Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we grant he isn't just outright trolling that really is all Tommy is doing, asking why like a 3 year old in the idea that it makes him "wiser" than the rest of us.
 
JayUtah said:
Then act like you are. You drop a smiley-qualified non-apology and then continue in the same arrogant, dismissive manner. This does not convince us that you're not just trolling.
Click to expand...

That you believe I am trolling is in you.

Here is something which occurred to me:
Belz... said:
Yes, it absolutely is. A process is a real thing. It's not an object, but it's a thing. Thoughts are processes. The act of imagining something, is a thing in and of itself, but it is not the same thing as the thing being imagined.
Even a three year-old understands this. You're beneath that level. Think about that. In your efforts to think too much, you've regressed to below even the threshold of rational thought.
Click to expand...

What is "unreal" as regards to this: The act of imagining something, is a thing in and of itself, but it is not the same thing as the thing being imagined. If I imagine "unreal" and that is not the same "unreal" as the "unreal" I imagine, then what is "unreal" as a thing in itself and not imagined?
 
Oh that's handy. You can act as rude and arrogant as you want and just blame it other people "perceiving you" that way.

So in your mind you can never be wrong and never in the wrong because of "word salad subjectively babble perspective word salad"
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
That you believe I am trolling is in you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you think this is deep and smart, but it's obvious. There's nothing revelatory about that. Much more revelatory is the realisation that all beliefs and ideas are processes caused by neurons firing and transmitting bioelectrical data. That's why science is superior to philosophy: it actually tells us stuff rather than making it up.

Here is something which occurred to me:
Click to expand...

And that's all that matters to you.

What is "unreal" as regards to this: The act of imagining something, is a thing in and of itself, but it is not the same thing as the thing being imagined. If I imagine "unreal" and that is not the same "unreal" as the "unreal" I imagine, then what is "unreal" as a thing in itself and not imagined?
Click to expand...

I told you to stop playing word games. Being able to put something into words or thinking about it doesn't make that thing real, relevant or important.

If you're still confused, find a four year-old and ask them to help you out.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure you think this is deep and smart, but it's obvious. There's nothing revelatory about that. Much more revelatory is the realisation that all beliefs and ideas are processes caused by neurons firing and transmitting bioelectrical data. That's why science is superior to philosophy: it actually tells us stuff rather than making it up.



And that's all that matters to you.



I told you to stop playing word games. Being able to put something into words or thinking about it doesn't make that thing real, relevant or important.

If you're still confused, find a four year-old and ask them to help you out.
Click to expand...

The fallacy of reification:
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete event or physical entity.
"Real" is an abstract belief. It is natural and caused by processes in a brain, but is not concrete nor a physical entity.

That is my point. "Real" is a map word and not a landscape word.
All of the highlighted words above are not concrete events or physical entities. They are part of your map.
Real, relevant or important is something to you, not independent of you. They are words for your map of what matters to you.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The fallacy of reification:
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete event or physical entity.
"Real" is an abstract belief. It is natural and caused by processes in a brain, but is not concrete nor a physical entity.

That is my point. "Real" is a map word and not a landscape word.
All of the highlighted words above are not concrete events or physical entities. They are part of your map.
Real, relevant or important is something to you, not independent of you. They are words for your map of what matters to you.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my post. Try again. Shouting "YOU CAN'T PIN ME DOWN TO A STANDARD ON ANYTHING!" will not get you a pass.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
That is my point. "Real" is a map word and not a landscape word.
Click to expand...

Then what is the "landscape word" Tommy? What term do we use to describe the landscape and not the map?

Here's a hint... we have a word for that already. It's called "REAL."

You're playing with words and telling people they don't understand the wrong way you are using them. You're calling a dog a cat and pompously demanding people describe the difference between a dog and a cat when someone points this out.

We know the difference between the map and the territory Tommy. So far you haven't shown that you have.
 
JayUtah said:
No, I don't accept this as an excuse for your rude behavior.
Click to expand...

Okay. And that someone claims, I am lying is not rude. Because that is a fact, which is observer independent and not cognitive.

