I know p

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:22 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:02 pm
According to these definitions, the sentence "I know pain whenever I am in pain" makes sense.
So, you message " your questions make no sense" can't possibly be what you mean.
You can answer my claim "I know pain whenever I am in pain." by yes or no. Try it.
EB
Answer your claim with a yes/no? I am sure you were meant to say answer your QUESTION with a yes/no.

A dumb AND forgetful Aristotelian! You can't even remember you asked a question...

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB
So given your proposition AND your question. I asked myself the question.

Do I know bain whenever I am in pain? And since you recognize that it's a yes/no question you should also recognize that it's a decision problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:18 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:22 pm
Do I know bain whenever I am in pain? And since you recognize that it's a yes/no question you should also recognize that it's a decision problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
Ah, seems you've understood the baseline. Took you a while, isn't it?
My question was the input, you're the dumb processor, and your job was to "decide" on which answer to give. Note that whatever the question you can't stop yourself providing some "answer", mostly irrelevant junk, but clearly it's your always "decision". So, you do the input-decision danse somewhat like the weather vane following the blowing of the wind. Vane? Vain?
Please also note I asked a simple question, not a "decision problem".
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:15 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:18 pm
My question was the input, you're the dumb processor, and your job was to "decide" on which answer to give. Note that whatever the question you can't stop yourself providing some "answer", mostly irrelevant junk, but clearly it's your always "decision". So, you do the input-decision danse somewhat like the weather vane following the blowing of the wind. Vane? Vain?
Please also note I asked a simple question, not a "decision problem".
EB
OK. The coin landed on 46.

This communication thing - you don't grok it.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: I know p

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:00 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:20 am
Actually I have been drawing many pictures with words the whole time.
This is called the illusion of transparency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency
The pictures are in your head. The words that you utter do not communicate the picture.

The pictures I drew moved the picture from my head to your head.

Words can't (always) do that.


Actually they can while allowing for a freedom of seeing it in one's own perspective. They allowing both a unity and multiplicity in observation.

Second words are merely symbols, just as pictures are symbols, these symbols are subject to the angle of awareness and as such cannot be observed in the same degree. You put up a picture of curves. You saw the curves mediating to one thing, I saw them mediating to another. All symbols are points of mediation and nothing in themselves. The question of finiteness as being a means to an end, is faulty when it is dependent upon further finite realities.

We both saw the same picture and observed two seperate things. You saw code. I saw the waves representing music or the ocean as extensions of a replicative symmetry.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:20 am
You forget the thousands of hours of programming just to get to that point...something a kid could have drawn in the sand.
You are still straw-manning the argument.

No kid in China can communicate with a kid in the USA through sand drawings.


Actually you have no clue what strawmanning is, and you are strawmanning the argument with your continual shout of "strawman!".

A strawman is a diversion from the argument. All arguments, because of there progressive nature are always strawman as they divert from one axiom to another.

Second, a faulty question is a straw man.

Giving proof about the power of programming using an example that diverts the argument to a question of quality is a strawman.

You claim programming is good because a stranger can send a picture of a curve to another stranger on the other side of the world...but this is an assumption about the nature of what is not just quality but even "practical" or "pragmatic" by your own standards. It is a useless endeavor.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
So what you are saying is all this work is so some stranger can send me pictures of squiggly lines?
ALL this work? How quickly you forget all the examples from the field of bionics.

It's but one example of how computation makes human life better. It makes communication across vast distances and cultures easier!

Actually because of "choice" we are not left with all people getting these forms of technology due to price, social status, etc. Second many of these fabrications are dependent upon an industrial framework which causes many of these issues to begin with, with the quantification of man in this framework setting the moral ground for even "healthcare" being a basic act of separating people into categories and quantifying them.




Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
It is simple the same imagination which created the computer's will be the same imagination which will help us not need them and over come other issues.
These are just empty words. HOW?

Via what mechanism is the idea in the Chinese kid's head going to move into the American kid's head?

If it's not telepathy it has to be SOMETHING.


And that is the problem...your "issues" are all imaginary. A kid does not have to send pictures to another kid in china when the kid is ignoring the people in front of him.

