(May 24, 2013 at 4:58 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Assuming that logic and creativity are exclusive is making an ass out of you.

How you manage to read that I think logic and creativity are exclusive out of 'not having to abide by logic allows for more creativity' is beyond me... but I thank you regardless: I always wanted to be a donkey.

Their ears are adorable

Quote:Just because the post was way over your head, it doesn't give you the right to go on a rant, including an undeserving insult to a hamster.

I've not gone on a rant yet... not that I do not always posses the right to do so. You have the right to rant to, but it'll probably be received less well than a rant by me

How would being abused horribly by a human be an insult to a hamster? You don't happen to be one of them mythical 'Victim Blamers', do yeh?

Quote:

Quote:Aye, I do. I've 20 years of experience pooping, entering bathrooms after others have pooped, changing diapers filled with poop... if anyone knows when shit's out of place: it's me.

LIAR.

Didn't you say that you have 17 years to you? Surely, then... you have 17 years experience pooping, entering bathrooms after others have pooped? You don't have to poop?! :0

Quote:I survive being disintegrated by lasers, I can probably survive standing in front of a train.

LIAR.[/quote]

Well clearly, I am not lying... seeing as I'm still here. Rumors of my death must have been greatly exaggerated for you to disbelieve that I yet live. 0.o

Quote:

Quote:Don't know why there would be a train, and why would I stand in front of a train anyway?

You have short memory. Do you still stand by your fickle assertion that perception is some mystical tool?

I don't have a short memory, I have cause to ask myself 'why would there be a train?'... of all the things that might cause damage to me, I assure you: I almost never see a train. Teleporters, cars, planes, helicopters, tanks, elevators... sure. But *trains*? That's a rare sight.

Unless you'd care to demonstrate to me how perception is not a truth that persists regardless of intellect, I will continue to assert that perception is a mystical tool by which a being might know the universe

Quote:The metaphysical world of your twisted mind is a fictional world, but to you it is real, so why worry?

As far as I know, I don't have a metaphysical world in my mind (twisted or no). I'd certainly be interested in discovering metaphysical worlds, in understanding them, in existing in them as I exist in other worlds.

Everything is fictional, everything is also real... does this worry you? It doesn't worry me. Should it?

Quote:

Quote:I'm about the kindest mistress in the world.

LIAR.

You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

Quote:Whether you're a fake or pretending you're a fake, what's the difference according if EVERYTHING IS REAL?

That's a good question... since everything is real: what constitutes that one thing is 'fake' and another 'not fake'? I could tell you, and I will tell you, but I don't think that you'll learn anything by it...

A 'fake' being is one that is claimed to be another being, but which is not. For example... if a 'shoe' is a being that is worn upon the foot so as to protect such from the elements, then a 'fake shoe' would be a being that is claimed to be a shoe, but is not, whether that mean it is unwearable upon the foot, and/or whether that mean it is not designed to protect a foot from the elements: it does not conform to that defined as 'a shoe'.

There's another definition to something being a fake, but it has nothing to do with whether it be real or not. Probably also the one you meant, unfortunately.

Quote:You only wish.

Why would I wish to only exist to patronize you? I enjoy sex and living entirely too much for that to be my only desire 0.o Why are you so egotistical?

Quote:Proving myself to a nutjob like you? Now that's a joke.

That's what I said. But hey: your talent of parroting is pretty impressive

Quote:Can't connect the dots? Try again.

Have you not yet understood the question? What IS an unreal train? What does that look like? Is it a fake train?

That would leave us asking 'what is a train?', but I don't believe you would understand the significance of that question.

Quote:

Quote:My local train company is in Gigoslavia... They're pretty good about getting me to whichever planet I want to go to.

LIAR.

No lie, and their rates are the best in this part of the galaxy. Which is why I use them, of course.

Quote:I just want to see if you really believe that perception is a mystical tool, or were you just bullshitting when you said? I know you are a bullshitter of the first kind, but I want to put it up your face. I'm like that.

I really believe perception is a mystical tool. I haven't bullshitted you yet.

You know that I am a bullshitter, and so you want me to know I'm a bullshitter as well? And you're willing to put a lot of time and effort into that? 0.o As if I wouldn't be the first to know?

Quote:You're not, but I am.

Are you? Interesting... I'm suddenly completely not threatened. What are you gonna do? Cook pasta for me?

Quote:You've made another wrong assumption, and then you think you know who I am. Your misperception is reaching mythical proportion.

Well, you keep saying 'bye!' and 'take care!' and 'ciao!'... so what am I supposed to think? 'Bye, see you in ten minutes!', perhaps?

Seems like such a waste. I know who you are: you are a waste... so I'm rather confused that you think my misperceptions are somehow more impressive than your own, but then, maybe your intention is to confuse?

---

(May 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Hi, guys. I'm interested in the topic of the OP, and I have two questions that I hope someone can answer so I can participate in this thread.

1) What are you talking about?

Reality

Quote:2) What is its relation to the OP?

Whether nothing is real. Now we've got some fool suggesting that everything isn't real, so who knows what we have to fix in him before he'll start making sense?

Quote:In particular, Violet are you just trolling for fun, or are you humorously defending a philosophical/spiritual position that is getting dumped on because you're not a physical monist? This thread now tl;dr for me, but I hope I can get into it.

I'm humorously defending philosophical correctness... that is to say: people are making horrible arguments for things they would like to say, and I am attempting to steer them onto a course for solid arguments for things they would like to say.

Though I am defending a philosophical contention that everything exists, I'm certainly having fun. Anything that looks like 'trolling' is only my counter-observations to some hilarious person's excuse for insults.

I hope you can get into it too, but I don't see why one would just skip by a bunch of posts if they seek to learn... everything (of which nothing is a part, and apart) is a fairly long-winded topic. Make a point anywhere, and I'll meet you there

And probably fifty other rabid philosophers, but yknow: gotta take the good with the bad ^_^

---

Ahhh, I am reminded of back in the day when I asked if we could have more images per post than 10.

Still want that. Makes editing a pain after a second post

(May 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Hi, guys. I'm interested in the topic of the OP, and I have two questions that I hope someone can answer so I can participate in this thread.

1) What are you talking about?

Nothing.

(May 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 2) What is its relation to the OP?

Nothing.

Any help to you?

(May 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Though I am defending a philosophical contention that everything exists, I'm certainly having fun. Anything that looks like 'trolling' is only my counter-observations to some hilarious person's excuse for insults.
. . .
Make a point anywhere, and I'll meet you there

Okay, let's start with semantics. Everything exists for sure, because "thing" implies existence. The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework). I'm pretty sure that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which can be located in our universe at any time, but IPU's existence as an important atheist meme can't really be disputed.

"Nothingness," I think, can only exist as a concept. To establish the "real" existence of something, it would have to be part of some framework (probably spacetime)-- and a framework is something. The fact that ANYTHING exists means that nothingness is impossible, because that particular nothingness has a property-- the potential for non-nothingness. And I'd say that a property is definitely something.

(May 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: How you manage to read that I think logic and creativity are exclusive out of 'not having to abide by logic allows for more creativity' is beyond me... but I thank you regardless: I always wanted to be a donkey.

Proof you don't understand your own bullshitting writing. "If you don't abide by logic and that gives you more creativity" means precisely that: one excludes the other.

Quote:I've not gone on a rant yet... not that I do not always posses the right to do so. You have the right to rant to, but it'll probably be received less well than a rant by me

Not only are you a liar, a pretentious little brat with a bad attitude, but your whole life so far is one big idiotic rant.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I survive being disintegrated by lasers, I can probably survive standing in front of a train.

LIAR.

Well clearly, I am not lying... seeing as I'm still here. Rumors of my death must have been greatly exaggerated for you to disbelieve that I yet live. 0.o

More lies. At least youre consistent, (HINT: it's not meant to be a compliment)

Quote:

Quote:You have short memory. Do you still stand by your fickle assertion that perception is some mystical tool?

I don't have a short memory, I have cause to ask myself 'why would there be a train?'... of all the things that might cause damage to me, I assure you: I almost never see a train.

You should get out more often. Trains are fun.

Quote:Teleporters, cars, planes, helicopters, tanks, elevators... sure.

More lies.

Quote:Unless you'd care to demonstrate to me how perception is not a truth that persists regardless of intellect,

Do you any idea how that sounds if you would know the definition of two words in that sentence:

Perception: "The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses."

Intellect: :"The ability to think abstractly or profoundly"

Quote:The metaphysical world of your twisted mind is a fictional world, but to you it is real, so why worry?

Quote: I exist in other worlds.

More lies. It's really a disease in your case.

Quote:Everything is fictional, everything is also real... does this worry you? It doesn't worry me. Should it?

Sadly, there are too many idiots like you in the world.

Quote:

Quote:LIAR.

You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

Unlike you, I do.

Quote:

Quote:Whether you're a fake or pretending you're a fake, what's the difference according if EVERYTHING IS REAL?

That's a good question... since everything is real: what constitutes that one thing is 'fake' and another 'not fake'? I could tell you, and I will tell you, but I don't think that you'll learn anything by it...

You think you're cool when you pretend to be serious, but in between the lines, anyone can see you're grasping at straws.