I won't stop being me and you won't stop being you. What is rude is a personal process.
I will try to limit myself, but I won't stop being me.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay. And that someone claims, I am lying is not rude. Because that is a fact, which is observer independent and not cognitive.

I won't stop being me and you won't stop being you. What is rude is a personal process.
I will try to limit myself, but I won't stop being me.
Click to expand...

Typical non-answer. A toddler has learned cheap philosophical tricks.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Then what is the "landscape word" Tommy? What term do we use to describe the landscape and not the map?

Here's a hint... we have a word for that already. It's called "REAL."

You're playing with words and telling people they don't understand the wrong way you are using them. You're calling a dog a cat and pompously demanding people describe the difference between a dog and a cat when someone points this out.

We know the difference between the map and the territory Tommy. So far you haven't shown that you have.
Click to expand...

So the landscape is real! What is the map? If all words describe reality as Belz... pointed out, what does "unreal" describe?
So there is a difference? All things are not the same and thus not part of the same reality, because they are different. How can reality be the same and yet different?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So the landscape is real! What is the map?
Click to expand...

You are hopelessly confused.

The map is a thing. The thing on the map is not actually France. It's ink arranged to look like France.

Is that so difficult to understand? That we use a map to describe France doesn't mean that the drawing of France is France, or some fantasy land you can live in. It also doesn't mean that France doesn't exist, or that the map-reader has access to a different reality. Yes, we perceive reality through senses and use words to represent things but that doesn't change the fact that we have developed means to surmise whether a thought or belief represents a real thing or not. Beliefs and thoughts still exist.

How's that search for a toddler going?
 
JayUtah said:
If your attitude is that you're simply going to continue being pompous and arrogant, and excusing yourself by saying those words don't have meanings, then you forfeit the attention of reasonable people.
Click to expand...

Then stop answering. That is your choice. That is how reality works.

But please answer if you want to, what "unreal" is as thing and part of the territory/landscape and reality.
I really don't get this dualism. If the territory is real, then what is the map?
 
Belz... said:
You are hopelessly confused.

The map is a thing. The thing on the map is not actually France. It's ink arranged to look like France.

Is that so difficult to understand? That we use a map to describe France doesn't mean that the drawing of France is France, or some fantasy land you can live in. It also doesn't mean that France doesn't exist, or that the map-reader has access to a different reality. Yes, we perceive reality through senses and use words to represent things but that doesn't change the fact that we have developed means to surmise whether a thought or belief represents a real thing or not. Beliefs and thoughts still exist.

How's that search for a toddler going?
Click to expand...

So what is unreal?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
If your attitude is that you're simply going to continue being pompous and arrogant, and excusing yourself by saying those words don't have meanings, then you forfeit the attention of reasonable people.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem. He's not gonna stop. Either we deal with him here or him and his dancing partner dump word salad into every discussion here more esoteric than "Are Wheat Thins or Triscuits the better snack cracker."

And again a lot of people who sling the woo just as hard just aren't as stubborn about defending the hill are getting a free pass.

Some variation of "Reality is whatever I think it is" gets brought out in more flowery, "approved" language in practically every religious discussion we have on this board, but when we start to discuss it Tommy and Dave swoop in, vomit gibberish and word salad over everything and drive them off.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well that's the problem. He's not gonna stop. Either we deal with him here or him and his dancing partner dump word salad into every discussion here more esoteric than "Are Wheat Thins or Triscuits the better snack cracker."

And again a lot of people who sling the woo just as hard just aren't as stubborn about defending the hill are getting a free pass.

Some variation of "Reality is whatever I think it is" gets brought out in more flowery, "approved" language in practically every religious discussion we have on this board, but when we start to discuss it Tommy and Dave swoop in, vomit gibberish and word salad over everything and drive them off.
Click to expand...

What is unreal and what is not a real thing?
 
Why has this thread become "Tommy says the is no reality"?

Why does such an obvious "Gibberish Guru" deserve and get such ego inflating attention?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom