It's the "chicken or the egg" all over again.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

"We're" not stuck on anything since you're obviously too good to be a part of this debate... despite your somewhat frequent posts in this thread.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

DHD is only defending a position, even if it's not hers.
It's like when I defended Christianity.

Ah, I see, thank you.

Again, my apologies DHD. I did not intend to make any accusations (I loathe that word, I would make a terrible prosecutor). Fortunately, Jillian understands my limited computational ability and translated for me.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Oh, don't start with the humility thing, because I want to be you.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Why are we stuck on that stupid statement? Damn quasi-nihilism.

Holy arbitrary statements, Batman!

Oh suck a nut, this stuff is just a time waster. You know you're not going to find divine enlightenment on some fucking fora. Don't kid yourself with this intellectual autofellatio, it's a worthless and gaudy display of esotericism.

Who gives a shit? Really? I love philosophy too, but it's nonsense and runs around itself.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

So what if it's a time waster? I'm at work, and it's occupying my mind so that I don't have to concentrate on the assholes I deal with as part of my job in customer service.

Occupy yourself with something that can lead to knowledge.

Let me ask you something, did they build the empire state building from the top down or the bottom up?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

I thought it was from the inside out.

So you're telling me they didn't set in the bedrock first? Crap, fuck metaphors. The point is the ultimate knowledge is up there, you can't make the leap with insufficient material.

At this point, we haven't even drilled down to the bedrock.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You can continue with (so far) arbitrary statements, or you can explain me how can Occam's and Descartes' opinions coexist.

Because you can believe whatever you want to exist. How is either of them wrong? As I said, it's a circle-jerk, intellectual autofellatio, all you do is end up with a mouth full of spunk.

I believe that you are God, that you are able to fold and bend space, can you prove me wrong?

[BlackButterfly]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

So you're telling me they didn't set in the bedrock first? Crap, fuck metaphors. The point is the ultimate knowledge is up there, you can't make the leap with insufficient material.

At this point, we haven't even drilled down to the bedrock.

But in the interim, what harm is there in passing the time by postulating what's "up there"?

Many guesses and ideas made by those simply lying on the grass and wondering at the stars have turned out to be true, or have inspired others to go out and disprove. It may be of little benefit to anyone, but it's all in fun.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

If everything we did was for the sake of practicality, who would write poetry?

Poetry holds more truth and more building blocks than what you're doing.

Why not take the parts and build with them, rather than try to make a spring to leap? You're not going to even get CLOSE to ultimate truth, we're still cavemen in comparison to what we could be.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Because you can believe whatever you want to exist.

That again takes away the simplicity of reality you were previously advocating. Besides, believing something is real does not make it real; you should know better than that.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That again takes away the simplicity of reality you were previously advocating. Besides, believing something is real does not make it real; you should know better than that.

No, but perceiving somethings real could make it real, right?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That again takes away the simplicity of reality you were previously advocating. Besides, believing something is real does not make it real; you should know better than that.

It doesn't? Define reality then. You do realize that you cannot percieve reality right? We're subjective creatures, and objective reality eludes us.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Don't waste your time debating philosophy, Spright. You'll just talk in circles and repeat yourself.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

It doesn't? Define reality then. You do realize that you cannot percieve reality right? We're subjective creatures, and objective reality eludes us.

Well, your question doesn't have to apply as an absolute, as a very accurate definition of reality is "everything we perceive".
In this definition, we still are limited and cannot "perceive" what we want to perceive. We can assign it a value; we can interpret it; but we cannot perceive at will.

There is no absolute for reality, and this conversation is trite and annoying. We'll get no where, let's end this now.

There is no way to truly confirm anything we've said, felt, or done. There is nothing saying that there are not microscopic black holes that are eating away at reality. This entire thing is stupid, I'm gone.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Bye-bye, sweetheart.

XD

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

There is no absolute for reality

Well, that's an absolute in itself.
When you distrust the physical, trust the ontological.
Just as well, that's how not everything one believes can be true.

Picture anything can be true indeed (an absolute in itself, by the way)
Then I say nothing can be true.
If anything can be true, my argument can be true indeed.
If my argument is true, then it negates the absolute that allowed it to be true.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"Trust me, I'm a liar."

I'm going to go back to whether or not various conscousnesses exist. If a person with schizophrenia has an "imaginary friend" (for lack of a better term), would that imaginary person be considered a separate consciousness that only the schizophrenic person could perceive? or would it simply be a part of the schizophrenic person's consciousness?

Cuz to the schizophrenic person, that imaginary friend can be very real (is very real? I don't know, I've never had schizophrenia), and seems to do things independently of the person with schizophrenia.

On the other hand, the imaginary person is dependent on the existence of the person with schizophrenia for its existence.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Well, that's an absolute in itself.
When you distrust the physical, trust the ontological.
Just as well, that's how not everything one believes can be true.

Picture anything can be true indeed (an absolute in itself, by the way)
Then I say nothing can be true.
If anything can be true, my argument can be true indeed.
If my argument is true, then it negates the absolute that allowed it to be true.

Then how does one exit such a loop? One cannot, because it is a paradox.
A paradox is the product of philosophy. One does not find paradoxes in the natural world. Close, but not complete paradoxes. For example:

An usurping lion kills the preexisting male and takes over the pride. (A lion is killed)
The new leading lion then kills the former leader's cub lions. (more lions are killed, in fact, what will be future lions, are now erased from the future).
Yet all of the preceding is done so that lions may survive.
A paradox except for the fact of natural selection, which allows for competition between dominant genes.

That's not a paradox...a paradox is going back in time to kill your grandfather and succeeding. That's just natural instinct of the pride.