Search results

PART 3 i)what is a causal domain ? ii)demonstrate there are distinct types of entities/properties You are delusional. I am asking what do you mean by those words. And no, you’ve made the claim, you defend it. No, it does not. Understanding a word does not mean you understand the phenomena it...

PART 2 No, it is literally a strawman. That is not my position. I’ve explained a dozen times why that is not my position. You just keep repeating your strawman as if that changes anything. You want me to say what my position is AGAIN ? Drop the disingenuous strawman. No, it does not “depend”...

No, you did not. I’ve refuted your attempts and all you keep doing is repeat your script. A “person” is just another name for this phenomena we call “self”. A noun is a word, literally. So all you’ve said is that you prefer to call this phenomena a “person”. I don’t care about how you call it...

PART 3 Yes, it does. If you didn’t want it to express that, you should have been more careful with your language. Are you finally admitting this phenomena begins to be ? Great ! You don’t have to. That’s all introspection can give you. Becoming conscious. Becoming aware. Everything...

PART 2 There is a problem because depending on what this phenomena is, another premise might be necessarily false. So obviously only stating that this phenomena is, without stating what it is, is not enough. Your common sense “grasping” is nonsensical. It lacks the most basic of requirements...

No, you did not. To the extend you tried, you have failed miserably. You can’t even tell me if the self is an activity, act, object or whatever have you. Wrong. That was not my stance to begin with. It is a strawman of your own making. The information I required was very specific to begin with...

PART 2. I sure hope I didn't mess anything up. I had to fit a lot more into my second part. Oh yes, this coming from you, the eternal prick. You are not asking me to accept this phenomena is. You are asking me to accept you KNOW what this phenomena is. I’m not doing that because you have not...

The understanding you are required to provide is what this “self” is. So continuing to parrot the strawman of “absolutely 0 understanding” only shows how disingenuous you are. It was me who pointed out this phenomenon begins to be, and that is an understanding too. I did not ask you to give me...

PART 2 since my comment was apparently too long. Apparently, I went with the wrong website for my screenshots. I don't have time now to re-post them so I'll just leave the link. Hopefully, I did not mess anything up. No, I would not be. The things you list are labels that refer to whatever...

Your challenge is based on a very falwed set of assumptions. Until those assumptions are demonstrated to be true, there is no need for me to even accept your challenge as a legitimate one. I am calling this phenomena, whatever it is, a name. That however does not imply I know what the phenomena...

It is not that I did not meet your challenge. Rather, it is that I completely reject the underlying assumptions your challenge is based upon. For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person, if we are to discuss this word in the context of this debate. But the main point...

That seems so to you only because you are ignorant as to what a contradiction is. You talk about me distinguishing myself from you, yet refuse to point out what those terms refer to. What distinguishes itself from what? You have no answer to that. As for how can I use those terms without...

Simple, although I admit that is simple for me since obviously, you have a hard time with the obvious. Whatever that thing is that drives the behavior I am observing and responding to, I need not know it in order to point out it does not act in a logical manner. I can understand insanity because...

Who are you quoting you insane person ? That quote does not explain what does the noticing. Until you point out what that is, and then explain it, you have no premise. That actually destroys your whole pseudo-case. You have just admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious...

Even this is a projection on your part. Try to do less of that and at least attempt to address my arguments. No. Premise 1 remains something you have been unable to explain. You still have not explained what is aware or conscious. And now, you have admitted that which is not conscious begins to...

The way you fail to see the obvious is just amusing at this point. Read carefully what you have underlined. Where do you see any mention, let alone explanation, of what becomes aware? Is it this "I" ? That is merely a term, which you have still not explained what it is supposed to refer to...

The term "notice" refers to an act. It cannot give us an understanding of what that which performs that act is; it merely identifies an action. The term "I" is supposed to refer to that which performs that act, but you have not explained what that is, let alone provided an understanding of it...

Point out exactly what part of my claim entails an understanding of what that which notices is. What? I understand or don't understand what ? That is like saying "So either you like or you don't like". You need to specify the subject of your inquiry. Either I understand or I don't understand...

Those are not the options presented in your false dichotomy. You tried to pass one option and another one that is merely an elaboration of the first as a true dichotomy; something which I successfully refuted and to which you presented no response. Stop being an illiterate logic denier and learn...

What is literally impossible is for that to be the case. You forget that I've already demonstrated the second option of your false dichotomy is merely an elaboration of the first. You of course completely ignored that argument because you are a coward but that matters not since everyone has come...