Philosophical discussion

[Age]

Who knows all the above answers ?

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words, and the answer is 'i' did, an individual human being, through a human body.

Or, how are the answers known?

How those 'answers' are known is by 'you' reading them here.

Once you read what those words usually mean or refer to, to 'me', then that is how 'you' 'know' the answers that 'I' have provided here.

So have the meaningful answers come from a ( me ) and an ( I ) both as underlined ?

What brought the 'meaningful' word into this now, and why?

Those answers came from 'me', and if those answers can be agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, then they align with 'I'. So, the answer is 'Yes'.

Do the meaningful answers to the questions belong to a ( me ) and are then provided to a ( you ) by ( I ) ?

Where did this 'meaningful' conception come from, EXACTLY? And, WHY was 'it' added into this discussion?

The answers, to the questions, obviously come from 'me', so, as you put those answers 'belong' to 'me'.

'I' KNOW that those answers could be agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, so that is WHY it is written above that 'I' provided those answers here.

It could be said that those answers were provided to 'me' (or a 'you') by thee 'I'. But 'we' would have to delve deeper into working out that 'we' are both using thee 'I' word the same way.

The 'me' word usually just means or refers to the 'one' speaking/writing.

The 'you' word usually just means or refers to an "other", from the 'one' speaking/writing.

The 'I' word usually just means or refers to EVERY one as One.

But do NOT forget 'you' are absolutely FREE to use ANY word ANY way 'you' like.

The above is just from 'my' or from 'My' perspective, ONLY.

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words, and the answer is 'i' did, an individual human being, through a human body.

If it's not about the WHO....then why mention the word who as underlined.

BUT it IS about the WHO. I just SAID that in the quoted sentence above the one you just wrote here.

I SAID it is NOT about WHO 'knows' those definitions, it is about WHO 'gave' those definitions. So, VERY CLEARLY, I did SAY and state it IS about (the) WHO.

What do you think may have CAUSED 'you' to ASSUME that I was saying that it is NOT about (the) WHO?

It seems the ( i ) is also the ( who ) is that correct?
[/quote]

That would all depend on which 'who' 'you' are referring to here, EXACTLY?

[Dontaskme]

Age: The 'horror' is ONLY EVER ONLY caused OR created by an adult human being.

If, for example, if a child is struck by lightening, then this is NOT 'a horror' that happened to a child. This is just a NATURAL part of Life, and living.

The ONLY REAL 'horror' is in the thought that the parents has when they REALIZE, 'I could have done some thing to PREVENT what happened to my child'.

Wrong, no parent could have pre-prevented the lightning striking their child, that would have been a random unpreventable event.
Random events are unpredictable and unpreventable. Bringing a child into an unpreventable and unpredictable world of horror is preventable, simply because we know HORROR via it's conceptual understanding unique to the human brain.

Also, it is known that natural tragedy can strike and cause great harm and suffering to any sentient creature, so every time we choose to have a child, we are knowingly imposing the dangers of being alive onto another human being. Seems to me, that's ok and perfectly acceptable thing to do, since people are still having children, knowing they have a chance of being seriously injured or even struck down with one of the myriad of natural debilitating genetic diseases that nature has up it's sleeve, cancer being the most common. Then there is the ravages of old age and all the problems that brings having to look after ourselves when our bodies are failing. Then there's all the waste we generate because of the sheer high maintenance that is required in the form of material objects needed for each human life. It seems we are ok to keep playing the game of life, even though we know we do not have to play it, by not inviting new players to the table. So all I'm saying is that most people believe that what ever happens to us while we are alive is worth every second of it. And that's why people are still having children, because they think being alive is worth it. I personally just happen to think it's not worth it. Even though I have already done it myself, which I now regret deeply, not that I do not like my children, but because of what I have selfishly imposed upon them, when I already KNEW I could have prevented their lives.

Age:

'you', "dontaskme", have just turned this REALIZATION into the ABSOLUTE EXTREME NOTION of TELLING EVERY human being to NEVER have children EVER AGAIN.

NO, I have never once told every human being not to have children, I have only made a suggestion as to why I personally think it's a bad idea. So for you to say my realisation that life for sentience is a bad idea, is the same as TELLING EVERY human being to never have children is a LIE

Age:
This type of 'distorted thinking' is sometimes referred as 'black and white thinking'.

No it's not distorted, except as you believe it to be distorted, as for me, I think it's a very intelligent way of thinking, not distorted at all.

So all you've done is project your own thought belief that my idea of sentience life is bad, is a distorted thought, when that is not how I see it, I see it the complete opposite, in that I think it's a very intelligent thought.

Age:
In other words, do NOT LOOK AT and THINK about what CAUSES 'pain' in sentient, 'pain feeling', life forms, and STOP or PREVENT that CAUSE, let us INSTEAD just STOP ALL sentient life forms from being CREATED EVER AGAIN.

You speak as though all Causes are already KNOWN...if we just think about them....so it seems all we have to do is think about the causes and prevent those causes...but then has that ever happened yet, has pain and suffering from natural and man-made causes of pain and suffering ever been prevented from happening yet, no, they haven't. And why is that then, I'll tell you why it's because we keep the misery going on and on by breeding it into existence over and over and over again. It seems we do not care about causes as long as we fulfil our addictions to the effects of those causes. Therefore, all our human despair and misery and bellyaching about cruelty and abuse is totally and utterly 100% self-inflicted, we do it to ourselves. It never seems to occur that we are the cause, because we are addicted to the effects.

Hopefully, WHY this 'intelligent thinking' does NOT NEED to be EXPLAINED.

[Dontaskme]

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words, and the answer is 'i' did, an individual human being, through a human body.

So here, you are saying the 'who' is the giver of the definitions, to which you have claimed the answer is ('i' ) is the giver of definition...and then you go on to claim this giver ( 'i' ) of definition as being exclusively [known] through some other concept known as a 'human being'...so all you have stated here, is that there are now ''two'' known concepts in play, namely, the first one is the giver of definition, you claim as 'i' and then the second one is the 'human being' and that it is through the 'human being' that the giver of definition you claim as 'i'
is known ....is that correct?

If that is correct, then where does the 'i' that gives definition to knowledge get it's knowledge from? that you then claim is known through a human being which is just more knowledge, ie: concept...please explain as you have already claimed is possible and easy to do, how a concept knows it is a concept?




.

[Age]

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words, and the answer is 'i' did, an individual human being, through a human body.

So here, you are saying the 'who' is the giver of the definitions, to which you have claimed the answer is ('i' ) is the giver of definition...

That is 'i', from this body, and NOT from ANY "other" body. If this is understood, then yes that is what 'i' claimed

and then you go on to claim this giver ( 'i' ) of definition as being exclusively [known] through some other concept known as a 'human being'...

I do NOT recall doing ANY such thing.

Will you guide us to where I have, supposedly, CLAIMED that this 'i' being "exclusively [known] through some other concept known as a 'human being'?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

So all you have stated here, is that there are now ''two'' known concepts in play, namely, the first one is the giver of definition, you claim as 'i' and then the second one is the 'human being' and that it is through the 'human being' that the giver of definition you claim as 'i'
is known ....is that correct?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

If that is correct, then where does the 'i' that gives definition to knowledge get it's knowledge from?

Besides that is NOT correct, there was NEVER ANY mention of ANY 'i' that gives definition to 'knowledge'.

This 'your' OWN ADDED word here.

And, WHERE EVERY 'i' gets its knowledge or information is from the past experiences of the body, which each individual 'i' is in.

that you then claim is known through a human being which is just more knowledge, ie: concept...please explain as you have already claimed is possible and easy to do, how a concept knows it is a concept?
.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER remove the idea that there are ONLY 'concepts', and START to REALIZE that there ARE 'concepts' AND there are ACTUAL 'things', like for example, human beings.

WHEN 'you' REALIZE this Fact, then 'you' also might START to realize that 'concepts', themselves, can NOT know 'things', but 'things' like human beings can, actually, KNOW 'things'.

WHEN 'you' STOP TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' then thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' become SEEN, as well as KNOWN, and VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY it can be added.

[Walker]

WHY do you ASSUME that there is or has been ANY 'pithy-message method' AT ALL?

What, by the way, is 'pithy-message method', to you, EXACTLY?

will you provide ANY examples?

And, have you ever considered just asking me ANY CLARIFYING questions about the method or way I write BEFORE ASSUMING ANY thing at all?

It could be a message from the great beyond that your gut is interfering with transmission when it naturally rests on the keyboard when you stand up, and lean. (That answers the first three.)

Could it be a message from the great beyond that your gut is interfering with transmission when it naturally rests on the keyboard when you stand up? (That answers the first three, and clarifies the fourth.)

Age, if you had to write all your questions in blood, you would need a daily transfusion.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True you did NOT answer ANY of the ACTUAL questions I asked you here. And, just as CLEARLY OBVIOUS is you did NOT CLARIFY ANY thing here.

So what? For the third.

If you wrote ACTUAL answers to my ANY of questions in blood, then you would NOT being using ANY. But again, so what?

I can offer only my questions (my needs), plus you are obligated, equals ...
The guy with a freehand cardboard sign at the intersection asking for free money, but not in exchange for anything.

[Dontaskme]

WHEN 'you' STOP TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' then thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' become SEEN, as well as KNOWN, and VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY it can be added.

But I thought you'd already claimed to know how the mind works... So you'll already know that any twisting and distorting of things, is what the mind does, else you would not be able to conceive of the idea, that you clearly have, since it is written by yours truly in above statement.

By the way, nothing can be added to infinity, just to remind you. unless you believe you are outside of infinity, adding more to it, as if you were applying more paint to the canvas.

[Dontaskme]

and then you go on to claim this giver ( 'i' ) of definition as being exclusively [known] through some other concept known as a 'human being'...

I do NOT recall doing ANY such thing.

Will you guide us to where I have, supposedly, CLAIMED that this 'i' being "exclusively [known] through some other concept known as a 'human being'?

Here you go, just to remind you what you have forgotten to remember...

January 6 - 12:30pm

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words, and the answer is 'i' did, an individual human being, through a human body.

You really are one of the best philosopher's I've ever had the pleasure to encounter. Buddha say, if you encounter the Buddha, kill it.

Have you died yet Age.

[Dontaskme]

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words.

BUT it IS about the WHO. I just SAID that in the quoted sentence above the one you just wrote here.

I SAID it is NOT about WHO 'knows' those definitions, it is about WHO 'gave' those definitions. So, VERY CLEARLY, I did SAY and state it IS about (the) WHO.

So now you are saying it's not about WHO - but it is about WHO


Surely the giver of the definitions is the same as the knower of the definitions received?

If you are going to claim you are a giver..then as a giver you would have to know what it is you are giving, else how would you expect another, in this case a receiver to know if you as a giver do not know what you are giving?

So obviously the who would be both the giver and receiver of it's own knowing. Which you go on to claim is 'i'

So again, this 'i' is just a concept known, but what I am putting to you is, who is the knower of the concept 'i' ? and can that ''who'' be known?



.

[Dontaskme]

( human being ) usually means or refers to the human body, and the being within that body.

Is the assertion that there is a ''being'' within/inside a body... an absolute known fact that can be shown as actual factual evidence in the form of an object that can be seen? ...or is the assertion just a belief?




.

[Dontaskme]

How to silence a philosophical disscusion thread.

Just ask for evidence of the claim there is a ''knower of knowledge'' so that that this 'knower' can be seen with the physical eyes as an actual object.

To claim 'knowing' can be known, is a presumptuous belief...without backing up that claim with actual literal real evidence.

Your welcome.

[Age]

WHEN 'you' STOP TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' then thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' become SEEN, as well as KNOWN, and VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY it can be added.

But I thought you'd already claimed to know how the mind works...

WHY would you only 'think' this?

I HAVE ALREADY CLAIMED to KNOW how thee Mind works. This can be CLEARLY SEEN in my writings here, in this forum. So, what was 'thought' here is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So you'll already know that any twisting and distorting of things, is what the mind does, else you would not be able to conceive of the idea, that you clearly have, since it is written by yours truly in above statement.

OBVIOUSLY, and VERY CLEARLY, you STILL have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS.

This can be, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLE PROVED True by just asking you, 'What does the word 'mind' refer to, EXACTLY?', and SEE what your response IS, EXACTLY.

By the way, nothing can be added to infinity, just to remind you.

I do NOT recall adding ANY thing to 'infinity', itself.

If you think or BELIEVE I did, then just SHOW us WHERE, EXACTLY. Then we will have a LOOK AT 'it', and DISCUSS.

unless you believe you are outside of infinity, adding more to it, as if you were applying more paint to the canvas.

Considering I do NOT believe ANY such thing, your ASSUMPTION here is just plain old Wrong, ONCE MORE.

[Age]

It is NOT about who 'knows' those definitions, it is about who gave those definitions for those words.

BUT it IS about the WHO. I just SAID that in the quoted sentence above the one you just wrote here.

I SAID it is NOT about WHO 'knows' those definitions, it is about WHO 'gave' those definitions. So, VERY CLEARLY, I did SAY and state it IS about (the) WHO.

So now you are saying it's not about WHO - but it is about WHO

I wonder how much of what I ACTUALLY WRITE, you ACTUALLY READ, and ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND?

The 'who' word was NEVER in question here. But, the words 'know' AND 'gave' WERE, in question here.

It MUST BE the way I WRITE, and/or EMPHASIZE, words that puts 'you' OFF, correct?

Surely the giver of the definitions is the same as the knower of the definitions received?

NOT when the 'giver' is say the one known as "dontaskme" here, and, the 'knower' of the definitions received (or the 'receiver') is say the one known as "age" here, in this forum.

BUT, as I have ALREADY STATED this was NOT about who 'knows' (those definitions) but about who 'gave' (those definitions).

If you are going to claim you are a giver..then as a giver you would have to know what it is you are giving,

OF COURSE, and this has NEVER been in dispute here.

else how would you expect another, in this case a receiver to know if you as a giver do not know what you are giving?

Moot.

So obviously the who would be both the giver and receiver of it's own knowing. Which you go on to claim is 'i'

'you' could NOT be MORE Incorrect.

But, here is ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY to just LOOK AT how much ASSUMING 'things' BEFORE gaining ACTUAL CLARITY leads people COMPLETELY ASTRAY.

So again, this 'i' is just a concept known, but what I am putting to you is, who is the knower of the concept 'i' ?

The same one who is the knower of ALL concepts, including the concept of 'i' and of 'I'.

That one is 'you', human beings.

So, just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, human beings are the ones who are the knowers of concepts.

and can that ''who'' be known?

.

Yes, as just SHOWN, and PROVED.

[Age]

( human being ) usually means or refers to the human body, and the being within that body.

Is the assertion that there is a ''being'' within/inside a body... an absolute known fact that can be shown as actual factual evidence in the form of an object that can be seen? ...or is the assertion just a belief?




.

Are there any OTHER choices? Or, to you, if some 'thing' can NOT be 'seen' with the physical eyes, then this ABSOLUTELY MEANS that that 'thing' does NOT and could NOT EVER exist?

Now, that there is a 'being' within/inside human bodies is an absolute, and irrefutable, ALREADY KNOWN Fact.

This Fact is able to be SHOWN. However, as I have been continually POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, there is absolutely NOTHING, in the whole Universe, that can 'SHOW' while someone BELIEVES otherwise.

For example, if someone BELIEVES 'God' exists, then there is absolutely NOTHING that can be SHOWN to that one, which will SHOW otherwise. The EXACT SAME phenomena happens if someone BELIEVES 'God' does NOT exist, then there is ALSO absolutely NOTHING that can be SHOWN to that one, which will SHOW otherwise.

And, while 'you' BELIEVE that if some 'thing' can NOT be seen with the physical eyes, then that 'thing' can NOT exist, there will REMAIN absolutely NOTHING that can be SHOWN, to you, which will SHOW otherwise.

[Age]

How to silence a philosophical disscusion thread.

Just ask for evidence of the claim there is a ''knower of knowledge'' so that that this 'knower' can be seen with the physical eyes as an actual object.

This will NOT 'silence a philosophical discussion' thread AT ALL.

Are you STILL under the DELUSION that if some 'thing' can NOT be seen with the physical eyes, then that 'thing' can NOT be an actual object?

If yes, then just let us KNOW. So, then thee ACTUAL Truth can be POINTED OUT, SHOWN, and SEEN.

To claim 'knowing' can be known, is a presumptuous belief...

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE absolutely true, to you, correct?

without backing up that claim with actual literal real evidence.

Your welcome.

What was the ACTUAL CLAIM you are referring to here, EXACTLY.

There seems to be absolutely NOTHING that I have CLAIMED, so far.

[Dontaskme]

There seems to be absolutely NOTHING that I have CLAIMED, so far.

There is no ''Claimer''