i dont know=i have to imagine it
Debate Rounds (5)
I look forward to a fun and certainly interesting debate.
To continue, your debate topic in comparison to your opening comments, seem to contradict themselves.
If you would elaborate more on your thoughts, I feel It would make for a much more meaningful debate.
"I dont know=i have to imagine it"
FISRTS POSTED COMMENTS:
"I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine it, and know is true"
One states that you do have to imagine as the other claims that you do not.
know=physical experience of now
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
imagination is false, and beyond what I know is what I don't know
This could easily lead to confusion.
As Donal Rumsfeld put it:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Source - http://www.brainyquote.com...
In reply to Pros second response
(Pro -"know=physical experience of now")
You are claiming that what YOU know is true.
You have begun to create a dichotomy between thought and action.
What you are perceiving as "physical experience" cannot be separated from the imagination.
(Pro - "know=physical experirience of now")
-One could claim there is no now, as it has past and future only remains.
Through your own empirical knowledge gives you what you know.
Cast that into a big vat of subjective experience or knowledge, and you have nothing more than imagination.
(Pro -"imagination is false, and beyond what I know is what I don't know")
This type of logic is a slippery slope into circular reasoning.
In responses, simply put;
-If you claim there is something beyond what you don't know, you then are revealing that it exists. Therefore it cannot be false.
thoughts are actions
future now and past, now is the balancing point between future and past, and future is the opposite of past. the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now
absolutes are true even if I imagine them, liquid is always wet. infinity can never be destroyed, cuz then it had an end so its destruction not infinite
know is true, so I can know the absolutes even if I have to imagine them, but any liquid I imagine is false, as anything I imagine is false
close your eyes and read on, or keep them open and admit I am reasonable in giving this advice unless you don't want to read on
You first claim - (false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
("imagination is false, and beyond what I know is what I don't know")
You then move on to point out:
("absolutes are true even if I imagine them")
So I simply point out that you have made it clear that imagination is true and absolute, yet false?
Or is it just my imagination....running away with me?
As far as the rest of this debate, it is all over the board. I feel addressing most of it would not advance any cause.
its true that my imagination is false, I know imagination is false, as there is no other option=absolute
its true that my imagination is false, I know imagination is false, as there is no other option=absolute")
Your above theory is a profound reason to believe that the imagination is an absolute truth!
Your ideas are based on an axis of the mental constructs of the imagination. There are no mathematical boundaries to your assertions, no algorithms to support your assumptions.
Just clear and present imagination at work.
While a concept derived from the imagination may not be fully sound, there is also equal reason to believe it is not false.
future is the opposite of past, true is the opposite of false and truth, and now is the balancing point between future and past
information is the opposite of matter, and matter is true. the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now
matter being real, the only distance that MATTERS is what's reachable by my physical body, not by my imagination
know=Personal physical experience of now
language is advanced math
natural cause=random(not intended)
randomness+logic=chaos(all natural change in eternity)
The unconventional equations used would only prove that if he believes what he is actually saying, that he too would need to believe in imagination.
I will hold true to my argument that his own discursive and obscure, yet engaging ideas show that the imagination is present and does hold true.
Furthermore I would like to point out that the ideas posed consistently sway away from his original ideas of "imagination!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Solomon_Orlando 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to refute the arguments given by Pro, even after Pro continued to reiterate his previous contradictions through every round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.