Intent

[lifegazer]

This last post of yours raises you to Russ's equal in the plonker stakes. I cannot believe you consider this as a valid retort to anything I have just said. I shall now go through it, bit by bit, and expose the high measure of your plonkerism...

That was the entire point of Upchurch's question - that you give a special consideration to what you term "internal" or "abstract" sensation and privelege it above other sensation. Upchurch and Russdill have argued that there is only awareness and if you want to privelege certain aspects you have to justify them beyond a wild hand-waving and yelling that it's obvious.

How many times do I have to point out that "Your awareness is entirely comprised of abstract sensations such as pain, red, sweet, cold, etc.; and abstract emotions such as love, anger, joy, etc.; and abstract ideas, images or thoughts. This is the foundation of your experience of existence, and anybody who denies this is just a liar and/or a complete fool."?

Well? Are you going to ignore this again? Are you going to deny that existence is an entirely abstract experience yet again? Rather, are you just going to ignore the fact that it is and post more of this sort of evasive gibberish? There's a limit to my patience and you squire have dragged me to that limit. You lack the sincerity to admit that your whole experience of existence is comprised of abstract occurances within an equally intangible awareness.

Your failure to be able to distinguish between inference and implication should have alerted you to your own intellectual limitations. Not only did you look up "infer" in a dictionary and get it wrong, you averred your interpretation. You then tried to twist that into me nitpicking your spelling when the actual problem is that you are ill-informed, are unable to read a dictionary and are too arrogant to admit the limits of your thinking. Others who have long understood the difference between inference and implication take the trouble to try to point out your errors and you insult them and accuse them of nitpicking and waffling when they are making serious points which you are unable and unwilling to understand. Think about your failure to grasp the meaning of a simple word such as "infer" even with a dictionary definition available to you, your defence of your error and the implications it has for more complex matters such as teleology.

... Total disregard to the discussion at hand. You'd rather hinge the credibility of my whole philosophy on the possible misuse of a singular insignificant word. Even in this informal atmosphere.
It's not important Wudang. It's one step higher than the bozos who make-public my occasional spelling mistakes.

Edit: Besides, I still think that there's nothing wrong with my usage of the word "infer" when understood in the context of which I used it thus:-
The formulation of the word 'singularity' is obviously related to the words 'single' and 'singular'. The actual meaning of those words would/should infer that the term "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Wudang]

Edit: Besides, I still think that there's nothing wrong with my usage of the word "infer" when understood in the context of which I used it thus:-
The formulation of the word 'singularity' is obviously related to the words 'single' and 'singular'. The actual meaning of those words would/should infer that the term "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.

What's wrong with that?

Wonderful, you actually return to re-affirm your ignorance and inability to read. "Meaning" cannot infer anything. "Meaning" can imply things. Words are incapable of the logical process of inference because words do not have minds with which to infer anything. Once again, infer is something that people do. Anyone can make mistakes as you do with infer and singularity but to continue insisting on your own meaning when easily available resources (one of which you even quoted yourself!) show you to be wrong is breathtaking stupidity and arrogance.
Thank you for making my point about your ignorance and arrogance so clearly for me.

 

[lifegazer]

Words are incapable of the logical process of inference because words do not have minds with which to infer anything. Once again, infer is something that people do.
Anyone can make mistakes as you do with infer and singularity but to continue insisting on your own meaning when easily available resources (one of which you even quoted yourself!) show you to be wrong is breathtaking stupidity and arrogance.
Thank you for making my point about your ignorance and arrogance so clearly for me.

Of course words don't have minds. We have minds though, and we are the ones who should see the logical relationship between words, since we are the ones who construct language itself.
There is specific meaning within certain words. To infer is to deduce. Hence, knowing the specific meaning of 'single' and 'singular' would give oneself information for deducing (infering) the meaning inherent within "a singularity of existence".

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my usage of the word infer that I can see.
Regardless, it is noteworthy that you completely overlooked my argument about abstract existence in order to pursue this meaningless debate about the meaning of an unimportant word.
You are without doubt plonker of the month.