Quote:A 'fake' being is one that is claimed to be another being, but which is not. For example... if a 'shoe' is a being that is worn upon the foot so as to protect such from the elements, then a 'fake shoe' would be a being that is claimed to be a shoe, but is not, whether that mean it is unwearable upon the foot, and/or whether that mean it is not designed to protect a foot from the elements: it does not conform to that defined as 'a shoe'.

Stop going on a tangent. The discussion is about cartoon characters, whether they are real or not.

Quote:Why are you so egotistical?

It takes one to know one

Quote:

Quote:Proving myself to a nutjob like you? Now that's a joke.

That's what I said. But hey: your talent of parroting is pretty impressive

LIAR.

Quote:No lie, and their rates are the best in this part of the galaxy. Which is why I use them, of course.

More lies. When you're on a roll, you go girl.

Quote:You know that I am a bullshitter, and so you want me to know I'm a bullshitter as well? And you're willing to put a lot of time and effort into that? 0.o As if I wouldn't be the first to know?

Your pride is misguided. Bullshitting is NOT a badge of honor.

Quote:

Quote:You're not, but I am.

Are you? Interesting... I'm suddenly completely not threatened.

Weird that a word like "ciao" could threaten you.

Quote:What are you gonna do? Cook pasta for me?

What for? You wouldn't know the difference between real pasta and fake pasta.

Quote:

Quote:You've made another wrong assumption, and then you think you know who I am. Your misperception is reaching mythical proportion.

Well, you keep saying 'bye!' and 'take care!' and 'ciao!'... so what am I supposed to think? 'Bye, see you in ten minutes!', perhaps?

Seems like such a waste. I know who you are: you are a waste... so I'm rather confused that you think my misperceptions are somehow more impressive than your own, but then, maybe your intention is to confuse?

Look who is running away. Can't take the heat, liar?

---

(May 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Though I am defending a philosophical contention that everything exists, I'm certainly having fun. Anything that looks like 'trolling' is only my counter-observations to some hilarious person's excuse for insults.
. . .
Make a point anywhere, and I'll meet you there

Okay, let's start with semantics. Everything exists for sure, because "thing" implies existence. The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework). I'm pretty sure that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which can be located in our universe at any time, but IPU's existence as an important atheist meme can't really be disputed.

"Nothingness," I think, can only exist as a concept. To establish the "real" existence of something, it would have to be part of some framework (probably spacetime)-- and a framework is something. The fact that ANYTHING exists means that nothingness is impossible, because that particular nothingness has a property-- the potential for non-nothingness. And I'd say that a property is definitely something.

Benny, not the metaphysical thing again...

Joe

(May 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(May 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, let's start with semantics. Everything exists for sure, because "thing" implies existence. The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework). I'm pretty sure that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which can be located in our universe at any time, but IPU's existence as an important atheist meme can't really be disputed.

"Nothingness," I think, can only exist as a concept. To establish the "real" existence of something, it would have to be part of some framework (probably spacetime)-- and a framework is something. The fact that ANYTHING exists means that nothingness is impossible, because that particular nothingness has a property-- the potential for non-nothingness. And I'd say that a property is definitely something.

Benny, not the metaphysical thing again...

Joe

I agree with Benny, although how I word it is a tad different:

I think "nothingness", trying to attribute it to reality, is unintelligible. I also think that it fails as a meta-physical concept, because we can't describe it with any positive attributes; in that I differ from Benny, I think.

Unlike something that could be described intelligibly, yet not be possible to exist because of (positive) incompatible properties, e.g. the proverbial "married bachelor" or "square-circle" and thus cancel themselves out. You don't have that with "nothingness". It's even weirder than dividing by zero, it seems to me.

(May 24, 2013 at 7:20 pm)Sal Wrote:

(May 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Benny, not the metaphysical thing again...

Joe

I agree with Benny, although how I word it is a tad different:

I think "nothingness", trying to attribute it to reality, is unintelligible. I also think that it fails as a meta-physical concept, because we can't describe it with any positive attributes; in that I differ from Benny, I think.

Unlike something that could be described intelligibly, yet not be possible to exist because of (positive) incompatible properties, e.g. the proverbial "married bachelor" or "square-circle" and thus cancel themselves out. You don't have that with "nothingness". It's even weirder than dividing by zero, it seems to me.

I was just teasing Benny.

On the question of nothingness, a good part of it is about semantics. It mainly depends how you view the vacuum:

(1) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (nothing).

(2) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (something).

If you take position (2), then to the question, how did something came out of nothing, the right answer is, it never happened. And granted Benny would have a point. Nothing never existed in that case. But what if one takes (1) as a starting point? Would the theists/deists accept that? Would it settle that question once and for all? Probably not.

