Confirmation bias.

[Age]

I see. Descartes was a very brilliant mind insofar as humans can be ... brilliant. Man does not judge the crocodillian does not judge the rose.

What is a mind?

Good question but has been done to death.

So, what was/IS the answer?

Do you KNOW?

[Agent Smith]

What is a mind?

Good question but has been done to death.

So, what was/IS the answer?

Do you KNOW?

Advaita i.e. no two!

[Age]

Good question but has been done to death.

So, what was/IS the answer?

Do you KNOW?

Advaita i.e. no two!

So, to 'you', "descartes" was a very brilliant mind, or brilliant one, of which there was absolutely NO 'other', correct?

[Agent Smith]

So, what was/IS the answer?

Do you KNOW?

Advaita i.e. no two!

So, to 'you', "descartes" was a very brilliant mind, or brilliant one, of which there was absolutely NO 'other', correct?

I can only see what I can see mon ami

[Age]

Advaita i.e. no two!

So, to 'you', "descartes" was a very brilliant mind, or brilliant one, of which there was absolutely NO 'other', correct?

I can only see what I can see mon ami

OBVIOUSLY, and goes WITHOUT SAYING, but you are NOT answering the ACTUAL question that I am asking you.

[Agent Smith]

So, to 'you', "descartes" was a very brilliant mind, or brilliant one, of which there was absolutely NO 'other', correct?

I can only see what I can see mon ami

OBVIOUSLY, and goes WITHOUT SAYING, but you are NOT answering the ACTUAL question that I am asking you.

Your question must be/hasta be about confirmation bias. I've replied to that already, as in we must cease diggin' deeper, assuming the analogy is apt. As for Descartes, if you're askin' that is, he's, for me, a great thinker although he would've, ex mea (humble) sententia, outdone himself if he'd grown up in Tibet.

[Age]

I can only see what I can see mon ami

OBVIOUSLY, and goes WITHOUT SAYING, but you are NOT answering the ACTUAL question that I am asking you.

Your question must be/hasta be about confirmation bias.

Do your questions, statements, or claims must be/have to be about confirmation bias ALSO, or just mine here?

I've replied to that already, as in we must cease diggin' deeper, assuming the analogy is apt.

You have replied to what, EXACTLY?

Also, why MUST you cease digging deeper?

And, I suggest NOT assuming ANY thing here.

As for Descartes, if you're askin' that is, he's, for me, a great thinker although he would've, ex mea (humble) sententia, outdone himself if he'd grown up in Tibet.

Just to make it absolutely CLEAR, I was NOT asking absolutely ANY thing like this.

[Agent Smith]

OBVIOUSLY, and goes WITHOUT SAYING, but you are NOT answering the ACTUAL question that I am asking you.

Your question must be/hasta be about confirmation bias.

Do your questions, statements, or claims must be/have to be about confirmation bias ALSO, or just mine here?

I've replied to that already, as in we must cease diggin' deeper, assuming the analogy is apt.

You have replied to what, EXACTLY?

Also, why MUST you cease digging deeper?

And, I suggest NOT assuming ANY thing here.

As for Descartes, if you're askin' that is, he's, for me, a great thinker although he would've, ex mea (humble) sententia, outdone himself if he'd grown up in Tibet.

Just to make it absolutely CLEAR, I was NOT asking absolutely ANY thing like this.

It seems I lost track of our discussion. Anyway, it all began with me saying truth is elusive, you questioning that and, as is part and parcel of the domain, you asking a tough one so to speak. Should we, the pressing concern is, waste each other's time? I have very little of it left if you catch me drift. Furthermore, you give me the impression of an intelligent person - why wrack your head over trivialities? It's most unfortunate/fortunate (I can't tell) that the media doesn't headline philosophical breakthroughs.

[Age]

Your question must be/hasta be about confirmation bias.

Do your questions, statements, or claims must be/have to be about confirmation bias ALSO, or just mine here?

I've replied to that already, as in we must cease diggin' deeper, assuming the analogy is apt.

You have replied to what, EXACTLY?

Also, why MUST you cease digging deeper?

And, I suggest NOT assuming ANY thing here.

As for Descartes, if you're askin' that is, he's, for me, a great thinker although he would've, ex mea (humble) sententia, outdone himself if he'd grown up in Tibet.

Just to make it absolutely CLEAR, I was NOT asking absolutely ANY thing like this.

It seems I lost track of our discussion.

That is fine. It is a VERY common practice here.

Anyway, it all began with me saying truth is elusive, you questioning that and, as is part and parcel of the domain, you asking a tough one so to speak

.

What might be 'tough', to you, is VERY EASY, to me.

Should we, the pressing concern is, waste each other's time?

Look, if some one wants to come here to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then I suggest that they be ABLE TO back up and support their CLAIM BEFORE they even begin to make the CLAIM in the beginning.

You made a CLAIM, which the Truth of, well to me anyway, IS OBVIOUS. That is; when LOOKED AT, and INTO, FULLY, Honestly, and OPENLY.

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to YOUR CLAIM.

We are just WAITING for YOUR ANSWER.

By the way, NONE of this is wasting MY 'time' AT ALL. The longer and more that you DEFLECT is just REVEALING MORE of the ACTUAL Truth, which I have been CLAIMING, SHOWING, and POINTING OUT here, in this forum.

I have very little of it left if you catch me drift.

I suggest you just CLEARLY SAY, and STATE, what you ACTUALLY MEAN, INSTEAD.

ALSO, and by the way, if you ACTUALLY MEAN what you SAY, and STATE, then this will be MUCH BETER for EVERY one involved here

Furthermore, you give me the impression of an intelligent person - why wrack your head over trivialities?

1. Impressions can be VERY DECEIVING.

2. What are 'trivialities' to some are NOT necessarily 'trivialities' to some.

It's most unfortunate/fortunate (I can't tell) that the media doesn't headline philosophical breakthroughs.

Will you list any of these so-called 'philisophical breakthroughs', which 'you' are thinking of here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Agent Smith]

Do your questions, statements, or claims must be/have to be about confirmation bias ALSO, or just mine here?



You have replied to what, EXACTLY?

Also, why MUST you cease digging deeper?

And, I suggest NOT assuming ANY thing here.



Just to make it absolutely CLEAR, I was NOT asking absolutely ANY thing like this.

It seems I lost track of our discussion.

That is fine. It is a VERY common practice here.

Anyway, it all began with me saying truth is elusive, you questioning that and, as is part and parcel of the domain, you asking a tough one so to speak

.

What might be 'tough', to you, is VERY EASY, to me.

Should we, the pressing concern is, waste each other's time?

Look, if some one wants to come here to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then I suggest that they be ABLE TO back up and support their CLAIM BEFORE they even begin to make the CLAIM in the beginning.

You made a CLAIM, which the Truth of, well to me anyway, IS OBVIOUS. That is; when LOOKED AT, and INTO, FULLY, Honestly, and OPENLY.

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to YOUR CLAIM.

We are just WAITING for YOUR ANSWER.

By the way, NONE of this is wasting MY 'time' AT ALL. The longer and more that you DEFLECT is just REVEALING MORE of the ACTUAL Truth, which I have been CLAIMING, SHOWING, and POINTING OUT here, in this forum.

I have very little of it left if you catch me drift.

I suggest you just CLEARLY SAY, and STATE, what you ACTUALLY MEAN, INSTEAD.

ALSO, and by the way, if you ACTUALLY MEAN what you SAY, and STATE, then this will be MUCH BETER for EVERY one involved here

Furthermore, you give me the impression of an intelligent person - why wrack your head over trivialities?

1. Impressions can be VERY DECEIVING.

2. What are 'trivialities' to some are NOT necessarily 'trivialities' to some.

It's most unfortunate/fortunate (I can't tell) that the media doesn't headline philosophical breakthroughs.

Will you list any of these so-called 'philisophical breakthroughs', which 'you' are thinking of here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It doesn't matter what transpires between us since as I said the horse is dead, the flogging of it is not going to do anything.

Asking why (truth is elusive)? is philosophical, true, but where is philosophy? The brilliance of its superstars fails to penetrate the great darkness. (Keep) look(ing) up ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson. What do you see?

Que sais-je?

[Age]

It seems I lost track of our discussion.

That is fine. It is a VERY common practice here.

Anyway, it all began with me saying truth is elusive, you questioning that and, as is part and parcel of the domain, you asking a tough one so to speak

.

What might be 'tough', to you, is VERY EASY, to me.

Should we, the pressing concern is, waste each other's time?

Look, if some one wants to come here to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then I suggest that they be ABLE TO back up and support their CLAIM BEFORE they even begin to make the CLAIM in the beginning.

You made a CLAIM, which the Truth of, well to me anyway, IS OBVIOUS. That is; when LOOKED AT, and INTO, FULLY, Honestly, and OPENLY.

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to YOUR CLAIM.

We are just WAITING for YOUR ANSWER.

By the way, NONE of this is wasting MY 'time' AT ALL. The longer and more that you DEFLECT is just REVEALING MORE of the ACTUAL Truth, which I have been CLAIMING, SHOWING, and POINTING OUT here, in this forum.

I have very little of it left if you catch me drift.

I suggest you just CLEARLY SAY, and STATE, what you ACTUALLY MEAN, INSTEAD.

ALSO, and by the way, if you ACTUALLY MEAN what you SAY, and STATE, then this will be MUCH BETER for EVERY one involved here

Furthermore, you give me the impression of an intelligent person - why wrack your head over trivialities?

1. Impressions can be VERY DECEIVING.

2. What are 'trivialities' to some are NOT necessarily 'trivialities' to some.

It's most unfortunate/fortunate (I can't tell) that the media doesn't headline philosophical breakthroughs.

Will you list any of these so-called 'philisophical breakthroughs', which 'you' are thinking of here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It doesn't matter what transpires between us since as I said the horse is dead, the flogging of it is not going to do anything.

What 'horse' are you talking about, and, when did 'it' die?

Also, I never recall saying what transpires between us did matter.

Also, HOW could the 'horse' be, supposedly, dead, if the asking of the question, 'Why (truth is elusive?)' is STILL OCCURRING?

If you PRESUME this question has ALREADY been ANSWERED, and thus 'the horse is dead', then are you SURE.

Asking why (truth is elusive)?

But 'truth' is NOT elusive, well NOT to ALL of us anyway.

is philosophical, true, but where is philosophy?

Where 'it' has ALWAYS BEEN and ALWAYS EXISTS.

The brilliance of its superstars fails to penetrate the great darkness. (Keep) look(ing) up ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson. What do you see?

Que sais-je?

you have a habit of DEFLECTING here, but anyway, there is ONLY one 'thing' I KNOW, and CAN KNOW, for sure.

[Agent Smith]

"Good morning ma'am. How may I help?" [friendly tone]

"Hi, this is Julie. I'm calling to register my dog with your hospital."

"Hold please. Aah! Ms. Julie, we have you on our list. Un momento ... thank you for your patience ma'am. What's your dog's name, breed, age, sex, ...?"

"My dog's name is Mr. Zim, Tuffy, Bingo, ..."

"Excuse me ma'am but according to the information you gave us you wanted to register a dog."

"Yes, a dog, Mr. Zim, Tuffy, Bingo, Fatman, ..."

"Those are like aliases ma'am?"

"No, not really, no."

"So you have dogggssszzzz?"

"No, I have a dog, Mr. Zim, Tuffy, Bingo, Fatman, Tim, and, last but not the least, Ms. Gwen."

"Ma'am, apologies, but I don't understand."

"Sigh, not you too! Nobody understands me"

Click.