|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 20:12:58 GMT
If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 1, 2022 23:55:23 GMT
If you believe in atomism then yes To negate the atom would first require pointing to the atom; all negations require a phenomenon to first exist because of the act of pointing to it which occurs through words. In Terms Of Human Error, It's Often Possible To Negate Something Without Pointing To It Because What Is Suggested For Being Pointed At Is Not Always Negated In Terms Of Human Error. I.E If The Atom Is 99.999999999999999 Empty Space And Creates A World Paradoxical To Its Nature, Then The World And The Atom Are Not Negated By Abstraction, But "Phenomenon" Instead.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2022 23:58:24 GMT
To negate the atom would first require pointing to the atom; all negations require a phenomenon to first exist because of the act of pointing to it which occurs through words. In Terms Of Human Error, It's Often Possible To Negate Something Without Pointing To It Because What Is Suggested For Being Pointed At Is Not Always Negated In Terms Of Human Error. I.E If The Atom Is 99.999999999999999 Empty Space And Creates A World Paradoxical To Its Nature, Then The World And The Atom Are Not Negated By Abstraction, But "Phenomenon" Instead.To say "atom" is to point to "atom".
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 0:03:23 GMT
In Terms Of Human Error, It's Often Possible To Negate Something Without Pointing To It Because What Is Suggested For Being Pointed At Is Not Always Negated In Terms Of Human Error. I.E If The Atom Is 99.999999999999999 Empty Space And Creates A World Paradoxical To Its Nature, Then The World And The Atom Are Not Negated By Abstraction, But "Phenomenon" Instead. To say "atom" is to point to "atom". Perfect Intelligence Is Required For Perfect Perception, Humans Do Not Have Perfect Intelligence, So They Do Not Have Perfect Perception And Cannot "Point" To An "Atom" Because They Do Not Perceive The Atom In The Way Perfect Intelligence Would Perceive It.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:56:43 GMT
To say "atom" is to point to "atom". Perfect Intelligence Is Required For Perfect Perception, Humans Do Not Have Perfect Intelligence, So They Do Not Have Perfect Perception And Cannot "Point" To An "Atom" Because They Do Not Perceive The Atom In The Way Perfect Intelligence Would Perceive It.And your statement contradicts itself given that it is not a perfect perception as a human observed it and humans do not have perfect perception. As not a perfect perception it is not entirely true.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 17:11:55 GMT
Perfect Intelligence Is Required For Perfect Perception, Humans Do Not Have Perfect Intelligence, So They Do Not Have Perfect Perception And Cannot "Point" To An "Atom" Because They Do Not Perceive The Atom In The Way Perfect Intelligence Would Perceive It. And your statement contradicts itself given that it is not a perfect perception as a human observed it and humans do not have perfect perception. As not a perfect perception it is not entirely true. There Is No Contradiction In My Words, Read It Carefully. If An Atom Is In Itself An Atom, And Can Be Perceived On Different Levels Of Intelligence, One With Perfect Intelligence Can Point At The Atom Perfectly Knowing What An Atom In Itself Is, But A Human Cannot.
Humans Can't Even Point Out The Absolute Qualities Of Their Significant Other, Let Alone An Atom. Your Argument Is A Logical Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 21:07:37 GMT
And your statement contradicts itself given that it is not a perfect perception as a human observed it and humans do not have perfect perception. As not a perfect perception it is not entirely true. There Is No Contradiction In My Words, Read It Carefully. If An Atom Is In Itself An Atom, And Can Be Perceived On Different Levels Of Intelligence, One With Perfect Intelligence Can Point At The Atom Perfectly Knowing What An Atom In Itself Is, But A Human Cannot.
Humans Can't Even Point Out The Absolute Qualities Of Their Significant Other, Let Alone An Atom. Your Argument Is A Logical Fallacy.And the contradiction is that you are a human being, with imperfect intelligence, pointing out these things
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 9, 2022 1:36:07 GMT
There Is No Contradiction In My Words, Read It Carefully. If An Atom Is In Itself An Atom, And Can Be Perceived On Different Levels Of Intelligence, One With Perfect Intelligence Can Point At The Atom Perfectly Knowing What An Atom In Itself Is, But A Human Cannot.
Humans Can't Even Point Out The Absolute Qualities Of Their Significant Other, Let Alone An Atom. Your Argument Is A Logical Fallacy. And the contradiction is that you are a human being, with imperfect intelligence, pointing out these things On 9 . 13 . 2022, You Will Learn That I Am Not A Normal Being, And Indeed I Can See Through Your Fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2022 16:51:27 GMT
And the contradiction is that you are a human being, with imperfect intelligence, pointing out these things On 9 . 13 . 2022, You Will Learn That I Am Not A Normal Being, And Indeed I Can See Through Your Fallacies.The fallacies exist only as beliefs and when self referencing contradict themselves: 1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is the fallacy of circularity. 2. The fallacy of authority is dependent upon an authority. 3. The fallacy of bandwagon is accepted on group agreement. 4. The fallacy of equivocation is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as equivocation equates to similarity, similarity to connection, etc.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 10, 2022 5:22:05 GMT
On 9 . 13 . 2022, You Will Learn That I Am Not A Normal Being, And Indeed I Can See Through Your Fallacies. The fallacies exist only as beliefs and when self referencing contradict themselves: 1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is the fallacy of circularity. 2. The fallacy of authority is dependent upon an authority. 3. The fallacy of bandwagon is accepted on group agreement. 4. The fallacy of equivocation is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as equivocation equates to similarity, similarity to connection, etc. And fallacies are just make believe as part of a game people play called philosophy
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 11:08:39 GMT
The fallacies exist only as beliefs and when self referencing contradict themselves: 1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is the fallacy of circularity. 2. The fallacy of authority is dependent upon an authority. 3. The fallacy of bandwagon is accepted on group agreement. 4. The fallacy of equivocation is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as equivocation equates to similarity, similarity to connection, etc. And fallacies are just make believe as part of a game people play called philosophy I'm also quite skeptical about the fallacies, and not only me in this forum. Seems it is exactly a game or kinda. Actually, if I use any arguments people correct me, when they think I'm using them, but it only correct my speech and make me change words, not thoughts. The most reasonable question is why someone has diced that thoughts may be wrong? How exactly is possible to solve? I presume if there's a riddle that's been created by someone for some reason, then it's possible to make mistakes solving it, while that would be just a game. By default how can anyone be sure about falsely of someone's thoughts? Let's say I'm building a house, and my friend is convincing me, I'm wrong. So, it may be true only in case if he says something like "your walls have the angles that make your roof to fall down". This makes sense, but it's useless to say that I'm wrong with my creation. And thoughts are the part of creativity.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 10, 2022 12:08:21 GMT
And fallacies are just make believe as part of a game people play called philosophy I'm also quite skeptical about the fallacies, and not only me in this forum. Seems it is exactly a game or kinda. Actually, if I use any arguments people correct me, when they think I'm using them, but it only correct my speech and make me change words, not thoughts. The most reasonable question is why someone has diced that thoughts may be wrong? How exactly is possible to solve? I presume if there's a riddle that's been created by someone for some reason, then it's possible to make mistakes solving it, while that would be just a game. By default how can anyone be sure about falsely of someone's thoughts? Let's say I'm building a house, and my friend is convincing me, I'm wrong. So, it may be true only in case if he says something like "your walls have the angles that make your roof to fall down". This makes sense, but it's useless to say that I'm wrong with my creation. And thoughts are the part of creativity. I agree and it's even worse then that because your friend can't even truly say that the walls are wrong because they are not straight with his reason being the structural integrity because their are abstract house's that look like they will collapse any second but in reality are stronger then a traditional 90* walled house
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:35:13 GMT
The fallacies exist only as beliefs and when self referencing contradict themselves: 1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is the fallacy of circularity. 2. The fallacy of authority is dependent upon an authority. 3. The fallacy of bandwagon is accepted on group agreement. 4. The fallacy of equivocation is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as equivocation equates to similarity, similarity to connection, etc. And fallacies are just make believe as part of a game people play called philosophy And they fail under there own rules.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 10, 2022 23:00:47 GMT
And fallacies are just make believe as part of a game people play called philosophy And they fail under there own rules. They Only Fail If People Stop Using Fallacy Over Practicality. As Long As People Keep Using Fallacies, Rumors, Hearsay, Emotional Bias, Confirmation Bias, Feigning Of The Truth Despite Irrefutable Evidence, Opinions, Scapegoats, Adages, Quotes, Contradictions, Subjective Perception, Over True Intentions And True Observations, This World Will Always Be A Boiling Pot Of Willful Ignorance.
Furthermore, I Often Noticed That If Someone Can't Speak PRACTICALLY, They Speak PARODOXICALLY, Which Is What You Are Doing. Instead Of Removing The Contradictions Of Your Poor Arguments, You Complicate It Even More By Creating Circular Rationalizations That Have No Place In A Genuine Atmosphere. You Simply Aren't Here To See The Errors In Your Words.
I Am Here To Help You See The Error In Your Way Of Thinking, But It's Like Convincing A Gold Digger They Are A Gold Digger; When People Want An Affirmation For An Erroneous Reason, They Don't Care About Observation And Objectivity, They Only Care About Themselves And Reduce Their Response To Deflection And Denial With Zero Chance Of Reconciliation (But I Try).
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 11, 2022 4:45:15 GMT
And they fail under there own rules. They Only Fail If People Stop Using Fallacy Over Practicality. As Long As People Keep Using Fallacies, Rumors, Hearsay, Emotional Bias, Confirmation Bias, Feigning Of The Truth Despite Irrefutable Evidence, Opinions, Scapegoats, Adages, Quotes, Contradictions, Subjective Perception, Over True Intentions And True Observations, This World Will Always Be A Boiling Pot Of Willful Ignorance.
Furthermore, I Often Noticed That If Someone Can't Speak PRACTICALLY, They Speak PARODOXICALLY, Which Is What You Are Doing. Instead Of Removing The Contradictions Of Your Poor Arguments, You Complicate It Even More By Creating Circular Rationalizations That Have No Place In A Genuine Atmosphere. You Simply Aren't Here To See The Errors In Your Words.
I Am Here To Help You See The Error In Your Way Of Thinking, But It's Like Convincing A Gold Digger They Are A Gold Digger; When People Want An Affirmation For An Erroneous Reason, They Don't Care About Observation And Objectivity, They Only Care About Themselves And Reduce Their Response To Deflection And Denial With Zero Chance Of Reconciliation (But I Try).Sorry I don't fall for your special needs woke personality but if you don't have anything adult to say then you should probably just keep it to yourself and stop trying to tell me how I should reply to people as if your my little brother or something , it's distasteful and it makes you look like a down syndrome kid in the supermart that got left alone while their parents are trying clothes on and is going around harassing all the other shoppers as you go from post to post telling everybody how they should view the world and reply to other people and telling them how you're excited that they're all going to die in a week or two. I hope to God you never go to prison I mean really you wouldn't have a single tooth left I feel so bad for you as it is anyways I don't want that kind of depressing image in my head so if you can't explain to me why your opinion supersedes mine then like I said keep it to yourself please
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 11, 2022 5:11:37 GMT
They Only Fail If People Stop Using Fallacy Over Practicality. As Long As People Keep Using Fallacies, Rumors, Hearsay, Emotional Bias, Confirmation Bias, Feigning Of The Truth Despite Irrefutable Evidence, Opinions, Scapegoats, Adages, Quotes, Contradictions, Subjective Perception, Over True Intentions And True Observations, This World Will Always Be A Boiling Pot Of Willful Ignorance.
Furthermore, I Often Noticed That If Someone Can't Speak PRACTICALLY, They Speak PARODOXICALLY, Which Is What You Are Doing. Instead Of Removing The Contradictions Of Your Poor Arguments, You Complicate It Even More By Creating Circular Rationalizations That Have No Place In A Genuine Atmosphere. You Simply Aren't Here To See The Errors In Your Words.
I Am Here To Help You See The Error In Your Way Of Thinking, But It's Like Convincing A Gold Digger They Are A Gold Digger; When People Want An Affirmation For An Erroneous Reason, They Don't Care About Observation And Objectivity, They Only Care About Themselves And Reduce Their Response To Deflection And Denial With Zero Chance Of Reconciliation (But I Try). Sorry I don't fall for your special needs woke personality but if you don't have anything adult to say then you should probably just keep it to yourself and stop trying to tell me how I should reply to people as if your my little brother or something , it's distasteful and it makes you look like a down syndrome kid in the supermart that got left alone while their parents are trying clothes on and is going around harassing all the other shoppers as you go from post to post telling everybody how they should view the world and reply to other people and telling them how you're excited that they're all going to die in a week or two. I hope to God you never go to prison I mean really you wouldn't have a single tooth left I feel so bad for you as it is anyways I don't want that kind of depressing image in my head so if you can't explain to me why your opinion supersedes mine then like I said keep it to yourself please Relax. If You Look, The Quote Below Your Quote Is Not You, I Was Not Responding To You. There's A Quote Below Your Quote, That Means I Quoted The Person Below Your Quote.
|
|