GENIUS FORUMS

I think we've got to the stage now where I can attempt to explain my initial point again. Here's a good place to start: The hidden void is a logical consequence of affirming the existence of consciousness and its role in generating existence. So to the degree that one makes that affirmation, the hid...

Does that mean that consciousness and appearances are dependent upon one another? That is, appearances only exist when there is consciousness, and consciousness only exists when there are appearances?

For many of us here he's not going to be exposing any great new truths or problems with society and religion etc, but compared to most stand-up comedians he's pretty good:

Having interesting thoughts? Don't worry...

On Jews.

Your tits are illegal.

Shahrazad wrote:Jason,

It would have to create turmoil because I'm saying things that are true, but nobody else has had the guts to say.

That's good. I thought you might have been after controversy and turmoil for their own sake.

Shahrazad wrote:

Jason wrote:Why would you want your book to create turmoil?

I guess I have always liked to go up-river. I hate the fact that people accept old paradigms without even questioning them.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Would you be happy for it to just create turmoil, no matter its contents?

Because, logically, consciousness cannot be seperated from existence. So when one reasons about existence as a whole, one immediately has to take consciousness into account. Mustn't you also take into account appearances and the hidden void also, given this line of reasoning? Yes. The hidden void i...

How do you prove that !(A & !A) -- the non-contradiction axiom, one of the core axioms of boolean and predicate logic? Or how about the excluded middle axiom -- A | !A? Tell me, Victor, how do you prove those? You don't. So how do you personally categorize them? Are they true/truth? Are they kn...

Dan Rowden wrote:I was turning the attachment people have to that acronym on its head; yes, just for the laugh.

Is anyone actually attached to that acronym? I think it more likely that you are deluding yourself of its importance to people because of your apparently strong dislike of the term.

guest, Jason does mind. He doesn't like it. Sheesh, speaking for another person. (I trust you don't mind me reinforcing what you said, Jason.) Don't worry Carl, sometime, somewhere, when you least expect it, I'll waste yet another 65000 milliseconds of your life. You won't even see it coming! Muwah...

Guest it was no big deal. It looks like that part of your post was meant to be humorous too which further diminishes my displeasure. Reading your post, I imagined that perhaps we were in a street gang(a philosophical street gang!), and you were the gangleader(I didn't say this was a believable tale)...

Shahrazad wrote:I admit I envy her. I would give all my possessions to be able to write a book that would cause that much turmoil. Heck, even 10% of that much turmoil.

Why would you want your book to create turmoil?

guest_of_logic wrote:(I hope you don't mind me speaking for you there, Jason. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I do mind. I don't like it.

Here's a preview: Google Books: The Manipulated Man

Not true, you could always play the clip again.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If sex-drive were still essential to our survival, there would not be any fertility clinics. I get the impression that for an overwhelming majority of couples trying to conceive despite fertility problems, sex becomes a chore.

Infertility is not the same thing as lack of sex-drive.

But is the scientific method and its predictions justified? How do you prove that !(A & !A) -- the non-contradiction axiom, one of the core axioms of boolean and predicate logic? Or how about the excluded middle axiom -- A | !A? Tell me, Victor, how do you prove those? What if claims of knowled...

Jason, These people, who you observed, had doubts about their ability to seduce and sleep with you, but they weren't content to live with these doubts. It makes perfect sense. ;) That's not what I meant at all. I haven't played the seduction game in a very long time. But that was a cool way to look...

David Quinn: And the shortest, easiest way to be content with this is to push the doubts into the background. Shahrazad: Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone. Jason: How did you ...

Yes, it could (this is Hume's induction problem). it could -- except for one tiny caveat. Faith is belief without justification. But is the scientific method and its predictions justified? What is valid justification? I'm sure plenty of fundamentalist Christians believe that their faith is entirely...

Shahrazad wrote:Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone.

How did you come to the conclusion that they had high levels of testosterone? Do you just mean that they're male?

Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful...

When does it suit you? When I'm reasoning about certain aspects of the nature of existence. At other times, it doesn't suit me. For example, when I reason about cause and effect and treat the world as an objective entity. In this instance, consciousness becomes just another limited phenomenon among...

David Quinn wrote:When it suits me.

When does it suit you? And for what reasons does it suit you?

Let me put it this way: Given that the Totality is utterly everything by definition, if the "hidden void" and the "entire collection of appearances" are conceived in such a way that together they embrace utterly everything there is, then yes, they would constitute the whole of t...