Re: duke shall burn in hell
Kadaitcha Man
news:KeGdnWgrGejq6ovV...@comcast.com...
> duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:51:31 -0700, DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You can't prove you have thoughts.
>>> Actually, you can. Where have you been?
>>
>> Waiting on you to prove you do.
>
> Would you pay for the brain scans?
"You can't prove you have thoughts" is a logically correct assertion, and
provably so.
You cannot prove that you have thoughts.
Brain scans reveal brain activity that can be scientifically associated with
thoughts. Such connections or relations from 1) observed scan output and on
to 2) thoughts, are valid scientific inferences; they are not proof, and
such associations cannot ever be proof if it is remotely possible that any
level of brain activity can occur independently of thought. Association and
connection both entail assumption, with the assumption being that the
observed brain activity is always, and without fail, for all cases, directly
connected to the occurence of thoughts.
Provable fact 1:
When someone observes you doing or saying something, the observer can only
infer that you have thoughts. The inference is based solely on the
observer's own experience of his or her self. That you have thoughts is a
mere assumption on the observer's part, albeit a wholly valid assumption,
with the exception of for yourself.
Provable fact 2:
When you describe something relating to your thoughts, you are not
exchanging thoughts, rather you are offering the observer some tokens that
only represent your thoughts, therefore:
A) Your tokens require the other person to accept your tokens in lieu of the
observer personally experiencing your thoughts, which is another way of
putting what is already stated in Provable fact 1, i.e. assumption is
required.
B) The tokens representing your thoughts can all be forged, every last one
of them, therefore the tokens that you offer as proof of your thoughts
cannot constitute proof because the toekns cannot be trusted to represent
truth. And that, yet again, is another way of putting what is already stated
in Provable fact 1.
As I said about you previously, you do not have the brains to work these
things out. You reach a fuckheaded conclusion and stop there, never once
considering the illogical consequences of your fuckwitted pronouncements,
never. Not ever, and there you are, doing it yet again.
You see, to prove, without assumption or association of any kind, that you
have thoughts, necessarily entails the absurd idea that the observer
experiences your own self. To put that another way, to prove to an observer
that you have thoughts requires the preposterous notion that the observer
becomes you. That is the case because there is no other way to prove that
you have thoughts. Proof is not proof if assumptions are required because
assumptions can be wrong, which, funny enough, is a restatement of what is
asserted in Provable fact 2.
Do you need any of that explained to you or demonstrated to you by way of
thought experiments, you perpetually fucking illogical and imbecilic,
atheist fuckbubble?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arn...@Arnold.com> giving technical advice.
news:k96dnd110uImNojV...@earthlink.com
Ben Goren
> Provable fact 1: When someone observes you doing or saying
> something, the observer can only infer that you have thoughts.
Woah there, Skippy! If you're gonna play the logicatin' game, you
gotta play by the rules! And those rules say that, before you can
get to logicatin', you gotta define all your terms.
So what, exactly, is this ``thought'' thingie that you're so
convinced is unprovable? Because, unless I'm way off the mark
here, any clear and recognizable definition you'll be able to give
for a ``thought'' will also be most definitely provable (whether
or not the technology currently exists to do so).
But, of course, you're not gonna define the term -- and that's
because you're playing the bullshittin' game, and not the
logicatin' game, same as why you've already chickened out on
offering up a definition of ``god.''
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Kadaitcha Man
news:1209437687_907@isp.n...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Provable fact 1: When someone observes you doing or saying
> > something, the observer can only infer that you have thoughts.
>
> Woah there, Skippy!
Aaaah, the supercilious pratt I wanted to snag took the bait...
> If you're gonna play the logicatin' game, you
> gotta play by the rules! And those rules say that, before you can
> get to logicatin', you gotta define all your terms.
>
> So what, exactly, is this ``thought'' thingie that you're so
> convinced is unprovable? Because, unless I'm way off the mark
> here, any clear and recognizable definition you'll be able to give
> for a ``thought'' will also be most definitely provable (whether
> or not the technology currently exists to do so).
Thought, the product of a formal axiomatic, reckonable system that exists as
the result of mental activity in the brain.
Corollary 1: Thought = that which gives meaning to the underlying structure
of the world.
Corollary 2: Thought = The result of non-empirical cognitive processes that
can make empirical predictions.
Corollary 3: Thought = Metaphysical X.
Where:
1) System = a set that has an organising principle (Ficken, 1967).
2) Axiomatic and reckonable = a generable set of axioms that are
capable of being computed, numbered, or reckoned.
3) Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
qv "Mind & Body", Cognitive Psychology: Baum, Eric B; MIT Press, 2004.
cf Piaget's epistemology on developmental theory of knowledge.
> But, of course, you're not gonna define the term -- and that's
> because you're playing the bullshittin' game, and not the
> logicatin' game, same as why
You were saying?
> you've already chickened out on
> offering up a definition of ``god.''
Really? Where? When?
I have never shied away from such a thing. I challenge you to show
otherwise.
Kadaitcha Man
news:9d3d145ea7of2064k...@4ax.com...
> Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>There is more than enough doubt about it. You have NEVER been able to
>>prove that he is more than something from your imagination. Why
>>shouldn't a sane adult doubt the existence of something that does not
>>exist.
>
> Okay there, genius, it's one thing to splash around in the kiddy pool
> with good ole' puke, another thing to make a rather blatant classic
> erroneous presupposition without being called on it.
>
> I'd like to see this proof you've got tucked up your sleeve that God
> does -not- exist.
<grabs beer>
<opens popcorn>
200 Quatloons for the cabal beer fund says he can't do it without a logical
fallacy in the first, oh, twenty words.
Nah... too easy... make that fifteen words.
Ok, make it ten words and I'll also explicitly nominate the logical fallacy
of reification.
Ben Goren
> 3) Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
That's nice.
And how, pray tell, does something without physical form or
substance interact with that which does have physical form or
substance?
And would you be so kind as to stop shooting yourself in the
foot? The noise is most annoying.
>> you've already chickened out on offering up a definition of
>> ``god.''
>
> Really? Where? When?
>
> I have never shied away from such a thing. I challenge you to
> show otherwise.
Oh, like /that's/ original. ``Poor me, my newsreader is b0rked.''
Here you go:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/737a280cef7d3e54?dmode=source
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > 3) Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
>
> That's nice.
>
> And how, pray tell, does something without physical form or
> substance interact with that which does have physical form or
> substance?
Where in the definition is there a requirement for interaction, either
explicit, implicit or wholly imaginary?
> And would you be so kind as to stop shooting yourself in the
> foot? The noise is most annoying.
I'm not the one creating imaginary requirements and posing them as questions
to avoid being seen to make an assertion. You are, remember?
> >> you've already chickened out on offering up a definition of
> >> ``god.''
> >
> > Really? Where? When?
> >
> > I have never shied away from such a thing. I challenge you to
> > show otherwise.
>
> Oh, like /that's/ original. ``Poor me, my newsreader is b0rked.''
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/737a280cef7d3e54?dmode=source
The second line of the headers states, "From: Ben Goren
b...@trumpetpower.com"
The challenge, you complete and utter numbskull, is to post proof that it is
not the case that "I have never shied away from such a thing." Capice, bozo?
And, wait for it, wait for it...
The ninth line of the headers states, "Newsgroups:
sci.econ,rec.gambling.poker,rec.martial-arts,alt.atheism.satire,alt.atheism"
Since I do not frequent those groups on a regular basis, and in most cases
for the above groups, never at all, what evidence do you have to counter the
idea that I did not see your post, that I did not reply because I was
unaware of its existence? You, in your utterly fuckwitted illogic, assume
the point was being avoided.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! LMFARO@YOU
You fucking stupid atheist cunt.