surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 am
Age wrote:
maybe some one in the future might come along and be able explain how there could be or are in fact square circles
when that person comes along then because I remain completely OPEN then I will LISTEN TO what that person has to say
But unfortunately for both you and that other person because you are completely CLOSED to this idea you will NOT listen to them
I do not accept at this point in time that there are such things as square circles as that is a logical contradiction
I KNOW. You told me this before.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amBut if someone at a future point in time can demonstrate that they actually exist then I will accept that they do
But HOW could some one TELL you or SHOW/DEMONSTRATE to you some thing, which you are completely CLOSED off from and to in the beginning?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amI will therefore be open by both listening to and accepting what they have to say about square circles
But that in and of itself is a contradiction in terms. Although it is VERY subtle, it is still a contradiction of terms. If some thing is a 'logical contradiction', then WHY would you even consider listening to that?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amAnd so you are therefore wrong to say I am completely closed to the idea because that is just not true
But you have NOT shown otherwise.
If some thing IS a 'logical contradiction', then HOW are you at all OPEN to that thing?
Just because you used the 'therefore' word, that does NOT mean that what you then said, logically followed on from what you previously wrote before the 'therefore' word. For example,
You wrote, (underlined):
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amI do not accept at this point in time
that there are such things as square circles as
that is a logical contradiction
If some thing IS a 'logical contradiction', then WHY would you even consider listening to it? A human brain does NOT listen to 'that' what is a 'logical contradiction'. It would be a 'logical contradiction', itself, for the human brain, itself, TO LISTEN TO 'that' what IS 'logically contradictory' to itself.
Human beings will NATURALLY not listen to that what they, themselves, SAY is a 'logical contradiction'. This is just NORMAL and NATURAL because things like a 'square circle' IS, by DEFINITION, a 'logical contradiction' to the brain, and therefor IS also 'logically impossible', as well.
So, what sort of language could be used for 'you', surreptitious57, TO START TO LISTEN TO how 'square circles' COULD exist?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amBut
if someone at a future point in time
can demonstrate that they actually exist then
I will accept that they do
But how could any one demonstrate to you how some thing actually does exist when to that brain it IS already a 'logical contradiction'?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amI will therefore be open by both listening to and accepting what they have to say about square circles
But WHY will you THEREFORE be OPEN by both listening to and accepting? What did you say in your two previous premises that concludes that you THEREFORE WILL be OPEN to be both LISTENING TO and ACCEPTING what they say about 'square circles'?
What has changed FROM the first premise of NOT being OPEN, TO the second premise of being OPEN? To then jump to or reach the conclusion that you WILL be OPEN?
I can SEE and KNOW that the first premise 'is in the present' and the second premise 'is in the future', but I do NOT see HOW nor WHAT has made you CHANGE.
Also, you say in the second premise/statement that IF some one CAN demonstrate that 'square circles' DO ACTUALLY EXIST, then you WILL ACCEPT THAT. But this does NOT show nor explain HOW nor WHY you WILL THEREFORE be 'listening' and 'accepting'. WHAT IS the exact moment WHERE you CHANGED from NOT listening TO listening? And, the MOST IMPORTANT of all, for me, IS; What IS the EXACT REASON WHY you CHANGED?
What EXACTLY caused 'you' TO LISTEN?
Was it the use of language in a particular way, or was it some thing else? (The answer to this MIGHT BE what I am LOOKING FOR in my quest to be able to communicate better, so that my VIEW, which I will explain one day, CAN be FULLY HEARD, FULLY LISTENED TO, and, FULLY UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW what it WAS that got me to CHANGE so that I could then FULLY HEAR and FULLY LISTEN, which led to FULLY UNDERSTANDING. But what worked for me might not necessarily work for another. So, that is WHY I would LOVE to KNOW what it is EXACTLY that gets you to also CHANGE from NOT accepting some thing to be OPEN enough to just accepting of the POSSIBILITY of some thing, which appears to be 'logically impossible'?)
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amAnd so you are therefore wrong to say I am completely closed to the idea because that is just not true
WHEN you can provide the evidence or proof of WHEN, HOW, and WHY you CHANGED from;
I do not accept at this point in time that there are such things as square circles as that is a logical contradiction
TO
It is just NOT true that I am completely closed to the idea that there are square circles.
THEN, new knowledge will be known by me, AND, IF that new knowledge is acceptable and/or reasonable, then I WILL accept and also agree with that 'new' knowledge. Until then your reasons just do NOT work, for me anyway.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amI just require the evidence or proof to demonstrate that it is true but till then I will think the opposite
How could it even be possible for any one to provide, to you, what you require to been proved that there are 'square circles', when by your very own words 'square circles' ARE A 'logical contradiction'?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 4:51 amWhenever new knowledge becomes known to me then I accept it for what it is and so change my mind when required to
You can NOT change "your" "mind" because:
1. You do NOT have a mind.
2. Unless of course you can explain who/what 'you' ARE, and, explain what the "mind" is exactly, and then as well explain how 'you' could even, and do, HAVE a "mind".
If you can provide the evidence or proof to demonstrate that 'you have a mind' is true, then that new knowledge will become known to me, and then I CAN and will accept it. But that 'new knowledge' would have to fit in perfectly with ALL the other KNOWN knowledge, which ALREADY EXISTS, to me.
By the way I would be VERY CAREFUL accepting 'knowledge' just because it is 'new knowledge', as 'new knowledge' can be just as WRONG, or even MORE WRONG then 'old knowledge' some times.
Furthermore, you MISSED the whole point that I was just making, which was;
Being Truly OPEN is in relation to 'POSSIBILITY' or 'what COULD BE', and NOT to 'what IS'.
'What IS', by definition, is ALREADY KNOWN, (the 'new knowledge' has ALREADY been OBTAINED) and therefore there is NO need to now be OPEN to 'It'.
By just LOOKING AT 'what IS', while being Truly OPEN to 'what COULD BE', then 'new knowledge' is gained VERY simply, easily, AND quickly, and therefore becomes ALREADY KNOWN, just about instantly.