205 replies to this topic

[Cubivorre]

IceCase88, on 06 May 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Please stop. To answer the question... the robots you are "piloting" are not real.

ICECASE!!

You can't use the watermarked images!!

It's against the code!

And I made that part of the code

so I know it like the back of my hand!

[Noesis]

Have fun with "your" thoughts Lalti. I'm happy with mine.

Look up the term meaning also as you seem to be wanting to use in the context of having some greater emphasis other than whether it is a definable term in a logical condition. I'm not using it in the context you mention to derive a universal meaning of understanding.

As to the Strawman fallacy perspective:

Look at how you argue the legal thought example I proposed. You take my point about "facts vs fiction" and address the point from a total point of perspective that a legal system is subjective. Here you do not address whether a legal system is formulated from the constructs of factual evidence instead of hearsay of one of a number of possible reasons that could be formulated from imagination but jump straight to a conclusion that it is more of a subjective social framework. This I know and am happy to concede that a judgement is a subjective matter, but in so doing all you have done is reinterpreted your own meaning for my original example and placed your own solution onto it, but in so doing ignoring the premise for the original point being made which is, I hope, obviously relevant to the "existence" discussion?

In other words you ignore the "facts vs imagination" point altogether in the hope it nullifies the relevance of what we are discussing or that you think you win the argument as a result, but only because you have changed the premise of the argument to make it appear easier to make a point you want to make. This is the very basis of the Strawman fallacy, change the parameters of the meaning for your own benefit as opposed to addressing the actual points being made. (Not really interested in you addressing these points from a legal perspective as its mostly rhetorical from understanding.)

However, instead of trying to do what it appears you seem to be most objecting to I will put the shoe on the other foot. Can you provide proof of this non-existence based on "your" assertions? Note I will not use any response as evidence to confirm that it does exist as I cannot make that claim with "someone else" without the danger of introducing a logical fallacy, but merely by your own argument you cannot in effect claim the contrary for similar reasons. But this seems to be the point you are so desperate to want to make, yet fundamentally I'm not denying that outcome.

I will reiterate again that I'm not imposing claims on others as to how they believe as I have already stated that I cannot prove to others that they are an entity for them ( the premise for the original "if" ), so please stop forcing the issue that I'm trying to as it appears you are from my perspective. And surely if your saying that there is reasonable doubt in any assertion, as it is up to the cosmic fish, then surely my application of the original "if" holds some significant value for you since trying presuppose a definite claim is then a fallacy anyhow. As such are you not contradicting yourself when you objected to my use of the original "if" as a result? (Also tired of repeatedly stressing the point that its a personal journey and as such as with all things this is only covering my personal perspective not universal truth).

However, I'm content in "my own" common sense (even if universally it all belongs to a cosmic fish) that the bills will get paid if I organise my own thoughts around the fact that as an entity the resulting causation of my actions and choices provide a comforting experience of "my reality" for me. This is a personal choice I made some time ago in the process of my own self individuation.

Edited by Noesis, 07 May 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Agent of Change]

All your thoughts

are belong

to the gestalt Agent

[Silentium]

Oh...you don't want these thoughts.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Your walls of text,
I did not read them.

[Agent of Change]

there was

alot

of words in them

[Noesis]

Nathan Foxbane, on 07 May 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Your walls of text,
I did not read them.

I don't blame you

tbh, I secretly, really, really, really,

want to see pictures of cosmic fish

[Ialti]

Noesis, on 07 May 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

Have fun with "your" thoughts Lalti. I'm happy with mine.

Look up the term meaning also as you seem to be wanting to use in the context of having some greater emphasis other than whether it is a definable term in a logical condition. I'm not using it in the context you mention to derive a universal meaning of understanding.