 

[Wudang]

Of course words don't have minds. We have minds though, and we are the ones who should see the logical relationship between words, since we are the ones who construct language itself.
There is specific meaning within certain words. To infer is to deduce. Hence, knowing the specific meaning of 'single' and 'singular' would give oneself information for deducing (infering) the meaning inherent within "a singularity of existence".

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my usage of the word infer that I can see.
Regardless, it is noteworthy that you completely overlooked my argument about abstract existence in order to pursue this meaningless debate about the meaning of an unimportant word.
You are without doubt plonker of the month.

I don't care about the insults lifegazer - I actually find you very amusing and sometimes suspect this is a very clever gag.
Anyway, to the point. As usual you have failed to read what is there. I raised the issue of your continued misuse of "infer" as an illustration of the simple fact that no matter how many times something as simple as the meaning and misuse of word is explained to you, you fail to read, understand and make the connection. So when we fail to communicate these very simple things to you is it any wonder that we are not surprised that you fail even more to understand more complicated things.
Re-read the quote above about what "infer" means - what you have said that infer means, that we have brains and can infer things. Yes? That is correct, lifegazer. We have brains and we can infer things. Yes, we both agree on that and in fact it's somethign that I've repeatedly said. So how do you get from the fact that we have brains and so can infer things from words to your claim that words can infer things? You say "to infer is to deduce", yes? So for your

The actual meaning of those words would/should infer that the term "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.

I can replace "infer" with "deduce" because "to infer is to deduce" correct? So the above becomes

The actual meaning of those words would/should deduce that the term "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.

Am I getting through yet? If not, please do me the courtesy of re-reading it a few times. Perhaps read it aloud to your hamster as well.

This is a very simple point that you fail to grasp.
If this is all a gag I wouldn't let on, honest.

 

[lifegazer]

I don't care about the insults lifegazer - I actually find you very amusing and sometimes suspect this is a very clever gag.

No gag. You're definitely plonker of the month even though it's only the 4th.

"The actual meaning of those words would/should infer "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular."

I can replace "infer" with "deduce" because "to infer is to deduce" correct? So the above becomes

The sentence needs slight grammatical qualification, that's all. I can simply rewrite it thus:- The actual meaning of those words would/should facilitate the inference (deduction) that "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I can use the word "infer" if I use it in the right context, as I have here.

Am I getting through yet?

You're so far behind me that I need binoculars to have a conversation with you.

Now, why don't you stop wasting my time and get back to that awe-inspiring philosophy I gave to you?

 

[CWL]

Why wouldn't God dream? Why wouldn't God aspire to be?

Why would God even exist? Why would God believe that he is you (without knowing that it is not so)?

 

[Wudang]

No gag. You're definitely plonker of the month even though it's only the 4th.

The sentence needs slight grammatical qualification, that's all. I can simply rewrite it thus:- The actual meaning of those words would/should facilitate the inference (deduction) that "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I can use the word "infer" if I use it in the right context, as I have here.

You're so far behind me that I need binoculars to have a conversation with you.

Now, why don't you stop wasting my time and get back to that awe-inspiring philosophy I gave to you?

Yes that sentence needed some grammatical correction. But you have consistently defended your assertion that words can "infer" things against all evidence and now that you have been cornered like a rat so you have no way to avoid your error, you try to twist things so that one sentence is the issue rather than the issue I raised, which is that if it is so difficult to get you to think about what you have said and appreciate your mistake in such a clear and simple issue as a single word, cannot you begin to appreciate that we find it even harder to get you to properly read what we have written on larger issues. Look how long we have dragged this on for and you have only just grasped that one single sentence was in error. Your understanding of "infer" was in error and you lacked the critical faculties to look at what you'd written. You still do not see that I am using it as an example of how much hard work it is to get you to read anything or think about what you read.
"awe-inspiring". Nice one! I swear I still can't tell. My record for a long-running gag was 6 months.
I stand by Russdill's former answer which you have yet to read properly. Re-examine our thrashing of this simple matter of "infer" and, by implication, "inference" and perhaps the faintest glimmer of a suspicion will come to you that perhaps you did not fully grasp his point?

 

[lifegazer]

Yes that sentence needed some grammatical correction. But you have consistently defended your assertion that words can "infer" things against all evidence

Hold on. Where's the apology? I mean, you continue to say that I am in error when I have just proved to you (last post) that when used in the right context, my usage of the word is correct!!

so you have no way to avoid your error,

Once more, my previous post proved that you are the one in error here.

you try to twist things so that one sentence is the issue rather than the issue I raised, which is that if it is so difficult to get you to think about what you have said and appreciate your mistake

There is no mistake since I was right: I can use the word "infer" (inference) as long as I do it in the right context.
You are wrong Wudang. You owe me a public apology since you've harassed me like a fly for days about this usage of a singular insignificant word, and have done so whilst simultaneously ignoring my credible philosophy in the process.
Well? Do you have any honour?

cannot you begin to appreciate that we find it even harder to get you to properly read what we have written on larger issues.

You've written absolute waffle on larger issues. Things like "There is no abstract awareness, there is only awareness.". And then, when exposed as the duffer that you are, you ignore me and change the subject to word meaning.

Look how long we have dragged this on for

Look how long you have dragged this on for. Now I want an apology for wasting my time.

and you have only just grasped that one single sentence was in error.

A slight grammatical rearrangement was all that was needed to facilitate the usage of "inference" into my sentence. You said that I couln't use infer, no matter what, and you are wrong. And that's that.

Your understanding of "infer" was in error and you lacked the critical faculties to look at what you'd written.

Nonsense, since I took the time to give you the perfect example of how I can use inference within my sentence.

I stand by Russdill's former answer

About what?

Re-examine our thrashing of this simple matter of "infer" and, by implication, "inference" and perhaps the faintest glimmer of a suspicion will come to you that perhaps you did not fully grasp his point?

You're a complete joker. We're done here unless you have something meaningful to say.

 

[Wudang]

No, you said that words can infer when they simply can't. You plainly lie when you claim that I said you could not use the word infer. I said that only people can infer and words cannot infer. Simple point which you obviously still don't get because of your inability to grasp the basics of your own language - and I'm talking primary school level here. You disappoint me.

 

[lifegazer]

No, you said that words can infer when they simply can't.

You're just being an awkward plank now. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the infering is being done by the person in relation to those words 'single', 'singular' and 'singularity' [of existence].
Let's just leave it now. I'm fed up of this crap.

 

[uruk]

Uruk, I've had enough of this thread now. I'm pretty sure that you're just being difficult, because I refuse to accept that you are so dense that you do not understand the concept of being God who thinks that "he" is somebody else - namely, yourself.
The dream analogy was a good one. God is lost within the dream of being "we". Hence, "we" is not real, but the entity who thinks that it is "we", is. Thus, uruk is an illusion, but you still have existence as God the dreamer of being uruk.

I understand your concept. "I" am god having a dream of being "me". What I'm saying is that it is an unimportant distinction in realtion to god's existance. ( well, maybe relative importance since god can do nothing but dream.)

But to say that "I" have existance in relation to god is like saying that an object or person in my dream has existance in relation to me.
I've had some dreams where I possesed an object in the dream and when I woke up, for that brief fleeting moment, I actually believed I had that object. But of course, the object was never real.

Similarly, God may think I am real, "I" may think I am real (while in the dream) But when the illusion ends and god regains his "singular" identity. "I" or the experiance of being "me" cease to be.

Which then brings me to my other point. If while in the dream, I have no memory or cognition of being god (since "I" am god lost in the illusion) and have no way to discern or prove that this existance is an illusion (Since when the illusion ends "I" or the experiance of being "me" ceases), then what difference does it make to me if I accept this illusion as real?

I am not trying to be difficult. Just trying to show you a consequence of your philosophy

 

[lifegazer]

Which then brings me to my other point. If while in the dream, I have no memory or cognition of being god (since "I" am god lost in the illusion) and have no way to discern or prove that this existance is an illusion

Actually, I contend that my philosophy is a proof that what we perceive is an illusion occuring within God's mind.

(Since when the illusion ends "I" or the experiance of being "me" ceases), then what difference does it make to me if I accept this illusion as real?

