You replace the words I use with your own words, and then say I am saying some thing, which I am OBVIUOSLY not. Your own assumptions and beliefs have blinded you so much so that you are now writing your own words and trying to argue against them. You are, at times, now literally disputing and arguing against your own self.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:47 amAge wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:32 amBesides your assumption is completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong for two reasons:
1. I added the word 'OR' so I never even assumed what you thought/assumed I did.
Actually you assumed probabilistic behavior, it was defined by a specific number of categories.
2.Even if I had assumed what you thought/assumed I did your insistence OR inability to not even provide the example, and try and refute it, helps in provinh my example is 100% True, Right, and Correct, for two reasons:
Dude, learn to read. I explained in multiple examples how your ideas are both assumptions and composed of assumptions
1. You are proving my view of hoe the brain works.
Not really, external environmental factors determine various functions of the brain. It may not be the brain but the environment causing the brain to act a certain way. You want to originate it with the brain....but this is an assumption.
2. From what I have observed so far there is no possible way you could refute my example of what is not assumed.
Yes, from what you assume there is no possible way to refute your assumptions that your arguments are not assumptions...I agree.
Another wrong assumption you make here.
False, you said everyone's brain is locked in a certain way of defending there beleifs thus yours is as well.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Good, then tell me why...other wise it is just and assumption.
Another wrong assumption you make hereEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pmThose assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)
Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.
Duh...duh...duh... seriously? Throw in a stutter, like petey, and you will be more convincing.
I enjoy how you are assuming everyone understands why saying "your wrong" constitutes a good explanation.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Another wrong assumption you make here. You can not prove this assumption is even close to be correct, so what is the point of continually expressing your assumption/s?
Actually I can prove it considering proof is merely definition. The nature of math being grounded in the assumption of 1 proves this. Basic 1 is an assumption, yet this assumption defines itself through recurssion into a proof. The relation of 1 and 1, as many numbers Inverts isomorphically to 2 as 1 number. Equations are isomorphic in nature. It argues how many parts invert to one...in this case number.
Your attempt at a theory can not even be proven false, so again what is the point of continually reiterating some thing that is completely worthless and useless?
Anything can be proven false given a context change.
If you want me to provide my example of 'what is not assumed', then I will. I have nothing to hide so I can keep presenting my example and proving it correct if you like. But if you are to afraid that I can do this, and do you will keep ignoring it, then so be it. Your continual ignorance of my example shows anyway, and thus proves, that what I am saying is true and correct also. So, either way I am happy.
Yes please, provide it.
Both all of your responses as well as your non responses continually proves that what I KNOW and am saying is True, Right, and Correct. You, unfortunately for you, NEVER know if you are correct or not, and you are NEVER able to prove any thing you assume and say.
False, assumption is truth. Disconnected truths are false. All contradiction is grounded in the fragmentation of truths, hence the fragmentation of assumptions.
The connection of assumptions mandates truth, as this connection allows for an inherent form which exists as is. Form is inseperable from assumption as assumption takes on a projective and receptive nature. Truth is grounded in form.
You, at times, use the 'false' word in reply to what "others" say, yet you also assume and believe that there is not any thing that can be known.
So, how can you KNOW some thing is 'false'?
If every thing is an assumption, as you assume and believe it is, then how could you know, or prove, any thing?
By the way you still have not directly addressed my example of 'what is not assumed'. Do you even know what my example is?