This is far from any connection. Considering all social groups are built upon a reflective cohesion, where people who work together replicate certain behavioral patterns which bind them as a group, the ability to reflect with other's at various distances causes a redefinition of group behavior where people are dependent more on technology in order to socialize rather than eachother.

All the issues you talk about are simply made up problems. A kid has less social responsibility to a person on the other half of the world, than to the person in front of him. This is just a "pseudo" love most programmers push as some form of "connectivity" because of there own experience as social failures.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
Tell me why a kid from China would "need", not "want", to communicate with a kid from the US when both kids are surrounded by communities which need them?
So why are you communicating with me now? Go back to the community that needs you.


That "community" has been destroyed by phones, and ipads, the tv, etc. People do not work together anymore. They do not really speak to eachother anymore. What they do is take pictures of themselves and put them up to recieve "likes" from people who do not care about them. Then they wonder why they are so empty inside.

Technology is just a physicalization of the narcissus myth.




Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:54 pm
Ahh...but that is not what you are arguing you are saying English cannot do what math can...one is not better than the other.
Yes. English cannot do what Math can. Math cannot do what English can, but the things you learn from Math you can apply to all communication. In any language.


And vice versa, they are dualistic versions of the same thing. Strict quantity alone is a contradiction.


Because the concepts of communication and information are more fundamental than their English definitions. Concepts are fundamental. Not logic.
But logic helps you express new concepts.


Logic is the replication of symmetry through various abstract and physical symbols. Logic is a process of forming reality and is not a tool, but rather a way of seeing the nature of existence.



When you understand Lambda calculus at the intuitive level that I do, you begin to see how fucked up English is. It's messy and disorganized. It lacks structure or symmetry. It's inefficient! It's why human minds are a chaos.

I need Lambda calculus to organize my own mind. To structure the chaos caused by the wrecking ball that is English.


All language, as a process of symmetry unfolding to form reality is an extension of the triad as the root of all symmetry.

You assume english lacks symmetry and lambda calculus is more symmetrical; yet you argue in english and proved to be subject to the same trillema you seek to avoid.

You continually redefined axioms in a progressive variation, thinking this creates symmetry, when in reality it causes a percieved complexity akin to approximation.

You claim you use lambda calculus to organize your mind, but then revert to english in order to explain why lambda calculus is efficient. For all we know English is the logical conclusion of lambda calculus entropying.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:54 pm
Yes because they count in there native language. As a matter of fact, most people don't need to learn math anymore. They have machines to count change for you...do you see my point?
The value of Math is learning new concepts. Because truth is conceptual first and foremost.

There are infinite new concepts, as well as math's. Math is a localization of one reality, through multiple axioms, and then connecting the axioms into a framework which is assumed as axiomatic in itself.

Irrespective of the language we all speak at conceptual level the phenomenology of experience (pain) is universal to all humans.
Our shared language is experience. Our tool for communication is the spoken language.


Actually you just said above how inefficient language was and observed using the "curve" example, that words cannot describe a curve properly (which is false) but math can...for how inefficient language is (you claim) you set up a contradictory example by claiming pain can be expressed through words with clarity when a simple curve cannot.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
That is quite pointless, you keep talking about how computing allows us to send pictures...but so what?
Communication is moving of information from A to B. From your mind to my mind.

Choosing the medium via which to communicate makes all the difference to success or failure.

The medium of communication is reality itself, creating a virtual reality just causes an increase sense of perplexity and misunderstanding.





Our conversation would not have needed to take place because I would not have had to deal with people staring at phones in front of me all day.
As somebody who experienced both worlds (pre-phones and post-phones), let me tell you there's nothing more tedious than hanging out with people you have NOTHING in common other than that you live in the same community. If it wasn't about phones it was about fucking bitches, getting pissed and taking drugs.

Fuck that. It took me 10 years to find my tribe. I found it in 6 months when I discovered the internet. Global communities with shared interests, purpose and vision.

Phones are not the cause - they are the symptom. They are just another form of escapism. If a person is trying to escape reality - they will find a way.

Phones are exactly the symptom and the problem is that the symptom is not being treating and replacing the human condition all together, thus multiplying the issues.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
All the problems you claim to "fix" are either made up or equivalent to plugging holes in a boat where another leak springs to take its place.
All I am claiming is that the boat is sinking much slower now than it was sinking 2000 years ago.


Oh and the past 2 world wars, mass genocides, major psychological issues modern civilized people are facing, as well as the absence of a quality life (which is not to be confused with material quantities) have no relation in the technology we idolized.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
And what good is living a fast life at the expense of taking time?
Symptom vs cause...


Symptoms are the cause for further symptoms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
Yes...and what it shows is the glitch in all your work is the human condition.
Yes. That is not a new observation. The Bible already told us that 2000 years ago. Romans 3:10


And that is the problem, all technology is a replication of the human condition into an image which is not equal to it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
That is why you will have failed.
It's work-in-progress. How is it a failure?

Because the premise does not support the conclusion. Humans are the problem because of what they do to human. Create Technology to eradicate the human condition. This reasoning just cycles to point one, technology is the problem because of what it does to humans. It is a regressive spiral.

If man is product of his environment, and the environment we come from was "the law of nature" and "survival of the fittest", then our attempts to build a better society, better environment for ourselves, so that animal instincts are kept at bay.

The very attempt to build a civilized society is our human undertaking to overcome our nature.


And what is that nature without using the act of reflection? Being que being? Last time I checked people still are sick, still starve, still fight. What do you plan on canceling vice with an algorithm?


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
See my point, all your work is just a dick measuring contest. It has no value.
Till you give me a year and a country in which you would rather live in, I am not buying your bullshit.

Actually that does not work as a framework does it; reducing an issue to a year and country? What about a bad country, with a good village? Or what happens when the year is over? Etc.

The issue is less of a year and country, but a time and space that is not limited to such a nature. It can be a future that effectively repeats a past in another variation.




We are either going in the right direction (even if it's not moving as fast as we would like) or we aren't.

Or both.



You keep insisting that "people like me" are making worse, so I am still waiting for the year and country in which things were better than they are today. You seem to be struggling with examples...

Prior to industrialization where the nature of life and death where observed as axiomatic, and the nature of the world was accepted as passing...that is a long expanse of time.

The issue breaks down to a reliance on technology breaks down human freedom by turning the human condition in the object it reflects upon.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
Actually you did not define the curves in mathematics...they where translated from mathematics. No different than them being translated from English as "x length", "x height", "grade of curve", etc. (with mathematics existing in standard language as well)
Observe the important distinction. The masturbation that is philosophy is always about (mis?)interpretation of that which we see/experience/observe.
That "missinterpretation" is evident in the nature of lambda calculus as well considering it is an extension of variables set by the observer. It does not solve the problem.


The problem Philosophy has been trying to solve (unsuccessfully) is consistent interpretation.


It is only a problem if sought to be controlled. What is evident within reality is variation with this variation having common underlying elements amidst a variety of contexts. All variation is solved as meaningful and valid within a specific context, with this context itself being a variable. This is a logical statement.



I expressed a thought that an entity other myself (a computer) can interpret EXACTLY as I intended it to be interpreted.
I have materialized my thoughts into being using LANGUAGE. The computer turned it into a picture.


That is determinism at its finest.

Not really, just symbol regression as that "picture" is just a point to another symbol. That is the problem with finiteness, it is grounded in contradiction. Second, you are justifying the nature of programming as one of esthetics and are left with a philosophical dillema as you condemn the same philosophy which gives form to this "problem"

You can't do the same with any other language. You can do it with a stick and some sand, but not with symbols!
I can do it with symbols!

What materializing thoughts into a symbol? All phenomena are symbols leading to further symbols. Even the stick used to create a symbol in the sand was formed according to the observing and acted as a median between the observer and the symbol.