You cannot see that it makes a difference to humanity that each one of us is the same entity?
Your thoughts and emotions are creative too. But I don't really want to talk about this right now. I want to move on.

 

[Wudang]

You're just being an awkward plank now. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the infering is being done by the person in relation to those words 'single', 'singular' and 'singularity' [of existence].
Let's just leave it now. I'm fed up of this crap.

No because that first paragraph needs replying to. I have tried to explain that this point of mine about "infer" - and let me remind you that I said it was an easy mistake to make - was simply an attempt to illustrate to you the difficulty of making a rational point to you. Look back and see how quickly you reverted to name-calling. How can we achieve unity if we cannot agree on what words mean?

 

[uruk]

Actually, I contend that my philosophy is a proof that what we perceive is an illusion occuring within God's mind.
You cannot see that it makes a difference to humanity that each one of us is the same entity?

Your thoughts and emotions are creative too. But I don't really want to talk about this right now. I want to move on.

I understand and will stop. but let me just leave with this with one thought.

Remenber the warrant or proof is only as accurate as the premises. The syllogisims may be internally valid but they balance on the premises. the premises have to truthful. they have to ultimately be verifiable if the logic is to have actual value.
If the premises are inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain wrong. the conclusion will be invalid though the logic is valid. you need to be able to back up your premises. (so much for the rhetoric lesson)

An example comes to mind. Ether. Back in the days, scientists belived in ether. a substance that permeated the universe which carried the forces. All the hypothesizing, theorizing and arguments
made sense and scientists all over the world pretty much accepted it's validity. That's until they had to back it with observational evidence. In come Michelson and Morley ( I don't remeber their first names). Mind you they accepted and believed in ether. Their goal was to verify it's existance. They devised and conducted an experiment to detect it's existance. Lo and behold, their experiment showed nothing. A whole bunch of valid logical arguments amounted to practicaly nothing because the premesis were inaccurate.

Metaphisical philosophy is by nature extremely difficult to verify because it deals with abstract and intangible concepts. extremely difficult to verify except by syllogisms and assumptions. A house of cards if you will. As a result the conclusions are usually debateable. It can be argued that science suffers from the same problem and you would be right. But the difference is science has offers something that you hold in your hands, see with your eyes, measure, and detect with devices. Of course this is provided that you accept only one fundamental assumption. That it is real.

To prove that this existance is an illusion you must be able to point something within this framework (something that can be held, seen, measured) that proves that it is an illusion before people will accept it. Untill then, there is no difference or meaning for us whether this existance is real or illusion.

Like wise, if we can not access or determin what that god part of is, there is no difference or meaning to us that we are all the same god.

What matters is that we are all human. The same in that respect.
We value humanity (or should for that matter) therefore we should value each other. But we don't. I think that is the reason why your philosophy won't ahcieve what you hope for it to achieve. If you can't convince people to value our sameness as humanity what hope do you have to convince people to value our sameness as god?

 

[lifegazer]

Remenber the warrant or proof is only as accurate as the premises.

Well, I have two premises:-
(1) Something is having the experience of being 'me'.
(2) This experience is entirely abstract, comprised of intangible sensation, thought & emotion.

There's not a rational argument in existence which can refute either of those premises. Hence, I make no assumptions.

The syllogisims may be internally valid but they balance on the premises. the premises have to truthful. they have to ultimately be verifiable if the logic is to have actual value.
[/
If the premises are inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain wrong. the conclusion will be invalid though the logic is valid. you need to be able to back up your premises. (so much for the rhetoric lesson)

I have several arguments, but my main philosophy is founded upon the above premises.

An example comes to mind. Ether. Back in the days, scientists belived in ether. a substance that permeated the universe which carried the forces. All the hypothesizing, theorizing and arguments
made sense and scientists all over the world pretty much accepted it's validity. That's until they had to back it with observational evidence. In come Michelson and Morley ( I don't remeber their first names). Mind you they accepted and believed in ether. Their goal was to verify it's existance. They devised and conducted an experiment to detect it's existance. Lo and behold, their experiment showed nothing. A whole bunch of valid logical arguments amounted to practicaly nothing because the premesis were inaccurate.

