will someone translate HouseofCantor's proof of objective love into something that I can understand? I am attempting to do it myself below, but if I have translated something incorrectly please let me know.
"without solicitation i have received independent confirmation from numerous observers that 'my love of gwenyth is evident in the ellenjanuary portraiture'. (ellenjanuary name of I)."
-Even without asking for confirmation that my love of Gwenyth Paltrow is evidenced by my fascination and possible obsession with the portriate of her on the january cover of "Ellen" magazine, other people have told me that my love of Paltrow is in fact evidenced by my obsession with the portrait.
- You fail to define love first of all, so any question to whether the argument is true is meaningless.
- Any confirmation you believe you have received from independent sources is in fact just your own perception of what "other sources" have said, which you have interpreted through the lens of your own consciousness. It is not independent confirmation then but your self perception of "independent sources" which may or may not even actually exist outside your mind. You betray yourself with this contention. If "independent observers" are able to verify your beliefs about the world then my belief in God could be verified simply by other people saying my belief was true.
"With philosophy I have moved past cognate to amo ergo sum."
With philosophy I have moved past "I think" to "I love" therefor I am.
- No. again you assume that "love" is objectively real without proof. That you think that you love, therefor objectively you love, therefore you exist. You still provide no evidence that you objectively love, you fail to even define what this "love" is outside of your own conscious perception that love. Philosophy has nothing to do with it. You claim that your perceptions of "independent observers" somehow validates your own perceptions without proving that "independent observers" exist outside of your own perceptions of them. Whether people say God exists has no bearing on the truth of the claim. In order for thing's to be real they must exist apart from our ideas of what things are, which we cannot prove, because all things are based on observations of a conscious mind. In order to believe that your conscious perceptions are true, you must believe that consiousness exists apart from your ideas about what consciousness is, which you claim later in your argument you do not.
"The entirety of my identity carried by such testimony- i love - what is left to prove is precisely zero"
My identity is carried by my conscious perceptions of what others have said - that I love - there is nothing left to prove.
- You still fail to prove that your conscious perceptions are accurate, and you still fail to prove what love is outside of your conscious perception. "That nothing is left to prove" is a claim you have made which doesn't logically follow from your argument. You have proven nothing, yeet there is nothing to prove.
"Who am I? ellenjanuary."
I am the portriat
- ha
"Who am I? 4. Emergent simulation of Mind in brain. Software. Static interference pattern. These words. The evolution of geometry over entropy into a local node of information processing identified as self to maximize the minima of being."
I am an emergent function of my brain.
- This is the only rational satement you make. It is entirely possible that "you" are merely an emergent function of your brain. Yet if this is the case, there is nothing to measure the truth of your words against because the "self" or more properly "consciousness" does not exist apart from your idea that it is an emergent function of complex systems. You cannot be confident that any of your previous statements are true then because you cannot be confident that consciousness exists apart from your "self". If consciousness does not exist apart from the idea of "self" then consciousness does not exist as inherent in the universe. If consciousness does not exist inherent to the universe, there is no basis to believe that the things you perceive using your consciousness exist at all outside of your own consciousness. Therefore you fail to prove love, that you think, that ellenjanuary exists, or that you typed any words. in this view the only thing you can be confident in is that you have subjectively experience these things, not that they are objectively real.
"without solicitation i have received independent confirmation from numerous observers that 'my love of gwenyth is evident in the ellenjanuary portraiture'. (ellenjanuary name of I)."
-Even without asking for confirmation that my love of Gwenyth Paltrow is evidenced by my fascination and possible obsession with the portriate of her on the january cover of "Ellen" magazine, other people have told me that my love of Paltrow is in fact evidenced by my obsession with the portrait.
- You fail to define love first of all, so any question to whether the argument is true is meaningless.
- Any confirmation you believe you have received from independent sources is in fact just your own perception of what "other sources" have said, which you have interpreted through the lens of your own consciousness. It is not independent confirmation then but your self perception of "independent sources" which may or may not even actually exist outside your mind. You betray yourself with this contention. If "independent observers" are able to verify your beliefs about the world then my belief in God could be verified simply by other people saying my belief was true.
"With philosophy I have moved past cognate to amo ergo sum."
With philosophy I have moved past "I think" to "I love" therefor I am.
- No. again you assume that "love" is objectively real without proof. That you think that you love, therefor objectively you love, therefore you exist. You still provide no evidence that you objectively love, you fail to even define what this "love" is outside of your own conscious perception that love. Philosophy has nothing to do with it. You claim that your perceptions of "independent observers" somehow validates your own perceptions without proving that "independent observers" exist outside of your own perceptions of them. Whether people say God exists has no bearing on the truth of the claim. In order for thing's to be real they must exist apart from our ideas of what things are, which we cannot prove, because all things are based on observations of a conscious mind. In order to believe that your conscious perceptions are true, you must believe that consiousness exists apart from your ideas about what consciousness is, which you claim later in your argument you do not.
"The entirety of my identity carried by such testimony- i love - what is left to prove is precisely zero"
My identity is carried by my conscious perceptions of what others have said - that I love - there is nothing left to prove.
- You still fail to prove that your conscious perceptions are accurate, and you still fail to prove what love is outside of your conscious perception. "That nothing is left to prove" is a claim you have made which doesn't logically follow from your argument. You have proven nothing, yeet there is nothing to prove.
"Who am I? ellenjanuary."
I am the portriat
- ha
"Who am I? 4. Emergent simulation of Mind in brain. Software. Static interference pattern. These words. The evolution of geometry over entropy into a local node of information processing identified as self to maximize the minima of being."
I am an emergent function of my brain.
- This is the only rational satement you make. It is entirely possible that "you" are merely an emergent function of your brain. Yet if this is the case, there is nothing to measure the truth of your words against because the "self" or more properly "consciousness" does not exist apart from your idea that it is an emergent function of complex systems. You cannot be confident that any of your previous statements are true then because you cannot be confident that consciousness exists apart from your "self". If consciousness does not exist apart from the idea of "self" then consciousness does not exist as inherent in the universe. If consciousness does not exist inherent to the universe, there is no basis to believe that the things you perceive using your consciousness exist at all outside of your own consciousness. Therefore you fail to prove love, that you think, that ellenjanuary exists, or that you typed any words. in this view the only thing you can be confident in is that you have subjectively experience these things, not that they are objectively real.