As to the Strawman fallacy perspective:

Look at how you argue the legal thought example I proposed. You take my point about "facts vs fiction" and address the point from a total point of perspective that a legal system is subjective. Here you do not address whether a legal system is formulated from the constructs of factual evidence instead of hearsay of one of a number of possible reasons that could be formulated from imagination but jump straight to a conclusion that it is more of a subjective social framework. This I know and am happy to concede that a judgement is a subjective matter, but in so doing all you have done is reinterpreted your own meaning for my original example and placed your own solution onto it, but in so doing ignoring the premise for the original point being made which is, I hope, obviously relevant to the "existence" discussion?

In other words you ignore the "facts vs imagination" point altogether in the hope it nullifies the relevance of what we are discussing or that you think you win the argument as a result, but only because you have changed the premise of the argument to make it appear easier to make a point you want to make. This is the very basis of the Strawman fallacy, change the parameters of the meaning for your own benefit as opposed to addressing the actual points being made. (Not really interested in you addressing these points from a legal perspective as its mostly rhetorical from understanding.)

However, instead of trying to do what it appears you seem to be most objecting to I will put the shoe on the other foot. Can you provide proof of this non-existence based on "your" assertions? Note I will not use any response as evidence to confirm that it does exist as I cannot make that claim with "someone else" without the danger of introducing a logical fallacy, but merely by your own argument you cannot in effect claim the contrary for similar reasons. But this seems to be the point you are so desperate to want to make, yet fundamentally I'm not denying that outcome.

I will reiterate again that I'm not imposing claims on others as to how they believe as I have already stated that I cannot prove to others that they are an entity for them ( the premise for the original "if" ), so please stop forcing the issue that I'm trying to as it appears you are from my perspective. And surely if your saying that there is reasonable doubt in any assertion, as it is up to the cosmic fish, then surely my application of the original "if" holds some significant value for you since trying presuppose a definite claim is then a fallacy anyhow. As such are you not contradicting yourself when you objected to my use of the original "if" as a result? (Also tired of repeatedly stressing the point that its a personal journey and as such as with all things this is only covering my personal perspective not universal truth).

However, I'm content in "my own" common sense (even if universally it all belongs to a cosmic fish) that the bills will get paid if I organise my own thoughts around the fact that as an entity the resulting causation of my actions and choices provide a comforting experience of "my reality" for me. This is a personal choice I made some time ago in the process of my own self individuation.

May I just remind you that quotation marks do not a correct argument make. For example, were I to say that you don't have reasoning, you have "reasoning," I would not be adding anything to the discussion more than a cheesy insult.

Quote

Look up the term meaning also as you seem to be wanting to use in the context of having some greater emphasis other than whether it is a definable term in a logical condition. I'm not using it in the context you mention to derive a universal meaning of understanding.

Thanks, but I already know what "meaning" means, and I wasn't using some far-out definition of the term--I'm pretty sure you got my point too. Here, let me just restate it again so you can have a little food for thought: Your argument, which was directly quoted in your own words, said that a person's very existence hinged on whether they have meaning or not. Here, I'll even quote it back to you again:

Quote

So anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false, since it is meaningless to begin with.

The important bit here is the word 'since.' Because 'since' means 'because.' Hence you said (if we translate) "because anything other than a positive confirmation of existence, when a choice is present, is meaningless to begin with, a positive confirmation of existence is the only option"

I did not create an argument about meaning--you did. I just said you were wrong.

Quote

As to the Strawman fallacy perspective:

Wait. What?

Quote

Look at how you argue the legal thought example I proposed. You take my point about "facts vs fiction" and address the point from a total point of perspective that a legal system is subjective. Here you do not address whether a legal system is formulated from the constructs of factual evidence instead of hearsay of one of a number of possible reasons that could be formulated from imagination but jump straight to a conclusion that it is more of a subjective social framework. This I know and am happy to concede that a judgement is a subjective matter, but in so doing all you have done is reinterpreted your own meaning for my original example and placed your own solution onto it, but in so doing ignoring the premise for the original point being made which is, I hope, obviously relevant to the "existence" discussion?

Actually that's not what I said at all. My argument was to exclude conversation about legal systems from this haggling match. I do not see them as part of the question of existence. To repeat myself again: the theory behind legal systems analysis is based on the structures and conventions of social systems, and to really have any in-depth conversation about law we have to get away from the question of existence. Therefore I am not arguing law, because to do so takes us away from the question at hand.

Quote

In other words you ignore the "facts vs imagination" point altogether in the hope it nullifies the relevance of what we are discussing or that you think you win the argument as a result, but only because you have changed the premise of the argument to make it appear easier to make a point you want to make.

See previous answer.
+
No. I hold that you can't prove your facts. You have yet to even begin to address this issue. This is all I have ever held. You. cannot. Prove. It.

Quote

This is the very basis of the Strawman fallacy, creating a fake, or 'straw' argument which is easier to counter than the real-life arguments of those who disagree with you.

Fixed.

Quote

However, instead of trying to do what it appears you seem to be most objecting to I will put the shoe on the other foot. Can you provide proof of this non-existence based on "your" assertions? Note I will not use any response as evidence to confirm that it does exist as I cannot make that claim with "someone else" without the danger of introducing a logical fallacy, but merely by your own argument you cannot in effect claim the contrary for similar reasons. But this seems to be the point you are so desperate to want to make, yet fundamentally I'm not denying that outcome.

The italicized bit is the bit that's wrong. I make no claims to prove that we all do not exist, for if we do not exist what proof could I have?
No. Instead I make the claim that you cannot prove that we do or do not exist. Nothing further than this.
Heeeyy... you know, falsely saying that I make a claim and then arguing against that claim is fallacious thinking. In fact, do you want to know what kind of fallacious thinking it is? That's right! A strawman!

Quote

(Also tired of repeatedly stressing the point that its a personal journey and as such as with all things this is only covering my personal perspective not universal truth).

Just as I tire of time and again saying that I'm. Not. Speaking. To. Your. Personal. Beliefs.
I'm simply saying that logic dictates a more open mind than one which claims "I exist." Illogical thinking happens--and I'm totally ok with that. But here, in this space, we are speaking from a coldly logical world. And in that world we cannot say for certain that we exist.

And I'm really more a fan of cosmic sentient-bricks. But if it's cosmic fish you want, I think this should suffice:

[Noesis]

Sorry Latil, but your use to declare things wrong based on your argument is just laughable. And you haven't in any way proved me wrong. All your doing is declaring it. But by the imposition of your logic that we can or cannot prove anything about existence that you want to use to say that my argument is false is simply twisted that logic to fit your situation and not mine.

Again you misinterpret and project your supposed understanding of things onto my ontology and impose that it isn't correct when the very basis of your argument is that you cannot prove it as wrong, yet you feel capable of freely declare it as such which I think is very much just ignorance and arrogance.

I personally feel that you are being overly obtuse with semantics rather than points and using logic in a rather limited way. This since you seem to stipulate that with the absence of a negative in meaning you cannot qualify a positive as a result. Where as all I'm saying is that the negative case of existence is meaningless to you from a logical view because the very definition of existence precludes a choice and it is the only experience that I have to substantiate existence to myself as an entity in the first place is my experience of my choices.

This since from a cognitive point of view it is really the only tangible evidence I can offer to my beliefs that I have any interaction with reality as I'm limited by my own personal experience as to what this means as I'm not omniscient. This I will repeat does not prove that existence is there or not, all it means is that logically the only inference of meaning that has any relevance to myself is a positive one and to then being able to express this in a mutually humanistic way with others.

You seem to want to separate the experience of your reality or understanding and simply surmise it as a logical statement that it can or cannot exist, which is really Schrodinger's argument about states, and from a purely logical point of view I cannot confirm or deny that either state has no real tangible evidence to prove from an existence point of view what is "truth".

But this is where you stop in all you want to explore as your understanding, you don't seem to want to understand the personal relevance of this. And I think and believe that the extension of understanding of what reality is and being able to convey it's personal qualities and interactions from your point of view is a much more tangible notion to you as an entity that you exist. So I'm sorry I won't simply dismiss the experience of reality and its relevance to the argument as a result. If anything it should make you question things from this perspective and explore these interactions in the hope to provide a greater personal understanding of your reality not simply dismissed.

Anyhow we seem to have moved onto Cosmic bricks now so ...

Lets use this as a useful analogy then and say that since a brick cannot think and understand its own experience of existence does it exist? Well it can exist of course, but for it to have any purposeful meaning to it as a reality or having a cognition or awareness of existence it needs to be able to process that experience and interact with it to have a notion of what existence is.

Logic can be useful to identify if it is there or not (which is open to question), but it does not help the brick aspire to any notion of believing itself to be an entity. Unless of course your now going to surmise that since a brick does interact in a scientific way with the reality, it has cause and effect due to its material presence and interactions which is sufficient for it to be somehow self aware of existence simply by reality changing it or being connected to it physically as a result.

I'm really intrigued now as to what your thoughts are on the brick cognition. And also the fact that you seem to place a distinction of sentience onto the cosmic variety. I think this should hopefully indicate that you consider the average household brick to be non-sentient and that the above convergence of my thought processes might actually start to inspire you to see this question of existence as more than a logical equation.

[Ialti]

Quote

Sorry Latil, but your use to declare things wrong based on your argument is just laughable.

Sort of like how I have to chuckle every time you misspell my handle...

Quote

And you haven't in any way proved me wrong. All your doing is declaring it. But by the imposition of your logic that we can or cannot prove anything about existence that you want to use to say that my argument is false is simply twisted that logic to fit your situation and not mine.

Once again (I've said it five times now) I am not addressing your personal situation. I am addressing your logic. What you believe is your business, and I can't, shouldn't, and won't argue about it. Trying to keep up the same tired argument that "you're imposing your beliefs on me" doesn't work, when I am not imposing my beliefs on you.

Quote

you cannot prove it as wrong, yet you feel capable of freely declare it as such

No. Again.
Your assumption of your correctness is wrong. I do not, in fact, make any claim that the original assertion of cogito ergo sum is incorrect, only that we cannot know it for truth.
Here, I'll talk slowly and with little words: I'm. Not. Disproving. ... You. Just. Can't. Prove.

Quote

I personally feel that you are being overly obtuse with semantics rather than points and using logic in a rather limited way.

May I just say here, before responding, that trying to unravel these sentences is like doing crosswords.
But to respond: Semantics? Have I debated the meanings of terms with you, ever? In fact, it was you who started that whole "definition of meaning" thing. I just said you were wrong.
And what tricky words have I used in this discussion? I feel that I've been nothing but frank with you, which leads me to conclude that you are either putting up a strawman argument (heh) or you do not in fact know what the term 'semantics' means.

Quote

This since you seem to stipulate that with the absence of a negative in meaning you cannot qualify a positive as a result. Where as all I'm saying is that the negative case of existence is meaningless to you from a logical view because the very definition of existence precludes a choice and it is the only experience that I have to substantiate existence to myself as an entity in the first place is my experience of my choices.

No. If you yourself are another's choice, then the other might exist but the entity 'you' does not, as such. Ultimately we are incapable of determining whether our natures are extant, and I am not so proud as to claim that I have explored the root of everything far enough to know whether even that thing which might be imagining us need exist itself. For I cannot prove its existence or nonexistence. Therefore possibilities exist beyond my perspective. This is what I say: your choices might not be choices at all! You might not be. Or you might be something else entirely. You don't know. ~waves arms wildly~

Quote

This I will repeat does not prove that existence is there or not, all it means is that logically the only inference of meaning that has any relevance to myself is a positive one and to then being able to express this in a mutually humanistic way with others.

Remember the 'cold hard logic world?' You know, the one I referenced in the last post? Yeah, that's the world we're talking in, and in that world meaning does not influence existence. You might not be there, and while that might be meaningless to you, we cannot deny the possibility! You're trying to. Stop it.

Quote

You seem to want to separate the experience of your reality or understanding and simply surmise it as a logical statement that it can or cannot exist...But this is where you stop in all you want to explore as your understanding, you don't seem to want to understand the personal relevance of this. And I think and believe that the extension of understanding of what reality is and being able to convey it's personal qualities and interactions from your point of view is a much more tangible notion to you as an entity that you exist. So I'm sorry I won't simply dismiss the experience of reality and its relevance to the argument as a result. If anything it should make you question things from this perspective and explore these interactions in the hope to provide a greater personal understanding of your reality not simply dismissed.

Mighty presumptive of you. Contrary to your assertion that meaning can only be found in a world where I exist, I think we can explore the world where I don't exist just as easily. After all, I've never held it against a thing that it didn't exist (unlike some ~cough cough~).
And you jump to conclusions in assuming that because I can't prove I exist I'm without an exploration of life in the positive side. We all know that assuming makes an ******* of u and I. And you're wrong besides: Stopping at the point where we can't prove whether we exist or not does not mean that we have to stay there. We can explore both the nonexistent side and that which exists. We're actually more free to observe, without proof. I support the open-minded side of this argument.

Quote

Anyhow we seem to have moved onto Cosmic bricks now so ...

Metaphor. Meta. Phor. ~slams head into wall~ Metaphor.

Quote

Lets use this as a useful analogy then and say that since a brick cannot think and understand its own experience of existence does it exist? Well it can exist of course, but for it to have any purposeful meaning to it as a reality or having a cognition or awareness of existence it needs to be able to process that experience and interact with it to have a notion of what existence is.

Splendidly done. But not what we're talking about. We're addressing the question of 'does it exist?' Not 'can it exist.' Not 'how does it get meaning out of its existence.' Just, does it exist?
The answer is "I don't know." You seem to think that the answer should always be "yes, as long as its sentient." That 'always' bit is what I'm saying is wrong.

Quote

I'm really intrigued now as to what your thoughts are on the brick cognition. And also the fact that you seem to place a distinction of sentience onto the cosmic variety. I think this should hopefully indicate that you consider the average household brick to be non-sentient and that the above convergence of my thought processes might actually start to inspire you to see this question of existence as more than a logical equation.

To be completely honest, I don't have the same fascination with fish and bricks that you do.
I used an example. And a metaphor.
Those things are what's known 'in the biz' as symbolic language. They're symbols. You're treating them like prima-facia truths. That is either a critical failure to understand, or the saddest trolling I've ever seen.

So! To switch it up, I'll ask: what if we're all just dreams in the fevered mind of a sentient banana somewhere? (and if you start talking about bananas in the next post I'll switch to shoes, or octopi, or crows. Any length to get you to understand what 'symbol' means.)

[Noesis]

The way I see this "discussion" is:

You asserted I'm wrong but can't prove it,
I assert that I might be right but cant prove it either,
the only difference being is that you are the only one making a claim as you are declaring things have to be a certain way,
I'm leaving it to personal affirmation for everyone to determine for themselves.

The logical argument you want to use which I have not dismissed though you seem to continue to think I have by holding onto a belief that I can substantiate my own existence as a result of conscious interaction, yet I have repeatedly confirmed that I don't wish to prove existence as a result of it, all I'm saying is that my experience of my reality is all I have to help confirm to myself that I'm an entity.

Anything else is conjecture and open to debate as to whether it is truth, but all I'm saying is that from a point of understanding you cannot know anything other than the reality given to you as presented. Read back, you'll see that I'm not affirming it as truth only that it can be used to give you a tangible representation of how you experience it. If you think I'm asserting otherwise as you continually want to project onto me then I'm telling you now I'm not and as such your making no point other than you seem reluctant to even read what I say as I confirm the intent in previous posts.

Quote

We're addressing the question of 'does it exist?' Not 'can it exist.' Not 'how does it get meaning out of its existence.' Just, does it exist?
The answer is "I don't know." You seem to think that the answer should always be "yes, as long as its sentient." That 'always' bit is what I'm saying is wrong.

This is where you fail to understand what I have been saying, but at last might help me to express things so that you will understand without having to dismiss things, which you seem to like to do. I think the fault lies in the fact that you seem to think that my answer is "yes, as long as its sentient", it's not it's "maybe, since I'm sentient" as I have said I can't prove existence from that idea, all I have said is that the logical conclusion from the observations I'm making in my experience of reality could only help to prove to myself that it might be true as that is my limited perspective of what reality is, but the opposite (absence of existence) is worthless to me as it helps to confirm nothing.

This I think is what seems to be busting a gut for you, that you will outright dismiss my "maybe" as having any value because you think I'm using it as a definite yes.

I'm being patient with your other fallacy statements as I've no real interest in correcting all your misguided interpretations that you seek no confirmation for with me or ignore when given otherwise. And yet you are the one who is so concerned about making assumptions. In conclusion it may be simpler for you to tell me how I'm thinking Lalti as you obviously have a better understanding of it than I from the way you relate your points.

Edited by Noesis, 07 May 2013 - 04:38 PM.

[Mike Forst]

Why?

[Noesis]

btw, no longer interested in seeing pictures of cosmic things,

at least not unless it is something I'm supposed to be thinking about,

but you might have to tell me it seems if I'm doing that or can do that.

All of which proves nothing,

especially the absence of cosmic bananas,

if you are confused or disagree with this statement then consult Lalti,

he seems to know what I really mean anyhow,

irrespective of whether I do

[Mike Forst]

Not reading

[Noesis]

*Chuckle of sorts*

[Mike Forst]

Ok

[Voridan Atreides]

Shame on you. Do you know how long it took me to scroll through all of that? A long time thats how long. You're bad and you should feel bad.

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 07 May 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[Ialti]

And here we explore that fine literary phenomenon, known as 'juxtaposition.'
I submit the following quote:

Noesis, on 15 April 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

"You think therefore you exist". The deeper aspect is whether you believe this to be as a choice you make or not, but principally if you provide cause and effect by your own actions then you have to exist as an entity surely?

Here, Noesis, you said: "Principally, if you provide cause and effect by your own actions then you have to exist as an entity surely"

Followed by this:

Quote

The logical argument you want to use which I have not dismissed though you seem to continue to think I have by holding onto a belief that I can substantiate my own existence as a result of conscious interaction, yet I have repeatedly confirmed that I don't wish to prove existence as a result of it,

Now, to me, the two statements contradict each other in a very big way. ~shrugs~ I could be wrong, but in the top statement it appears to me that you said a very different thing than you did in the bottom statement.

Quote

I'm being patient with your other fallacy statements as I've no real interest in correcting all your misguided interpretations that you seek no confirmation for with me or ignore when given otherwise. And yet you are the one who is so concerned about making assumptions. In conclusion it may be simpler for you to tell me how I'm thinking Lalti as you obviously have a better understanding of it than I from the way you relate your points.

I have repeatedly put my statements right next to your words. There wasn't any misquoting, I used direct quotes from your statements in this little haggling match, and saying otherwise is not very nice at all! ...And you still misspelled my handle.

Quote

btw, no longer interested in seeing pictures of cosmic things,

at least not unless it is something I'm supposed to be thinking about,

but you might have to tell me it seems if I'm doing that or can do that.

All of which proves nothing,

especially the absence of cosmic bananas,

if you are confused or disagree with this statement then consult Lalti,

he seems to know what I really mean anyhow,

irrespective of whether I do

I sigh at you. Really. In real life, I just sighed. And I think somewhere an angel just lost its wings.
Once again, I quote your own words directly. Without changing them. At all.

Mike Forst, on 07 May 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Why?

To post, of course. Just to post.

[Noesis]

Quote

" "You think therefore you exist". The deeper aspect is whether you believe this to be as a choice you make or not, but principally if you provide cause and effect by your own actions then you have to exist as an entity surely? "


Here, Noesis, you said: "Principally, if you provide cause and effect by your own actions then you have to exist as an entity surely"

Followed by this:

Quote

"The logical argument you want to use which I have not dismissed though you seem to continue to think I have by holding onto a belief that I can substantiate my own existence as a result of conscious interaction, yet I have repeatedly confirmed that I don't wish to prove existence as a result of it"


Now, to me, the two statements contradict each other in a very big way. ~shrugs~ I could be wrong, but in the top statement it appears to me that you said a very different thing than you did in the bottom statement

The first is quote is not a statement it is a question.

And you’re missing the important bit that we have arguing about from a logical point of view that it was the aspect of choice that I cannot use to prove existence and what all the fuss was about.

“The deeper aspect is whether you believe this to be as a choice you make…”

This since I have been trying to explore the question and not simply provide an answer. Why? Well since I have already repeatedly explained that it is should be left to self-determinism and that fundamentally I cannot do that for someone else anyhow by nature of the material.

The idea of sentience providing proof of existence is still a “maybe” for me as a result of thought as it is all I have in terms of understanding reality anyhow. But as I have stated I don’t consider it to be an absolute truth.

The question then is more important to me at this stage than having an answer, since through any process of dissonance with ideas not perceived as experiences of your own reality; you will have to formulate a decision on what you believe it to be for yourself given the presented material.

Thus irrespective of universal truth or the realms of imagination, you may formulate your understanding that you are an entity as a result of conscious interaction since it is all you have as a sum of “your reality” to define entities within it as you perceive them. Again this is not a proof of existence as an absolute, but it is how your thinking will function. Though you don’t seem to like this grey area of “common sense” it seems.

I understand what you are trying to do, in terms of using a black and white argument that we cannot prove anything. That is the idealism behind your counter argument that you think I have to conform to in how I should be discussing this question. This isn’t because I’m denying the logical case as I’ve stated, but that I want to think beyond it in a form that addresses the question in how we relate to it and formulate ideas about it in the first place.

This since I believe that due to constraints and limitations in how we think and behave, we will define entities as a process of pseudo definitions anyhow (rightly, wrongly or perhaps even unknowingly) in order to make any sense of our own realities. In this sense irrespective of any universal constraints or absolute truths we may unknowingly still convince ourselves that we are an entity even “if” we are not.

As a result, Agent could very well simply declare he is an entity and there would be no argument from his or others understanding of their experiences of realities what it means for them and they could then place that understanding as a further extension of their reality. This is due to the dissonance caused in that process that they cannot prove the opposite so it is easier to satisfy the statement as an accepted truth rather than an absolute truth. The interesting part I think here being that Agent’s statement may well be an absolute truth of course even if unproven.

But its ok Ialti, if you want to cling to your “black and white definitions" of things I won’t say you are wrong, but I simply won’t say your right either. What would be nice is if you can do the same as you seem to have stated you cannot prove the ideals you have posed either, but yet you seem adamant to say I’m wrong, as opposed to saying that my ideals are not to be accepted as "truth". In fact it seems to be the singular intent of your recent posts as opposed to addressing the subject material and formulating interpretation based on your understanding of the subject material and how you think it "should" be. But at least the derogatory content is easing a little, so I have a more optimistic forecast for this thread now.

Try a grey “maybe” perhaps, it might help your reality, I dare you to apply some fuzzy logic in your perspective of things?

[Agent of Change]

Have we

figured out if

i exist yet?