The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:57 am
Belindi wrote: September 29th, 2020, 4:19 am
Evolution, is the Self that dwells within Evolution still a Self when finally it separates from Evolution's brain?
Self, capital S, does NOT dwell within human brains, like the self, small s, do.

They are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

And NO self "separates" from brains. When a brain stops functioning, then the self, within that brain, stops existing, within that brain, also.
So you are not fond of Cartesian dualism.

Is the Self(capital S) the totality of perceiving selfs, or is the Self(capital S) infinitely more than the totality of perceptions?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:57 am

Self, capital S, does NOT dwell within human brains, like the self, small s, do.

They are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
Are they?
Then, what are they?
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm
You just have proved my point, thank you. And that is what is all about: you will say something and with the tricky 'to me' phrase will try to shield it from any criticism.
LOL Your ASSUMING has, ONCE AGAIN, led you completely astray.
No, that's only how it looks to you, but it is not like that to me.
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pmYou will always resort to that defense mechanism: "it's my statement, only I can know what it means...etc."
This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like thee Truth of things here.

When I say 'to me', in my statements, then that just means that this is my view, which could be wrong or partly wrong, relatively to what is actually True. And NOTHING more.

It certainly means NOTHING like what you are claiming here. In fact, I have consistently suggested just asking me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS if ANY one wants to KNOW my statements ACTUALLY MEAN.
No, you cannot say that something "certainly means X". It can only certainly mean that to you, but it certainly means something else to me. That if we follow your own logic.
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm Proving my point again, thank you.
LOL What will be found is that the EXACT OPPOSITE is actually True.
No, because according to your own premises, nothing can be found to be true for both. It can only be found to be true to yourself or conversely, myself. Of course, from your point of view that can only be the conclusion to reach from my own view, and you can dismiss it entirely based on you having your own view. I have my view and you have yours, there's no way to settle it, according to my view of your view, which you can always dismiss as only my view, the same way I can dismiss yours.
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm All conscious beings have beliefs.
Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then there is NOTHING to discuss here, correct?
According to your view, there cannot be any discussion of your views because they are yours. It is obvious, according to my view of your view, that you will not find my views available for discussion for being my views and not yours. So then yours is only a rhetorical question.
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pmDon't you believe you're a conscious being?
What the 'you' actually IS, will have to be LOOKED AT, and DISCUSSED, BEFORE 'you' could and would understand my answer to this question.
You mean the 'you' of your view or the 'you' of my view? You implied that they could not be discussed, so...?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 11:01 am
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:52 am

Okay.
So you are not going to say what you mean by the general attack on the idea of "self"?
Is this a statement or a question?

It is written as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

Just to be clear, If I am asked a clarifying question, which I understand, then I would answer it.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 11:01 am You would rather look ridiculous than share an idea?
Again, you are writing a statement and making a claim here, but with a question mark on the end.

I write my words specifically, for a very specific purpose.

Whether I look ridiculous or not is of absolutely NO concern nor importance, to me.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 30th, 2020, 3:24 am
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:57 am

Self, capital S, does NOT dwell within human brains, like the self, small s, do.

They are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

And NO self "separates" from brains. When a brain stops functioning, then the self, within that brain, stops existing, within that brain, also.
So you are not fond of Cartesian dualism.
Are you telling me what I am not fond of?

Besides the fact that i have absolutely NO clue as to what some 'cartesian dualism' is, I most likely would neither be fond nor not fond of it.

I just look at what IS True and Real, and discuss That. I do NOT look at ideas of what IS True and Real.
Belindi wrote: September 30th, 2020, 3:24 am Is the Self(capital S) the totality of perceiving selfs, or is the Self(capital S) infinitely more than the totality of perceptions?
Thee Self (capital S) is the totality of the agreement of what IS True, Right, Accurate, and Correct among ALL perceiving selfs, AND, it could be said, 'infinitely more' than the totality of perceptions. This is because thee Self is Knowing, and is NOT perceptions. Only the small self perceives.

Perceptions of what is true, right, accurate, and correct is NOT necessarily what IS actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 30th, 2020, 4:32 am
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:57 am

Self, capital S, does NOT dwell within human brains, like the self, small s, do.

They are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
Are they?
Yes.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 30th, 2020, 4:32 am Then, what are they?
Small self is thoughts, and thinking.

Capital Self is Mind, and Knowing.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 7:07 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 11:01 am

So you are not going to say what you mean by the general attack on the idea of "self"?
Is this a statement or a question?
FFS.
Answer the bloody question.

It is written as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

Just to be clear, If I am asked a clarifying question, which I understand, then I would answer it.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 11:01 am You would rather look ridiculous than share an idea?
Again, you are writing a statement and making a claim here, but with a question mark on the end.

I write my words specifically, for a very specific purpose.

Whether I look ridiculous or not is of absolutely NO concern nor importance, to me.
They are both questions.
Why are you wriggling?
What the **** is your objection to "self"?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am

LOL Your ASSUMING has, ONCE AGAIN, led you completely astray.
No, that's only how it looks to you, but it is not like that to me.
Have you forgotten that it is you making a claim here about what I am actually meaning, in what I am saying?

I am the One who KNOWS what I actually mean, in what I say. Therefore, I am thee ONLY One who can tell you if what you are ASSUMING here is correct or NOT. And, I am telling you that what you have ASSUMED here is completely and utterly INCORRECT.

Also, why I say, 'to me', and/or 'to you' is for the VERY REASON that you have HIGHLIGHTED here above. That is; to show how the views expressed, in forums such as this, are just how things look, to or from each individual one's point of view.

I certainly do NOT use the 'to me' phrase, (nor the 'to you' phrase), for the ridiculous, and completely and utterly INCORRECT, ASSUMPTION, which you have made very clear here, about how I will say something and with the tricky 'to me' phrase will try to shield it from any criticism.

Just so it is COMPLETELY CLEAR, YOUR ASSUMPTION here is COMPLETELY INCORRECT.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am

This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like thee Truth of things here.

When I say 'to me', in my statements, then that just means that this is my view, which could be wrong or partly wrong, relatively to what is actually True. And NOTHING more.

It certainly means NOTHING like what you are claiming here. In fact, I have consistently suggested just asking me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS if ANY one wants to KNOW my statements ACTUALLY MEAN.
No, you cannot say that something "certainly means X".
WHAT?;

When I write some thing, then I KNOW EXACTLY what 'it' (X) CERTAINLY MEANS.
You can also do this.
Therefore, I CAN say that something 'certainly means X'.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm It can only certainly mean that to you, but it certainly means something else to me. That if we follow your own logic.
OF COURSE IT DOES.

This is the VERY POINT that I was POINTING OUT, to you.

But NEVER forget that it, IS ME, who wrote the 'thing'. So, then THIS MEANS that it is ME who KNOWS what that 'thing' (X) CERTAINLY MEANS.

AND, do NOT forget that when I say some thing, then I am thee ONLY One that KNOWS what 'it' (X) CERTAINLY MEANS. You, of course, can ASSUME what I am meaning, in what I say, for as long as you like. But you could be completely and utterly WRONG and INCORRECT, EVERY time.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am

LOL What will be found is that the EXACT OPPOSITE is actually True.
No, because according to your own premises, nothing can be found to be true for both.
You are WRONG, AGAIN.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm It can only be found to be true to yourself or conversely, myself.
What is the 'it', exactly, which you are referring to here?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm Of course, from your point of view that can only be the conclusion to reach from my own view, and you can dismiss it entirely based on you having your own view.
Have you seriously really forgotten that what we have been talking about is in regards to what I HAVE SAID?

And, what I have been pointing out, and SHOWING, is that you are FREE to ASSUME whatever you like in regards to what I am meaning, in what I have said, but it is ONLY I who KNOWS, EXACTLY, what is CERTAINLY MEANT.

I have been telling you that what you were ASSUMING is just PLAIN WRONG.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm I have my view and you have yours, there's no way to settle it, according to my view of your view, which you can always dismiss as only my view, the same way I can dismiss yours.
Again, you appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED, or MISUNDERSTOOD, the point that I have been making.

The point I have been making is; When I write some thing, then ONLY I KNOW what I mean by that.

So, you can either ask me a clarifying question, so that then you learn, and thus understand, what I actually mean, OR, you can do what you have been, and that is; Continue to make ASSUMPTIONS, which may or may not be true and correct.

If you continue to do the latter, then I will continue to tell you when you are WRONG.

However, if you do the former, then I will start explaining to you what I actually mean.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then there is NOTHING to discuss here, correct?
According to your view, there cannot be any discussion of your views because they are yours.
But this ASSUMPTION of yours here, besides being ridiculous, is just completely and utterly WRONG, AGAIN.

I express my views purposely as they are just my views, which are completely OPEN for discussing, and as they could be completely and utterly WRONG, or partly WRONG.

I WANT to be CHALLENGED on ALL of my views, if ANY one thinks that they are NOT FULLY CORRECT, and, I want to be QUESTIONED on ALL of my views, if ANY one is uncertain about ANY of my views.

See, I KNOW I can back up and support each and EVERY one of my views. That is; of course, unless I am PROVEN otherwise.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm It is obvious, according to my view of your view,
But you do NOT YET KNOW what my view IS.

You have only been CONTINUALLY ASSUMING what my view WAS. And, although I have been telling you that you ASSUMPTION is WRONG, you have been BLINDED to this FACT.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm that you will not find my views available for discussion for being my views and not yours.
Well this is ANOTHER completely and utterly WRONG and INCORRECT, "obvious", ASSUMPTION of yours.

I have found your views, which have been based on your ASSUMPTIONS here, VERY available for discussion.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm So then yours is only a rhetorical question.
What can be witnessed and observed here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how much making ASSUMPTIONS, without CLARIFYING, can lead some one so far astray.

I do NOT ask 'rhetorical questions'. I ask, OPENLY, 'clarifying questions', for CLARITY.

I am asking you that if you BELIEVE some thing is true, then is there ANY thing to discuss here, regarding your BELIEF? Meaning; Are you OPEN to ANY thing contrary to your BELIEF?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:26 am

What the 'you' actually IS, will have to be LOOKED AT, and DISCUSSED, BEFORE 'you' could and would understand my answer to this question.
You mean the 'you' of your view or the 'you' of my view?
No.

I MEAN we will have to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what the 'you' actually means to BOTH OF US, in order to SEE if we come to an agreement, and then, depending if we do or not, THEN that will determine if you could and would understand my answer to your question here, or not.

OBVIOUSLY, what ANY thing 'actually IS' is determined by 'agreement'. And, this can NOT be determined until AFTER the 'parties' START discussing what they each 'see', and 'view'.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm You implied that they could not be discussed, so...?
I have NEVER IMPLIED that they could not be discussed. You have ONLY been ASSUMING this.

In fact I have been MEANING - thee EXACT OPPOSITE, of what you have been ASSUMING is true.

SEE, to me, writing 'to me', just means that I am just expressing my views only, and/or I am just expressing only 'that' what I only 'think' is true, right, and/or correct, and NOT necessarily what I 'know'. I am NOT necessarily expressing NOR claiming what IS actually, objectively or universally, True, Right, and/or Correct. Therefore, THIS MEANS that I am OPEN to "other's" views, and OPEN to having my views questioned and/or challenged, by ANY one.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:18 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 30th, 2020, 4:32 am

Are they?
Yes.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 30th, 2020, 4:32 am Then, what are they?
Small self is thoughts, and thinking.

Capital Self is Mind, and Knowing.
Just an abuse of grammar then. Why did you not say so in the first place?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:38 am
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 7:07 am

Is this a statement or a question?
FFS.
Answer the bloody question.

It is written as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

Just to be clear, If I am asked a clarifying question, which I understand, then I would answer it.



Again, you are writing a statement and making a claim here, but with a question mark on the end.

I write my words specifically, for a very specific purpose.

Whether I look ridiculous or not is of absolutely NO concern nor importance, to me.
They are both questions.
Why are you wriggling?
I am NOT 'wriggling'. I am CLARIFYING.
Sculptor1 wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:38 am What the **** is your objection to "self"?
I have NO objection to 'self'. AND, I NEVER have.

Are you ASSUMING I have?

If yes, then WHY?
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm
No, that's only how it looks to you, but it is not like that to me.
Have you forgotten that it is you making a claim here about what I am actually meaning, in what I am saying?
It seems that you have forgotten that by the same token, you cannot know what I'm actually meaning, therefore you cannot make a claim about my claim.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I am the One who KNOWS what I actually mean, in what I say. Therefore, I am thee ONLY One who can tell you if what you are ASSUMING here is correct or NOT. And, I am telling you that what you have ASSUMED here is completely and utterly INCORRECT.
Sure, but since I'm also the one who knows what I actually mean in what I say, you cannot say what I'm really assuming, nor whether I'm correct or not in my assumption.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am When I write some thing, then I KNOW EXACTLY what 'it' (X) CERTAINLY MEANS.
You can also do this.
Therefore, I CAN say that something 'certainly means X'.
Not if X is said by me. I mean, you can say whatever you want, but it will not be true that you know what X means said by me.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am And, what I have been pointing out, and SHOWING, is that you are FREE to ASSUME whatever you like in regards to what I am meaning, in what I have said, but it is ONLY I who KNOWS, EXACTLY, what is CERTAINLY MEANT.
By the same token, whatever I say about whatever you said, it is ONLY I who KNOWS, EXACTLY, what is CERTAINLY MEANT in what I said. So, you are disqualified to provide any knowledge from your side about what I said.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I have been telling you that what you were ASSUMING is just PLAIN WRONG.
But that's of course, just about what you're assuming that I'm assuming. And I'm completely entitled to say that you're plain wrong.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm I have my view and you have yours, there's no way to settle it, according to my view of your view, which you can always dismiss as only my view, the same way I can dismiss yours.
Again, you appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED, or MISUNDERSTOOD, the point that I have been making.
Or so you think, but of course you cannot know, for only I can know what point I'm making.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am The point I have been making is; When I write some thing, then ONLY I KNOW what I mean by that.
But so, the point I will be making is that when I write something about what you have written, then ONLY I KNOW what I mean by that.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am So, you can either ask me a clarifying question, so that then you learn, and thus understand, what I actually mean, OR, you can do what you have been, and that is; Continue to make ASSUMPTIONS, which may or may not be true and correct.
But you have said emphatically that only you know what it is meant in what you say, so if you continue saying things to answer any question, by your own confession it is only you who can know what those new statements mean. Of course, we can apply the same to my statements.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am If you continue to do the latter, then I will continue to tell you when you are WRONG.
You will always be free to say whatever you want to say. The issue is that, when referring to my statements, you will be talking about something that you CANNOT know what is meant, and therefore cannot know that is right or wrong.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am See, I KNOW I can back up and support each and EVERY one of my views. That is; of course, unless I am PROVEN otherwise.
Surely, you can only support and prove your views to yourself. Remember your emphatic statement that only you can know what you mean. By the same token, what my statements actually mean would only be accessible to myself, so you are not able to qualify them as true or false.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 30th, 2020, 9:05 pm It is obvious, according to my view of your view,
I have found your views, which have been based on your ASSUMPTIONS here, VERY available for discussion.
You mean assuming for yourself what you think my views are, but those remain as your views and your assumptions, not my actual views, which belong only to myself, apparently.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I MEAN we will have to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what the 'you' actually means to BOTH OF US, in order to SEE if we come to an agreement, and then, depending if we do or not, THEN that will determine if you could and would understand my answer to your question here, or not.
Such proposition would imply that your views are not yours only. It would be a blatant contradiction to your emphatic position so far. But of course, you can always resort again to saying that this is only my assumption of what your view means, that only you can know. That will make the contradiction even more obvious.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:41 am
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:18 am

Yes.



Small self is thoughts, and thinking.

Capital Self is Mind, and Knowing.
Just an abuse of grammar then. Why did you not say so in the first place?
But how did I previously KNOW that that is, to you, just an abuse of grammar?

Now, considering it is 'you', "sculptor1" who does NOT YET even know, and so you are completely incapable of explaining, who or what thee 'self' or thy 'Self' actually IS, then 'trying to' fool us that you actually already know the proper use of grammar in regards to this particular subject is really quite hilarious. Well to me, anyway.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am

Have you forgotten that it is you making a claim here about what I am actually meaning, in what I am saying?
It seems that you have forgotten that by the same token, you cannot know what I'm actually meaning, therefore you cannot make a claim about my claim.
But I can KNOW what you are meaning. That is; when you tell me.

For example when you told me; you will say something and with the tricky 'to me' phrase will try to shield it from any criticism., which, and correct me if I am wrong here, means that when I say the 'to me' phrase you think or believe that I am trying to shield what I am saying from criticism.

This is what you did mean, right?

If no, then what did you actually mean?
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I am the One who KNOWS what I actually mean, in what I say. Therefore, I am thee ONLY One who can tell you if what you are ASSUMING here is correct or NOT. And, I am telling you that what you have ASSUMED here is completely and utterly INCORRECT.
Sure, but since I'm also the one who knows what I actually mean in what I say, you cannot say what I'm really assuming, nor whether I'm correct or not in my assumption.
But I can KNOW what you are really assuming. That is; when you tell me.

And, when you tell me what your ASSUMPTION is, in regards to what I actually mean in what I say, then I can tell you, 100% correctly, whether YOUR ASSUMPTION is correct, or not.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am When I write some thing, then I KNOW EXACTLY what 'it' (X) CERTAINLY MEANS.
You can also do this.
Therefore, I CAN say that something 'certainly means X'.
Not if X is said by me.
But I have NEVER even TRIED to do that here.

I have NEVER even THOUGHT about doing that here.

In fact, I would NEVER even CONSIDER doing that, anywhere.

SEE, it is me who is consistently going on about if any one wants to learn more, or gain a better understanding, then just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means NEVER assume what another means in what they say, and just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS instead, and FIRST.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm I mean, you can say whatever you want, but it will not be true that you know what X means said by me.
I have NEVER even thought that it would be. let alone suggested this ANY where. In fact, I have been the one saying otherwise.

Also, just to correct you, some times it is true that I know what X means said by you or by any one else. BUT, I will only ever KNOW this, through CLARIFICATION. Which, by the way, comes from CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which are better asked without absolutely ANY assumptions at all being made.
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am And, what I have been pointing out, and SHOWING, is that you are FREE to ASSUME whatever you like in regards to what I am meaning, in what I have said, but it is ONLY I who KNOWS, EXACTLY, what is CERTAINLY MEANT.
By the same token, whatever I say about whatever you said, it is ONLY I who KNOWS, EXACTLY, what is CERTAINLY MEANT in what I said.[/quote]

OF COURSE. This is WHAT I HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm So, you are disqualified to provide any knowledge from your side about what I said.
I have ONLY done this when you have been INCORRECT or WRONG.

Also, and just to correct you again, I am qualified to provide some knowledge from my perspective in regards to what you have actually said. But, it is ONLY through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS can I accurately obtain the knowledge of what you ACTUALLY MEANT, in what you have said.

See, what you have said, or what words you have written, can NOT be disputed. HOWEVER, what you ACTUALLY MEAN can ONLY be Truly KNOWN, by 'you'.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I have been telling you that what you were ASSUMING is just PLAIN WRONG.
But that's of course, just about what you're assuming that I'm assuming.
Not necessarily so.

If, for example, you write what you are ASSUMING, and then I CLARIFY with you in regards to what you actually meant, FIRST, and you explain what you meant, in what you are ASSUMING, and through CLARIFYING you say that is correct, then I have NOT assumed ANY thing at all. I have gained a better understanding of 'you', and what you actually mean, and therefore, I can tell you whether what you were ASSUMING about what I actually said, AND MEANT, is actually correct or not.

Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm And I'm completely entitled to say that you're plain wrong.
As a human being you are entitled to say absolutely ANY thing you like. But, I suggest BEFORE you say ANY thing, or make a claim, then you have, at least, some thing that you can use to back up and support your statement, proposition, or claim.

Now, if you want to tell me that I am plain wrong in regards to absolutely ANY thing I say, then I would be most appreciative if you do do this, when you can SEE absolutely ANY thing plainly wrong, in what I say.

But I will just CLARIFY whereabouts EXACTLY in what I have said, and more importantly CLARIFY, with you, WHY.

So, PLEASE correct me when I am WRONG, in what I say.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am

Again, you appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED, or MISUNDERSTOOD, the point that I have been making.
Or so you think, but of course you cannot know, for only I can know what point I'm making.
But, as explained earlier, I CAN KNOW. That is; when you inform me of the ACTUAL point you are making.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am The point I have been making is; When I write some thing, then ONLY I KNOW what I mean by that.
But so, the point I will be making is that when I write something about what you have written, then ONLY I KNOW what I mean by that.
And so, when you write some thing about what I have written, then I will ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in regards to what you ACTUALLY MEAN.

There, OBVIOUSLY, is NO real point at all in writing some thing if you are NOT prepared to be OPEN and Honest and explain in detail what you ACTUALLY MEANT in what you wrote, especially in a philosophy forum of all places.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am So, you can either ask me a clarifying question, so that then you learn, and thus understand, what I actually mean, OR, you can do what you have been, and that is; Continue to make ASSUMPTIONS, which may or may not be true and correct.
But you have said emphatically that only you know what it is meant in what you say,
Yes, this is correct.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm so if you continue saying things to answer any question, by your own confession it is only you who can know what those new statements mean.
But, OBVIOUSLY, IF very specific questions were asked, then very specific answers will be provided. And so, IF ANY one is Truly interested and Truly wants to KNOW what another is ACTUALLY MEANING in what they say, then I suggest just asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as specifically as can be, and from a Truly OPEN perspective.

But what can be CLEARLY OBSERVED and SEEN throughout the last few millennia, before these writings were being written, most adult human beings are not really that interested in what "another" is Truly MEANING in what they say. Just LOOK AT the writings within this philosophy forum to NOTICE just how much people want to express their OWN thoughts and ideas, without every really considering what the "other" is thinking, and actually MEANING.

Adult human beings, especially in the days of when this is being written, are NOT at all really that interested in the ideas of "others". Adult are to busy in expressing their own ideas and thoughts, and are far more interested in learning how to be heard and listened to themselves, rather than being at all concerned or interest in the thoughts and ideas of "others".

This way of misbehaving can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout these writings and in the way they do debate. A PRIME EXAMPLE of this type of misbehavior can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way the, so called, "leaders" talk to each other.

If the way the "leaders" of the, so called, "free world" talk 'to' each other is any example to go by, which 'examples' is, exactly, what "leaders" are supposed to be, then no wonder adult human beings go on the way they do, when this is being written, if the "leaders" of your planet go on the way they do in a, so called, "presidential debate".
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm Of course, we can apply the same to my statements.
We 'could', but if we did, then we 'would' be incorrect.

To correct your statement here; It is NOT 'only' the one who makes new statements who can KNOW what is MEANT in those statements. Absolutely ANY one else can ALSO KNOW. But that is; ONLY if they are Truly interested in KNOWING.

And, to KNOW if ANY one 'else' is Truly interested in KNOWING what another one is saying, then this can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN in and by the way CLARIFYING QUESTIONS are being asked, or not.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am If you continue to do the latter, then I will continue to tell you when you are WRONG.
You will always be free to say whatever you want to say. The issue is that, when referring to my statements, you will be talking about something that you CANNOT know what is meant, and therefore cannot know that is right or wrong.
But, as I have been explaining. I CAN KNOW what is meant, by what you, or another, says.

But, OBVIOUSLY, you, or the other, would HAVE TO BE prepared to be OPEN, and Honest, FIRST, for this to occur.

And, in the times of when this is being written most adult human beings have NOT YET been prepared to be Truly OPEN, nor Honest.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am See, I KNOW I can back up and support each and EVERY one of my views. That is; of course, unless I am PROVEN otherwise.
Surely, you can only support and prove your views to yourself.
LOL No.

I, OBVIOUSLY, can support AND prove my views to ANY one. But, just as OBVIOUS, is the fact that they would HAVE TO BE Truly interested FIRST.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm Remember your emphatic statement that only you can know what you mean.
That was in regards to when another is making ASSUMPTIONS.

If another is making ASSUMPTIONS, then ONLY I can KNOW what I mean. BUT, if the other is Truly interested in KNOWING what I actually mean, then they ALSO CAN KNOW what I mean.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm By the same token, what my statements actually mean would only be accessible to myself, so you are not able to qualify them as true or false.
Hopefully, you have already gained the understanding and knowing that what ANY one actually means is actually accessible to others. And, hopefully, you have already also gained the understanding and knowing of HOW this accessibility can be actually shared, and gained.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am
I have found your views, which have been based on your ASSUMPTIONS here, VERY available for discussion.
You mean assuming for yourself what you think my views are,
But you have already told us what some of your views, correct?

If yes, then NO assuming was necessary.

But, if no, then WHY NOT?
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm but those remain as your views and your assumptions, not my actual views, which belong only to myself, apparently.
If you HAD ALREADY CLARIFIED with me FIRST, in regards to this, then you would NOT have been making this WRONG ASSUMPTION here that I am saying that your actual views belong ONLY to yourself.

If you HAD CLARIFIED EARLIER, then you would ALREADY KNOW that my statement regarding only the one with the views KNOWS what the actual views are, that is; UNTIL what they actually are are CLARIFIED with others, correctly.

And, this can only be done correctly and successfully through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I have been POINTING OUT, ALREADY.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm
evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:38 am I MEAN we will have to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what the 'you' actually means to BOTH OF US, in order to SEE if we come to an agreement, and then, depending if we do or not, THEN that will determine if you could and would understand my answer to your question here, or not.
Such proposition would imply that your views are not yours only.
That proposition does NOT imply that at all. In fact that proposition does NOT imply either way.

That proposition is making the OBVIOUS CLAIM that we will NOT know if any one's views are not theirs only, UNTIL CLARIFICATION is made, FIRST.

LOOK AT, just how EASILY and just how QUICKLY your ASSUMPTIONS can lead to you astray.

SEE, if you had CLARIFIED with me FIRST, what I ACTUALLY MEANT, BEFORE you made the ASSUMPTION that my proposition was 'implying' any such thing here, then you would NOT have diverted and strayed so far off track, now.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm It would be a blatant contradiction to your emphatic position so far.
BUT, what you ASSUMED is my "emphatic position" is NOT what you have ASSUMED it is, exactly. And, what you have ALSO ASSUMED here is NOT correct either. So, ONCE AGAIN, we are BACK TO the ASSUMPTIONS you are making here are WRONG, AGAIN.

ONCE AGAIN, I think you MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING the POINT I have been making. That is; IF you STOPPED ASSUMING and instead asked me some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FIRST, then you would NOT be as WRONG as you are, as OFTEN as you are.

Now, you might like to tell me that what I am ASSUMING in regards to what you have been writing is WRONG or is NOT CORRECT. But, if you TRIED TO DO THIS now, then you will HAVE TO contradict what you, "your" 'self', have been writing, AND ACTUALLY SAYING.

If you WANT to 'try to' PROVE me WRONG here, then START by EXPLAINING what you ACTUALLY MEANT in what you have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING so far.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm But of course, you can always resort again to saying that this is only my assumption of what your view means, that only you can know.
Well this IS an OBVIOUS FACT. Especially considering you did NOT ask me one CLARIFYING QUESTION, but instead went on to inform us what you SEE as being what I actually meant.

And, obviously, if you are telling another what they actually meant but NEVER bothered to CLARIFY with them FIRST, then OBVIOUSLY you are only MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 10:58 pm That will make the contradiction even more obvious.
Some are saying the opposite is ACTUALLY thee Truth here.

SEE, what you have ONLY ASSUMED my views meant, was OBVIOUSLY WRONG, as explained and SHOWN in detail above.

So, the ONLY contradictions here have been on your part.

Unless, of course, you can PROVE me WRONG here now.

We will WAIT, and SEE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 5:27 am But I can KNOW what you are meaning. That is; when you tell me.

But I can KNOW what you are really assuming. That is; when you tell me.

...if any one wants to learn more, or gain a better understanding, then just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means NEVER assume what another means in what they say, and just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS instead, and FIRST.

Which, by the way, comes from CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which are better asked without absolutely ANY assumptions at all being made.
And so we can see here clearly your double standards: when it's about your statements, then it is only you who can know what they mean, but when it comes to the statements of the counterpart, then all of the sudden it is not only the counterpart who knows what they mean, and you feel entitled to say the counterpart's statements are wrong, even before ever making any CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 4:41 pm
evolution wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 5:27 am But I can KNOW what you are meaning. That is; when you tell me.

But I can KNOW what you are really assuming. That is; when you tell me.

...if any one wants to learn more, or gain a better understanding, then just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means NEVER assume what another means in what they say, and just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS instead, and FIRST.

Which, by the way, comes from CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which are better asked without absolutely ANY assumptions at all being made.
And so we can see here clearly your double standards: when it's about your statements, then it is only you who can know what they mean, but when it comes to the statements of the counterpart, then all of the sudden it is not only the counterpart who knows what they mean, and you feel entitled to say the counterpart's statements are wrong, even before ever making any CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
NO "double standard" at all here.

If you can find any PROOF of where I have done what you are alleging here, then PLEASE present it, so that we can have a LOOK AT 'it', and DISCUSS 'it'.

By the way, I have OBVIOUSLY ALREADY WRITTEN and EXPLAINED above HOW and WHEN I can 'only' know what I mean, in what I write and/or say. This, again, is when 'you' and/or "others" are ASSUMING, instead of CLARIFYING. But, OBVIOUSLY, AFTER 'you' and/or "them" HAVE CLARIFIED, then 'you' and/or "them" CAN ALSO KNOW what I mean. So, NO "double standards" again at all here.

Also, I ONLY said your statements are WRONG, when you wrote what you were ASSUMING I meant, in what I wrote, which was OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021