Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Nihility

carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 10:05:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it possible for anyone to truly conceive of their own nonexistence?
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 11:09:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
By doubting your existence, you are there to doubt your existence. Therefore, the only thing that you can be sure of is your existence.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 11:09:01 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
By doubting your existence, you are there to doubt your existence. Therefore, the only thing that you can be sure of is your existence.

The Fool: Cogito ergo sum
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:27:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It may be self evident for you that you exist.

For me, it's self evident that I don't.

True and straight to the point.

Nice.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:20:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 11:09:01 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
By doubting your existence, you are there to doubt your existence. Therefore, the only thing that you can be sure of is your existence.

The Fool: Cogito ergo sum

http://25.media.tumblr.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:35:20 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Can someone give me a functional definition of "existence" to work with please?

The fool: its the easist. What is IS! What is not doesn't exist.
therefore there is only Existence.

Its just a matter in what form you mean. And 'Idea' exist as and 'Idea'
While another object/subject can exist in your sense percpetion.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:56:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:27:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It may be self evident for you that you exist.

For me, it's self evident that I don't.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:59:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:35:20 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Can someone give me a functional definition of "existence" to work with please?

Let me clarify the question for everyone. Subtract the concept of an afterlife and think of death. Is it possible for you to truly conceive of your own nonexistence?
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:00:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 11:09:01 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
By doubting your existence, you are there to doubt your existence. Therefore, the only thing that you can be sure of is your existence.

If you seriously think that, your line of thinking is severely limited.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everyone here is talking as if "obviously myself is thinking therefore I exist," but no one stopped to question "what is the self?"

Thats why what Freedo said is correct and coherent, but only to those who understand and have a broader range of thought.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:04:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:59:33 PM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:35:20 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Can someone give me a functional definition of "existence" to work with please?

Let me clarify the question for everyone. Subtract the concept of an afterlife and think of death. Is it possible for you to truly conceive of your own nonexistence?

The Fool: I idea is you can think of not existing in the moment you are thinking about it, but we don't know about it later. The cogito is certian in the moment you thinking it. I think when we try and think of non existence we picture black. Which is a default colour. But non existence is nothing at all.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:55:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 10:05:02 AM, carpediem wrote:
Is it possible for anyone to truly conceive of their own nonexistence?

Well, for me, I realize that I exist, because I interact with reality about me, and both I as well as the rest of reality abide by physical laws which my senses can detect, but not manipulate.

In basic, boring situations, such contemplations may seem to make a bit of sense, but when pushing yourself to your limits, reality suddenly becomes very, lol, substantial.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:58:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:59:33 PM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:35:20 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Can someone give me a functional definition of "existence" to work with please?

Let me clarify the question for everyone. Subtract the concept of an afterlife and think of death. Is it possible for you to truly conceive of your own nonexistence?

Lol, probably not. Interesting question, that. How could one conceive a state that is devoid of conception?

I suppose the best one could do is to somehow cognitively define precisely what consciousness is, then using imagination and extrapolation to somehow contrive an idea of what the state is like.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 3:03:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Everyone here is talking as if "obviously myself is thinking therefore I exist," but no one stopped to question "what is the self?"

Thats why what Freedo said is correct and coherent, but only to those who understand and have a broader range of thought.

.
.
.

"Reality" is a framework in which we've identified ourselves, the self being another distinct attribute of our interaction with reality that we've also detected, and as long as our understandings of these attributes are applicable despite our feelings about or knowledge of them, then we can confirm that they are cognitively consistent with what we currently understand them to be.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 5:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 3:04:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:59:33 PM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:35:20 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Can someone give me a functional definition of "existence" to work with please?

Let me clarify the question for everyone. Subtract the concept of an afterlife and think of death. Is it possible for you to truly conceive of your own nonexistence?

edit.
The Fool: The idea is you can't think of not existing in the moment you are thinking about it, but we don't know about it later. The language you use as in "not existing" or thinking presupposed you existing to think it. The cogito is certian in the moment you thinking it. I think when we try and think of non existence we picture black. Which is a default colour. But non existence is nothing at all, which is not there to think of..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 3:03:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Everyone here is talking as if "obviously myself is thinking therefore I exist," but no one stopped to question "what is the self?"

Thats why what Freedo said is correct and coherent, but only to those who understand and have a broader range of thought.

.
.
.

Dude, no one takes bundle theory seriously anymore. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:54:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 10:05:02 AM, carpediem wrote:
Is it possible for anyone to truly conceive of their own nonexistence?

The general point is saying "I am" has no meaning. If one "is", and being "not" is necessarily false, then saying you "are" holds no meaning. Thus, saying "I am" doesn't actually mean anything. As there are no other qualities for the "I", the word "I" becomes meaningless. Thus saying you exist is as meaningless as saying you don't exist. So saying you exist holds the same truth value as saying you are not: there is none. Thus, you are just as correct in saying you exist than saying you are not. However, you cannot concieve yourself without any characteristics: it's an impossibility to concieve it. Thus, you cannot concieve your non-existence, because non-existence of the self is inconcievable. However, the concievance of the self is also wrong. Thus everything is a mindfck, and the sky is made of chicken sweat.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:15:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 7:54:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/26/2012 10:05:02 AM, carpediem wrote:
Is it possible for anyone to truly conceive of their own nonexistence?

The general point is saying "I am" has no meaning. If one "is", and being "not" is necessarily false, then saying you "are" holds no meaning. Thus, saying "I am" doesn't actually mean anything. As there are no other qualities for the "I", the word "I" becomes meaningless. Thus saying you exist is as meaningless as saying you don't exist. So saying you exist holds the same truth value as saying you are not: there is none. Thus, you are just as correct in saying you exist than saying you are not. However, you cannot concieve yourself without any characteristics: it's an impossibility to concieve it. Thus, you cannot concieve your non-existence, because non-existence of the self is inconcievable. However, the concievance of the self is also wrong. Thus everything is a mindfck, and the sky is made of chicken sweat.

The Fool: 'I' as intuition is something with demarcated you from others. You can't see without an EYE. An intuition is something. You do not need to know the entirely to know that it is such. Secondly, an action is also incoherence. Such as consciousness. For one there must be atleast two thing to demarcate anything. Aka you could not know what the colour red is if there was not other colours to constrast. All conscious sensations are intuitional. So the Cogito is certain as existence even if only by intuition. For what is IS!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:30:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:15:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:54:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/26/2012 10:05:02 AM, carpediem wrote:
Is it possible for anyone to truly conceive of their own nonexistence?

The general point is saying "I am" has no meaning. If one "is", and being "not" is necessarily false, then saying you "are" holds no meaning. Thus, saying "I am" doesn't actually mean anything. As there are no other qualities for the "I", the word "I" becomes meaningless. Thus saying you exist is as meaningless as saying you don't exist. So saying you exist holds the same truth value as saying you are not: there is none. Thus, you are just as correct in saying you exist than saying you are not. However, you cannot concieve yourself without any characteristics: it's an impossibility to concieve it. Thus, you cannot concieve your non-existence, because non-existence of the self is inconcievable. However, the concievance of the self is also wrong. Thus everything is a mindfck, and the sky is made of chicken sweat.

The Fool: 'I' as intuition is something which demarcated you from others. You can't see without an EYE. Thus you don;t see it directly. But you will feel getting poked in it. Thus even the "I" or more basically The Observer is something. You do not need to know the entirely to know that it iS! Something. Secondly, an consciousness/awarness presuppose that which is aware. For one there must be atleast two thing to demarcate anything. Aka you could not know what the colour red is if there was not other colours to constrast it too. All conscious sensations are intuitional. So the Cogito is certain as existence even if only by intuition. For what is IS!! Thirdly we could not know what we mean when we say I but it is the most intuitive and indespensible concept, which presupposed all concepts. Thus making all things known dependant on a knower. The Gogito is diamond, no body can fool you out of your existence, if you can recognize something.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:30:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Cogito..
The Fool: 'I' as intuition is something which demarcated you from others. You can't see without an EYE. Thus you don;t see it directly. But you will feel getting poked in it. Thus even the "I" or more basically The Observer is something. You do not need to know the entirely to know that it iS! Something. Secondly, an consciousness/awarness presuppose that which is aware. For one there must be atleast two thing to demarcate anything. Aka you could not know what the colour red is if there was not other colours to constrast it too. All conscious sensations are intuitional. So the Cogito is certain as existence even if only by intuition. For what is IS!! Thirdly we could not know what we mean when we say I but it is the most intuitive and indespensible concept, which presupposed all concepts. Thus making all things known dependant on a knower. The Gogito is diamond, no body can fool you out of your existence, if you can recognize something.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL