GENIUS FORUMS

It's by your own word- the notion of causality-bound monkey. Actions,etc, as being artifacts of causality. As well as all the references to biology. The very way in which you each speak about causality and the All continues to express these similar faults since they are entirely out of place (in reg...

"The simplicity of causality permeates the infinite complexity of reality." -Russell Pretence of knowing. No doubt you've experienced the path for a long time with this hinderence.  You aren't as yet able to understand it apparently, since you've read it before probably many times from var...

"ent-like" meant "super slowly".



And I won't consider you an elf. I'll consider you "the little person", just as you lot like to imagine yourselves.

An ent-like language.

Remember the ents from lord of the rings? Imagine what their conversations would be like. :)

We're speaking two completely different languages with two completely different expectations regarding conversation. I regard your way as "not great" to say the least, and I can't compromise as I no longer would (want to) speak it for good reason. (I referred to it as baby-like)

I know exactly what and who you are, you don't seem to.

As to your second line: I don't hold to (or pretend to hold to) any enduring intention.

Apparently you don't even know who or what you are.

What am I supposed to do about it? Show you line by line the "why"?

Sorry, that's all too much for me.

You cannot ask such a question without supplying your own take on why you log on to write down the words and ask these questions on why to others. All I know is it'd take probably a whole day to help a baby understand what's what. A conversation I've heard before too. All the while the thing would ...

You're not understanding.

I'm asking a valid question: why spend a day teaching what is essentially a nothing/nobody to me? I also mean this as a general question, ask yourself first maybe to better understand.

It seems as if you're all coming from overly complex and thus delusional contexts. (If you're serious about what you've been writing recently) From start to finish these various contexts similarly seem to imply egotistical/ignorant views. In my view it's classic baby-like intellect, meaning that fro...

guest_of_logic wrote:Forget it, then, John. It's obviously pointless trying to talk with you. By the way, I think Bernardo's ideas are flawed, so I would have hoped you could come up with something better. I guess not (I know, I know - you could show us if you wanted to, you just don't).

Ok.

If you say so.

Ok.

OK, here's what you get: feedback on your ideas, the possibility of improving them due to the input of others, and the possibility of inspiring or teaching others, which most people like to do. For me, there's no meaningful feedback you or anyone here could give, nor any possibility of improving &q...

is a pretty classic indicator of egotism in itself. If you say so. assumes you're here to participate in good faith. Discussion isn't about "what's in it for me", it's about open and honest give and take. I'm here to participate in good faith, I think, and perfect, what do I get to take? ...

So you've turned into a troll? How sad. I remember your idealism when you first arrived on the forum. Here's the thing: in the time I was active, I didn't see you manage to convince even a *single* person on this forum - certainly not me - that you even had a coherent ontological position, let alon...

movingalways wrote:why what I said is BS.

Because you write things like this: "is useless to me".

less you're joking around?

What's with all this talk of motives? You appeared to be asking questions about possible motivations. Like this: " It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or mayb he is just humoring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me ". I guess they'd be "rhetoric...

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, ...

I'm not doing that though, or trying to accomplish anything. If I was my methods haven't been very efficient. What's with all this talk of motives? If any exist over here they're just transient feelings at best and near impossible to speak of at all. Leave any serious motivations to the serious. &qu...

For example, what beingof1 wrote in the above quote seems to strongly indicate "stupid", yet Diebert replies as if it were mostly well and good. Sort of like he'd been served a plate of shit and responds "Perhaps it needs more herbs" or "Maybe it's not thoroughly cooked thro...

To me it seems that the order goes something like this: gustav/rod/being>jupiviv> Russell >diebert>moving. (The left end being Gustav, symbolizing the idiot) I'd be hard pressed to believe most or any of you were describing a complete/full enlightenment. (Unless you say otherwise.) You admit to a lo...

What need do you have for that kind of "for"?

Jusst saying, I'd prefer it wasn't this particularly amusing idiot.

Betray my wishes if you please, just know that if you do, you shall have created a powerful enemy!

Moving can you quit trying to enlighten my idiot? Please.

I think I'll instead just go kill an ant I can see on my bench.

*Seconds later*

Damn. That's one tiny dead fucker.

I am your rightful lord, peasants!