Consider the old paint tin in your dad's garage. You can tell by the solidified lump of colour on the outside that it once held a viscous magnolia coloured susbtance that was perhaps fashionable in the 70s. But when you open it now, it contains a single key that seems not to open anything within at least 50 metres, a small amount of string that might once have tied a tomato plant to a stick, and 7 bolts which seem to come from at least 3 different machines and you cannot tell if they were surplus or just fell out as a surprise. The truly asmazing thing about this tin though, is that if you open it again next week, the mysteries will only deepen because random junk move in and out of the spooky tin all the time.
That spooky tin is a fairly accurate analogue of how VA views the contents of your thoughts. He cannot envision any set of coherent or even vaguely related beliefs that might make sense for you to hold. This is why he writes clearly batshit insane stuff like...
That came about because he misread (20 times) an essay by Boyd as saying that philosophers of the competing camp are cognitively impaired. Obviously you (unless you are VA, or one or two others I suppose) can tell that no professional philosopher would write something so scandalously career ending as that. But that is only obvious to the rest of us. For VA, it makes perfect sense that the random philosopher would write the inane argument that he wants to read even if it does render said philosopher fundamentally the least competent of all time. The contents of Boyd's head may as well be a couple of lost marbles and a forgotten matchbook as much as a considerable body of philosophical work.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:32 am This is why I believe you are a morally unconcerned person in your psyche
VA's lack of ToM also best explains why he thinks so many things are obviously true that we all can see are madness. It genuinely doesn't make any sense to put the whole of the Quran into a spreadsheet to "analyse" it into 1400 sub-Themes. Yet if you question him on that he will very likely ask you to publish it for him...
Because to VA it makes perfect sense for you to bitterly criticise his crazy obsession driven nonsensical bullshit in one breath, and then just be onside with it for the next. He does not view us as holding any form of continuous mind. As far as VA is concerned, right now the innards of your squishy brain are probably the instruction leaflet for assembling a kite that was made in 1987 and flew over the horizon in 1989, plus a cough candy so old it might technically be a stone now.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:19 am If you are really serious, I can give my detailed analysis to you and you publish it in a site with your real name it it?
I am looking for someone to do that.
That's enough to start with. The basic problem I describe here is in my view the underlying explanation for why conversation with VA in particular never makes any sense beyond the third post. I believe it explains why he thinks his KFCs that describe other KFCs are obviously true, and how he thinks that all reasonable people must agree with him even though he's never met anyone who agrees with any of that stuff and never will.