purpose, as well as transmitting it. Consider the relationship we have with the sun in the sky (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43091). Where in effect the sun is the source of meaning for everything which, is what it broadcasts. While everything which is living on this planet receives this information differently which, is what it then broadcasts via the form that it takes, towards every other living thing around it.
No, the mind is an emergent property of public and private behavior (see, I can assert just as well as you can), and can no more "transmit purpose" than it can transmit laser beams. (I did not click on your link, as per my above statement, but let me guess--it is to another of your threads, the one in which you claim that even heaven has a sun, or else the one that claims that plants worship the sun--was I right?)

Your broadcast metaphor is cool...in that it completely ignores everything we know about learning, sensation, perception, cognition...I'd tell you to go read a good basic introductory psychology text, but I am afraid it might contain the name "Carl Jung" in it, and you'd fixate on that and ignore the hundred years of actual science. (Speaking of Jung, as you do so often...if he is what you consider a credible authority on anything, you might want, once again, to see what actual researchers have to say about his...um...theories.)

In other words everything has meaning relative to a central source, as well as meaning relative to those things which exist locally around it. Now why is that so hard to fathom? ;) It is very easy to fathom. In the same manner that the "just-so stories" of how the elephant got his trunk or how the fox got his white tail are easy to fathom; they are simplistic fictions that lack any link to reality whatsoever. They make sense to you because you are willfully ignorant of what we actually do know about brain function, or social cognition, or evolutionary biology.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Hey, I have a neat idea! Instead of you throwing 666 at us constantly, how about actually putting some thoughts together? And I swear this is the last time I am going to click on any of your imbedded links, until and unless somebody convinces me there is something on the other end of it besides the same tripe in another thread!Nice. ;) Hey, why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

By the way, there is something about this whole thing, whether you agree with me or not.


Ah...more questions. I would say "it serves no purpose at all!" The fact that you see purpose in it is your own problem, and you need to convince others that there is more to your view than your own fevered imagination. (I would also suggest that you are confusing "purpose" with "function".) And why your second question? What is right with assuming (and that is all that you are doing) a purpose to the Universe? What does that add?Well, if we don't ask questions, how will we ever get to the other side? ... of the issue that is. Or, am I to take, according to you, that there never was an issue at all? ... except in my head of course. ;)


This would be the place where you back up your statement. How is it one-sided? What is missing? What does "purpose" add to the picture, other than making you feel better? I would genuinely like to know.On the one hand you have what is "right." On the other hand you have what is "left." Meaning, there are aways two sides to an issue. In fact this is what makes both you and your cousin "wrong." Or, even right ... Right about each other's wrong that is.


No, the mind is an emergent property of public and private behavior (see, I can assert just as well as you can), and can no more "transmit purpose" than it can transmit laser beams. (I did not click on your link, as per my above statement, but let me guess--it is to another of your threads, the one in which you claim that even heaven has a sun, or else the one that claims that plants worship the sun--was I right?)Do you understand the use of a metaphor? Apparently not.

Your broadcast metaphor is cool...in that it completely ignores everything we know about learning, sensation, perception, cognition...I'd tell you to go read a good basic introductory psychology text, but I am afraid it might contain the name "Carl Jung" in it, and you'd fixate on that and ignore the hundred years of actual science. (Speaking of Jung, as you do so often...if he is what you consider a credible authority on anything, you might want, once again, to see what actual researchers have to say about his...um...theories.)Educated apes huh? Well, I suppose we could thank Science for that much. ;)


It is very easy to fathom. In the same manner that the "just-so stories" of how the elephant got his trunk or how the fox got his white tail are easy to fathom; they are simplistic fictions that lack any link to reality whatsoever. They make sense to you because you are willfully ignorant of what we actually do know about brain function, or social cognition, or evolutionary biology. No.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nice. ;) Hey, why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)
Not checking that link, and if you added it in an attempt at levity, you picked the wrong day. I am in a foul mood, and I think it best for you if I don't follow your links.

By the way, there is something about this whole thing, whether you agree with me or not.
Another bald assertion. Why must there be "something about this whole thing" at all? And when you say "this whole thing", I assume you are intentionally vague, so that you can move your goalposts at will.

Well, if we don't ask questions, how will we ever get to the other side? ... of the issue that is. Or, am I to take, according to you, that there never was an issue at all? ... except in my head of course. ;)
If we do not ask answerable questions, we will never get meaningful answers. If we continue to ask fuzzy, rhetorical, meaningless questions, we spin our metaphorical wheels and get nowhere. Your questions are almost invariably couched in language that holds mentalistic or dualistic assumptions which you never A) question or B) support. If you honestly wanted to "get to the other side", you would not post in the manner you have chosen.

And yes, there may often be no issue at all. Like I said, your questions assume a world-view that is not supported (and arguably not supportable). If we assume such a view, we beg the question; it is only when we challenge your fundamental assumptions that we may see that your questions themselves are meaningless.


On the one hand you have what is "right." On the other hand you have what is "left." Meaning, there are aways two sides to an issue. In fact this is what makes both you and your cousin "wrong." Or, even right ... Right about each other's wrong that is.
Are there two sides to every issue? Always? Never more than that? Never fewer? What if the two sides are that she was wrong and I was right? You assert that I was wrong...any evidence whatsoever? Am I wrong only because there are two sides, which you arbitrarily claim are equivalently correct, and that I only chose one? No wonder your questions never lead you to "the other side".


Do you understand the use of a metaphor? Apparently not.
You really want to challenge me on language usage?

Do you understand the use of a metaphor? You used "transmit" metaphorically, but you did not realize that the very concept of "mind" is a metaphor for a class of behaviors. You cannot treat "the mind" as an actual entity--which you do, inventing all sorts of capacities for this fictional thing, all of which conveniently are perceived as supportive of your world view. Your world view, though, is a house of cards built on quicksand....metaphorically speaking.

Educated apes huh? Well, I suppose we could thank Science for that much. ;)
Remarkable. Either this is a complete non-sequitor (at least from the quote that preceded it) or your chain of associations simply boggles the imagination. Or did you do this simply to distract, as you so often do, from a complete and total lack of response? Is this your typical reaction to a criticism about Jung?


No. No? You are not ignorant of these things? Or not willfully ignorant? Or does your "no" refer to my "they make sense to you"? Perhaps you are admitting that you are thoroughly bereft of any clue whatsoever. We knew you'd figure that out eventually.

Iacchus...please try again. Be specific. Support your unsupported assertions, and do it with more than links to other navel-gazing threads.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Not checking that link, and if you added it in an attempt at levity, you picked the wrong day. I am in a foul mood, and I think it best for you if I don't follow your links.Sorry to hear that.


Another bald assertion. Why must there be "something about this whole thing" at all? And when you say "this whole thing", I assume you are intentionally vague, so that you can move your goalposts at will. Sorry. Couldn't pass up the coincidence. ;) Albeit it does serve to illustrate (if you understood the reference) how I'm not in agreement with either you or your cousin, in the sense that you both maintain one-sided views.


If we do not ask answerable questions, we will never get meaningful answers. If we continue to ask fuzzy, rhetorical, meaningless questions, we spin our metaphorical wheels and get nowhere. Your questions are almost invariably couched in language that holds mentalistic or dualistic assumptions which you never A) question or B) support. If you honestly wanted to "get to the other side", you would not post in the manner you have chosen.However, I approach the whole thing from the standpoint of what I do know, not merely from a matter of speculation. This is why I ask so many questions, because these are the type of questions others are unlikely to ask in their disbelief.


And yes, there may often be no issue at all. Like I said, your questions assume a world-view that is not supported (and arguably not supportable). If we assume such a view, we beg the question; it is only when we challenge your fundamental assumptions that we may see that your questions themselves are meaningless.You know, it's so easy to get bogged down in all this stuff, and it really is a pain.


Are there two sides to every issue?Typically yes, at least in this case, as this is what I've always argued.


Do you understand the use of a metaphor? You used "transmit" metaphorically, but you did not realize that the very concept of "mind" is a metaphor for a class of behaviors. You cannot treat "the mind" as an actual entity--which you do, inventing all sorts of capacities for this fictional thing, all of which conveniently are perceived as supportive of your world view. Your world view, though, is a house of cards built on quicksand....metaphorically speaking.The conscious mind is an actual entity.


Remarkable. Either this is a complete non-sequitor (at least from the quote that preceded it) or your chain of associations simply boggles the imagination. Or did you do this simply to distract, as you so often do, from a complete and total lack of response? Is this your typical reaction to a criticism about Jung? Or, perhaps I just get tired of hearing about the merits of Science. That's all it implies.


No? You are not ignorant of these things? Or not willfully ignorant? Or does your "no" refer to my "they make sense to you"? Perhaps you are admitting that you are thoroughly bereft of any clue whatsoever. We knew you'd figure that out eventually.

Iacchus...please try again. Be specific. Support your unsupported assertions, and do it with more than links to other navel-gazing threads. Or perhaps "no" in the sense of whatever it is you were trying to imply. Being willfully ignorant I think.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, let's just say it all begins with that. ;) And you know I don't mean sniping at me necessarily.

