Philosophy is Dead.

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by thought addict » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:46 am

Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:24 am
Although we have that one famous line, the main theme in Descartes is 'I doubt therefore there is a doubter'. So, since he is starting from the position of doubting all perception (which might be a dream, or illusions sent by some demon), he could not accept your idea because he is not yet in the position of knowing that the scans etc. you perceive are real.
I'm something of a doubter too. I even have a soft spot for solipsism. But philosophy for me is about what ifs, choosing various axioms (regardless of whether you believe them - whatever "believe" means) and observing with interest what follows from those axioms. As for the scans being real, no, I do not know whether they are or not. I am much more sure that I, as the experiencer, am real than any external reality or other minds. I brought the scans up because I am so used to defending my position against materialists who seem to take the opposite view.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:24 am
When I read Descartes, I do not think 'cogito ergo sum is the core phase we take it to be. (It isn't particularly stressed). The arguments for the reality of the universe, and what sort of thing we are within it, are ones that would have been familiar to any medieval philosopher; a version of the Ontological Argument and so on.

So, I see what you mean but I think it might be better not to link it to Descartes because I think Descartes is linked to a lot of metaphysics that you might not want to go along with.
In terms of the works I've read, I'm just getting started in my casual interest in philosophy. So far I've been focusing on the works of modern philosophers like Chalmers, Dennett and Hofstadter* as well as a number of other papers and articles online. I confess to not reading Descartes yet, but I have read about him and it seems to me a lot of his ideas were reasonable at the time but might have turned out differently had he been given access to modern scientific knowledge.

*Of these three, Chalmers approaches the problems of consciousness the most rigorously and fully, in my opinion, though they each introduce some interesting ideas. I don't necessarily agree with everything Chalmers says but I share his view that materialism is false.

Londoner
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by Londoner » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:45 pm

Good luck with your reading.

With Descartes, he tends to come at the start of philosophy courses, so he is read as if he prefigures a lot of what comes next. But I see him as only really comprehensible by looking backwards; he expresses himself in an accessible way, but I think he is very much a continuation of medieval philosophy. For example, although 'Cartesian doubt' seems to be something new, I am not so sure about 'Cartesian Dualism'. I'm not sure he is a dualist or, if he is, then I don't see that it is a dualism any different to what already existed in philosophy.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:45 pm

I think the mental is merely a more subtle form of the physical so they should therefore not be treated as entirely separate from each other as
thoughts are after all the product of the physical brain. Without which consciousness could not actually exist. So I think property dualism more
valid as a proposition than substance dualism. The latter is too metaphysical for me because it treats the mind as a separate entity completely
removed from the body. And also because it is no different in principle to how the soul is treated even though no evidence for it actually exists

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by thought addict » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:11 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:45 pm
I think the mental is merely a more subtle form of the physical so they should therefore not be treated as entirely separate from each other as
thoughts are after all the product of the physical brain. Without which consciousness could not actually exist. So I think property dualism more
valid as a proposition than substance dualism. The latter is too metaphysical for me because it treats the mind as a separate entity completely
removed from the body. And also because it is no different in principle to how the soul is treated even though no evidence for it actually exists
I agree with your argument in support of property dualism. Cartesian dualism just seems far too redundant - why would a soul need to be able to process thoughts or store memories when the physical brain already has the mechanisms to achieve just those functions?

I'm not certain that I share you your view that consciousness could not actually exist without a physical brain though. It seems to me that brains and senses place restrictions on what information can be experienced in a given moment. The senses are filters that block out information, allowing just one narrow perspective through. It's similar to how a sculptor removes material from a pre-existing block of stone to reveal one sculpture out of an almost infinite number of possible ones that lay within. The brain is what ties consciousness to one location in time and space.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:42 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:52 pm
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge.


Existence does not question itself. A tree does not seek a reason for being. So who is the ''other'' one who wants to investigate into the truths of existence?

Who would play the role of examiner?



.
All questions inherently determine the nature of the answer, and in this respect to aspect the question is fundamentally one approach to form the boundary lines of a statement.

Take for example the question: Why is the sky blue?

The question states the nature of the sky as blue. Why is simply a process of definition as to its "purpose". Why is strictly the degree to which the statement is to be further "quantified and qualified" (ie "formed) so as to give further definition to the statement. "Why" in these respect observes the nature of "purpose" or the end/beginning which gives definition to this statement. By observing the purpose as "why" strictly the purpose or origins/ends of an "existence" the existence is thereby given definition through the limits of its "beginning" and "end" as the medial point of both.

In this respect the observation of "why" is the observation of "reason" or the "ratio" of being in the attempt to find its center point or "true nature".

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:53 pm

thought addict wrote:
I am not certain that I share your view that consciousness could not actually exist without a physical brain though. It seems to me that brains
and senses place restrictions on what information can be experienced in a given moment. The senses are filters that block out information allow
ing just one narrow perspective through. It is similar to how a sculptor removes material from a pre existing block of stone to reveal one sculpture out of an almost infinite number of possible ones that lay within. The brain is what ties consciousness to one location in time and space
The restriction upon how much sensory information can be processed at any time by the brain does not automatically mean consciousness
can exist outside of it. There is no evidence for this at all. Information that the brain is unaware of will exist independent of it but simply
does so in physical form. It does not have to reside within an external mind. Only in the space it actually inhabits. Nothing else is required

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by thought addict » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:51 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:53 pm
The restriction upon how much sensory information can be processed at any time by the brain does not automatically mean consciousness
can exist outside of it.
You're right that it doesn't automatically mean that. But your earlier claim was that "Without [a physical brain] consciousness could not actually exist". I am just suggesting that it is possible that it could exist in that state.
There is no evidence for this at all. Information that the brain is unaware of will exist independent of it but simply
does so in physical form. It does not have to reside within an external mind. Only in the space it actually inhabits. Nothing else is required
What's so special about a brain? Most of us accept that consciousness can exist apparently centered around a brain's information but that information is also heavily made up of data about the brain's surrounding environment, acquired through physical interactions with the physical matter we categorize as the senses.

Current physics makes no distinction between matter that is part of a brain or nervous system, or indeed part of a biological body, and surrounding matter outside that body. It's all just a universe of particles interacting, as far as physics is concerned.

Brains can represent and manipulate data, but so can other configurations of physical matter. If Panpsychism is true, then it may be that consciousness exists everywhere there is information.

I personally think that brains are a fairly arbitrary configuration of matter that evolution eventually came up with and I don't see why physics should be waiting around for that very particular configuration to develop before enabling this exotic new property we call "consciousness". It seems to me that consciousness was already a fundamental part of reality, before any nervous systems ever existed.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3072
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:01 am

The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.

.

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by thought addict » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:04 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:01 am
The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.
The self, the external environment and the philosopher's thoughts are all real enough to produce rich, interesting experiences. It's not possible to experience non-existence because there's no mind then to reflect on it or notice any passage of time. To a self therefore, existing in a reality is all it can ever experience.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3072
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm

thought addict wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:01 am
The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.
The self, the external environment and the philosopher's thoughts are all real enough to produce rich, interesting experiences. It's not possible to experience non-existence because there's no mind then to reflect on it or notice any passage of time. To a self therefore, existing in a reality is all it can ever experience.
The brain artificially abstracts the sense of a 'me' as the one who is having an experience. However, the brain is functioning perfectly well without the superimposed ''me'' overlay...There simply is no ''me'' ..there is only the brain braining a ''me'' as an apparent conscious knowing... in other words the brains abstracted sense of ''me' is only ever the absolute ''appearing'' as the relative... 'apparently'

...the ''me'' is an appearance of the absolute, it doesn't have any independent existence of it's own apart from the absolute. All there is is what's absolutely happening to no one.

The appearance of ''me'' is the dream story...and in that story the sense of ''me'' appears to claim ownership of the brain and all it's experiences...but it can't because it doesn't exist except as an abstract concept conjured up by the brain itself. The brain being the ultimate conjuring artist, the absolute magician of all illusions.

All philosophy is just a story arising to no one, nothing ever really happened, it only appeared to happen apparently.


.

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by daramantus » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:05 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
thought addict wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:01 am
The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.
The self, the external environment and the philosopher's thoughts are all real enough to produce rich, interesting experiences. It's not possible to experience non-existence because there's no mind then to reflect on it or notice any passage of time. To a self therefore, existing in a reality is all it can ever experience.
The brain artificially abstracts the sense of a 'me' as the one who is having an experience. However, the brain is functioning perfectly well without the superimposed ''me'' overlay...There simply is no ''me'' ..there is only the brain braining a ''me'' as an apparent conscious knowing... in other words the brains abstracted sense of ''me' is only ever the absolute ''appearing'' as the relative... 'apparently'

...the ''me'' is an appearance of the absolute, it doesn't have any independent existence of it's own apart from the absolute. All there is is what's absolutely happening to no one.

The appearance of ''me'' is the dream story...and in that story the sense of ''me'' appears to claim ownership of the brain and all it's experiences...but it can't because it doesn't exist except as an abstract concept conjured up by the brain itself. The brain being the ultimate conjuring artist, the absolute magician of all illusions.

All philosophy is just a story arising to no one, nothing ever really happened, it only appeared to happen apparently.


.
brain braining????
main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c.jpg
main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c.jpg (21.84 KiB) Viewed 131 times

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by daramantus » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:36 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.
A philosopher's mind is not anything of what you said. and the brain is not a mechanism, mechanism you find in a car, not in a brain. It's a story told by someone,if someone wanna hear it, and it may signifies something, if you're able to hear it can change your life. Are you saying that your words are also meaningless? then why you post here??? if it was nothing then you wouldnt be posting here to affect anything.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The brain artificially abstracts the sense of a 'me' as the one who is having an experience.
the brain does no such thing and you have ZERO evidence of that.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
However, the brain is functioning perfectly well without the superimposed ''me'' overlay
huh??? are you saying that your brain is working without you??? how's that possible, if when you born your brain starts working because you are alive. if you die, the brain will have ZERO function whatsoever, so you don't make sense.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
...There simply is no ms
what do you mean by ''me'"? when referring to yourself?? and what do you mean by denying it?

me
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition.
"do you understand me?"
2.
informal
used in exclamations.
"dear me!"

solve ur stupid puzzle please.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
there is ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ my brain ̶b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶
jesus christ you make no sense, huh???? your brain making what???
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
a ''me'' as an apparent conscious knowing
what do you mean by "apparent", and what do you mean by "a" "me", do I need to show you the definition of me AGAIN? because you're simple confused.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
... in other words the brains abstracted sense of ''me'
Your brain does no such thing, and you have ZERO proof of that.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
is only ever the absolute ''appearing'' as the relative...
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
... ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶ ''me'' is an ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶ of the ̶a̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶ ̶
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
it doesn't have any independent existence
define independent existence, and how would be to have independent existence.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
of it's own apart from the absolute.
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
All there is is what's absolutely
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded. Define "all there is"
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
happening to ̶n̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶.
All there is in this post is what you 'dontaskme' absolutely posted for someone else to read, no one cannot read something, but someone can clearly read something. So your own post contradict your nonsense, what do you mean by ' no one'?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶ of ''me''
what do you mean by "apparent", and what do you mean by "a" "me", do I need to show you the definition of me AGAIN? because you're simple confused.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
is the dream story...and in that story
this is not a dream, and not a story, the only story here who is telling is you.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
the sense of ''me''
you do have a sense of you, otherwise you wouldnt be posting in this forum, isnt it, dontaskme?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
appears to claim ownership of the brain and all it's experiences
do you do that? I'm not appearing I'm here and I do not need to claim ownership over my own brain, I do control it most of the time I'm in 100% control and ownership is something that i do clearly have, I do not need to be claiming for it.

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
...but it can't because it doesn't exist
what doesn't exist? I don't get it? your religion clearly doesn't.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
except as an abstract concept conjured up by the brain itself.
Clearly a contradiction, HAHAHA, If it's conjured by your brain then why are you ranting here? Jesus, you're so full of sh** that you can't even notice ur contradictions and ur fallacy.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The brain being the ultimate conjuring artist,
A person clearly can be a ultimate conjuring artist using his own brain, so you do not make sense. The brain "being" what? you can be, the brain is just a your brain in your disposal.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
the absolute magician of all illusions.
Yes, David London is really great, he is the absolute magician of all illusions, he is GREAT, especially when he uses his brain to fool yours own, and to fool yourmind and yourself.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
All philosophy is ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶ a s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶ ̶ ̶̶̶a̶r̶i̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ to ̶n̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ,
First, it doesn't "arise", your posts don't "arise, you are posting them.Second, someone who is posting a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo, such as you, will not be read by anyone, so no one will read your posts. you're right. "by no one". you're lucky I'm reading them, so someone read, be happy.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ ever really happened,
except for the post you made, it did happen, and guess who made your post happen?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
it only ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶ to happen ̶a̶p̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶.
a post cannot appear without someone behind to think analyze and type and post and submit. it's real, not apparent or a mirage, you're not in a movie and this isn't a dream. :D

