Question for Lifegazer

[lifegazer]

"My philosophy is that you are God." is just a string of words.

Then any utterance is a "string of words". You delete meaning from all human utterance in one swipe of your tongue (fingers). You delete the significance of human contemplation/philosophy.
You say that reason/philosophy is useless, basically. The question begs: how can this philosophy of yours be justified?
Whatever you apply to me applies to you, since you are human (almost) = what you say is crap. That's why Wittgenstein was a tosser - he didn't have the brains, apparently, to see that his judgements destroyed the validity of his own philosophy!
We've had this discussion before. I don't rate Mr. W.
He used philosophy to destroy philosophy and then asked for a philosophical appraisal of his destructive thoughts. How amusing. How ◊◊◊◊◊ an excuse for a decent philosopher.
That you like this bozo doesn't surprise me in the slightest, given the quality of your own posts.

Well, in your case it means that you delude yourself into believing you are a philosophical genius and go from bulletin board to bulletin board getting banned and abused for being a complete and utter w*nker.

No. I've been banned twice because I profess to know the absolute truth of everything. That's got nothing to do with the activity of my hand and my you-know-what.

You have no idea what "waking up" means. It has clearly not helped YOU to have"woken" up.

Stop pretending that you know me.

What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true, and living in a world where idealism is true but the observable world behaves exactly as if materialism is true?

The difference is that you finally realise you ARE NOT GEOFF.
Wake up before your are deleted from the programme.

 

[RandFan]

I agree. Lifegazer produces idealistic dogcrap. Most of the people at this site are either materialists or materialist sympathisers. I am neither. I am a neutral monist who sympathises with idealism - and that includes the atheistic idealism of Hegel or Schopenhaeur, the theistic idealism of Berkeley or Heidegger, and most of all the pagan idealism of Hinduism. If I thought you meant that all idealism was dogcrap I would probably challenge you. But I am guessing you are refering to lifegazers idealism, which I agree is complete and utter dogcrap. In fact that is an insult to dogcrap.

Hey Geoff,

I'm a dualist myself though I don't necessarily accept that the mind is metaphysical just something more than state, heuristics and algorithms. I believe to the consternation of some here that the hard problem of consciousness is real and that sentience is not substrate neutral. I'm not a materialist or a materialist sympathizer. However it is the only empirical explanation for the mind that we have so far and it is a difficult paradigm to surpass.

I have discussed and debated my philosophy on this forum and have been treated with respect for my views. Though to tell the truth I haven't argued it for sometime (more than a year). I really don't have the chops for it when I'm faced with people as smart as many are on this forum. However I find that people are willing to engage me with respect and entertain my notions for arguments sake if I don't act as if they are stupid for not accepting my premises.

Sorry for going off topic but I wanted to point out that we are not a monolithic group bent on shooting down every counter idea that comes down the pike. As I have said to gazer on a number of occasions, I am very willing to consider alternative philosophies. However, I need more than "god did it". And it would be nice if one could understand epistemology, parsimony and a bit of the history and foundations of philosophy well enough to discuss the issues on a basic level.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm a dualist

Then you're screwed. There's only ONE reality.

 

[lifegazer]

Ladies & gents, please don't agree with Geoff just because of the force inherent within the vulgarity of his words: all he offers you to destroy me, is the force of foul language and hatred. He has nothing else.

Geoffrey, I am both your nemesis and your healer... and your last chance. I am easy and cool with you because I forgive you and because I like you. But I will destroy you if you do not change before my coup de grace. Not for the sake of vengeance, but of truth.

There's no room for jealousy and vulgarity in the final order Geoff. I shall pray for you.

 

[RandFan]

Then you're screwed. There's only ONE reality.

Oh yeah, and what reality is that? Tell me about this reality? How does it work? Is it physical?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan
I'm a dualist

lifegazer
Then you're screwed. There's only ONE reality.

Non sequitur. The two have nothing to do with each other. This is what I mean by having a rudimentry understanding of philosophy. Such statements only make you look like a simpleton.

Dualism as opposed to materialism is not inconsistent with one reality. Dualism in this sense says nothing about reality AFAIK.

Edited to add: Materialism is not inconsistent either.

 

[RandFan]

Geoffrey, I am both your nemesis and your healer... and your last chance. I am easy and cool with you because I forgive you and because I like you. But I will destroy you if you do not change before my coup de grace. Not for the sake of vengeance, but of truth.

"You talk about a god complex, I am god".

Yeah gazer, you and Paul Bethke.

 

[lifegazer]

Oh yeah, and what reality is that? Tell me about this reality? How does it work? Is it physical?

It's spiritual... mental.
You're screwed too, since you WILL NOT accept/listen to the illusion regarding the material world. That's a pity, because you're a nice person. I can tell.

Science is not a philosophy = atheists are doomed to the death of being.
That's a shame, but I will not allow the likes of you to condemn God to the death of all being. That's where we're headed here.
I must destroy atheism/materialism. That means I must destroy your general mindset. Nothing personal here, unlike Geoff's sick & vulgar attempts/methods to destroy me.

I ask few things of anyone here, except to be taken seriously.

 

[uruk]

That's a shame, but I will not allow the likes of you to condemn God to the death of all being. That's where we're headed here.
I must destroy atheism/materialism. That means I must destroy your general mindset. Nothing personal here, unlike Geoff's sick & vulgar attempts/methods to destroy me.
.

Jesus Christ! Talk about an ego! Now Lifegazer is going to save god! God needs to be saved by Lifegazer. I think god is in serious trouble if he needs help from Lifegazer. The guy can't even think his way out of a paper bag. You said yourself in an earlier post that god is in no danger from being destroyed by us. So why worry? If all being ends, then god just wakes up from the illusion of being us. Why so worried about god? Do you think god can be hurt? Do you actually think god can be killed by us, his illusions?
What happens if god dies to all being?

"I must destroy atheism/materialism" Good God!!!! Well, Maybe when you stop shooting yourself in the foot you might actually become dangerous......to yourself.

Please, lifegazer. your grasping at straws. I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't so willfully ignorant.

 

[RandFan]

It's spiritual... mental.
You're screwed too, since you WILL NOT accept/listen to the illusion regarding the material world. That's a pity, because you're a nice person. I can tell.

What difference does it make? I don't really exist. I am you and you are me. We are the same being just seperate "perceptions". So there really is nothing to be frightened of. All "perceptions" will become one and in effect they will all die. Unless god is schizoid and we he will talk to himself as different personalities.

Science is not a philosophy = atheists are doomed to the death of being.

See above.

That's a shame, but I will not allow the likes of you to condemn God to the death of all being. That's where we're headed here.

I've heard it all before. "Repent, for the day of the lord is nigh". That's ok, I'll skip it.

I must destroy atheism/materialism. That means I must destroy your general mindset. Nothing personal here, unlike Geoff's sick & vulgar attempts/methods to destroy me.

That must be something. I've been waiting for Paul Bethke to blind me. Will the destruction of the mindset happen before or after the blinding?

I ask few things of anyone here, except to be taken seriously.

Hey, all kidding aside. If you want to be taken seriously then learn some philosophy, a bit of history and treat us with respect.

Louis

Gozer the traveller will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification ov the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course in the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a Sloar. Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.[/b]

Who ya gonna call?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then any utterance is a "string of words". You delete meaning from all human utterance in one swipe of your tongue (fingers). You delete the significance of human contemplation/philosophy.

You understand nothing, nappy boy. Most of 20th century philosophy has been centred on the analysis of language. It is only your words which mean nothing, because when they are analysed they turn out to be meaningless. This does not mean that all sentences are meaningless.

You say that reason/philosophy is useless, basically.

No. Only yours, because you have no knowledge of the works of previous philosophers.

The question begs: how can this philosophy of yours be justified?

How can it be justified that philosophy is the analysis of language? It can be justified, but there is no point in me trying to justify it to you : you are not interested in learning and incapable of understanding it, because it clashes with your pet beliefs.

Whatever you apply to me applies to you, since you are human (almost) = what you say is crap. That's why Wittgenstein was a tosser - he didn't have the brains, apparently, to see that his judgements destroyed the validity of his own philosophy!

Ah yes....Lifegazer the jumped-up nappy-wearing nobody who knows nothing about philosophy, has decided that Ludwig Wittgenstein "didn't have brains". You are pathetic.

How s**te an excuse for a decent philosopher.
That you like this bozo doesn't surprise me in the slightest, given the quality of your own posts.

So you are lumping me in with Wittgenstein? Well, thankyou, nappy boy!

No. I've been banned twice because I profess to know the absolute truth of everything.

No. You were banned for wasting bandwidth and being an annoying little twit.

Stop pretending that you know me.

You are transparent.

The difference is that you finally realise you ARE NOT GEOFF.
Wake up before your are deleted from the programme.

You are a moron.

 

[Wudang]

lifegazer, how can you condemn Geoff for his insults when you throw insults whenever cornered? What's sauce for the goose.......

If words are so important why did you defend your misuse of the word "infer" for so long and abuse me when I tried to correct you as an example of how difficult it is to get you to examine your own words.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm a dualist myself though I don't necessarily accept that the mind is metaphysical just something more than state, heuristics and algorithms.

That's a funny sort of dualism.

I believe to the consternation of some here that the hard problem of consciousness is real and that sentience is not substrate neutral. I'm not a materialist or a materialist sympathizer. However it is the only empirical explanation for the mind that we have so far and it is a difficult paradigm to surpass.

The last few words of this paragraph are important. In terms of a scientific paradigm, it is not possible to surpass the current paradigm. Since I last spoke to you about this subject I have read Thomas Kuhns classic "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which makes many obscure things clearer. Science is not always the cumulative process many scientists like to think it is, and scientists are often not as objective as they like to think they are. Sometimes there is a "revolution" when an entire field is shifted onto new foundations, and often this is resisted for a long period beforehand. However, and critically, you can only shift a field onto new foundations if there is a new paradigm waiting to take the place of the old one, and since there is no useful replacement scientific paradigm for understanding the mind, there can be no "scientific revolution" of the sort that nappy boy thinks he is starting. In terms of philosophy, there is no need for a "revolution" because idealism is as old as the hills.

I have discussed and debated my philosophy on this forum and have been treated with respect for my views. Though to tell the truth I haven't argued it for sometime (more than a year). I really don't have the chops for it when I'm faced with people as smart as many are on this forum. However I find that people are willing to engage me with respect and entertain my notions for arguments sake if I don't act as if they are stupid for not accepting my premises.

Sorry for going off topic but I wanted to point out that we are not a monolithic group bent on shooting down every counter idea that comes down the pike. As I have said to gazer on a number of occasions, I am very willing to consider alternative philosophies. However, I need more than "god did it". And it would be nice if one could understand epistemology, parsimony and a bit of the history and foundations of philosophy well enough to discuss the issues on a basic level.

Yes it would be nice if nappy boy understood some of those things.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then you're screwed. There's only ONE reality.

This is hilarious. He is "screwed"? What terrible fate do you think will befall him for his blasphemous dualism?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoffrey, I am both your nemesis and your healer... and your last chance.

Erm. Yah. OK.

I am easy and cool with you because I forgive you and because I like you. But I will destroy you if you do not change before my coup de grace. Not for the sake of vengeance, but of truth.

Nappy boy will destroy me? Excuse me while I go and change my pants.

Didn't you try to destroy me before, only to realise it was a really dumb idea and then try to claim your hamster started the thread? No, that must be wrong. Nothing that ridiculous could actually be true.

I shall pray for you.

Thankyou, nappy boy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"You talk about a god complex, I am god".

Yeah gazer, you and Paul Bethke.

Is he still around? I would love to see an encounter between Bethke and nappy boy. Do you think nappy boy would make it on the list of people to be blinded next Tuesday?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Science is not a philosophy = atheists are doomed to the death of being.

Funny. I swear it was YOU, not they, who told me they were "already dead inside".

I must destroy atheism/materialism.

Uh huh.

 

[lifegazer]

You understand nothing, nappy boy. Most of 20th century philosophy has been centred on the analysis of language. It is only your words which mean nothing, because when they are analysed they turn out to be meaningless. This does not mean that all sentences are meaningless.

I see. So for 100 hundred years, philosophers argued about the meaning of my forthcoming sentences?

No. Only yours, because you have no knowledge of the works of previous philosophers.

True, I know very little (not "nothing"). But it's not important. I proclaim to have a full and complete philosophy of my own which is not dependent upon reference to past masters of philosophy.
If you think you can destroy my philosophy, then do it. But you can't. All you've ever done to discredit me is to use foul language and highlight my lack of academic credentials.

How can it be justified that philosophy is the analysis of language? It can be justified, but there is no point in me trying to justify it to you : you are not interested in learning and incapable of understanding it, because it clashes with your pet beliefs.

I've had the discussion with you before. Wittgenstein presented (used language) a philosophy to invalidate philosophy, failing to understand that his own philosophy invalidated itself in the process.
It's akin to the bozos who proclaim that "There are no absolutes!", absolutely. That squire, sums the efforts of Wittgenstein in a nutshell.

So you are lumping me in with Wittgenstein? Well, thankyou, nappy boy!

Well you're both wrong. I only lump you with wrongness, not talent.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

True, I know very little (not "nothing"). But it's not important.
I proclaim to have a full and complete philosophy of my own which is not dependent upon reference to past masters of philosophy.

Then you are a fool. It must hurt your arsehole to have that enormous head shoved up it.

If you think you can destroy my philosophy, then do it.

There is nothing left to destroy. It has been vapourised. Outside your own planet-sized head, which is firmly planted in your planet-sized arsehole, it does not exist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way, I started a thread for you so you can know precisely how seriously you are taken at this site :


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39413