The same OLE same OLE twisting of what a person says in order to try to make the person's comment look stupid. It is quite obvious that dedication of a whole forum by the forum administrator was not what Iacchus originally said.


Why do such individuals misrepresent another person's statements this way ?

After much thought on this matter I have concluded that in this particular case they misrepresent because if they don't then they will have to admit that they definitely are misusing the forum to constantly attack others.

But why and for what purpose?
Well, just recently they admitted that they have a name for it.
BAITING they call it.


What is the bait?
Very satanically simple.
The bait is the constant misrepresentation of a person's argument as being irrational.

When does the targetted person take the bait?

The person takes the bait when the constantly misrepresented person finally loses his patience and displays anger.

Then the baiter celebration begins.

Very interesting yet very out of place since that is not what this forum is supposed to be about.

To me such an activity is--please forgive my robust word choice--foolish. If that is al thatl these people are really here to do--bait, then what is the use of communicating with them?

Actually, their is no value in such communication because the agendas just don't jive.
One person seeks logic, the other ignores the logic and attempts to bait via feigning inability to understand and then misrepresents.

I imagine that their free time is spent not in seeking actual refutations but in merely refining their baiting techniques.

Anyway, you cannot blame such persons if that is the intellectual level that they are capable of. You only can give what you can give and no more.

But neither can you blame anyone who is here for real discussion purposes for evading them.


IMHO

[dmarker]

So we made you use obscenities and vulgarities? Where's the free will, Rad?

And how did we twist your words?


Originally posted by Radrook


The same OLE same OLE twisting of what a person says in order to try to make the person's comment look stupid. It is quite obvious that dedication of a whole forum by the forum administrator was not what Iacchus originally said.


Why do such individuals misrepresent another person's statements this way ?

After much thought on this matter I have concluded that in this particular case they misrepresent because if they don't then they will have to admit that they definitely are misusing the forum to constantly attack others.

But why and for what purpose?
Well, just recently they admitted that they have a name for it.
BAITING they call it.


What is the bait?
Very satanically simple.
The bait is the constant misrepresentation of a person's argument as being irrational.

When does the targetted person take the bait?

The person takes the bait when the constantly misrepresented person finally loses his patience and displays anger.

Then the baiter celebration begins.

Very interesting yet very out of place since that is not what this forum is supposed to be about.

To me such an activity is--please forgive my robust word choice--foolish. If that is al thatl these people are really here to do--bait, then what is the use of communicating with them?

Actually, their is no value in such communication because the agendas just don't jive.
One person seeks logic, the other ignores the logic and attempts to bait via feigning inability to understand and then misrepresents.

I imagine that their free time is spent not in seeking actual refutations but in merely refining their baiting techniques.

Anyway, you cannot blame such persons if that is the intellectual level that they are capable of. You only can give what you can give and no more.

But neither can you blame anyone who is here for real discussion purposes for evading them.


IMHO

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

However, I approach the whole thing from the standpoint of what I do know, not merely from a matter of speculation. This is why I ask so many questions, because these are the type of questions others are unlikely to ask in their disbelief.
I'll just take this little snippet...and disagree with you wholeheartedly. You do not "approach the whole thing from the standpoint of what [you] do know"...but rather from the standpoint of what you believe to be so intuitively obvious that you do not question it. Your "what I do know" is obvious to you...as obvious as it once was that the earth is immovable and at the center of the universe (indeed, I believe you have argued this).

It was not until Fechner that scientists really had a clue about how to study sensation and perception, despite centuries of looking for a useful methodology. But since him, others have built upon his discoveries and methods, and we now have a solid science of sensory and perceptual experience....which you completely ignore. You do not approach these problems from what you know, and you do merely speculate. That is why you ask so many questions, because you have no idea which questions are answerable, and which are idle navel-gazing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

I'll just take this little snippet...and disagree with you wholeheartedly. You do not "approach the whole thing from the standpoint of what [you] do know"...but rather from the standpoint of what you believe to be so intuitively obvious that you do not question it. Your "what I do know" is obvious to you...as obvious as it once was that the earth is immovable and at the center of the universe (indeed, I believe you have argued this).

It was not until Fechner that scientists really had a clue about how to study sensation and perception, despite centuries of looking for a useful methodology. But since him, others have built upon his discoveries and methods, and we now have a solid science of sensory and perceptual experience....which you completely ignore. You do not approach these problems from what you know, and you do merely speculate. That is why you ask so many questions, because you have no idea which questions are answerable, and which are idle navel-gazing. No.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

So we made you use obscenities and vulgarities? Where's the free will, Rad?

And how did we twist your words?

It's called "subversion."