GENIUS FORUMS

Dan claims he wasn't born.

I'd like him to explain how this makes sense in light of what he said to me a couple months ago:

Dan: As to qualia: where is "red" in your perspective?
A bunch of neural pathways and synapses that light
up when a person says they see "red" isn't "red" -
is it? It's a bunch of brain activity that we associate
with the subjective experience of "red".

Isaac: The only thing that I would add is that the brain activity
is dependent on the incoming sensory stimulation, so "red"
is the brain activity in response to wavelengths of visible
light of a certain wavelength.

Dan: There you go, you're already branching out making "red" more
than just the firing of neural paths and synapses. This is what
I'm saying ultimately becomes arbitrary (which is fine for scientific work,
but not so great for philosophical inquiry). It's also why I'm saying
these things are not "red". What is "red" is the subjective experience of "red". A=A

What Dan is implying is that red is a subjective experience, one that is an effect of a cause. In other words, the subjective experience of red is not identical to the electro-chemical activity which underpins it.

What does this have to do with Dan's comments on birth?

When Dan says that he wasn't born, he is basically implying that his subjective experience of self is identical to the causes which create his subjective sense of self.

Do you guys see the corner Dan has painted himself into?

The QRS are masters of word games. They indulge in a feeling of 'doing something great' by merely playing around with definitions. Occasionally they blatantly contradict themselves, as is obvious above.

Issac wrote:

The QRS are masters of word games. They indulge in a feeling of 'doing something great' by merely playing around with definitions. Occasionally they blatantly contradict themselves, as is obvious above.

In Dan's explanations of the concepts 'red' and 'birth', he was doing the direct opposite of "playing around with definitions". The people playing around with definitions are those who attach arbitrary beginnings and ends to things, thereby making them something they are not.

What Dan is implying is that red is a subjective experience, one that is an effect of a cause. In other words, the subjective experience of red is not identical to the electro-chemical activity which underpins it.

How is the idea of "electro-chemical activity which underpins" not also a subjective experience?

When Dan says that he wasn't born, he is basically implying that his subjective experience of self is identical to the causes which create his subjective sense of self.

Aren't those "causes which create his subjective sense of self" also experienced subjectively?

Do you guys see the corner Dan has painted himself into?

I can't imagine Dan painting floors, ceilings, portraits, landscapes, or anything else for that matter. What he did do was plainly and simply define 'red' and 'birth'.

Isaac wrote:When Dan says that he wasn't born, he is basically implying that his subjective experience of self is identical to the causes which create his subjective sense of self.

Isaac, I don't see how that's the case. Perhaps you just didn't use enough words, so please elaborate.

You've just gotta love a debate with an idealist who claims that there is no objective component to his subjective experience of, for instances, red or birth.

Dan: As to qualia: where is "red" in your perspective?
A bunch of neural pathways and synapses that light
up when a person says they see "red" isn't "red" -
is it? It's a bunch of brain activity that we associate
with the subjective experience of "red".

Isaac: The only thing that I would add is that the brain activity
is dependent on the incoming sensory stimulation, so "red"
is the brain activity in response to wavelengths of visible
light of a certain wavelength.

Dan: There you go, you're already branching out making "red" more
than just the firing of neural paths and synapses. This is what
I'm saying ultimately becomes arbitrary (which is fine for scientific work,
but not so great for philosophical inquiry). It's also why I'm saying
these things are not "red". What is "red" is the subjective experience of "red". A=A

Yup... There Isaac goes claiming that the subjective experience of red is more than just the firing of neural paths and synapses in a vacuum of subjective idealism without an objective world of actual stimuli.

So, Dan, if your experience of red does not occur in a vacuum, what, if not actual objective light (wavelength red) is stimulating your visual cortex? Or are you also in serious denial of the objective body including its visual cortex as a part of an actual physical, object, the brain?
Maybe you are if you are denying that you were actually born (absurdity taken to the max) on the grounds that nothing can be *proven* beyond immediate subjective experience. (Experience of *what* physical phenomena by what physical mechanism?)

So whence the subjective experience with neither a real body with real sense organs and brains nor an objective world to sense in the first place.
Can you not see how totally ridiculous this Idealism (ala Berkely and Hume) really is?
What is your motivation for such denial of the obvious reality of the objective world?

(Oh... I can't *prove it* as *real* beyond my subjective experience of it. Now I get It! )

The cosmos does not exist without my *perception of it?*
What exactly *causes* this perception to happen... and what sense receptors turn *it* (what?) into a subjective experience?

If you are going to deny the light you must also deny the eyes and the brain. What is left but a void of all experience...
What is left but total nonsense?

Bump.
The above is very basic, Dan. If you can't answer intelligently, you might as well pack it in as a serious philosopher.

(I was at the 99th percentile, the highest possible score, in my Graduate Record Exam with a minor in philosophy. Point: I am not easily bullshitted.)

(Gone again for a few.)

Mikiel I liken to a dungbeetle, his posts are his rolled up balls of shit.

mikiel wrote:(I was at the 99th percentile, the highest possible score, in my Graduate Record Exam with a minor in philosophy. Point: I am not easily bullshitted.)

And yet, you resort to appeal to authority.

I don't think that what mikiel did counts as a fallacious appeal to authority. Firstly, he wasn't saying that his arguments were correct because of his alleged authority, he was just saying that he wasn't bullshitted easily. Secondly, claiming a degree with a minor in philosophy is a legitimate appeal to authority, not a fallacious one, given that the theme of the disagreement is philosophical.

guest_of_logic wrote:Secondly, claiming a degree with a minor in philosophy is a legitimate appeal to authority, not a fallacious one, given that the theme of the disagreement is philosophical.

It is a fallacy if it doesn't contain an argument.

Dan Rowden wrote:It is a fallacy if it doesn't contain an argument.

But the fallacy itself is the argument, so to qualify as an example of the fallacy, it must contain an argument.

How about, though, if it doesn't contain a claim? The form of the fallacy, from Elizabeth's link, is:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Obviously in this case, person A is mikiel and subject S is "philosophy", but can you identify claim C? I can't. What mikiel wrote doesn't fit the form of the fallacy, and therefore doesn't qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

True enough. What mikiel said was more of a childish taunt than an actual claim, or even a real point.

It was just another one of his brags.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It is a fallacy if it doesn't contain an argument.

But the fallacy itself is the argument, so to qualify as an example of the fallacy, it must contain an argument.

How about, though, if it doesn't contain a claim? The form of the fallacy, from Elizabeth's link, is:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Obviously in this case, person A is mikiel and subject S is "philosophy", but can you identify claim C? I can't. What mikiel wrote doesn't fit the form of the fallacy, and therefore doesn't qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

There are formal and informal fallacies - his was informal.

Dan Rowden wrote:There are formal and informal fallacies - his was informal.

Perhaps, even, formless. :-P

No, that's his arguments.

guest_of_logic wrote:
"Secondly, claiming a degree with a minor in philosophy is a legitimate appeal to authority, not a fallacious one, given that the theme of the disagreement is philosophical."

Dan replied:
I"t is a fallacy if it doesn't contain an argument."

Dan wrote:"There are formal and informal fallacies - his was informal."

guest: "Perhaps, even, formless. :-P"

Dan: "No, that's his arguments."

So, y'all go 'round and 'round about whether there was a formal fallacy in my argument as per "appeal to authority." (I just gave a credential, as an aside, as to how I am not easily bullshitted philosophically.) As you all know I give not the slightest shit about appearing arrogant as long as I am telling the truth, which I am. (Avoidance of the appearance of arrogance is an egocentric concern, and it is trumped by radical honesty in all things.)

So, again, here is the essence of my challenge to idealism in general and Dan in particular. How about addressing the challenge rather than fixating on diversionary tactics about the peripheral issues around the degree of formality in my debate format.

So, Dan, if your experience of red does not occur in a vacuum, what, if not actual objective light (wavelength red) is stimulating your visual cortex? Or are you also in serious denial of the objective body including its visual cortex as a part of an actual physical, object, the brain?
Maybe you are if you are denying that you were actually born (absurdity taken to the max) on the grounds that nothing can be *proven* beyond immediate subjective experience. (Experience of *what* physical phenomena by what physical mechanism?)

So whence the subjective experience with neither a real body with real sense organs and brains nor an objective world to sense in the first place.

A mini-workshop/ playground for joke writers:

So... a guy walks into a psychiatrists office and says,
"I was never born." Shrink asks, "So are you a real person with a real body, brain, mouth and delusion or a figment of my imagination?"

Psychotic says, "You don't exist either, 'cept in my imagination. I just created this little scene for the drama cuz the the total cosmic void was getting boring... to no one real, of course."

Shrink: "Any idea what gives rise to this imaginary experience if the "real world" including your body/brain and concept of birth don't actually exist?"

"Nothing caused anything. None of this is real. 'Scuse me but I don't know why I (hmmm... whatever illusion) bothered to create you and this scene. Time for me to climb up my imaginary rope and disappear again into the void. Thanks for the non-existent conversation."

Shrink: "Yer welcome... but that'll be a hundred bucks, my minimum for a walk-in office call... and I'm afraid I'll have to insist on hard cash... I'm sure you understand under these imaginary circumstances..... No, sorry, invisible money doesn't count. Don't make me call the imaginary police!"

(OK... So it wasn't very funny. Just illustrates the absurdity of Dan's alleged denial of his birth. So, I'm not a very good comedian. Anyone else?)

Dan: There are formal and informal fallacies - his was informal.

guest_of_logic: Perhaps, even, formless. :-P

Dan: No, that's his arguments.

Indeed; what I really want to say (after quipping) is this: "No, mikiel didn't even make an informal fallacy." Read that link and you'll see that an informal fallacy still requires an argument, which mikiel didn't make.

Mikiel, I agree with you that Dan's saying that he wasn't born is silly, I just couldn't be bothered arguing about it - it's prima facie ridiculous. My guess is that he wrote it to stir up a bit of controversy. The fish are biting.

Well...
I gotta go again for a few days. Looks like Dan is going to stick with his ignor-ance tactic... head in the sand to avoid my challenge to his subjective absurdities based on sophomoric idealism.

Specifically in that regard, its much easier to quibble about peripheral issues like whether I have committed a formal fallacy of logic in claiming my philosophical credentials... and to drop vacuous innuendos like cryptically asserting that my argument (tho I don't have one he claims) is "formless"... rather than addressing my challenge head on directly. Par for the course here.

This is pure hypocrisy (by all three actually) who entitle their form as a discussion of enlightenment but don't recognize it when it slaps them in the face... or kicks over their pretentious podium of "logic."

And the references to Truth, Courage and Honesty in the subtitle is a joke. Truth is not limited to logic. Courage accepts the challenge to discuss the fallacy of idealism... obviously replaced by cowardice here. And I practice Honesty *above all else* in communication... which is only met with derisive comments by the trio... "Liar, liar..." because they are intimidated by the extremes of my truth telling... including my credentials both as a polymath high genius (my, my, he has no shame... *correct*) and one awakened into unity with God... which they call crazy (blasphemously so... as per David's trial farce that I claim Messiah-hood) rather than recognizing actual honest testimony on the subject. (I am one with God. This IS enlightenment. There are no "messiahs" but many enlightened ones. Get over it!)

So... see you later. This will undoubtedly go without a reply from the un-born subject of the thread and his likewise un-born cohorts.

It must be comforting to have indoctrinated stooges to run "interference patterns" of distraction for you so you can duck the direct challenges I've presented.

Well... yes... I have "gone on" about it long enough.

See y'all later.

Show me where/when I was born. I mean, seriously, do it definitively or accept that I'm correct in my ultimate point, which was there there is no place I was born other than the innumerable arbitrary designations one can assign.

Btw, I have Mikiel on ignore so if he directs anything to me he's wasting pixels.

Dan Rowden wrote:Show me where/when I was born. I mean, seriously, do it definitively or accept that I'm correct in my ultimate point, which was there there is no place I was born other than the innumerable arbitrary designations one can assign.

Btw, I have Mikiel on ignore so if he directs anything to me he's wasting pixels.

Dan sez, "I mean, seriously" without a trace of irony, yet anyone who claims that they were not born obviously can not be taken seriously. One can only assume that he is seriously claiming that he was never born, i.e., that he is "seriously" deluded!

And the argument? If no one here knows exactly *where/when* he was born then no one can prove *that* he was born.
The power of LOGIC here at work! Quite amazing, really that such a forum still has "followers."
This is a literal example of my take that that he buries his head in the sand to ignore arguments with which he clearly can not cope... even to the extreme that he does not exist... tho some illusory phantom keeps posting as Dan Rowden.

His "ultimate point"... that "there there is no place I was born other than the innumerable arbitrary designations one can assign" is clearly pathetic. I have compassion for Dan but who could have respect for such clearly deluded nonsense? Anyone?

I am entirely weary of your accusatory nonsense, Sir. Either prove to my satisfaction that I was born at some objective time and place, or I will ban you.

You want to stay? Meet the challenge.

Btw, so we're clear - you have a single post within which to meet this challenge.

Dan Rowden wrote:I am entirely weary of your accusatory nonsense, Sir. Either prove to my satisfaction that I was born at some objective time and place, or I will ban you.

Will that be a subjective ban or an objective ban? And if we can't put an objective time and date on when the banning occurs will he even really be banned?

Once upon a time
Lived a man never born
He grew to his prime
And his body grew worn
But just ask and he'd swear
To any who'd care
That you just couldn't tell
When his mum's birth canal
Ejected him out
Except that "Somewhere about
A time roughly known
She emitted a groan
And you somehow emerged
All causes converged"
This description he failed
Because it entailed
An exact form of knowing
Which he claimed had no showing
But how he explains
To those who have brains
How he got here at all
In the absence of birth
Will fully enthrall
And cause us much mirth.

Jason wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I am entirely weary of your accusatory nonsense, Sir. Either prove to my satisfaction that I was born at some objective time and place, or I will ban you.

Will that be a subjective ban or an objective ban? And if we can't put an objective time and date on when the banning occurs will he even really be banned?

Like all things, it will simply happen, in the absence of any true dualism called "subjective/objective".