Okay, with respect to life after death, what “facts and processes” have been “established”? What do we know for sure about what becomes of “I” after we die? And, yes, if you are able to convince yourself that there is indeed a “straightforward understanding of time” I doubt I will be able to dissuade you.
Assuming of course I am actually free to do so.
Maybe what you ought to do, is to demonstrate how one can go about “demonstrating”. Do that in the context of the FUD that you created.
Well, in regard to life after death, you come up with a convincing argument intertwined in personal experiences that you are then able to describe to others such that they can replicate the experiences and come around to your point of view.
What else is there?
FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt?
Yes, here and now, I fear oblivion. And I am clearly uncertain as to what will become of “I” on the other side of the grave. Though I doubt there is a way in which I can determine whether what I think and feel here and now is in fact what actually will unfold.
Again, I don’t even have access to a definitive argument that would allow me to know for certain whether any of what I am contributing to this exchange could ever have been other than what it inherently must be.
After all, you are the one able to plant “I” here on considerably more solid ground. In your head for example.
Bringing it down to earth would involve exploring interactions with the dead. Sure, some people claim to have done it. Others claim that has never been done. A investigation would require a detailed examination of the claims.
Exactly!!
Exactly??
What happened to “the gap”, the “unknown unknowns”, the “words defining other words”, the “assumptions”, the sim worlds, and the rest of the horseshit that you dump on anyone who tries to investigate practically anything with you?
The “gap” and the “unknown unknowns” will always be there until the “detailed examination” embedded in the “investigation” is able to be demonstrated as fully in sync with the ontological and/or teleological understanding of existence itself.
Even relationships we appear to know are true [in the either/or world] are embedded in that gap. Isn’t this basically what Hume was suggesting in making that crucial distinction between correlation and cause and effect?
And while you may contrue all this to be “horseshit”, you have no way in which to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to agree with you. Other then to insist that, as with Communism, rationality revolves entirely around what you think and feel and say and do.
In other words, your psychologically comforting and consoling attachment to the “real me” in sync with the “right things” to think, feel, say and do. Then around and around your own particular “I” goes.
And damned if I am ever going to upend that, right?
But there is still a considerable difference between an argument that consists of words defining and defending other words, and an argument in which these defined and defended words are intertwined in mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical evidence, personal experiences, and assessments that are able to be either verified or falsified.
Except that you can’t seem to establish the difference or talk about it consistently.
It is certainly true that I have not been able to establish that difference with you. And I am the first to acknowledge that “consistency” in regard to relationships of this sort would seem to be profoundly problematic. After all, in a world of contingency, chance and change…a world where my very next experience, relationship, and/or access to information/knowledge might reconfgure my own frame of mind…how consistent can any of us really be?
In fact, this is why I always argue that the consistency the objectivists crave here seems to be more a component of human psychology than of a philosophical quest for wisdom.
“Laws of nature, empirical evidence, personal experiences” seem to support my claims about how ‘time’ operates - that it’s a true fact for everyone. It seems to fall clearly into one of your categories. But no, you dumped on it.
Right, like my own catagories are in themselves fully aligned with a complete understanding of existence.
I dump everything into that particular gap. Unless, of course, I come upon an argument able to convince that I don’t have to.
Okay, let’s bring this down to earth.
You choose the issue. You choose the context in which the issue unfolds. You choose behaviors precipitated in that context.
The current issue is how you post. It’s unfolding here, now.
You seem to have an urge to attack whatever anyone says, even when it indirectly destroys your own arguments.
Again, I’m the problem. And I’m the problem based solely on your own assessment of the manner in which I post. Your accusations.
And if some suggest the possibility that you were never able to actually choose [freely] to think and to feel any differently here, then they become part of the problem too. Why? Because they don’t think and feel like you do. And, after all, you have freely chosen to think and to feel as all rational men and women are obligated to.