Personally, I don't believe in the Hawking/Krauss take on this. And until we overcome some major hurdles in physics - the hierarchy problem, quantization of gravity , to name a few - we are not in the position to settle this yet. And this is not taking into account the various proposals such as Reinhartd's cyclic theory, Sussking's multiverse, Smolin's fecund universe or Penrose' Cosmological conformal cyclic theory. We need more data to filter some of these. The jury is still out there.

(May 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, let's start with semantics. Everything exists for sure, because "thing" implies existence.

That's better

Quote:The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework).

Considering that every 'thing' is only a concept as long as something is defining it... is not the first most important question instead: does everything only exist as I observe, or do I not observe all the ways in which all things might exist? This is a step past solipsism (all you can be sure of is that you exist, trust in nothing but logic), and it is the question between self-objectivism and self-subjectivism. I'm being horrible and just assuming that you don't take the unfalsifiable position

All you can be sure of... is that in *your* existence: you are seeing the universe from your perspective. It is from there, that you might ask yourself the nature of those things you see... defining and organizing and separating and all manners of wonderful intellectual activity. You see... everything exists as everything, but a perceiving thing might observe something, and in their observation of it also lies the form of it.

So... if I observe a train, that train might be physical, metaphysical, mental, spiritual, solid, liquid, gas, plasma, tigerfur, wooden, small, large, interplanetary, nonrailed, red, purple, green, water soluble, 2-dimensional, 5-dimensional, hungry, happy, sad, glow-in-the-dark... all of these impact the form of the train that I am observing. 'Where' the train is... is only an attribute of the train's identity, not a separate question from it

Quote:I'm pretty sure that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which can be located in our universe at any time, but IPU's existence as an important atheist meme can't really be disputed.

Rainbow unicorns, the legendary 18th species of dolphins, on the other hand, not only can be located in our Universe at any time, but live in every rainbow within it

You're noting intersubjectivity right now, where in the 'world' of <the unspecified we>: a number of rules/beliefs/observations might be considered shared. However... that is not to say that there are not perceivers in your very 'world' who might perceive an IPU sometime.

Even though we might be an interconnected group of very similar perceivers... we each still have a differing perception, if only by when or where we perceive from.

Quote:"Nothingness," I think, can only exist as a concept. To establish the "real" existence of something, it would have to be part of some framework (probably spacetime)-- and a framework is something. The fact that ANYTHING exists means that nothingness is impossible, because that particular nothingness has a property-- the potential for non-nothingness. And I'd say that a property is definitely something.

It can only exist as a concept? Try this: what lies beyond everything?

The fact that anything non-nothing exists means that everything being nothing is impossible... but nothing doesn't have to be everything to still be nothing, does it? Nothing is definitely something... how could it be otherwise?

What if I told you... that 'the framework' is a concept?

---

My goodness, little monkey responds with the same shit... again?

* Violet sighs.

I'll get back to play with his irrelevance... later Maybe tomorrow, maybe a week from now, maybe tonight or in ten seconds, but definitely not now.

(May 24, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Hi, guys. I'm interested in the topic of the OP, and I have two questions that I hope someone can answer so I can participate in this thread.

1) What are you talking about?

Nothing.

(May 24, 2013 at 5:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 2) What is its relation to the OP?

Nothing.

Any help to you?

Thanks for straightening that out for us Stimbo.

(May 24, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Think nothing of it.

(May 24, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: does everything only exist as I observe, or do I not observe all the ways in which all things might exist?

The problem with that statement is that you can't differentiate between:
(1) I see a train.
(2) I see a cartoon depicting Superman.
(3) I see an angel in my dream.

Your conclusion is that the train is real, Superman is real, and the angel is real.

At this point you might as well believe in anything -- gods, demons, fire-breathing dragons, leprechauns. You just have to "think" about .... (fill in the blanks), and since you see it in your mind, presto, it's real.

Platonism came about 2300 years ago. It has been debunked a long time ago. Get yourself an education, a real one.

(May 24, 2013 at 12:32 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Disney? Disney characters are only rarely cool, like Buzz Lightyear: he's one cool toy. Try Dreamworks.

Buzz Lightyear makes a lot of sense here. I could totally see that being your avatar.

Quote:Also, I'm not the jealous sort, nor do I belong to the wandering tribes of possessiveness. Share the newcomer with everyone, as a proper host would

No offense, but I have a feeling that you've got access to some of the best drugs on the planet. If I were a user, I'd definitely be jealous.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt your initiation process. Carry on.

(background music starts playing...... TO INFINITE............ AND BEYOND!!!)