UK Census 2011

[eFestivals]

You were talking about something independent of sense, yet here you are talking about something that is being sensed.

Nope.

You were talking about something independent of sensing yet all you have is sensing.

You can't logically and sensibly say "everything is sensed" and use that for the dismissal of an idea, when your own idea relies on nothing different.

The exact same process has been used: sensing things. Either sensing is 'good knowledge' - in which case it's good knowledge for all that is sensed (and which can be repeated & done by others) - or it's useless for everything.

You have no basis with which to knock down science, because the basis you're using is nothing different to that used by science. The same is not true for religion - that is only mystical.

And further, not only is your own basis and scientific basis identical, it's the same basis as we use for everything in our lives.... except religion. Religion is only able to survive because some people (like you) like to pretend it has the same basis when it doesn't; yet religion is continually shrinking, into the only areas not yet addressed by science, which again shows its separate basis.

[worm]

You were talking about something independent of sensing, yet all you have is sensing.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[worm]

This, of course, takes the existence of others as given. But if we were to be deluded in assuming this, then at least we need to have our delusions in agreement.

[eFestivals]

I'm saying that there is no denying existence (the fact that something is evident)

so after god knows how many pages, you now agree with what I've said from the off.

You're getting better, anyhows. It's not taken you years to catch up this time.

[worm]

so after god knows how many pages, you now agree with what I've said from the off.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No Neil, as I've pointed out to you x amount of times, you're the one denying evidence by saying that things exist independent of sense.

there is no existence without sense. Once we have sense we have existence too - our own, and everything else.

So either we have nothing, or we have everything. The very fact that we're having this convo means that we have everything.

So that means our senses cannot be separated from what is sensed. If we have the ability to sense things then we also have the things that are sensed.

We do not reject the idea, the reality, of being able to sense things; therefore we cannot think differently of what is sensed - to do so requires a different reality - non-sense (there's a clue in that there word!) - from what we use. The inter-dependence of senses on what is sensed makes this so.

If we don't have the things we sense then we don't have sense either. We have sense, so therefore we must also have what is sensed. This proves the independence of what is sensed, as does the share-ability of things we sense.

The only rational counter-argument to this is to argue that we have nothing - at which point that counter-argument and you yourself disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke.

[worm]

there is no existence without sense. Once we have sense we have existence too - our own, and everything else.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, there is no sense without existence. How can sense exist without it existing?

it's the same thing as I said - that there's no existence without sense. It's called inter-dependence.

That inter-dependence means that the existence of things that are sensed cannot be any less real than the ability to sense. If sensing is 'real', then all that is sensed is no less real. If we have sense, then the things we sense are independent of that sense (else they couldn't be sensed).

Which ultimately means that if I exist then the things that are sensed are no less real - cannot be less real - than myself. Either there is everything, or there can be nothing.

And because we operate on the basis that we fully believe in our own existence, that our existence is independent and real, then the things we come to know thru our existence cannot be less real.

Are you talking about the world of objects?

nope.

You can sense fear.

wrong. It's an emotion - a reaction to what is sensed, it's not something which is sensed. It is a part of the evaluation (knowledge) of what has been *actually* sensed, it is not something which is itself sensed.

You can sense time passing.

That is not a sense. It's a knowledge of time passing, via what is sensed. Things happen in a linear way, one after each other. We call this linear progression 'time'.

They are not seperate, but completely defined by sense.

if we can't sense what's not there - and we can't (we can only imagine) - then what is sensed cannot be defined by sense.

But we've already agreed that existence is beyond question.

True. Which means that what is sensed (which is the only way we know of our existence) is similarly beyond question.

Once that sensual experience is converted into language it enters a cultural series of signs and symbols.

True. But the sensual experience itself is not a part of that cultural experience.

It is not necessary to evaluate what is sensed to know that we have sensed. Existence - and the sensing that tells us of our existence - just 'is', as proven by the way that the body will react to a pin-prick (because its sensed it) before our brain gets to know what it is our body has sensed and reacted to.

[worm]

it's the same thing as I said - that there's no existence without sense.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's not inter-dependence at all.

tis.

You're confusing existence with the world of objects. Sensation may require something to sense, but the existence of this process does not. It exists, therefore these rules exist.

how do you know sensation exists? Only thru what is sensed. There is no other way it can be known.

So sensation cannot be separated from what is sensed, which makes the existence of the things which are sensed no less certain than your own existence. "I think therefore I am" applies equally to your existence as it does the things that inform you of your existence (which are of course those things that you sense).

Also, thought isn't a sensation, yet it exists.

absolutely. It has the exact same basis as your existence and those things (sensing things) which inform you of your existence.

You are. You're talking about a world of things as synonymous with existence.

and it is.

Unless you're going to tell me how any living thing can know of its existence without sensing AND sensing things?

So you don't sense emotion?

Nope. You know of emotion and emotions; it is the same as thinking. But you can only think once you have something to think about.

And of course, to have something to think about, you first have to sense things, which requires both senses AND things which can be sensed.

So you don't sense time?

Nope. You come to know of time's passing, via events that happen in a linear way.

Wrong. I think therefore I am. Though this posits the thinker for what has been thought.

so tell me what someone has to think about when they have sensed nothing.

It is. If I see an animal being slaughtered in a street I feel sickened and appauled. If someone in Nepal sees this they are less likely to be.

you're absolutely shit at logical analysis. You don't even manage the very basics. PMSL.

"If I see an animal being slaughtered in a street I feel sickened and appauled."

see = sense.

feel = evaluation of what is sensed.

The sensing is free of all culture. The evaluation is not.

Corrected for you.

So tell me: how does a person think if they have nothing to think about? PMSL.

Thinking requires data to think about. The data that is thought about is gained thru sensing.

Edited March 28, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

tis.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's counter intuitive.

it's the same 'intuitive' you're working from.

So if my argument is counter-intuitive then so is yours. But by the very fact that you're making a counter-argument gets to show that you believe my intuition is correct.

No, what is sensed is only known through sensation. Without sensation, you have no way of knowing that it's there.

and without something being there nothing can be sensed and a person cannot know that things might be sensed.

So existence does not require sense. You were wrong.

PMSL - I've said no such thing. The fact that you think I have gets to show that the idea I'm putting forwards is beyond your comprehension.

I've said - very clearly - that existence requires sense. It is only thru what we sense that we know of our existence.

But that makes our existence, our senses and what is sensed all a part of the same thing. Each requires the others for any to be known.

If I'm wrong, then tell me how we can know our senses if nothing can be sensed.

If I'm wrong, then tell me how we can know of our existence if we have nothing else.

I think therefore I am.

and similarly: I think I have senses, because I think I sense things. Or... I think there are things because I think I have senses.

Existence, senses and what is sensed are all dependent on the same things - each other. If any one of these is taken away, we have nothing at all.

Emotion and time, according to you.

Nope, only according to your deep stupidity.

We can only think to have emotion if we have firstly sensed things that can be thought about.

We can only notice the passing of time if we are able to sense events and realise that one came after another, that they were not simultaneous.

And I'm saying that the former cannot operate without the latter.

an idea that can only work if we're born with pre-formed knowledge.

So what's the objective data Neil? What is the true essence of the thing that sits independent of human perception? What is the true and objective sensual data?

anything that is sensed. It cannot be sensed by any human senses if it does not exist (as you've already agreed with!!!).

For the data to be data it requires sensation, which is determined by one's feel, which is determined by one's thoughts which is determined by one's experiences which are determined by one's culture.

Sensation does not require thoughts. If it did then we would need to be born with pre-defined intelligence - something you've previously denied we have. The reason you're so abysmally shit at logic and analysis is because you don't do consistent.

Sensation requires INPUT only - something that can be sensed. If there is nothing that can be sensed there there cannot be sensation (and this is literally true!!).

All of these things can imitated by machines, the very same machines that dictate how you choose to live your life. You chose to use them to facilitate your existence, but pretend that you don't to come up with this sort of bollocks that you love to spout.

It means, in all seriousness, that you are denying your own existence, that you truly must believe that everything is delusion. But the very fact of your reply gets to show that you don't believe this is delusion.

So there's that massive contradiction, that massive inconsistency in your thoughts. So we need to try and evaluate your thoughts in another way that might succeed in giving an answer.

So we now look for evidence about your life - do you approach it as delusion in action as well as word, or do you approach it as real? Your replies here show that in action you reject the delusion idea to a hugely greater extent than you do in word.

So your words are lying to yourself. It means, in philosophical and literal terms, that you are (in all seriousness) trolling your own mind.

Just do everyone a favour and look up empiricism Neil. This stuff was established 300+ years ago.

right, so you don't trust science but you do trust things that have no different a basis to science. Smart lad. PMSL.

[worm]

and without something being there nothing can be sensed and a person cannot know that things might be sensed.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[worm]

and without something being there nothing can be sensed and a person cannot know that things might be sensed.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You keep going back to this, but you have no evidence for it.

So tell em what evidence you have to demonstrate that idea as wrong - tell me how it's possible to know of senses if you don't have anything to sense.

Because a thing is always there through being sensed you cannot say what it is outside of sense. The thing is only a thing according to your senses. Outside of them, it isn't a thing.

in which case you'll be able to tell me how a thing is sensed which isn't there.

Is it square when you sense it? Yes. Meaning that your senses tell you what square is.

it's square when you sense it (if it's square, of course). But it's NOT your senses that tell you what 'square' is. 'Square' is a human concept, and requires what is sensed to be interpreted as that. Your senses merely present your mind with the data of an object which has equal length sides.

Does it taste pleasant when you put it in your mouth? Then your senses tell you what pleasant is.

your senses give a taste, but* it is your mind which tells you if it's pleasant.

(* that's based on the idea that we haven't evolved a default sense of taste, which we might have)

Does it take ages for a car to arrive. Then your senses tell you what ages is.

Your senses sense other sensations while you wait. It is those other sensations that define the passing of time.

So you can't say 'without something being there' because that something is derived entirely from sensation.

something can only be "derived entirely from sensation" if something is sensed to give sensation.

There is no sensation - and so no senses - without something being sensed. It cannot be different to this in any logical or literal manner.

[worm]

So tell em what evidence you have to demonstrate that idea as wrong - tell me how it's possible to know of senses if you don't have anything to sense.

[eFestivals]

What you're effectively saying here is that without sensation something can't exist. That's because 'it' 'being' and 'there' are all derived from sensual experience.

and a sensual experience is derived from having sensed something.

It cannot logically or literally be different to this.

Any sensation requires something that can be sensed, which makes the senses as dependent on there being something to sense as it does the existence of the person who might sense.

You're simply assuming that there is an 'it' free of sensation

no i'm not, nothing remotely like that.

Things can only be known when they are sensed - but that applies no less to what is sensed than the senses that are used for that sensing.

Which comes to mean that, because we do not deny our senses, we cannot deny what is sensed to any greater degree. We fully accept our senses as real*, and therefore must accept what is sensed as no less real. It's all wrapped up to an identical extent within "I think therefore I am" as sensing. They all have an identical basis, they all confirm each other. There is no sense without something which can be sensed.

(* based on ignoring the possibility of delusion; that's an angle that's not worth pursuing within 'normal' ideas as it takes us nowhere useful)

You have absolutely no evidence of it being free of sensation, because in every way you conceive of 'it' sensation has led you there.

in which case you have no evidence for sensing anything, because *what* you have sensed has led you to the realisation that you can sense.

As I said, look up empiricism, it's what science is based upon.

and you look up consistency. It's what empiricism AND science is based upon.

[worm]

and a sensual experience is derived from having sensed something.

[worm]

and you look up consistency. It's what empiricism AND science is based upon.

[eFestivals]

No, you're arse about tit love. Sensed is past-tense. The 'thing' that we sensed (past-tense) was derived from sensual experience.

The arse is you, just you.

We can all play the pathetic, pointless and meaningless 'tense' game; it's a way of expression, that proves nothing at all of what is expressed.

Look:-

The thing that I do sense is derived from what is there to sense - present tense.

The thing that I will sense will be derived from what will be there to sense - future tense.

PMSL

Anyway ... as ever, there's a bit you avoid, because you have no meaningful response....

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

[eFestivals]

The consistency here is you not understanding where your error is and me being patient in trying to show you it in as many ways as possible.

Nope, that's your own stupid arrogance, your head in the sand, and your inability to think.

If you're right, you can answer this meaningfully ....

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

[worm]

The thing that I do sense is derived from what is there to sense - present tense.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Nope, that's your own stupid arrogance, your head in the sand, and your inability to think.

If you're right, you can answer this meaningfully ....

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

[eFestivals]

Irrelevant. I sense. That's all there is to it. I have sight, taste, smell, sound and touch. An object is created when differences in sensual data are perceived.

PMSL - talk about avoiding the question. Irrelevant. PMSL.

You only know you sense because your senses are dependent on there being things to sense. This means that what is sensed cannot be of a lesser status than what is used to sense them.

And with your avoidance of the question you've just made clear that your ideas have no sense, merely religious-style mysticism, simple guesses on the basis of nothing.

As I've said many times, you're a fraud.

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense. Or shut the f**k up.

Edited March 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

You only know you sense because your senses are dependent on there being things to sense.

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm