What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Advocate wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 2:04 am But where's your PROOF that you feel that way?
Have you never felt?

So have I
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 8:02 am
Age wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:20 pm
'you', the 'thing' here labelled, and known, as "dontaskme", wrote; "All ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.".
Yes, that's right, all ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.


Age wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:20 pm Now, if this does NOT infer that ALL 'things'exist as 'concepts', ONLY, then what does this infer, EXACTLY?
It infers that all ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.
So, considering the Fact that 'concepts' only came into existence AFTER the animal species evolved into existence, then this MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL existed before 'concepts' came along.

Which, as I have ALREADY STATED, the ABSURDITY of this speaks for ITSELF.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 3:26 pm
Age wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:46 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 6:02 pm
No, infinity is unreachable.
Infinitely is, SUPPOSEDLY, unreachable by who or what EXACTLY?

ALSO, existing and unreachable are two VERY DIFFERENT things anyway.
Infinity: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
'Infinity' to me is NOT 'a number'.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:21 am
So, considering the Fact that 'concepts' only came into existence AFTER the animal species evolved into existence, then this MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL existed before 'concepts' came along.

Which, as I have ALREADY STATED, the ABSURDITY of this speaks for ITSELF.
But I never said ..
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:21 am''So, considering the Fact that 'concepts' only came into existence AFTER the animal species evolved into existence, then this MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL existed before 'concepts' came along.''
Which, as I have ALREADY STATED, the ABSURDITY of this speaks for ITSELF.''
You said it, the quote has you're name attached...not mine.

So I'll repeat...For the human animal..all they know are concepts/things.

How difficult is that to understand?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:24 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 3:26 pm
Age wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:46 pm

Infinitely is, SUPPOSEDLY, unreachable by who or what EXACTLY?

ALSO, existing and unreachable are two VERY DIFFERENT things anyway.
Infinity: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
'Infinity' to me is NOT 'a number'.
To all mathematicians is.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:06 pm
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:24 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 3:26 pm
Infinity: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
'Infinity' to me is NOT 'a number'.
To all mathematicians is.
LOL And what are the two numbers, to ALL the so-called "mathematicians", is the, laughable, infinite number supposedly between?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:50 am
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:21 am
So, considering the Fact that 'concepts' only came into existence AFTER the animal species evolved into existence, then this MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL existed before 'concepts' came along.

Which, as I have ALREADY STATED, the ABSURDITY of this speaks for ITSELF.
But I never said ..
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:21 am''So, considering the Fact that 'concepts' only came into existence AFTER the animal species evolved into existence, then this MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL existed before 'concepts' came along.''
Which, as I have ALREADY STATED, the ABSURDITY of this speaks for ITSELF.''
You said it, the quote has you're name attached...not mine.

So I'll repeat...For the human animal..all they know are concepts/things.

How difficult is that to understand?
Talk about TWISTING and DISTORTING things around here.

You CLEARLY SAID; that ABSOLUTELY ALL ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.

Which MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NO thing existed UNTIL A conceptual thinking animal evolved into existence.

Which the ABSURDITY OF speaks for ITSELF.

I am only going on what you have STATED "dontaskme".
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 am
Talk about TWISTING and DISTORTING things around here.
The twisting or distorting was you're doing, not mine.
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amYou CLEARLY SAID; that ABSOLUTELY ALL ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.
Yes, that is correct, I said all 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amWhich MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NO thing existed UNTIL A conceptual thinking animal evolved into existence.

Which the ABSURDITY OF speaks for ITSELF.


I am only going on what you have STATED "dontaskme".
But 'dontaskme' never stated the underlined statement...'Age' stated the underlined statement.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:07 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 am
Talk about TWISTING and DISTORTING things around here.
The twisting or distorting was you're doing, not mine.
WHERE and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, have I, SUPPOSEDLY, twisted and/or distorted?
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:07 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amYou CLEARLY SAID; that ABSOLUTELY ALL ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.
Yes, that is correct, I said all 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
Which, AGAIN, MEANS that absolutely NO 'thing' existed BEFORE 'concepts' came into existence.
'Concepts' only came into existence AFTER 'conceptual thinking' creatures, or beings, had evolved.
Therefore, according to "dontaskme's" CLAIM here, there was absolutely NO 'thing' existing PRIOR to 'conceptual thinking' beings, or generally referred to as 'human beings', came into existence.

Which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:07 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amWhich MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NO thing existed UNTIL A conceptual thinking animal evolved into existence.

Which the ABSURDITY OF speaks for ITSELF.


I am only going on what you have STATED "dontaskme".
But 'dontaskme' never stated the underlined statement...'Age' stated the underlined statement.
OF COURSE I stated the underlined statement, and you did NOT. This can be CLEARLY SEEN above.

What I was SAYING, and STATING, is that what you have SAID here MEANS what I STATED, and which you have underlined.

Are you NOT able to SEE nor UNDERSTAND this?

Does this HELP.

You STATED; (absolutely) ALL 'things' exist as 'concepts' ONLY.

This, ULTIMATELY, MEANS there were NO physical 'things' BEFORE 'concepts'.

WHICH, ONCE AGAIN, the ABSURDITY OF speaks for ITSELF.
Last edited by Age on Thu May 12, 2022 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:44 am
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:07 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 am
Talk about TWISTING and DISTORTING things around here.
The twisting or distorting was you're doing, not mine.
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amYou CLEARLY SAID; that ABSOLUTELY ALL ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only.
Yes, that is correct, I said all 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:55 amWhich MEANS that ABSOLUTELY NO thing existed UNTIL A conceptual thinking animal evolved into existence.

Which the ABSURDITY OF speaks for ITSELF.


I am only going on what you have STATED "dontaskme".
But 'dontaskme' never stated the underlined statement...'Age' stated the underlined statement.
OF COURSE I stated the underlined statement. This can be CLEARLY SEEN above.

What I was SAYING, and STATING, is that what you have SAID here MEANS what I STATED, and which you have underlined.

Are you NOT able to SEE nor UNDERSTAND this?
Yeah I am able to see and understand your belief that what I said means what you said in the underlined statement.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:58 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:44 am
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:07 am
The twisting or distorting was you're doing, not mine.


Yes, that is correct, I said all 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.


But 'dontaskme' never stated the underlined statement...'Age' stated the underlined statement.
OF COURSE I stated the underlined statement. This can be CLEARLY SEEN above.

What I was SAYING, and STATING, is that what you have SAID here MEANS what I STATED, and which you have underlined.

Are you NOT able to SEE nor UNDERSTAND this?
Yeah I am able to see and understand your belief that what I said means what you said in the underlined statement.
But I do NOT BELIEVE that

If what you STATED does NOT mean what I said, (in the underlined statement), then what does what you STATED MEAN, EXACTLY?

If 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE 'conceptual thinking' beings existed, then HOW, EXACTLY, could ALL the physical 'things' that would have OBVIOUSLY HAD TO EXISTED, existed?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:05 am
But I do NOT BELIEVE that

If what you STATED does NOT mean what I said, (in the underlined statement), then what does what you STATED MEAN, EXACTLY?

If 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE 'conceptual thinking' beings existed, then HOW, EXACTLY, could ALL the physical 'things' that would have OBVIOUSLY HAD TO EXISTED, existed?
It doesn't have to mean anything other than what it states.

If you want what is stated to mean something, then that's up to you to place a meaning there. Place whatever meaning you want to...but that's not going to change what was stated which was .. All 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.

I'm not talking about ''before concepts existed'' I'm talking about what's known in the immediate knowing which is 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.

You are the one who is talking about '' If 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE '' ...not me.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:05 am
But I do NOT BELIEVE that

If what you STATED does NOT mean what I said, (in the underlined statement), then what does what you STATED MEAN, EXACTLY?

If 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE 'conceptual thinking' beings existed, then HOW, EXACTLY, could ALL the physical 'things' that would have OBVIOUSLY HAD TO EXISTED, existed?
It doesn't have to mean anything other than what it states.
AND what it STATES IS: There was absolutely NOTHING AT ALL existing BEFORE a conceptual thinking creature BECAME.

Which, ONCE AGAIN, the ABSURDITY of this STATEMENT speaks for ITSELF.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am If you want what is stated to mean something, then that's up to you to place a meaning there.
Are you SUGGESTING here that what you SAID, WROTE, and STATED means absolutely NOTHING AT ALL?
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am Place whatever meaning you want to...but that's not going to change what was stated which was .. All 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
I KNOW.

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of what was STATED speaks for ITSELF.

What was STATED was OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

ANY and EVERY one can CLEARLY SEE this.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am I'm not talking about ''before concepts existed'' I'm talking about what's known in the immediate knowing which is 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
BUT 'things' do NOT exist as 'concepts' ONLY.

'Things', ALSO, exist as physical forms, for example, without there being ANY 'concepts' AT ALL 'needed' for them to exist.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am You are the one who is talking about '' If 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE '' ...not me.
I NEVER talked about 'IF' 'concepts' did NOT exist BEFORE.

I was just POINTING OUT that 'things' WERE existing BEFORE 'you', 'conceptual thinking', creatures and beings evolved into existence. Which is the VERY OPPOSITE of what you were STATING, and CLAIMING, was true.

I was just SHOWING HOW, WHERE, and WHY 'you' were Wrong here "dontaskme".
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:13 pm
AND what it STATES IS: There was absolutely NOTHING AT ALL existing BEFORE a conceptual thinking creature BECAME.
It does not state that at all...it is you that have added that statement onto what was not there before you put it there.


Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:13 pmAre you SUGGESTING here that what you SAID, WROTE, and STATED means absolutely NOTHING AT ALL?
No I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, not at all, I'm stating that all ''things'' are known as ''concepts'' only.
It is you who states what I stated to mean what you stated, which is not what I stated.

Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:56 am Place whatever meaning you want to...but that's not going to change what was stated which was .. All 'things' exist as 'concepts' only.
Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:13 pmI KNOW.

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of what was STATED speaks for ITSELF.

What was STATED was OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

ANY and EVERY one can CLEARLY SEE this.

Stating that all ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only... is the truth.

And not False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect like you believe.




Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:13 pm'Things', ALSO, exist as physical forms, for example, without there being ANY 'concepts' AT ALL 'needed' for them to exist.
Nope, for things to be known...things are always the concept of them.

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:13 pmI was just POINTING OUT that 'things' WERE existing BEFORE 'you', 'conceptual thinking', creatures and beings evolved into existence. Which is the VERY OPPOSITE of what you were STATING, and CLAIMING, was true.

I was just SHOWING HOW, WHERE, and WHY 'you' were Wrong here "dontaskme".
You are welcome to say that the statement ''things'' exist as ''concepts'' only ...is wrong.

But that will not change the fact that ''things'' do indeed exist as ''concepts'' only.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What having a philosophical conversation with AGE looks and feels like.

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:50 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:06 pm
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:24 am

'Infinity' to me is NOT 'a number'.
To all mathematicians is.
LOL And what are the two numbers, to ALL the so-called "mathematicians", is the, laughable, infinite number supposedly between?
What do you mean?
Post Reply