• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Recent content by DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

  1. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    The single flaw with hard determinism

    It was probably me; back in the days, I started a brute-force generative algorithm and forgot to shut it off.
  2. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    The single flaw with hard determinism

    Just because you can consider temporality as a spatial block doesn't mean time is metaphysically a spatial block. If change is real, time is dynamic - determinism only implies that all the change are completely determined to be exactly as it occurs, by prior causes. That's not necessarily...
  3. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    What are you currently eating?

    myself.
  4. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    Not 'seeing' thoughts, doesn't mean not 'knowing' them. When you deliberately conceptualize a red balloon you should also 'know' that you are thinking of a red balloon whether you 'see' or 'not'. There is still something it is like to have a thought - even when it is not visual, auditory...
  5. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    I never denied that whatever appears do appear at some level. But, whether it's aprioric forms, or forms influenced by empirical signals, the point is that they make things appear in a certain way - potentially biased by the forms. The forms can change how the appearances are comprehended by...
  6. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    Space and time are not formal conditions of our intuitions, they ARE (pure) intuitions if we follow Kant. " In this investigation it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensible intuition as principlesa of a priori cognition, namely space and time, with the assessment of which we...
  7. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    Yes, he started dry. But he had bigger plans than just making generalized statements. Unfortunately, he became mad and died, metaphorically (or may be literally; it's not important).
  8. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    We don't even know, if the pre-interpretation empirical signal (stimuli) even appears at all. I suspect, before interpretation, there is no consciousness in the traditional sense. Consciousness as we know it is formed from the interection of the mind with the stimuli - and within that...
  9. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    You don't have to be sure about anything except that appearances exist and 'I am' and stuffs like that. The image of rope need not be any more real either, chances are it's not - though ideally it would be a faithful representative that is good enough to interact it. But in practice, instead of...
  10. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    When he said 'I am' he didn't invoked God. He was certain that he exist not because God makes it certain, but because to doubt existence is to affirm it --- in essence, it is impossible to even doubt being. Next he try to figure out the principle or feature behind certain knowledge - eg. I am...
  11. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    The matter about risk of beliefs and wether one should weigh the belief in snake seriously or not is besides the point I am discussing.
  12. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    You are assuming a clean cut between appearances and interpretation, which I have been arguing against. Most of the illusions I provided examples of were examples where interpretetions manifest as quasi-appearances (you think they appear in a manner in which they don't - they appear at shallow...
  13. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    Even God cannot justify flawless reasoning, for all you know God may not provide a sufficiently good faculty to man, either because God is not good, or perhaps because there is a good reason to lack capacity to reason. And even to reason about how God must be good or how giving a reasoning...
  14. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    All that 'appears' like a distinction without a difference to me. Epistemic merit has much to do with practical approach (which belief we weigh more, and base our actions upon). Failing to make proper predictions, or making predictions contradicted by the more enriched appearances, seems to...
  15. DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

    My Theory of Everything, Expressed in Layman's Terms

    I already did accept that what appears, truly appears even if only at the surface level experience, even if only as a conceptual fabrication even lacking the rich phenomenal qualities one 'thinks' it has. As such you can call them veridical if you want. But I don't see what the point here is...
Top Bottom