zedvictor4

Solipsism is a philosophical concept.

Within that context it is neither likely nor unlikely nor confusing as such.

It is simply what it is.

Whether or not one agrees with the concept is a separate contention relative to the wider context of the self as a part of everything or something.

I would simply suggest that it is reasonable to conclude that we are actually aware of an external reality.

Working on the assumption that sensory perception, signal conversion and data storage and assessment is an accurate process.

Which is not to say that everything that we do perceive, convert and assess and store can be utilised as anything other than an internally projected simulation of an externality.

Nonetheless, do or don't we manipulate externality and then perceive a validatable result via sensory processing?

I would therefore also suggest that acquired knowledge is proof, and that agreement is  consolidatory rather than coincidental.

So as  far as we are able to know, everything that occurs in a Universe is real.

Couldn't be more definitively clear, even if it came and smacked you in the face with a wet fish.

GOD principle.

Such a simple concept, yet two imaginative theorists can't grapple with it.

Would time and space have any less potential?

Of course not.

Because the potential of Time and Space preceded thinking species by aeons.

How did we occur without the potential to do so.

Let's be honest.

Is there anything more definitively unclear than theory.

The clue is in the word theory.

Extravagant ideas, never proven.

Which might or might not be wholly or partially correct.

Or not correct at all.

The point I am making is:

Whether or not humans do or don't agree is perhaps irrelevant.

Though I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Humans can or cannot agree with universal necessity"

I'm suggesting that necessity exceeds human validation.

So as an advanced intellectual species we may have loosely concluded that human suffering is not such a good thing.

Even so we still have the ability to turn a blind eye, when human necessity dictates.

As for the relativity of everything.

To suggest that everything isn't relative is a tad ridiculous.

Perhaps you hold the notion that as a human you are separate to everything.

I would suggest that human importance resides within the very fragile and tenuous bubble of human importance.

"Existence isn't necessary".

Is a sweeping statement.

Existence of what?

Can you prove that the existence of a progressive universe is unnecessary.

All that I can say, is that existence might or might not be necessary.

And I would have to apply this to everything.

And in the beginning.

Of what?

And where was the water?

As far as we are able to know,

There cannot be a beginning.

Because how can something begin,

If there is nothing to begin with.

Human ideology is easily transferable.

But is often illogical and downright stupid.

As you clearly exhibit above.

If there were a sensible and clever GODMAN.

It would laugh it's socks off at such human comedy.

Exactly.

Well,

The big unanswerable question,

Negates assertion.

Other than to assert that everything,

Is or isn't random.

Including a cause.

Though within a system of unknowable random non-random origin

Some sort of order persists.

Out of the Quantum foam,

And fundamental jus.

Came thinking person.

Did it have a choice?

Hmmmm.

So as far as we are able to know, everything that occurs in a Universe is real.

And along came an  intelligent species with a strong sense of memory and a constructive imagination.

And devised methodology that allowed them to understand and develop.

Now, notwithstanding a GOD principle.

And if we were to hypothetically remove the intelligent species from the equation.

Would Time and Space have any less potential?

I would suggest that Time doesn't actually look like anything.

And neither does Space.

We only know what agglomerated matter looks like and we attribute dimension to it and it's function.

Less or more than that and we theorise, physically, mathematically and imaginatively.

Is imaginative thinking.

Though I suppose TIME, to a greater extent all depends upon the purity of word and how we might corrupt it. 

Isn't any noise or signal generated for a reason?

Even if not for a premeditated reason.

The door banging isn't random.

It bangs relative to airflow and all the physical elements of the door and it's environmental situation.

Doesn't necessarily require a disgruntled teenager.

But if in ten years time things have changed.....Then something maybe.

If you accept existence, then everything is relative.

Pleasure pain and the innate, for starters.

So, what is your take on material evolution then Kaitlyn.

So why isn't fundamental matter still in it's primal state.

And why are human beings now developing Alternative Intelligence.....Or alternative data management systems, if you prefer.

Though any form of data management system must have the ability to develop.

So what I'm asking relative to the thread, is why do we do what we do, rather than the opposite.

Though some might point out that currently in some sub-societies, there is a slight move away from traditional sexuality.

But I don't think that this could be described as antinatalism.....Females are still driven to conceive....Even if social trend dictates less frequently.

I would suggest that we are driven to procreate, and that existence and suffering are ethically necessary for a reason.

The reason being, material evolution.

Grows and moves because there are people growing and moving who grow and move it.

Which must tell you something about it.

If antinatalism was a seriously popular movement.

The human population would rapidly decline and perhaps become extinct.

Which should tell you something about human nature.

And must also tell you something about the futility of absurd philosophy.

David Benatar has to pay the bills somehow, I suppose.

And I also suppose that sitting around thinking up nonsense for a living, is somewhat easier than working for it.

Hey Deb.

1 x 1 = 1

1 divide 1 = 1

2 divide 2 = 1

What the f**k?

You're thread is very fine.

And philosophically narrow, which seems contradictory to philosophy.

So how would you presume to gain consent.

As I suggested, consent occurs at conception.

And ethics are made up stuff, and are certainly not logically valid within the context of naturalism.....or are they.

In fact one would perhaps argue that everything that occurs within a universe  is logical and natural and therefore not fallacious.

And therefore also relative.

And a definite "No" there, which must be indicative of something.

Would you care to elaborate?

Noise or Sound?

And causality for sure, which brought to mind Kaitlyn's discussion on Consent and Antinatalism.

Yes, apologies.

But I couldn't resist.

An interestingly worded statement, which I think that I agree with.

Actually, does this statement concur with your interestingly worded statement?

It's been showing itself for 300000 years or more.

And as far as I am aware disassembly follows death.

Purposeful creation which is not necessarily dependant upon a MANGOD, would suggest a greater purpose. In which humanity might be significant.

And chance creation would suggest a sequence of events with no purpose, in which humanity would be insignificant.

Or  perhaps everything has existed forever......(But for some reason material evolution kicked off comparatively recently)

Take your pick.

Though material development does seem sequential and purposeful with or without a MANGOD.......Doesn't it?

Nonetheless, consent came to mean a female saying yes.

Was the egg hers to give up for fertilization?

Theory is imagination and imagination is theory.

And imagination is an unlimited potential, which is analogical to the question.

Though it would seem that John_C_87's and Ebucs potential is analogical to their theory.

Species survival negates ethics.

Notwithstanding  the indecision of the unconceived.

Perhaps something greater decides.

Yep. 

I would say, 1 set relative to the host agent.

Like one bum has two cheeks.

Are you tit man?

I'm a bum man.

Let me clarify that:

There's nothing quite as aesthetically pleasing as a well formed female arse in a tight pair of leggings.

Obviously nothing below 16....For legal reasons.

Though driving up the High Street in the sunshine it's not easy to differentiate.

Unfortunately bigger females try to emulate but just don't cut the mustard, whatever Lizzo might think.

There's well formed and then there's over-developed....If you know what I mean.

Nor to old.....Just gets saggy....Unless they work out.

Not sure how old my next door neighbour is....certainly older than me.

But she's a regular gym goer and runner.....And certainly still cuts the mustard.

But don't tell Mrs Zed.

Still about twice as many in the South.

And the North Korean birth rate is also decreasing.

Don't count your chickens yet.

All that an argument requires is two organic units that process data marginally differently.

Slight variations of electro-chemical brain activity, relative to the same stimulus but from a more or less dissimilar data base.

Apples, pears, bananas, mangoes, plums, peaches, nectarines, cherries, oranges, lemons, limes and kumquats.

Hear.

Say.

Hear it

Say it.

Which is how stuff is perpetuated without proof,

And is an effective system,

Of mind control.

Though,

Not 100% efficient.

It all depends upon what 1 equals.

1 bag of apples  and I bag of apples is 2 bags of apples.

Though there might be 3 apples in 1 bag and 2 apples in the other bag.

So therefore the 2 bags are not equal in either content or weight.

What you have is 5 relatively similar apples

A 2 relatively similar bags.

Belief is an internal electro-chemical process, and occurs as such.

Whether or not said process constitutes existence, is negotiable.

Do thoughts exist or just occur?

As I see it, math is created by a thinker, and in that context math is just another representation or calibration of potential.

Time and Space are potential, and Matter creates observable potential.

Time and space are just descriptions of the potential we observe relative to matter.

So let me put questions to you in another way.

If our universe is limited by a finite space then what do you imagine beyond?

I think that Ebuc would say Infinite space....But unoccupied.

But why would Infinite space beyond our finite space necessarily be unoccupied.

Therefore I can accept everything or anything as unquestionable.

And I will continue to question the veracity of Middle Eastern folk tales.

But that didn't answer my question.

Do you pay any attention to the readily available content on social media platforms?

Or do you just scroll and absorb without thinking?

Gay and transsexual etc, are the current super-hero's

Why wouldn't kids want to be like them.

Does Mr DeSantis have the power and influence to take back control?

Nicely stated.

Free from what?

Free from itself?

You're starting to contradict your principle.

How can one read a bible that one cannot prove exists.

Because the greater education system that is social media, the thing that most people under the age of 50 pray and bow to on a daily basis.

Now dictates social policy.

I click on my laptop any time of day and there it all is, in full colour.

What else can a government do, other than keep up or ban social media?

Would you support a social media ban in order to prevent sexual grooming in society?

Which is why GOD tales get perpetuated so elaborately.

Firstly, it wasn't I who proposed the concept of infinite unoccupied space

I merely questioned the concept, and asked how Ebuc could be certain that an infinite space would be unoccupied.

I based this question upon the fact that our universe occupies space.

So relative to another Ebuc in another universe, which would logically infer two universes.

How could the other Ebuc be certain that infinite space relative to their universe would be unoccupied, etc etc.

So let me ask you  simple non-scientific, non-mathematical, non-trigonometric imaginative questions.

If space isn't an infinite potential  then what happens?

What is beyond space if not more space?

For sure.

Is any Government ever a good Government?

Which is one of the reasons why I never vote.

Of course, some people vote for the same party that their Dads and Mums did....Which is a bit mindless really.

Though, for as long as the moderates retain the casting vote, you should be OK.

But just remember, you've got all those lovely guns should democracy ever get too tyrannical.

But also, don't forget that everyone else has got them too.

MAD.............A bit like the debt limit.....Which is sort of limitless really.

There are only 5 nations that do not have a National debt, so who do we borrow it all from?

Some reportedly borrow it from China, but oddly China isn't one of the 5.

How can you be in debt and lend money?

MAD......Mutually Assured Debt.

You cannot prove that any of this is real or exists.

Are we witnessing the typical rise and fall of a Russian regime.

If we can scrape through this one with no nukes, that will be good.

Though I would suggest, that the chances of the next one turning out any less corrupt and megalomaniacal are pretty slim.

It will also be interesting to see how governance and social order evolve in The Ukraine.

NB. Not that I can prove that any of this is real.

Thing is.

If you start them soon enough you can make anyone think anything.

Though to be honest, I can only assume that North and South Korea exist....So how on Earth can I accept that anecdotal evidence is proof of anything.

What is Earth by the way.

As I cannot be certain that any of this is real.

What is an average person?

One would assume that the average person copes.

And that the below average are more likely to need social assistance. 

One would further suggest that if the previously average person can no longer cope then they have dropped below average.

Infinite space has infinite potential, is a pretty logical assertion.

Is it possible to create a number that can keep up with infinity?

It's more illogical for Ebuc to assume  that they can calculate the incalculable.

The infinite potential for an infinite number of universes in an infinite space is infinite......This is perfectly logical

I assume that Best.Korea is an assumption.

So barring actual proof of anything, I am left only with assumption.

Therefore I assume everything, including the assumption that I was accused of being assumptive.

As a hypothetically  assumptive processing unit I am happy with this assumed new reality.

Because this means that I can assume that I don't need to pay my energy bills, instead of assuming that I need to.

And any other previously bothersome disturbance to my assumed existence can also be similarly disregarded.

And when I assume that the Bailiff's are knocking at my door demanding that I settle my debts.

I will just assume that they are not there.

Just voices in my head, I assume.

BRILLIANT.

Hey, the toileting discussion has reared it's ugly head again.

So why waste public money.

Let's just shit and piss in the park.

Bring your own tissue.

Or you could just have one building with a wall in the middle, sort of like it is now (See FLRW and Savant)....A daft Idea for sure.

And as  Mr Sadolite suggests.....The Penis Vagina thing would sort itself out.

 

Does a fact require belief?

Do you believe that there will be a female president one day.

I would propose that it's more likely there will be than won't be.

Though given the current state of society, a Transwoman might beat her to it.

Considering the infinite nature of the infinite potential of infinite space, then why would two Universes need to be connected.

Have you ever considered that there might be more than one infinite space.

After all, infinite space is only relative to a Universe with an onboard thinker.

Otherwise-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If two universes expanded for ever in separate states of spatial infinity they would never connect.

Sound.

For sure, proof is only relative to available systems.

Logic is a term applied to system processing......(Perhaps logic does or doesn't occur, rather than does or doesn't exist).

Whether or not logic aptly describes BK's methodology is arguable.

As most things are arguable.

GOD principle sound.

But not necessarily a floaty about Middle Eastern type bloke.

Of course, depending upon which picture book image of JesusGOD you relate to it could also look a bit Scandinavian.

Other ethnic versions are available.

And imagination and delusion are no more or less internal simulations of an unprovable external reality.

Therefore BK cannot prove ExternalGOD.

Nor InternalGOD, because Internal GOD is wholly self contained.

Nope.

That is an assumption, based upon internal electro-chemical activity relative to a previously acquired notion of a GOD.