David Quinn wrote:We can't jump outside our own neural net and experience what lies beyond. Not even Buddhas can do this.
A fully conscious being is simply one who is fully conscious of reality, which includes the reality that his own consciousness is necessarily limited when it comes to being aware of all the little details in the world.
Carmel wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that when you say things like this all you're really doing is revealing yourself as a fraud, though it wouldn't be first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.
As for demonstrating some "deep sounding" examples of absolute truth, I'm still waiting on those...but, frankly I think I'd prefer to read David's thoughts on the matter as he seems to possess a far greater grasp on the matter, but thanks for your time nonetheless :)
Carmel wrote:I have no interest in discussing any of this with you, based on your responses to David, it's clear to me that you have little understanding of the philosophies here, you haven't gone beyond rudimentary logic. i.e. 1+1=2, a circle can't be a square.
Dennis Mahar wrote:Laird,Too much for you to accept the reality that Kevin is talking about biological women, huh coach?
It's not that simple Laird.
In the World of Laird there appears to be something at stake for Laird in relation to Kevin's position.
This 'at stakeness' holds a certain irritability and discontent.
If you could open up about that then we can get access beyond this gestalt of 'holding a gun at someone's head' which has us stuck.
jupiviv wrote:It's telling that you think you are qualified to judge me when you are doing the exact same things you are accusing me of doing. But I will concede that David Quinn shows more integrity in his "actions" than I do.
He may not be able to perceive the "little details", as you say, with his senses. But through logic, it is possible to be aware of the fact that the "I" exists and everything that is not the "I" also exists.
m4tt_666 wrote:you cannot prove beyond doubt consciousness arises only when there is a 'brain' to create it. you cannot deny the fact that our consciousness may be a separate being from our complete physical makeup.
David Quinn wrote:Jupiviv is right, actually. Absolute knowledge is indeed defined to be knowledge that is necessarily true in all times and places. It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people. It is a form of knowledge that cannot be falsified under any circumstances whatsoever.
Carmel wrote:No, all definitions are not absolute, universal truths.
When you work out this is not about me
but about your fear and reluctance to publicly recognise the gross bias and falsity in the collated quotes on women, then get back to me. Until then...
Carmel wrote:Questions regarding valid definitions inevitably arise along the way when we attempt to turn the philosophic absolute truth of A=A into an "absolute truth" of Ultimate Reality, The Totality, infinity etc.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 4 guests