The problem is that "the ether" exists at singularity.

To prove that this existance is an illusion you must be able to point something within this framework (something that can be held, seen, measured) that proves that it is an illusion before people will accept it. Untill then, there is no difference or meaning for us whether this existance is real or illusion.

I'm going to have another crack at proving Einstein discovered God. Perhaps people will believe then.

What matters is that we are all human. The same in that respect.
We value humanity (or should for that matter) therefore we should value each other. But we don't. I think that is the reason why your philosophy won't ahcieve what you hope for it to achieve. If you can't convince people to value our sameness as humanity what hope do you have to convince people to value our sameness as god?

As God, we are one... as humanity, we are many. Ultimately, my philsophy seeks to show that we are all one entity in various guises. You cannot convince humanity of his sameness without explaining of his oneness in God.

 

[uruk]

Well, I have two premises:

(1) Something is having the experience of being 'me'.
(2) This experience is entirely abstract, comprised of intangible sensation, thought & emotion.

There's not a rational argument in existence which can refute either of those premises. Hence, I make no assumptions-

Premise one simply means "I" am "experiancing"
What "I" is is debateable.

Premise two says nothing about the cause or the stimulus for those sensations (by which I mean the senses of sight, touch and sound or the input to the mind) just the results in the mind or "experiance."

Your interpretaion of these two premisis is colored by your assumption that existance is an illusion. In fact you have reason or proof that existance is or is not an illusion.

 

[RussDill]

It appears that I'm making it up because:-
(1) It's largely original.

Sorry, I don't see how it is original

(2) You're closed-minded and refuse to explore beyond the box.

We are all open to new ideas, its just we want those ideas to be able to stand up to scrutiny

(3) You have a peanut for a brain.

Whatever happened to that whole unity thing?

 

[RussDill]

How can you blame me when you ignore my arguments, yet freely condemn them? This post of yours is an insult to my efforts. I don't know why I bother.

Wow, why does this sound familiar? You ignore my arguments, yet freely condemn them...hmm.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? Is it some fancy line you pulled from a Dennett book?
Use your intelligence for a change. Your awareness is entirely comprised of abstract sensations such as pain, red, sweet, cold, etc.; and abstract emotions such as love, anger, joy, etc.; and abstract ideas, images or thoughts. This is the foundation of your experience of existence, and anybody who denies this is just a liar and/or a complete fool.

so we have abstract awareness. What is that abstract in relation to? awareness. So we have awareness, and abstract awareness, right? Wrong. There are not two different kinds of awareness, you just said so. So since there is only one kind of awareness, there is just awareness. It would be like saying a "long meter" vs a meter.

 

[RussDill]

This last post of yours raises you to Russ's equal in the plonker stakes. I cannot believe you consider this as a valid retort to anything I have just said. I shall now go through it, bit by bit, and expose the high measure of your plonkerism...

Ah yes, back to the deciding that since it is too difficult to defend yourself, you are going to just insult people. After all, since you already know that you are absolutely, positively right about everything, anyone who asks questions you can't answer must be wrong anyway, and probably a "plonker" to boot.

How many times do I have to point out that "Your awareness is entirely comprised of abstract sensations such as pain, red, sweet, cold, etc.; and abstract emotions such as love, anger, joy, etc.; and abstract ideas, images or thoughts. This is the foundation of your experience of existence, and anybody who denies this is just a liar and/or a complete fool."?

Blah blah blah, more useless language and handwaving. unless there are emotions and abstract emotions, adding abstract is useless, and they are just emotions. What a stupid argument.

The formulation of the word 'singularity' is obviously related to the words 'single' and 'singular'. The actual meaning of those words would/should infer that the term "singularity of existence" had a specific meaning in itself, related to the meaning of single or singular.

What's wrong with that?

I already explained that single and singular are two DIFFERENT words, and even showed you the definitions.

 

[RussDill]

Why wouldn't God dream? Why wouldn't God aspire to be?

God already is everything, remember, he cannot aspire to be anything, since he already is. Or are you going back and changing god to a finite god?