then throw it in and try to prove me wrong. At the worst, you do prove me wrong and give me something new to learn.
2 op
life/the world doesn’t make sense in that there is no thing making it make sense. Yet as I see it that makes more sense than if there was something making it make sense.
To use a metaphor; if you woke up every morning to see God or some such thing in the sky, after a while you’d be thinking something like ‘cant you fuck off God’?! 
Or you’d get used to it to the point of taking it for granted or taking advantage of the ever-present and begin to do all sorts of horrible things right in viewing of said God.
Behold, Ecmandu’s twin brother.
No. I wouldn’t go that far since I don’t believe there is any one meaning to life.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder.
I say, “What about this?”
You say, “Oh, I already knew about that.”
Or alternatively, “Well, you are wrong about that. The real truth is…”
etc…etc…
To what standard of proof could we both agree?
For example:
How does a man know that 1+1=2?
Proof is proof regardless of the beholder. Just because someone doesn’t see it as proof doesn’t change the fact that it is. I have an over-thinking mind; a lot of what people tell me, I have already thought of. There are a lot of things I don’t know; such as the individual details of peoples lives, certain strains of mathematics, psychology, etcetera as people know them or are taught in school; but what I miss out on in schooling, I find, I can keep pace with through works of fiction. I learn a lot from books, movies, video games, TV, etcetera. I’ve learned a lot about warfare and tactics and strategy, learned about surviving off the land, what it was like in ancient times based on what others have learned that they made use of in the stories they weaved. Even in fiction, a lot of truth can be found in this way. Even a people watcher can know as much about psychology and people as someone who went to school for years and learned from academic books. I’ve learned of philosophies that people learn in school and discard. Realistically, fiction is a more fun way of learning even history and a lot of other dry subjects.
And, if a man does know that 1+1=2, does he know that it always equals 2? What are we adding together? It’s why I claim math to be too rigid; but that’s the basics of it. Once it gets up into the advanced mathematics, it becomes a little less rigid and more fluid with what-if equations or and/or of calculus and physics. I don’t know much about programming language even though I can understand this, because even programming language is different from calculus and I never learned calculus. I can understand more about the Universes programming language without being bogged down by too much of others perspectives and interpretations of it in such mannerisms, though. Without learning physics, I can understand that what we know of gravity in terms of Newtons’s Law is only so much centrifugal and centripetal motion mixed with radiation from the sun, magnetics beyond just iron and metals, etcetera. A lot of things mixing together and I know this because I thought about it and it made sense. If I apply that there are exceptions to every rule and nothing is an absolute and that in itself is not an absolute unless it is, I can consider that perhaps there are those who might, for a time, defy known laws of gravity; known physics. What I don’t know are the series of reasons and situations and circumstances where this might be true.
See? We disagree already. If the person doesn’t believe the evidence, to whom has it been proven? If you mis-believed the evidence, has it even been proven to you? How do you know whether you mis-believed the evidence involved?
It isn’t proof until it removes the doubt. It is only proof when it is believed to be proof and thus convinced someone.
Having said that, one can speak of objective “logical proof”. Logic has a mechanical property that allows for it to be objectively valid even if no one ever saw that it was. The logic [for the proof] was there, merely unrecognized. It is actually the logic has been been objectively provided. The “proof” part of the term is taken to indicate “the proving logic”, an adjective for the provided logic. It still isn’t actual proof until believed. And even then, who knows whether it was mis-believed?
Proof is in the eye of the beholder.
Many of us do.
So there is a lot left for you to learn that you haven’t “already heard”.
If he knows it for the right reason, yes.
“2” is defined to be “1+1” - proof by definition. Logic is merely the proper use of language (“dialectics”).
A little hint about calculus: It is merely the sum of infinitesimal portions. To “integrate” is to add and infinite amount of infinitesimal portions. To “differentiate” is to determine the relative difference in size of two infinitesimal portions. The rest is just algebra.
Now you are stepping into my territory wherein you are certain to hear many things that you have never heard.
Thinking about it and it “making sense” isn’t quite good enough for discovering what is true. Gravity is not what you have learned it to be (gravity being well within my specialty).
Sooooo, the point is merely that by your own admission, there are new things that you can be shown - room to grow, life goes on. Nuf said … except maybe that you are bored with the pointlessness of the commons.
And what if all of the proof in the world that was enough for others wasn’t enough for you and your doubts? Would that something that proof was given toward, even though it was not enough for you, just not exist? Does the proof just stop being proof just because it wasn’t good enough to allay your doubts, or was it still proof? You are sparking off useless and worthless rhetoric that serves no purpose other than to cloud an issue. When do you stop beating around the bush and speak about the elephant in the room and give it a name?
I know. How can it be different regardless of what people claim?
Ah, but not so much for me to learn. I’m not interested in the details of individual lives and they all break down to the same basic components after so much analysis. The details aren’t needed from everyone to be able to ascertain why things are, have been and will be what they are, have been and will be. And, why would I further learn faulty things as taught by others if I do consider myself to know better? They are in the process of evolving their thought processes to be able to evolve technology to be able to move a bit further into the future and they are learning those things, why do I need to? What I learn, when in relation to what they learn, is designed to help facilitate forward movement, if they can see it. There’s not so much a whole lot left for me to learn, but a whole lot left to be expanded on, to deepen the knowledge of, to apply to other aspects of life. I know all that is worth knowing and needed to know in that regard. I know where it all breaks down, the patterns of learning. I can learn anything I choose to and become good at it; great, even; just by knowing what I do.
Only by what was taught to you and what was drilled into you and what you accepted. Rigid. You claim that if he knows it for the right reason, as if all other reasons that might show it to not be 2 at times would be ‘wrong’ reasons, rather than situational differences. That is faulty thought construct limited by what you have taken as a ‘be-all-end-all’ instead of something to expand knowledge of and push further.
All you do is list off what you learned from others, what you were taught and how good you are at reciting it. You have learned nothing at all of the actuality as it exists in nature all around us because you’ve been overwhelmed by faulty teaching habits and curriculum.
Through reason, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that things exist that many do doubt the existence of; but would all such proof be accepted by you or others and your and their doubts? Fears? Rigid construct of accepted belief reinforced by others making fun of it or ridiculing it? Would you accept the reasoning or find some reasoning of your own to combat it based on so many things, also including perceived blows to your pride as it becomes bruised, perceived insult on your behalf, emotion, etc.
If you choose not to believe something based on the proof available, is it a fault of who is presenting the proof, the proof itself or a fault of your own that in all evidence and all proof that you have remained stubborn or close-minded enough not to even entertain the possibility that such might be true because you would rather remain in the thought processes provided for you rather than to strain and hurt your brain to push beyond and see what might actually, truly exist. And then that stubbornness may be reinforced by how much you claimed to know; how much confidence you attributed to it and the adamant refusal to admit that you could be wrong at all, based on several varying factors of psychology and animal nature.
I said nothing of existence depending upon belief.
I fully explained it. Proof is subjective. What is proof to one, is not to another. You are beginning to prove it.
Yes. You are the “Analyzer type”. There is an organization wherein you would fit perfectly.
It is merely language, a tool of communication. Do you believe that a language has some objective quality such that it might not “really be” what everyone speaking it, believes it to be?
I admit that language is “drilled into” people’s heads, but that hardly makes it incorrect.
Other reasons might not reveal that it must always be true. But it is either right or not, regardless of any reasons.
Nah. You are merely naive.
Man, are You barking up the wrong tree.
Presumption is the seed of all sin.
… another one you have never heard. Don’t look for it in the Bible. It isn’t there either.
Yeah, fun talking to you. You’re obtuse, stupid and just looking to argue.
Whereas you are merely so afraid to be wrong that you live in insecurity of denial and accusations.
Actually, no. I’m not afraid of being wrong. I see it pointless to argue with you. I made my points, I gave reasoning and you insisted on sticking to what I said you were sticking to and claimed otherwise, showing your own inability to realize what you’re doing.
I’m not any type. You can’t just attach a label and have it fit and have me fit it. I don’t just analyze and I don’t always analyze and I don’t spend much time analyzing. I can analyze, I can do it very well when I choose to, but why? With the multitude in my subconscious that have a vast array of skills and want to be a part of the project I’m working on, why would I hog all the work, for one, why would I take more credit than I was due and why would I work alone? Why would I specialize in just one aspect when I can be adept at many?
I never said incorrect, though I can agree that mathematics is a language. I said unfleshed, unfinished. There is much still unknown; there is much more to do. I’m still beginning to understand the concepts myself, so I’m reticent to put anything forward further on the subject. But, when dealing with sentience and sentients and other things, there can be definite moments when 1+1 can equal any other number based on the variables unknown of those ones.
You called me naive when I made a claim. Regardless of what you do in the privacy of your mind, the outward show of it is what I go off. The obvious show is that you resort and fall back on and rely on the be-all-end-all aspect of what you were taught, which is true.
And then you told me I was barking up the wrong tree. That doesn’t make it true. That doesn’t make me barking up the wrong tree just because you say so.
I can tell that you don’t like to read much either.
Such as:
Accusing me of all of the things that people have accused of you, doesn’t help your case or cause.
You can tell that I don’t like to read much? I try to read every word spoken toward me. When I read books, which is often, lately, I read every word. I read long books, upward of 500-1000 pages. I enjoy reading. I respond to almost every aspect of what someone posts when I do respond to them because I want to get the full message of what they’re saying and make sure that I’m reading it correctly and responding correctly. If they do not correct me, then how can I know I’m wrong? Am I wrong? Did you not come into this thread with energy bursting, with confidence and assurance in what you were saying and yet, nothing to back it up except a standard definition that was, as I said, taught to you by a faulty educational system? And then you say that I was wrong in the analysis and statement of such?
I’m trying to find where what you say is actually accurate and true. I must admit that I’m failing to do so. So, you see, I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong or where and when I fail.
And I am not blindly accusing you of the things that people accused me of. I am paying attention to the words you’re saying, how you present yourself and your knowledge; your responses. Not just what you’re saying, but how you’re saying it, the measure of the pace of your delivery, the feeling behind the posts when I read them, etc.
Then enjoying rereading this thread, especially my last post.
Umm… no. Obviously not.
You take 1 group and add it to another group, you then have 2 groups. If 1 group has 5 in it and the other has 11; you can add the 1 to 1 and get 2 and you can add the 5 and 11 and get 16 and you can similarly say that 1+1=16, though, without the context, another would simply state that you were wrong.
Similarly, when you add 1 human and 1 human, you get 2 humans, except in family exceptions when you get three total if they have sex and the more times those ones have sex, can get 4 or 5 or 6 or however many you get.
Furthermore, if we can be possessed by any number of spirits and can house identities of countless entities, then you’re not just adding 1+1 but the sum accumulation of those 1’s to each other.
And, I don’t re-read. I read it well enough the first time. You’re egotistic, conceited and unwilling to admit that you could be wrong. You’re unwilling to budge. Nothing I have seen of you in the past would allow for the rapid improvement from what I’ve seen to something that has out-stripped me in thinking. I was ahead of you then, I am ahead of you now.
You attack what I say with rudimentary knowledge, which I have already called it. I see where you speak what you were taught and that that is true, but only partially. I’m looking at the rest of it and trying to ascertain where the truth lays in that. You’re not exactly going further into detail of your statements, but prefer to stand on your ego, instead.