Cool isnt't?

daramantus
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by daramantus » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:38 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The voice of the philosopher is an artificially constructed ''ism'' of the 'mind brain body' mechanism believed to be real. It's a story told by no one signifying nothing.
A philosopher's mind is not anything of what you said. and the brain is not a mechanism, mechanism you find in a car, not in a brain. It's a story told by someone,if someone wanna hear it, and it may signifies something, if you're able to hear it can change your life. Are you saying that your words are also meaningless? then why you post here??? if it was nothing then you wouldnt be posting here to affect anything.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The brain artificially abstracts the sense of a 'me' as the one who is having an experience.
the brain does no such thing and you have ZERO evidence of that.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
However, the brain is functioning perfectly well without the superimposed ''me'' overlay
huh??? are you saying that your brain is working without you??? how's that possible, if when you born your brain starts working because you are alive. if you die, the brain will have ZERO function whatsoever, so you don't make sense.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
...There simply is no ms
what do you mean by ''me'"? when referring to yourself?? and what do you mean by denying it?

me
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition.
"do you understand me?"
2.
informal
used in exclamations.
"dear me!"

solve ur stupid puzzle please.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
there is ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ my brain ̶b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶
jesus christ you make no sense, huh???? your brain making what???
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
a ''me'' as an apparent conscious knowing
what do you mean by "apparent", and what do you mean by "a" "me", do I need to show you the definition of me AGAIN? because you're simple confused.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
... in other words the brains abstracted sense of ''me'
Your brain does no such thing, and you have ZERO proof of that.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
is only ever the absolute ''appearing'' as the relative...
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
... ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶ ''me'' is an ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶ of the ̶a̶b̶s̶o̶l̶u̶t̶e̶ ̶
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
it doesn't have any independent existence
define independent existence, and how would be to have independent existence.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
of it's own apart from the absolute.
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
All there is is what's absolutely
That's hinduism bs, and it's religious mythology, so discarded. Define "all there is"
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
happening to ̶n̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶.
All there is in this post is what you 'dontaskme' absolutely posted for someone else to read, no one cannot read something, but someone can clearly read something. So your own post contradict your nonsense, what do you mean by ' no one'?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶ of ''me''
what do you mean by "apparent", and what do you mean by "a" "me", do I need to show you the definition of me AGAIN? because you're simple confused.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
is the dream story...and in that story
this is not a dream, and not a story, the only story here who is telling is you.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
the sense of ''me''
you do have a sense of you, otherwise you wouldnt be posting in this forum, isnt it, dontaskme?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
appears to claim ownership of the brain and all it's experiences
do you do that? I'm not appearing I'm here and I do not need to claim ownership over my own brain, I do control it most of the time I'm in 100% control and ownership is something that i do clearly have, I do not need to be claiming for it.

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
...but it can't because it doesn't exist
what doesn't exist? I don't get it? your religion clearly doesn't.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
except as an abstract concept conjured up by the brain itself.
Clearly a contradiction, HAHAHA, If it's conjured by your brain then why are you ranting here? Jesus, you're so full of sh** that you can't even notice ur contradictions and ur fallacy.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
The brain being the ultimate conjuring artist,
A person clearly can be a ultimate conjuring artist using his own brain, so you do not make sense. The brain "being" what? you can be, the brain is just a your brain in your disposal.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
the absolute magician of all illusions.
Yes, David London is really great, he is the absolute magician of all illusions, he is GREAT, especially when he uses his brain to fool yours own, and to fool yourmind and yourself.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
All philosophy is ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶ a s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶ ̶ ̶̶̶a̶r̶i̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ to ̶n̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ,
First, it doesn't "arise", your posts don't "arise, you are posting them.Second, someone who is posting a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo, such as you, will not be read by anyone, so no one will read your posts. you're right. "by no one". you're lucky I'm reading them, so someone read, be happy.
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ ever really happened,
except for the post you made, it did happen, and guess who made your post happen?
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:57 pm
it only ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶ to happen ̶a̶p̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶.
a post cannot appear without someone behind to think analyze and type and post and submit. it's real, not apparent or a mirage, you're not in a movie and this isn't a dream. :D

Cool isnt't?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy is Dead.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:42 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:52 pm
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge.


Existence does not question itself. A tree does not seek a reason for being. So who is the ''other'' one who wants to investigate into the truths of existence?

Who would play the role of examiner?



.
The abyss, in a Neitzchien sense of the word.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests