Kant

[Atla]

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

That's pretty sad considering I never even attempted to get into the really deep stuff, just always talked about the basics. The basics are beyond everyone here.

You have no basics...you have assumptions you believe because they where repeated over and over again...as a matter of fact the knowledge is quite useless and unappreciated.

As a matter of fact, and I brought this up to veritas, if you had any clue you would see I am just using a cyclonic-vacuum type logic and no matter what you do or argue...it will be spun, atomized and put back together again in another form.

I create and destroy stuff without cause purpose, or even direction....so it would be best for your ego if you just left the forum....

No, actually no one is taking you seriously. You believe you use this cyclonic-vacuum type logic or whatever but you are just spinning in your own head, going in circles.

[Eodnhoj7]

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

Not for long, the holographic universe theory mostly resulted from one of the biggest blunders in 20th century physics, having to do with not even wrong ideas about black holes and information. How such nonsense found its way into physics is an interesting topic in itself.

Right now the first direct studies about black holes are coming in, and they are of course refuting these ideas.

whose to know...the forms physics describes could be cognitive illusions...

Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

So? You are simply misinterpreting everything here as Platonic shapes, in other words your entire 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions.
(Which is admittedly funny in small doses)

Is a point a platonic shape? What about a line?

Platos forms, and I do not agree with Plato on this, are not spatial.

You do understand kant's labels of apriori and a posteriori, are grounded in a circularity that is not only fallacious but necessitates platonism right? His own argument is a cycle of terms meant to avoid the simple fact his premises are assumed contexts...they are made up.

So apriori and posteriori did not exist until kant put a label on them? Or did they exist prior under other names, in which Kant was just recycling the same old thing along the linear continuum of time?

He is a label cutter....his philosophy is intricate paper snowflakes.

[Atla]

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

Not for long, the holographic universe theory mostly resulted from one of the biggest blunders in 20th century physics, having to do with not even wrong ideas about black holes and information. How such nonsense found its way into physics is an interesting topic in itself.

Right now the first direct studies about black holes are coming in, and they are of course refuting these ideas.

whose to know...the forms physics describes could be cognitive illusions...

Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

So? You are simply misinterpreting everything here as Platonic shapes, in other words your entire 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions.
(Which is admittedly funny in small doses)

Is a point a platonic shape? What about a line?

Platos forms, and I do not agree with Plato on this, are not spatial.

You do understand kant's labels of apriori and a posteriori, are grounded in a circularity that is not only fallacious but necessitates platonism right? His own argument is a cycle of terms meant to avoid the simple fact his premises are assumed contexts...they are made up.

So apriori and posteriori did not exist until kant put a label on them? Or did they exist prior under other names, in which Kant was just recycling the same old thing along the linear continuum of time?

He is a label cutter....his philosophy is intricate paper snowflakes.

No, you simply confuse circular reasoning with a Platonic circle in reasoning. Your idea that Kant's philosophy necessitates platonism, is a circular reasoning.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

That's pretty sad considering I never even attempted to get into the really deep stuff, just always talked about the basics. The basics are beyond everyone here.

You have no basics...you have assumptions you believe because they where repeated over and over again...as a matter of fact the knowledge is quite useless and unappreciated.

As a matter of fact, and I brought this up to veritas, if you had any clue you would see I am just using a cyclonic-vacuum type logic and no matter what you do or argue...it will be spun, atomized and put back together again in another form.

I create and destroy stuff without cause purpose, or even direction....so it would be best for your ego if you just left the forum....

No, actually no one is taking you seriously. You believe you use this cyclonic-vacuum type logic or whatever but you are just spinning in your own head, going in circles.

I dont know, some of the threads are in 1 to several thousand views....

You can't stop responding can you....I am literally pointing out I am sucking you into this conversation and you are just falling for it hook line and sinker...

ROFL!!!!

Sad Face for Atla...


Any how why Kant is wrong is simple:

A posteriori is an apriori concept, but this a prior concept can only be proved as a conect through a posteriori knowledge.

Both are just labels fundamentally, meant to divided how we perceive information failing to take into account both the mind and the sense assume reality through an empty state.

Holes and grooves for the empirical senses, no thought or emotion for intellect and intuition.

Void is the common medium as evidenced by the multiplicity of contexts.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not for long, the holographic universe theory mostly resulted from one of the biggest blunders in 20th century physics, having to do with not even wrong ideas about black holes and information. How such nonsense found its way into physics is an interesting topic in itself.

Right now the first direct studies about black holes are coming in, and they are of course refuting these ideas.

whose to know...the forms physics describes could be cognitive illusions...


So? You are simply misinterpreting everything here as Platonic shapes, in other words your entire 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions.
(Which is admittedly funny in small doses)

Is a point a platonic shape? What about a line?

Platos forms, and I do not agree with Plato on this, are not spatial.

You do understand kant's labels of apriori and a posteriori, are grounded in a circularity that is not only fallacious but necessitates platonism right? His own argument is a cycle of terms meant to avoid the simple fact his premises are assumed contexts...they are made up.

So apriori and posteriori did not exist until kant put a label on them? Or did they exist prior under other names, in which Kant was just recycling the same old thing along the linear continuum of time?

He is a label cutter....his philosophy is intricate paper snowflakes.

No, you simply confuse circular reasoning with a Platonic circle in reasoning. Your idea that Kant's philosophy necessitates platonism, is a circular reasoning.

Is it? If he is going in circles, and this reasoning only exists in circles, with the circle being a platonic archetype...then by default his reasoning is a variation of a platonic archetype through it's form and function.

[Atla]

You have no basics...you have assumptions you believe because they where repeated over and over again...as a matter of fact the knowledge is quite useless and unappreciated.

As a matter of fact, and I brought this up to veritas, if you had any clue you would see I am just using a cyclonic-vacuum type logic and no matter what you do or argue...it will be spun, atomized and put back together again in another form.

I create and destroy stuff without cause purpose, or even direction....so it would be best for your ego if you just left the forum....

No, actually no one is taking you seriously. You believe you use this cyclonic-vacuum type logic or whatever but you are just spinning in your own head, going in circles.

I dont know, some of the threads are in 1 to several thousand views....

You can't stop responding can you....I am literally pointing out I am sucking you into this conversation and you are just falling for it hook line and sinker...

ROFL!!!!

Sad Face for Atla...


Any how why Kant is wrong is simple:

A posteriori is an apriori concept, but this a prior concept can only be proved as a conect through a posteriori knowledge.

Both are just labels fundamentally, meant to divided how we perceive information failing to take into account both the mind and the sense assume reality through an empty state.

Holes and grooves for the empirical senses, no thought or emotion for intellect and intuition.

Void is the common medium as evidenced by the multiplicity of contexts.

Nah, you simply can't face the fact that your whole 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions. So you have to pretend that you have special power over others, or that people are interested in your threads.

[Atla]

No, you simply confuse circular reasoning with a Platonic circle in reasoning. Your idea that Kant's philosophy necessitates platonism, is a circular reasoning.

Is it? If he is going in circles, and this reasoning only exists in circles, with the circle being a platonic archetype...then by default his reasoning is a variation of a platonic archetype through it's form and function.

You are lost in circular reasoning. It could be because you can't tell the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, actually no one is taking you seriously. You believe you use this cyclonic-vacuum type logic or whatever but you are just spinning in your own head, going in circles.

I dont know, some of the threads are in 1 to several thousand views....

You can't stop responding can you....I am literally pointing out I am sucking you into this conversation and you are just falling for it hook line and sinker...

ROFL!!!!

Sad Face for Atla...


Any how why Kant is wrong is simple:

A posteriori is an apriori concept, but this a prior concept can only be proved as a conect through a posteriori knowledge.

Both are just labels fundamentally, meant to divided how we perceive information failing to take into account both the mind and the sense assume reality through an empty state.

Holes and grooves for the empirical senses, no thought or emotion for intellect and intuition.

Void is the common medium as evidenced by the multiplicity of contexts.

Nah, you simply can't face the fact that your whole 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions. So you have to pretend that you have special power over others, or that people are interested in your threads.

Define cognitive illusion without requiring an empty ungrounded assumption or using other cognitive illusions to justify your stance.

You dont get it...according to Kant his own argument is an illusion. It is a "Gravity Fallacy". Keep stacking assumptions on top of the old assumptions and eventually the old assumptions fragment into valueless statements.

His arguments are assumed only because of the mass of labels he applied, this mass of labels (only he really understands) is then interpreted

Mass is formless and acts as a mirror...he said so much that anything can be said about him. But this applies to all "great" philosophers as well.

It is a feed back loop...a mirror...people see so much information that at the end any interpretation is a reflection of there own state as a justification of themselves...it is a fucking loop.

We just go along and throw around names, like veritas, as some sort of self imposed fallacy and to gain false identities. ""Kant" said this, I agree with him therefore I am kin to him, thus his greatness is my own....blah, blank, blah, blah, blah, blah...."

"I am smart because I can repeat.... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah". They say this with out even know they these repeated "facts" are just loops. We deem intelligence based of its ability to assume a context and loop it by repeating.

Your identity is based off of a loop...and you have no choice about this....

Noone know anything because our foundations are empty. We assume experiences, internal and external, since birth and repeat these memories as some sort of loop to filter out pir experience of the world...but the truth of it is: that identity of repeated thoughts, emotions and actions has no foundation...it is a self referencing loop.

Kant just took one loop and turned it into another and we call this "genius" or "creativity".

[Eodnhoj7]

No, you simply confuse circular reasoning with a Platonic circle in reasoning. Your idea that Kant's philosophy necessitates platonism, is a circular reasoning.

Is it? If he is going in circles, and this reasoning only exists in circles, with the circle being a platonic archetype...then by default his reasoning is a variation of a platonic archetype through it's form and function.

You are lost in circular reasoning. It could be because you can't tell the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Can you tell the different between the abstract or concrete without using the abstract or concrete and being subject to another loop?

Loops exist abstractly.

They exist concretely.

The loops is the inherently universal omnipresent context.

[Atla]

I dont know, some of the threads are in 1 to several thousand views....

You can't stop responding can you....I am literally pointing out I am sucking you into this conversation and you are just falling for it hook line and sinker...

ROFL!!!!

Sad Face for Atla...


Any how why Kant is wrong is simple:

A posteriori is an apriori concept, but this a prior concept can only be proved as a conect through a posteriori knowledge.

Both are just labels fundamentally, meant to divided how we perceive information failing to take into account both the mind and the sense assume reality through an empty state.

Holes and grooves for the empirical senses, no thought or emotion for intellect and intuition.

Void is the common medium as evidenced by the multiplicity of contexts.

Nah, you simply can't face the fact that your whole 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions. So you have to pretend that you have special power over others, or that people are interested in your threads.

Define cognitive illusion without requiring an empty ungrounded assumption or using other cognitive illusions to justify your stance.

You dont get it...according to Kant his own argument is an illusion. It is a "Gravity Fallacy". Keep stacking assumptions on top of the old assumptions and eventually the old assumptions fragment into valueless statements.

His arguments are assumed only because of the mass of labels he applied, this mass of labels (only he really understands) is then interpreted

Mass is formless and acts as a mirror...he said so much that anything can be said about him. But this applies to all "great" philosophers as well.

It is a feed back loop...a mirror...people see so much information that at the end any interpretation is a reflection of there own state as a justification of themselves...it is a fucking loop.

We just go along and throw around names, like veritas, as some sort of self imposed fallacy and to gain false identities. ""Kant" said this, I agree with him therefore I am kin to him, thus his greatness is my own....blah, blank, blah, blah, blah, blah...."

"I am smart because I can repeat.... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah". They say this with out even know they these repeated "facts" are just loops. We deem intelligence based of its ability to assume a context and loop it by repeating.

Your identity is based off of a loop...and you have no choice about this....

Noone know anything because our foundations are empty. We assume experiences, internal and external, since birth and repeat these memories as some sort of loop to filter out pir experience of the world...but the truth of it is: that identity of repeated thoughts, emotions and actions has no foundation...it is a self referencing loop.

Kant just took one loop and turned it into another and we call this "genius" or "creativity".

I skipped this little rant if you don't mind, looks like just more spinning in your head

[Atla]

Is it? If he is going in circles, and this reasoning only exists in circles, with the circle being a platonic archetype...then by default his reasoning is a variation of a platonic archetype through it's form and function.

You are lost in circular reasoning. It could be because you can't tell the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Can you tell the different between the abstract or concrete without using the abstract or concrete and being subject to another loop?

Loops exist abstractly.

They exist concretely.

The loops is the inherently universal omnipresent context.

The loop is indeed the inherent universal structure, that's why I think that you're one of the very few people here who at least understood something.

Too bad that you dropped the ball after that, confusing abstracta, concreta, Platonic circles, physical circular shapes, circularities of thought and circularities of physical structure in a cyclonic mess. Too bad because you have some potential.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nah, you simply can't face the fact that your whole 'philosophy' is based on cognitive illusions. So you have to pretend that you have special power over others, or that people are interested in your threads.

Define cognitive illusion without requiring an empty ungrounded assumption or using other cognitive illusions to justify your stance.

You dont get it...according to Kant his own argument is an illusion. It is a "Gravity Fallacy". Keep stacking assumptions on top of the old assumptions and eventually the old assumptions fragment into valueless statements.

His arguments are assumed only because of the mass of labels he applied, this mass of labels (only he really understands) is then interpreted

Mass is formless and acts as a mirror...he said so much that anything can be said about him. But this applies to all "great" philosophers as well.

It is a feed back loop...a mirror...people see so much information that at the end any interpretation is a reflection of there own state as a justification of themselves...it is a fucking loop.

We just go along and throw around names, like veritas, as some sort of self imposed fallacy and to gain false identities. ""Kant" said this, I agree with him therefore I am kin to him, thus his greatness is my own....blah, blank, blah, blah, blah, blah...."

"I am smart because I can repeat.... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah". They say this with out even know they these repeated "facts" are just loops. We deem intelligence based of its ability to assume a context and loop it by repeating.

Your identity is based off of a loop...and you have no choice about this....

Noone know anything because our foundations are empty. We assume experiences, internal and external, since birth and repeat these memories as some sort of loop to filter out pir experience of the world...but the truth of it is: that identity of repeated thoughts, emotions and actions has no foundation...it is a self referencing loop.

Kant just took one loop and turned it into another and we call this "genius" or "creativity".

I skipped this little rant if you don't mind, looks like just more spinning in your head

Thanks for the repeated feedback and proving my point of circularity.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are lost in circular reasoning. It could be because you can't tell the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Can you tell the different between the abstract or concrete without using the abstract or concrete and being subject to another loop?

Loops exist abstractly.

They exist concretely.

The loops is the inherently universal omnipresent context.

The loop is indeed the inherent universal structure, that's why I think that you're one of the very few people here who at least understood something.

Too bad that you dropped the ball after that, confusing abstracta, concreta, Platonic circles, physical circular shapes, circularities of thought and circularities of physical structure in a cyclonic mess. Too bad because you have some potential.

If the loop is the universal structure, thus is omnipresent as context, you cannot define accurately any of the above contexts without localizing one context out of many and leading to a simultaneous obscurity.

This is considering all contexts are intrinsically empty and have form. The basic law of identity "P=P" observes P as form through repetition and circularity and "=" being empty of any value but assumption.

1. If all assumed reality is a circular context composed of and composing circular contexts, then all phenomena are intrinsically connected by its assumed and contextual nature. All loops begin with the assumption of assumptions as the "voiding of void".

2. A dog is context. The same occurs for the 5 being a context...as well as the sound of leaves falling. Each of these contexts are fundamentally connected as contexts and as contexts exist in reality.

3. Any set of contexts, no matter how percievably random, are connected as contexts thus we understand context as omnipresent and superseding, existing through, and proceeding Kants basic aprior and posteriori thus making Kant always right in some contexts, always wrong in others but fundamentally both right and wrong.

[Atla]

Can you tell the different between the abstract or concrete without using the abstract or concrete and being subject to another loop?

Loops exist abstractly.

They exist concretely.

The loops is the inherently universal omnipresent context.

The loop is indeed the inherent universal structure, that's why I think that you're one of the very few people here who at least understood something.

Too bad that you dropped the ball after that, confusing abstracta, concreta, Platonic circles, physical circular shapes, circularities of thought and circularities of physical structure in a cyclonic mess. Too bad because you have some potential.

If the loop is the universal structure, thus is omnipresent as context, you cannot define accurately any of the above contexts without localizing one context out of many and leading to a simultaneous obscurity.

This is considering all contexts are intrinsically empty and have form. The basic law of identity "P=P" observes P as form through repetition and circularity and "=" being empty of any value but assumption.

1. If all assumed reality is a circular context composed of and composing circular contexts, then all phenomena are intrinsically connected by its assumed and contextual nature. All loops begin with the assumption of assumptions as the "voiding of void".

2. A dog is context. The same occurs for the 5 being a context...as well as the sound of leaves falling. Each of these contexts are fundamentally connected as contexts and as contexts exist in reality.

3. Any set of contexts, no matter how percievably random, are connected as contexts thus we understand context as omnipresent and superseding, existing through, and proceeding Kants basic aprior and posteriori thus making Kant always right in some contexts, always wrong in others but fundamentally both right and wrong.

Contexts are abstract, not "real" in that sense. You are basing your 'philosophy' on such cognitive illusions.

And while the universe is probably inherently circular in nature, and therefore human thinking is also part of this circularity, we are only experiencing a little part of these universal loop, and that little part seems linear. Human thinking is also, for all practical pruposes, linear.

So trying to put circularities everywhere into human thinking, is a fallacy.

[Eodnhoj7]

The loop is indeed the inherent universal structure, that's why I think that you're one of the very few people here who at least understood something.

Too bad that you dropped the ball after that, confusing abstracta, concreta, Platonic circles, physical circular shapes, circularities of thought and circularities of physical structure in a cyclonic mess. Too bad because you have some potential.

If the loop is the universal structure, thus is omnipresent as context, you cannot define accurately any of the above contexts without localizing one context out of many and leading to a simultaneous obscurity.

This is considering all contexts are intrinsically empty and have form. The basic law of identity "P=P" observes P as form through repetition and circularity and "=" being empty of any value but assumption.

1. If all assumed reality is a circular context composed of and composing circular contexts, then all phenomena are intrinsically connected by its assumed and contextual nature. All loops begin with the assumption of assumptions as the "voiding of void".

2. A dog is context. The same occurs for the 5 being a context...as well as the sound of leaves falling. Each of these contexts are fundamentally connected as contexts and as contexts exist in reality.

3. Any set of contexts, no matter how percievably random, are connected as contexts thus we understand context as omnipresent and superseding, existing through, and proceeding Kants basic aprior and posteriori thus making Kant always right in some contexts, always wrong in others but fundamentally both right and wrong.

Contexts are abstract, not "real" in that sense. You are basing your 'philosophy' on such cognitive illusions.

And while the universe is probably inherently circular in nature, and therefore human thinking is also part of this circularity, we are only experiencing a little part of these universal loop, and that little part seems linear. Human thinking is also, for all practical pruposes, linear.

So trying to put circularities everywhere into human thinking, is a fallacy.

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.