205 replies to this topic

[Silentium]

No, they have gotten sidetracked debating cogito ergo sum, and then some other stuff I didn't read.

I am going with yes, although the nature of your existence still needs some work.

[Agent of Change]

ok so let's get on that.

and accept as fact that

you are all part of the

Agent of Change Gestalt

that should totally

simplify complicate

the discussion.

[Voridan Atreides]

Well it's a waste of time if you ask me.

[Agent of Change]

I would say

that no one

asked you

unfortunately that would

not be the case

as i asked a general

question

I will say

I wish no one had asked you

to absolve you of your

responsibility of responding.

[Mike Forst]

Poll too long, not voting

[Agent of Change]

blasphemy

[dal10]

perhaps we should all agree on what an entity is? at that point we could decide whether or not agent is one.

also, somehow i started the deepest discussion on the forum... yay for getting semi-intelligent conversation going.

Edited by dal10, 08 May 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[Mike Forst]

I don't converse I just post

[Ialti]

If you read carefully, you'll see that when I talk about your first post I exclude the question mark. I had thought it to be a mistake, but put it in anyway because I was quoting you exactly.

Quote

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

Well, you may have somewhere been arguing that statement, but I am arguing that the principal statement you made (you even said 'principally,' remember?) was wrong.
To begin the argument over whether it is willpower (free agency, from which comes choice) that makes us exist, you'll have to separate will from thought. And I'm not sure that's a pickle you want to pick, if you know what I'm saying .

Quote

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.

See, this is the thing: I am not (as I have repeated what feels like a thousand times) addressing your or anyone's personal beliefs. This conversation doesn't come back to "I believe..." it comes back to "what is possible?" You're ignoring that question, and jumping ahead.

Quote

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.

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

well, which is it?

Quote

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.

~sighs~ Remember that whole "not addressing personal beliefs" schtick? Remember it? I

Quote

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.

My dear Noesis, your sense is anything but common.
But beside that, the argument on my end is not about personal beliefs. Remember this. Not. About. Personal. Beliefs.

Quote

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.

Which is alright! ... except that that's not the argument you started (see your first post). You started an argument of 'you have to exist as an entity surely.' I took exception to the 'surely have to' bit. Now you're claiming that that's not the discussion you started. But It's there in black and white, posted for all the world to see. If you wish to have a different discussion, I will gladly have that one. But I can't do both at the same time--too little definition for proper argumentation.

Quote

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.

Lazy philosophy: I don't know if it's true so I'm just gonna stop questionin'!
As to whether Agent of Change exists or not, I give him a 75% chance.

Quote

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.

Yes, surely. Me having this conversation must mean I'm clinging to a certain mind set, there couldn't possibly be another reason for questioning things... oh wait...

Quote

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".

No. I'm saying that the thing you first posted is not true. It is a false statement.
You've changed your advocacy half a dozen times in the last day, so I'm not currently certain just what you're supporting at any given time.

Quote

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.

Not addressing personal beliefs. That includes "I believe's," "should be's," and "where do we go from here's." Keep misconstruing the terms of this argument, and I'll keep repeating that. Slower and with littler words, each time.

Where have I used offensive language in this argument? Give me an example or two. Have I been biased against race, gender, religion, or status? What abuse have I heaped upon you?
And if by 'derogatory,' you mean those times when I say that you don't understand things, then consider: I really think you don't. Me saying so isn't a put-down, it's more of that cold-hard-logic stuff.

Edited: and in other news, I have discovered the upper limit of quotations allowed by this forum.

Edited by Ialti, 08 May 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Silentium]

Is agency a pre-requisite of being an entity?

[Ialti]

Silentium, on 08 May 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

Is agency a pre-requisite of being an entity?

Maybe.

[Noesis]

Ialti, my personal ontology on this subject goes beyond logic. Faith in existence is something I will continue to use for myself more so than leaving it in the realms of the unknown. Though as you can clearly see from my initial post, that is a question, I'm still in the process of clarification on the subject. So even if I can't prove existence I will declare it as being there since I believe it to be true. Why?, because I'm human, have common sense and that the limitations on the way we think makes us gravitate to doing so naturally even if it isn't an absolute truth.

Irrespective of whether you dislike this application to this argument I will continue to uphold these beliefs. As I have more confidence in some affective realities than logical ones.

I leave it to Agent to decide if this application is similarly sufficient for himself and his journey in life.

Peace.

[Ialti]

Noesis, on 08 May 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Ialti, my personal ontology on this subject goes beyond logic. Faith in existence is something I will continue to use for myself more so than leaving it in the realms of the unknown. Though as you can clearly see from my initial post, that is a question, I'm still in the process of clarification on the subject. So even if I can't prove existence I will declare it as being there since I believe it to be true. Why?, because I'm human, have common sense and that the limitations on the way we think makes us gravitate to doing so naturally even if it isn't an absolute truth.

Irrespective of whether you dislike this application to this argument I will continue to uphold these beliefs. As I have more confidence in some affective realities than logical ones.

I leave it to Agent to decide if this application is similarly sufficient for himself and his journey in life.

Peace.

That's great, it's good to have personal beliefs that separate your identity from cold logic! I have some myself.
The arguing (aside from just being plain fun) for me takes place in a world of theory, where thinking has to be built bit by bit.
I like that realm, if for no other reason, because people with wildly different beliefs can actually talk without coming to blows over them--there's space for discourse and growth in a neutral territory.

Cheers!

Edited by Ialti, 08 May 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Agent of Change]

it should be pointed out

I'm not sure if we can prove

I'm an entity

I'm just gonna throw that out their

Nihilism is a *****.

[Ialti]

I'll put it to you this way: the world where Agent isn't an entity is a scary, scary world.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Ialti, on 09 May 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I'll put it to you this way: the world where Agent isn't an entity is a scary, scary world.

...*lightbulb*

In a world where Agent of Change is not an entity paradigms will be shifted...

[Ialti]

Nathan Foxbane, on 09 May 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

...*lightbulb*

In a world where Agent of Change is not an entity paradigms will be shifted...

A world where Agent is not an entity isn't a world where up is down. It's a world where up is blue!

[Agent of Change]

whoa waitaminute here

in a world where

agent of change is

not an entity

the world would be changed

I need to stand up
so I can sit down

[Nathan Foxbane]

You also need to run so you can sit still.

[Hammerfinn]

Volthorne, on 16 April 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Okay, well, what about if

I think, therefore AoC exists, therefore it follows AoC thinks, therefore I exist?

Not sure how that would look in Latin, so I'm not going to try.

Cogito, ergo AoC est, ergo debet esse quod Aoc cogit, ergo sum.

:-D Finally, my Latin PhD is useful.

Edited by Hammerfinn, 15 May 2013 - 07:58 PM.