You are going to have to do alot better with justifying computation if it just results in creating symbols...reality has been doing that for all of time, as well as consciousness.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
That is why you are the problem...you create problems which do not exist (such as the one above) and then have to justify why people need you...when they don't.
OK. I demand that you log off, delete your account and turn off your computer. Burn it!
Do you have a cellphone? Post the burning of the Evil Computer on Youtube.

I also demand that you cut off your power! Back to the wonderful dark ages - where we had "less problems"!

Don't talk! DO!


Actually there were golden ages prior to having computers, if you read history you would know that. Second, the issue is how technology is manifested not technology itself. Mass communication is not an issue when it is controlled, but it cannot be controlled that is why it is called "mass"; it represents an inherent formless chaos.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
You lie to them and tell them what is needed by creating a false problem.
THE fuck? Did anybody force the internet upon you? It grew exponentially in the 90s! Before that it was a dead-end experiment which had been running for 30 years between a bunch of universities.


Actually yeah it is forced on us. If I had the choice to sit down and talk to a person or group of people face to face I would. The option is not there because of the internet and the phone.

You are confusing multiple truths as having priority over one truth.



You are chasing ghosts. Nobody told anybody anything. In the 70s Apple became a multi-million dollar company from running a startup in a garage. Do you think they went around houses forcing computers down everybody's throat?


People bought these things. With their own hard-earned cash!

Yeah because they forced "efficiency" and "problem solving" as ethical ideas down everyone's throats. Steve Jobs would not allow his own kids to have ipads because it would ruin there creativity...how much does that say about a product when the inventor does not want his own kid's to have it?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
Computer programming is pure empty sophistry. It creates illusions through a made up language.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

OK. Since you are about to burn your computer, how do you propose we continue this conversation?

This conversation is burning up the use of the computer, as it leads to the simple observation "the computer necessitates that the computer cannot solve the issue".



Also. Can you give me an example of a language that isn't "made up"?


Yes, the symbolic nature of all phenomenon.

Second the trillema.

Third the triad.


For somebody who claims to hate the Aristotelian religion, you sure love your Law of Excluded middle and the false dichotomies it produces.

No, actually I am showing how your logic works against itself. It has nothing to do with love/hatred of aristotleian logic. Second the issue of technology over nature is a false dichotomy you present as a premised.

All I am showing is that your means of reasoning...does not make sense to anyone but you.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
You offer nothing but lies, literally...lies. A virtual, unreal, world of no substance or value or meaning.
No, I am not. I offered you a new tool.


What new tool? Seriously...what? And what do I need it for?

You do understand primitive tribes in afghanistan defeated modern Russian and American forces right?
The german's defeated roman legionnaires with sharpened sticks?
Computer's are intended to raise man above animal impulse, but porn/violence/status praising are the majority of its functions?


I also offered you the option to burn it if you don't like it.

And how have you offered me an option?




Put your money where your mouth is - Youtube live stream!

If I preach against using technology in an extreme manner, why would I have an ipad? I got rid of mine when it was gifted to me. "This" is a public computer I use for writing work, because the world demands it.



Burn that motherfucker. As to how you are going to burn Lambda calculus from the human body of knowledge - I have no idea....


I don't have to, because it is premised in the Prime Triad. Show me how lambda calculus does not:

Use symbols as a point of origin as extensions of further symbols.
How the symbols are nothing in themselves.
The symbol project to further symbols.
Each symbol as seperate requires a prior symbol, thus all symbols are simultaneously connnect.
Each Symbol is maintained through a cycle.
Each symbol variates into other symbols through that same cycle:

I have argued to occurs in the basic nature of the number line, arithmetic, logic through the mirror calculus thread. Logic is just expanding circles.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
Yawn...I just said the question is faulty. First all langauge is symbolic in nature, hence the curve is its own answer. Second They cannot be describe through a computer as the curves measurements would change from one screen to another. If it was drawn in the sand, or on a wall, where the context was not changing...measurements could be applied and the curved described.
Oh really? How is a drawing on the sand different from a digital one?

It is real simple if they are no different, then all this "work" is just a waste of time on your part. If they are different then all your "work" is spent replicating a simple action through the use of verbage, digital imaging, etc.



Why is sand a better medium than a computer screen?


I never said it was better or less, just more to the point.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
The most I could do is say it was of "x length" "y grade" "x wavelengths", etc. relative to a computer screen of "x" dimensions...and the fact you cannot see this just means I would make it up.
If you were intending to lie to me you could have drawn a square when you meant a triangle. On the sand and everything.

The computer isn't at fault. You are.


Strawman, the subject was whether qualitative language (english) could describe a curve...and it can. Second the framework of measuring the curve through a computer screen in english is faulty when the contexts change due to the computer itself.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm
All the "tests" you create...do not work...they are irrational.
You don't have any conception of rationality that I would respect.

You have no concept of rationality at all. The only thing I argue is the Trillema and Triad...it is not my fault if your logic cannot maintain itself on its own terms in the face of "space".

Second "rationality" is a made up tool according to you, the question of respect lies within an esthetic statement of "beauty in the eye of the beholder"...your "respect" is proven by the fact you have to argue everything.

I am just taking all of this an synthesizing into a book eventually...you have to prove yourself, I am just using you as a tool because that is how you view the world.



In one breath you recognize that everything is a human problem.
In another you externalize blame to inanimate objects.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Actually I will have my cake and eat it too, everything is a human problem and these inanimate objects are extensions of the people who create and use them; thus taking on the attributes of the users.

The modern technological movement is strictly ancient baal worship where we take one phenomenon, idolize it as a solution to some "problem", and in doing so seperate it from the surrounding environment. Back then it was the anthropomorphization of various aspect of the psyche (war/fertility/etc.) today it is an objectification of it through created idols through tool worship.




You know what the problem is? Symbols! Symbols are the problem! All these asshole mathematicians working on wall street stealing our money. Using crazy mathematics running on super-fast computers! They are stealing using MATHEMATICS!
Ban Mathematics! Ban Language!

Symbols are inevitable, it is the progressive variation leading to chaos.

Those lying politicians using WORDS to deceive us! Ban language! Burn it all! Burn it to the ground and start anew!

If you act on that impulse - society will not let you... We will not let you destroy that which we have built, just because you think you can do it better from scratch.

You are not smarter than the billions before you.

The billions before "us" observed the basic cyclical aspects of natural law as the founding order. This was observed in the seasons, movements of celestial events, reciprocation of people's actions through the golden rule, reproduction etc. This was the common moral symbolism; the cycle. And it manifested itself as the same thing in infinite variation. The problem is that in trying to progress away from natural law, the technological revolution will effectively succumb to it as it is dependent upon these laws.

Nature always finds a way.

[/quote]

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:00 pm
Actually they can while allowing for a freedom of seeing it in one's own perspective.
I don't want you to see my thirst in your own perspective! I want you to bring me a fucking glass of water.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:00 pm
They allowing both a unity and multiplicity in observation.

Second words are merely symbols, just as pictures are symbols, these symbols are subject to the angle of awareness and as such cannot be observed in the same degree. You put up a picture of curves. You saw the curves mediating to one thing, I saw them mediating to another. All symbols are points of mediation and nothing in themselves. The question of finiteness as being a means to an end, is faulty when it is dependent upon further finite realities.

We both saw the same picture and observed two seperate things. You saw code. I saw the waves representing music or the ocean as extensions of a replicative symmetry.
They are tools for communication. You can use them to communicate with the future-you by writing down notes.
You can use them to communicate with other people.

Symbols express human experience.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:20 am
You forget the thousands of hours of programming just to get to that point...something a kid could have drawn in the sand.
You are still straw-manning the argument.

No kid in China can communicate with a kid in the USA through sand drawings.


Actually you have no clue what strawmanning is, and you are strawmanning the argument with your continual shout of "strawman!".

A strawman is a diversion from the argument. All arguments, because of there progressive nature are always strawman as they divert from one axiom to another.
[/quote]
You are strawmanning the strawmanning.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:20 am

You claim programming is good because a stranger can send a picture of a curve to another stranger on the other side of the world...but this is an assumption about the nature of what is not just quality but even "practical" or "pragmatic" by your own standards. It is a useless endeavor.

Strawman.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm

Actually because of "choice" we are not left with all people getting these forms of technology due to price, social status, etc. Second many of these fabrications are dependent upon an industrial framework which causes many of these issues to begin with, with the quantification of man in this framework setting the moral ground for even "healthcare" being a basic act of separating people into categories and quantifying them.

Strawman.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm

And that is the problem...your "issues" are all imaginary. A kid does not have to send pictures to another kid in china when the kid is ignoring the people in front of him.

Strawman. A kid wants to. Being exposed to different cultures at a young age and having friends all over the world (thanks Intrnet!) made sure I am not xenophobic, nationalistic racist.

I embrace diversity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm

All the issues you talk about are simply made up problems. A kid has less social responsibility to a person on the other half of the world, than to the person in front of him. This is just a "pseudo" love most programmers push as some form of "connectivity" because of there own experience as social failures.

Strawman. Deafness, blindness, amputation and heart failures are not made up problems.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:22 pm

That "community" has been destroyed by phones, and ipads, the tv, etc. People do not work together anymore. They do not really speak to eachother anymore. What they do is take pictures of themselves and put them up to recieve "likes" from people who do not care about them. Then they wonder why they are so empty inside.

And you are bitching about it on an Internet forum.

Anyway. Your quoting style is a pain in the ass to navigate.
Your comments are boring me and your pessimism is rubbing me off the wrong way.

I think I am just going to ignore you going forward.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:35 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:46 pm
I am never in pain.

Through a human body's experiences, however, I sometimes feel a sensation that is sometimes known as or called 'pain'.
So, do you think you know that sensation whenever you feel it?
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:23 pm

Do you think you have ever FELT the sensation of knowing P? When last did you feel it and what does it feel like?

Age
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I know p

Post by Age » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:44 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:35 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:46 pm
I am never in pain.

Through a human body's experiences, however, I sometimes feel a sensation that is sometimes known as or called 'pain'.
So, do you think you know that sensation whenever you feel it?
EB
Can you elaborate on what 'think you know' actually means?

What are 'you' actually referring to when 'you' say; Do 'you' 'think 'you' know ...'?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:44 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:35 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:46 pm
I am never in pain.

Through a human body's experiences, however, I sometimes feel a sensation that is sometimes known as or called 'pain'.
So, do you think you know that sensation whenever you feel it?
EB
Can you elaborate on what 'think you know' actually means?
Words are physical marks on a physical support. Atoms amongst atoms. They don't mean anything at all. It's up to you to understand what other people may have meant when they used particular words. I cannot convey meaning directly to you. All I could do would be to produce more words and then you could still ask me what I mean with these new words. If you want to know what I mean, look up my words in an English dictionary. If you can't do that, there's nothing I can do for you.
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:44 am
What are 'you' actually referring to when 'you' say; Do 'you' 'think 'you' know ...'?
What do you mean?
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:40 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
It's up to you to understand what other people may have meant when they used particular words.
That's not even remotely how human communication works.

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
I cannot convey meaning directly to you. All I could do would be to produce more words and then you could still ask me what I mean with these new words. If you want to know what I mean, look up my words in an English dictionary. If you can't do that, there's nothing I can do for you.
Yeah there is. You just don't know how and what.

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
What do you mean?
Define "mean" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?" -- Richard Feynman

Age
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I know p

Post by Age » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:23 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:44 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:35 pm

So, do you think you know that sensation whenever you feel it?
EB
Can you elaborate on what 'think you know' actually means?
Words are physical marks on a physical support. Atoms amongst atoms. They don't mean anything at all.
If that is what you THINK or BELIEVE, then fair enough.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
It's up to you to understand what other people may have meant when they used particular words.
Okay. So, are you suggesting do NOT ask others for clarity about what they are actually saying and meaning, and instead JUST UNDERSTAND what THEY mean with those particular words that they use?

I wonder just how many people can SEE just how much confusion this WOULD cause. (Just maybe this is exactly the very reason WHY "this world" that YOU, human beings, live in now, when this is written, is in such the MESS that it is in.)
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
I cannot convey meaning directly to you.
If you BELIEVE that you can NOT do some thing, then you will NEVER be able to do it. So be it!
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
All I could do would be to produce more words and then you could still ask me what I mean with these new words.
That is the PURPOSE of asking clarifying questions.
1. To gain more clarity/understanding of what the "other" is actually saying/meaning.
2. To SEE if the "other" actually KNOWS what they are saying/TRYING TO say.

If you want to know what I mean, look up my words in an English dictionary. If you can't do that, there's nothing I can do for you.

Have "you" ever noticed just how many definitions there can be to just one word?

Without asking an author/speaker directly then which definition do I CHOOSE?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:44 am
What are 'you' actually referring to when 'you' say; Do 'you' 'think 'you' know ...'?
What do you mean?
EB
What I mean IS; What do 'you' mean exactly when 'you' used the words 'think' and 'know' in relation to when I said I sometimes 'feel' a sensation? To 'feel' some thing is a lot different to to 'think' some thing and/or to 'know' some thing. So, I was wondering why 'you' diverted away from the 'feel' word and started using the 'think' and 'know' words?

I thought my question explained what it was asking. I however have learned that I was mistaken.
I have also learned that it is solely 'my' responsibility to understand what "others" actually mean, through the use of their words, and that any person can say absolutely any thing but it is the sole responsibility of the listener to understand what that one is saying.
I have learned that, according to 'you', 'you' are incapable of conveying meaning directly to "others" as well.

Therefore, all this means is that 'you' could well be completely and utterly wasting your time and energy being here, in this forum. You have come here to express what you think you know but REALLY you have no way of knowing that what you think is even remotely close to being correct, correct?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:23 am
What I mean IS
What do you mean "I"?!
Age wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:23 am
You have come here to express what you think you know but REALLY you have no way of knowing that what you think is even remotely close to being correct, correct?
No, not correct.
Although, er, what exactly do you mean by "correct"?!
You ask me to clarify my use of very, very, very basic words that shouldn't need any clarification at all and yet you assert that I have come here to express what I think i know, assertion that would require that you should be capable of understanding what I say to the point that you could infer plausible conclusions about my intentions or motivations.
Stop it or I will have to ignore you.
EB

Age
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I know p

Post by Age » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:49 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:23 am
What I mean IS
What do you mean "I"?!
The True Self. Compared to the thinking self.

Are 'you' not yet aware of thee answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:23 am
You have come here to express what you think you know but REALLY you have no way of knowing that what you think is even remotely close to being correct, correct?
No, not correct.
Although, er, what exactly do you mean by "correct"?!
'Correct' is 'that' what IS free from error and/or in accordance with Fact or Truth.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
You ask me to clarify my use of very, very, very basic words that shouldn't need any clarification at all
Are you still UNAWARE of just how many words have multiple different and some times completely opposing definitions/meanings.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
and yet you assert that I have come here to express what I think i know,
Yes I did.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
assertion that would require that you should be capable of understanding what I say
Yes I have already.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
to the point that you could infer plausible conclusions about my intentions or motivations.
Yes that is right. I have done that already.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:29 pm
Stop it or I will have to ignore you.
EB
Stop what? Inferring plausible conclusions?

Remember it was 'YOU' who stated:
That words do NOT mean anything at all.
That it is up to me to understand what you and other people may have meant when they used particular words.
That you cannot convey meaning directly to me.
All you could do is to produce more (absolutely meaningless) words.
And, If I want to know what you mean, then you told me look up your words in an English dictionary.

I noted what YOU said and took YOUR advice.

I have therefore inferred a plausible conclusion based solely on YOUR WORDS alone that you have come here to express what you think you know, but REALLY you have no way of knowing, that, what you think is even remotely close to being correct. Let alone KNOWING 'that' what you THINK you know.

But considering, by you own admission, that YOUR OWN WORDS do NOT mean anything at all, then what I have concluded, which is based upon YOUR OWN WORDS could mean absolutely nothing at all also. Without the ability to gain clarity FROM YOU, then there is NO WAY of KNOWING either way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest