I have never in my life had Santa’s magical powers defined for me. As a child I was in awe of his abilities. Later, still very young, I decided he was just a story. Nobody ever defined him as not being able to do those things. In fact, it was implicit and still is, that he can. Though to be perfectly fair perhaps superposition and alien tech in involved. If anyone defines him as able to do those things, I’ll ask. If anyone defines him as not being able to do those things, I ask how they know. I’ll also ask how they got the authority to define him.
Some have the capacity for different things, than others. I think using the imagination from a very young age helps with the undoables, that you mention above.
Lego and stickle bricks are not the optimal toys for that.
What you are doing right now is pointing at the net sum of all human knowledge and understanding, including science and claiming that its all wrong.
And your evidence and reasoning for all of this is: Cause i said so.
Trust me bro
Btw i can also fly and breathe in space, anyone who claims that i cannot, is simply wrong at the behest of me saying so.
Sorry dude. This does not work. You cannot explain, justify, prove or even rationalize your position, so even if i were to give you the benefit of the doubt, you cant do anything with it other than “im righ and the entirety of humanity is wrong”.
If you had any shred of intellectual honesty you’d be at least admitting that your position is improvable.
Instead you keep on going and repeating yourself like a mental retard as if that would change or do anything, insisting that you are right not because you can establish your argument or provide evidence or arguments, just because you said so and done.
Sorry, im starting to grow really tired of mentally deranged people and autists who drink drooling over another person amounts to being right.
You wrote an page long comment and there is not one argument in it for your position, only "what if"s against my position. Im so sick and tired of this shit.
You can either post a functional argument for your case or you cannot. Im done entertaining your brain damage. You got one last try at reasoning then you go back on the block list of mental illness.
Not at all! It’s amazing that all you assumed about me is false. Now reconsider your point taking that into consideration, or deem yourself to be having a conversation between yourself and some figment of your imagination
Even more, apart from the mental states you imagine the other person has, you misunderstood something being a ‘what if’ when it is not. This is most alike a person saying ‘I’m happy’, and you saying ‘No you aren’t’. You are the one who has to show the proof that I’m not happy, not me. I’m quite aware of it. Now, if you are not happy, or have never been happy, it doesn’t make no other people happy.
Hello anew1 glad to see you have a new account for gaslighting.
a.) The topic is about imagination and not emotions or mental states
b.) When someone says that gravity is a thing and you say that it does not affect you and that you are floating, then the burden of proof is on you cause gravity is an established fact. A fact with an explanation, demonstrable proof, a scientific consensus and common sense behind it.
And while i have REPEATEDLY told you that i will gladly hear out your evidence and proof for your claim, all you are doing is gaslighting, trying to escape proof, refusing to explain, and bullshitting about with “it works cause i said so”.
That assumption seems in line with the pattern you’ve been showing here
If the topic is about imagination and not mental states, the topic isn’t about gravity either.
The case is quite simple: If A then B. If C then B. Now, we have B, which is that the depictions of imagination are comprised of words which point to past memories (everyday objects and ideas). A is that imagination is not bound by that, and C is that it is bound by such.
Now, you get B and conclude it’s C (imagination is bound by past memories) and not A. You do notice that’s illogical, don’t you?
For sure, to talk you need to use words and concepts the other has (as when you talk with someone in the language they do know), so that every word used can be traced to a past memory, for sure. You seem to conclude that imagination is then bound by that, and that’s not the case → as you know, the map is not the territory. No amount of consensus makes any difference here, and science doesn’t either, since science doesn’t regulate, just describes
In particular, whatever is imagined and not bound by past memories is of course impossible to be tried to be expressed by using words that, for you, point to past memories. It’s quite telling that I could blame you of the same things you are so sure I do (‘gaslighting’) and so, and I don’t.
Let’s suppose that for you, your imagination was indeed bound by past memories up to the present moment. Precisely now, for 5 minutes, you imagine something not bound by any past memory of yours. For sure, you have absolutely no words to depict it, and any aim at using words for sure does look like being constituted of past memories (concepts). For starters, it’s ineffable.
So, you have put yourself up to the task to prove that the ineffable doesn’t exist - alright, you have to come up with proof of that. I have proof of the contrary in my imagination - don’t confuse that for the depiction of said imagination since it’s not the same
Let us read your proof that the ineffable doesn’t exist
