x

[Age]

I did after all say, Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".

Yes you did. And given why I mentioned it in the first place, that's all that is needed on that topic.
I am no longer interested in your absurd opinion on how the absurd thing you wrote should be understood in absurd terms.

Talking about 'absurdity', just look back and look at the absurd claims you made, in reference to the above quote, which were all based on your own assumptions and beliefs only.

Considering you have not provided one shred of evidence so far for your absurd claims and now you are "no longer interested" to discuss this any further, then this speaks for itself.

As already stated: Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".

I was obviously correct in that; You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

That line brings us to a crossroads where I must decide whether to expend actual significant effort on you. I've weighed up the chances of you understanding Wittgenstein's PLA and I can't see any reason to bother trying to explain it to you.

Explain what exactly?

You have never tried to explain any thing.

You have just made absurd claims, which were solely based upon your own distorted assumptions and beliefs.

Through your own words you have shown this to be the case. I have just pointed to the actual evidence, which are your own words.

I think we have officially reached the point where I am not finding this interesting enough to do any more.

Considering you have not been able to produce any actual evidence nor actually do any thing other then produce your own assumptions and beliefs, then quiting and leaving, as some might say is all you are doing now, is the usual course of behavior in this forum, as can be witnessed throughout my discussions here in this forum.

All you have done here now is just give more support, by providing more actual evidence, for what it is that I want to express, one day, which future generations will, obviously, find far more interesting than you are.

[Ferdi]

For "Age".
You have so many entries in here that I have lost track of where you said what. I copied many of your lines but will just react on this one of yours:
"I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing."
If you say that it is out-of-context, you would be right but it strikes me as pretence of your stance. You frequently ask for proof. Let me try to prove to you that your "neither believe nor disbelieve any thing" is nonsense. The very fact of you contributing your entries here is based on the simple belief that this correspondence-system will work, and moreover that you will still be alive for long enough to react on some comments. You will have believed to remain alive when you purchased the food you have consumed today; etc.

[Age]

For "Age".
You have so many entries in here that I have lost track of where you said what.

So what?

If there is any actual thing that I said, which you want to discuss, point out, disagree with, refute, or just show to be wrong, then just bring that one, or any of them, or all of them, up for all to see.

Many people have written many entries in here, and I would be quite surprised if there is just one person who has "kept track of where another one said what". It would be quite remarkable for one person to be able to keep track of all of what another one said.

I copied many of your lines

What do you mean by you 'copied' many of my lines?

Where did you copy them to, and, what for?

but will just react on this one of yours:

"I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing."
If you say that it is out-of-context, you would be right

What do mean, "if I say that "it" is out-of-context"?

What is the "it", AND, why would I say, " "it" is out-of-context"?

I do not even know what the "context" is nor what the "it" is, for me to even consider saying " "it" is out of context".

but it strikes me as pretence of your stance.

So, IF i was to say some thing like "it is out of context", (which I have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about, and which I also wonder if I would even do such a thing), but anyway, IF I was to say " "it" is out-of-context" ", then that that would strike you as pretence of my stance, is fair enough. IF what I say would strike you in any particular way, then that is fair enough. The very reason why things strike you, the way they do, when some thing is put in front of you is obvious. BUT, what are you now assuming or believing is my "stance"?

If you assume or believe that saying I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing is a "stance", then you are wrong. Me choosing neither to believe nor disbelieve any thing is just some thing I do. It is not some thing I believe I do, therefore it is not a "stance" at all.

For example, if i say i cook dinner every night, then that is not a "stance", but rather just some thing that i do. (For all you know it might be some thing i do not even like doing, so i certainly would never take a "stance" on it, but i still do it). If, however, i was to believe that dinner 'should be cooked every night', then that is a "stance". Can you spot and see/understand the difference? Or, are you talking about some thing else completely different?

You frequently ask for proof.

If someone keeps proposing some thing as being true and right, and expects "others" to accept it, then yes I frequently ask for proof. Is there something unusual, abnormal, or just plain wrong with doing this?

If yes, then please explain what they are, and how and why they are what you propose they are.
If no, then what was your point in saying that I frequently ask for proof?

How much of what you are told you just accept as being true and/or right?

Do you ever ask for proof?

Let me try to prove to you that your "neither believe nor disbelieve any thing" is nonsense.

Great. I would love to see do that.

The very fact of you contributing your entries here is based on the simple belief that this correspondence-system will work, and moreover that you will still be alive for long enough to react on some comments.

False

and

False.

I do not believe such things, and, why would I even want to believe such things?

Just because you feel the need to believe such, to me ridiculous, things does not mean that "others" do that also.

So, your attempt at "trying to prove" that what I do is nonsense, is just (shall I call it) plain nonsense.

If you believe such things as you wrote above, then so be it. But I certainly neither believe nor disbelieve any such things as that.

On another matter, if any person believes that they will be around long enough to react on some comments, then they are very sadly mistaken. There will always be some comments made, which people will not be around long enough to react on.

You will have believed to remain alive when you purchased the food you have consumed today; etc.

"You will have believed to remain alive" is an order of words that would not even come into the thinking within this body, let alone be a belief that I would have. Therefore, what you are proposing here now is utter nonsense.

When i purchase food I have consumed "today", I have never had the thought, "I believe to remain alive".

If the thoughts within that body "of yours" are in the english language, then do "you" think in english?

If yes, then that is just what you do.

You do not have to believe you do it. You just do it no matter what. 'you' actually have no control over it. Therefore, it is not a "stance" you take. It just is what IS.

If, however, the thoughts that are in that body are in two or more different languages, then "you" just think in different languages.

You do not have to believe you do that. You just do it. 'you' actually have no control over it. Therefore, once again, it is not a "stance" you take. It just is what IS.

Now, if you tell me that you think in a certain language/s, then I either just accept that that is what "you" do, or I ask for proof. But there is no way that I could truly "try to prove" that "you" think one way or another. Only YOU know what thoughts there are, in that body.

Now for you to "try to tell me" what thoughts there are in this body, is at best complete nonsense. Only I can tell you what thoughts there are in this body. If you want to accept that what I am saying is true or not is at your discretion, either way is perfectly fine to me. But for you to "try to prove" what thoughts there are in this body would just be bordering on insanity. There is however one other thing, which you could actually do, and that is just ask for proof.

Either you have some actual evidence that I believe or disbelieve some thing, or you do not. If you have some evidence, then let us readers see it. If, however, you are basing so called "evidence" on just what you assume and/or believe, then remember that that is what 'you believe' and not necessarily what 'I believe'.

Do not forget; There is a huge difference between 'you' and 'I'.

[Walker]

Many people have written many entries in here, and I would be quite surprised if there is just one person who has "kept track of where another one said what". It would be quite remarkable for one person to be able to keep track of all of what another one said.

It's not a matter of remembering all. It's a matter of not forgetting the most egregious, which ain't so remarkable.

[Age]

Many people have written many entries in here, and I would be quite surprised if there is just one person who has "kept track of where another one said what". It would be quite remarkable for one person to be able to keep track of all of what another one said.

It's not a matter of remembering all. It's a matter of not forgetting the most egregious, which ain't so remarkable.

How are you defining the word 'egregious' here?

[FlashDangerpants]

All you have done here now is just give more support, by providing more actual evidence, for what it is that I want to express, one day, which future generations will, obviously, find far more interesting than you are.

Well, you were a dick about it, but we got there in the end. As I wote, this thread should have had entertainment value becuase you, as evidenced above, sort of think of yourself as a prophet, and Woodster considered himself the new Messiah.

Alas, relying on Ken for entertainment was never a sensible plan, I must own that mistake. Even though you are a delusional egomaniac, you still found a way to be fucking boring about it.

[Walker]

Many people have written many entries in here, and I would be quite surprised if there is just one person who has "kept track of where another one said what". It would be quite remarkable for one person to be able to keep track of all of what another one said.

It's not a matter of remembering all. It's a matter of not forgetting the most egregious, which ain't so remarkable.

How are you defining the word 'egregious' here?

Both modern and archaic definitions in a commonly sourced dictionary.

(Relax, I'm referencing principle, not person.)

[Age]

All you have done here now is just give more support, by providing more actual evidence, for what it is that I want to express, one day, which future generations will, obviously, find far more interesting than you are.

Well, you were a dick about it, but we got there in the end. As I wote, this thread should have had entertainment value becuase you, as evidenced above, sort of think of yourself as a prophet, and Woodster considered himself the new Messiah.

"Sort of think of yourself as a prophet", is just another assumption and belief you hold onto and entertain about me, which is, once again, COMPLETELY WRONG.

You could not be further from the truth.

But you will never know what the truth is because you are so stuck in your own belief.

Alas, relying on Ken for entertainment was never a sensible plan, I must own that mistake.

Why would anyone even consider relying on me for entertainment here?

Surely you could have better things to do then read what I write here. Most of what I write here is utterly boring as I am just asking for clarification about what "others" propose is the truth. I do this in order to learn better about how to communicate with human beings. I am certainly not doing any thing here for any entertaining purposes.

Even though you are a delusional egomaniac, you still found a way to be fucking boring about it.

If you believe I am some thing, then, to you, I MUST BE 'that'. To you, and those beliefs, I could not be any thing else.

I am here, in this forum, to learn, so I am not sure why you would consider that there will be any thing other than boring from me.

[Age]

It's not a matter of remembering all. It's a matter of not forgetting the most egregious, which ain't so remarkable.

How are you defining the word 'egregious' here?

Both modern and archaic definitions in a commonly sourced dictionary.

(Relax, I'm referencing principle, not person.)

Okay, thanks.

[FlashDangerpants]

All you have done here now is just give more support, by providing more actual evidence, for what it is that I want to express, one day, which future generations will, obviously, find far more interesting than you are.

Well, you were a dick about it, but we got there in the end. As I wote, this thread should have had entertainment value becuase you, as evidenced above, sort of think of yourself as a prophet, and Woodster considered himself the new Messiah.

"Sort of think of yourself as a prophet", is just another assumption and belief you hold onto and entertain about me, which is, once again, COMPLETELY WRONG.

You could not be further from the truth.

But you will never know what the truth is because you are so stuck in your own belief.

Okay then ... clarifying questions time! What is your non egomaniacal explanation for how future generations will be taking an interest in the thing you are struggling to express?

Alas, relying on Ken for entertainment was never a sensible plan, I must own that mistake.

Why would anyone even consider relying on me for entertainment here?

You take stuff very literally don't you?

Surely you could have better things to do then read what I write here. Most of what I write here is utterly boring as I am just asking for clarification about what "others" propose is the truth. I do this in order to learn better about how to communicate with human beings. I am certainly not doing any thing here for any entertaining purposes.

I very seldom read anything you write for that exact reason. Also because you "continually" put random "words" in scare quotes.

Even though you are a delusional egomaniac, you still found a way to be fucking boring about it.

If you believe I am some thing, then, to you, I MUST BE 'that'. To you, and those beliefs, I could not be any thing else.

I am here, in this forum, to learn, so I am not sure why you would consider that there will be any thing other than boring from me.

But you make no effort to learn. I gave you a link for what many would consider one of the most important philosophical arguments of 20th century, it was relevant to persistent error in your reasoning that even somebody who skim reads maybe one in 20 of your posts can still clearly see. You didn't look at it, you don't care. Your words may assert a desire to learn, but your actions aren't those of somebody who actually wishes to. You are just another pissant with an ego problem looking for a platform to boast talents you don't have.

[surreptitious57]

Most of what I write here is utterly boring as I am just asking for clarification about what others propose is the truth

I am not proposing any truth at all but simply stating what I think could be true based upon the knowledge I have
Whether it is actually true or not I have no idea and less I ever do then any claim to the truth cannot be justified

[surreptitious57]

See where you think we are disagreeing is that you and the others here in this forum as well look at things from a separatist and narrow
perspective of things whereas I do not see any actual separation and thus look at EVERY thing in continuum

To me there is no separation in evolution . Evolution just does what it does eternally

I also think that the Universe has always been in a state of evolution since it is changing all the time
All motion is change and the Universe is in an eternal state of motion so change must be eternal too

[Gryfyd]

THEREFORE Y!

[Ferdi]

Your verbosity has a mentally drowning effect. Too much spoils the flavour.

[Age]

Well, you were a dick about it, but we got there in the end. As I wote, this thread should have had entertainment value becuase you, as evidenced above, sort of think of yourself as a prophet, and Woodster considered himself the new Messiah.

"Sort of think of yourself as a prophet", is just another assumption and belief you hold onto and entertain about me, which is, once again, COMPLETELY WRONG.

You could not be further from the truth.

But you will never know what the truth is because you are so stuck in your own belief.

Okay then ... clarifying questions time! What is your non egomaniacal explanation for how future generations will be taking an interest in the thing you are struggling to express?

Reading, hearing, and contemplating.

I could assume you were meaning some thing else in your clarifying question, but because I do not like to assume any thing I therefore rely on your actual words before me, and respond to them.

I do this with all the writings in this forum also, by the way.

Alas, relying on Ken for entertainment was never a sensible plan, I must own that mistake.

Why would anyone even consider relying on me for entertainment here?

You take stuff very literally don't you?

VERY.

But only here in this forum, and only when people are expressing as though they are expressing a truth outside of this forum.

Considering this is a philosophy forum, and forming sound and valid arguments is a part of "philosophizing", then yes I take "stuff", here in this forum, very literally. The literal meaning of the words being used is what soundness and validness is gauged upon, so I think especially in a philosophy forum the words that are literally before us are better taken very literally and/or clarified. Otherwise we could be saying just about any thing at all, and not actually meaning one actual bit of it.

For example, when you write, Well, you were a dick about it, ...". What do you actually mean?

The reason 'you', human beings, rarely answer any of my clarifying questions is because you, yourselves, for the majority, do not actually know what you mean and/or did not actually, literally, mean what you wrote. 'you', unfortunately, do not want to put the time and effort into actually considering and contemplating the words that you, yourselves, use. This being probably the major reason WHY you human beings are still so confused and perplexed about Life, Itself.

Clear up your own thinking, then the clarity of Life becomes very quickly seen, and understood. Very simply and very easily I might add.

Surely you could have better things to do then read what I write here. Most of what I write here is utterly boring as I am just asking for clarification about what "others" propose is the truth. I do this in order to learn better about how to communicate with human beings. I am certainly not doing any thing here for any entertaining purposes.

I very seldom read anything you write for that exact reason.

Well that explains why, as I stated earlier: You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

If you seldom read any thing of what "another" writes, then you obviously will not really understand them nor their language at all.

So, thanks for clarifying that up for us here now.

Also because you "continually" put random "words" in scare quotes.

I am not sure why you call them scare quotes, but I certainly do not look at them as that. Why do you call double quotation marks 'scare quotes'?

I put double quotation marks around some words for one reason and single quotation marks around other words for another reason, and it is certainly not for any scare purpose. I put quotation marks around particular words to highlight them for curiosity purposes.

The longer it takes for human beings to start asking clarifying questions, and the less curious they show they are, even when 'out of the ordinary' things are put in front of them, only further supports the view about how exactly the brain can and does dull the completely open and curious Mind.

The brain's ability to completely shut off and/or block the Truly OPEN Mind from working properly and fully is evidenced throughout these writings. So, for future readers, the less curiosity and less clarity that was sought, evidenced in these writings, then the more evidence was being provided for what it is that I wanted to say and show.

Even though you are a delusional egomaniac, you still found a way to be fucking boring about it.

If you believe I am some thing, then, to you, I MUST BE 'that'. To you, and those beliefs, I could not be any thing else.

I am here, in this forum, to learn, so I am not sure why you would consider that there will be any thing other than boring from me.

But you make no effort to learn.

What is it exactly that you think I want to learn?

You are just showing how you were completely right about how you very seldom read anything I write.

You, after all of this, still appear to have absolutely no clue at all about what it is that I am here wanting to learn.

I gave you a link for what many would consider one of the most important philosophical arguments of 20th century, it was relevant to persistent error in your reasoning that even somebody who skim reads maybe one in 20 of your posts can still clearly see.

This is just another; 'I am not going to tell you any of your errors and I am not even going to bring them forward for the readers to see, but you can just imagine where they are, and then go and look up the "whatever" in some writing' "argument", which is very commonly used in this forum.

Which link are you talking about exactly?

If it is the one I am thinking of, then it is the one that you can not even explain yourself.

Why not just say where the examples of the "persistent error in my reasoning" are?

And then explain WHY they are "errors in my reasoning"?

Providing specific examples to the "persistent error in my reasoning" and providing links to 'specific sentences that address my so called "errors" directly' would be far more favorable to "your reasoning" here.

If you find an error in my reasoning, then just highlight it and put it forward, for all to see, and then let us discuss it OPENLY and Honestly. I certainly have absolutely nothing to fear. So, what is the actual reason you do not do this?

You didn't look at it, you don't care.

How do you know I did not look it, and did not read it, AND I did not learn from it?

Have you ever considered that, to me, your link was so far off track that it was not even worth mentioning, or some thing else?

Your words may assert a desire to learn, but your actions aren't those of somebody who actually wishes to.

If that is what you believe, then that is what it MUST BE.

You are just another pissant with an ego problem looking for a platform to boast talents you don't have.

What talent/s have I boasted?

Saying that I am autistic and that I am here in this forum to learn how to communicate better with human beings, I do not see as looking for a platform to boast talents at all. But I do not look at nor see things the same way you do, obviously. So, maybe you will explain what you mean exactly by; You are just another pissant with an ego problem looking for a platform to boast talents you don't have..

1. What is a 'pissant'?
2. What is the 'ego problem' exactly, which you say I have?
3. How do you propose that I am here 'looking for a platform to boast talents'?
4. What 'talents' do you propose that I am 'boasting', and which you say that I do not have anyway?

Let the readers SEE what is actually true and what are just your assumptions and/or beliefs.