UK Census 2011

[eFestivals]

Wrong. I only know I sense because I sense. I don't need to know I sense, I just sense. As I said, existence (in this case sense) is undeniable.

You keep going on about nothing. Well if there is silence then I'm listening to silence. If there is no colour, then I see darkness or blackness. And so on. I do not stop sensing phenomena.

What I keep saying and you keep overlooking is that it's due to our senses that we have definable things in which we can categorise phenomena. Let's look at sight (a phenomena). We sense darkness. Then we see a yellow thing. This is different from black and comes to define what the thing is. The thing we have created is the concept of yellow. It is marked by its difference to black. What are these things? We'll call them colours. The relationship between these colours is how we work out the order of things (laws of time, space, distance etc). This applies to all sensual categories, not just colour.

Now let's try it another way shall we. If there is a thing that is free of sensual experience, describe it without using a sensual category of difference? Tell me what yellow is without its difference to another colour. Tell me what its frequency of light is without its difference to another colour frequency. The moral of this story being: you cannot seperate a thing from phenomena without there being a sensually definable difference in experience.

Oh look, more fantasy empty headed and fraudulent bollocks. You only know of your senses because they sense things. Without things to sense you cannot know of your senses. This means that what is sensed is no less real than what they are sensed by.

Anyway, I see you've abandoned the whole idea of difference that you once said was the basis for everything we can understand - and thus you have said of yourself that you cannot understand anything.

Either shut the f**k up, or tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Edited March 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

You only know of your senses because they sense things.

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Either shut the f**k up, or tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Repeating your party line in the face of successful counter opposition makes a fool of you.

says the fool.

I've already told you that things derive from differences/changes in sensual experience.

And I've listened.

Which is precisely why I'm asking you how you're able to know of your senses if you've never sensed anything.

You can only become aware of your senses by first sensing something (which causes a diffe4rence from nothingness) - which makes your knowledge of those senses completely dependent on the things that are sensed.

That means that knowledge of what is sensed has an identical basis to any self as knowledge of the sensing equipment. They are fully inter-dependent - one cannot exist without the other.

You have no evidence of things free of sense, only a sense of things.

I have as much knowledge of things free of sense as I do the senses themselves. They are inter-dependent - you cannot know your senses without something to sense.

You - and I - have no evidence of senses free of things to sense. It cannot be logically different to this.

You also asked me to answer your question, which I did:

'You keep going on about nothing. Well if there is silence then I'm listening to silence. If there is no colour, then I see darkness or blackness. And so on. I do not stop sensing phenomena.'

all things which require a "first-sensing" to create a difference that can be worked from to create what you lay out there..

Which means that you cannot know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Proof Neil. Proof. You have zeor proof of there being things that exist free of sense.

Proof worm. Proof. You have zero proof of there being sense free of things that are sensed.

Show me or tell me of a thing that is free of sensual experience.

you have to first answer my question, which you've not yet done.

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

[eFestivals]

You cannot dispute consciousness.

I cannot. But I can dispute the idiot basis you're giving for how we know of it.

Because there are differences in sensation.

There are only differences in sensation if there are things which can be sensed.

You still have not answered my question...

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

[worm]

Which is precisely why I'm asking you how you're able to know of your senses if you've never sensed anything.

[Kizzie]

I thought I was going to have a quick read about the 2011 census.

Bit confusing for a casual reader, can't you two argue in private, how is any of this interesting to anyone but you two ?

Neither of you seriously think it is….do you ?

[worm]

I cannot. But I can dispute the idiot basis you're giving for how we know of it.

[worm]

Neither of you seriously think it is….do you ?

[eFestivals]

I'm bored of repeating myself. I'm done.

I'm bored with repeating myself too, and even more bored with you repeating empty-headed idiocy that does not stand up to analysis by your own ideas.

You cannot sustain your argument in any logical, literal or rational manner. You have been completely unable to answer a question that is at the base of your own ideas.

You're done - yep, you well and truly are. PMSL.

[eFestivals]

Rubbish!

There are only differences in sensation if there are differences in sensation. That's all you've got evidence of Neil. That's all that those things that you're calling 'things' are. They're just sensual data, nothing else - you cannot step outside of sensual experience to address what is outside of it.

which part of "you cannot have sensation if there is nothing to sense" are you finding so difficult to understand? PMSL.

Again, where is this example of a 'thing' that exists free of sensual experience?

Well, according to what you're saying - without any evidence - the senses themselves.

But how do you know that? You don't. Those senses require something to sense before you can become aware that you have senses. As you've said, they require difference.

So without anything having been sensed, there is no difference, and therefore there are no senses.

Which means that your knowledge of your senses is fully dependent there being something which can be sensed. This puts what is sensed at the same logical level of existence as the senses themselves.

[feral chile]

which part of "you cannot have sensation if there is nothing to sense" are you finding so difficult to understand? PMSL.

Well, according to what you're saying - without any evidence - the senses themselves.

But how do you know that? You don't. Those senses require something to sense before you can become aware that you have senses. As you've said, they require difference.

So without anything having been sensed, there is no difference, and therefore there are no senses.

Which means that your knowledge of your senses is fully dependent there being something which can be sensed. This puts what is sensed at the same logical level of existence as the senses themselves.

[worm]

you have to first answer my question, which you've not yet done.

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

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So now you're saying that things can exist without sensation

No I'm not.

I'm saying that what is sensed is on the same level of existence as the senses.

You have no way of knowing of your senses without there being something that can be sensed. This makes the sensing and the sensed of an identical logical basis, both having the same degree of existence.

So if you believe yourself to be real - which you do, because you know of your existence only thru the awareness that sensing things gives - then you must also think of what is sensed as similarly real. It cannot, either logically or literally, be different to this.

And further, not only does the logic say that MUST be true, but your very actions prove it so, no matter what weasly words you invent from nothing to claim different. If you see a car driving at you, you believe its existence is real and you try and get out of its way - because your senses have told you that it IS real.

[worm]

No I'm not.

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

Yes you are.

Yellow isn't a thing. It's a difference in sensual experience. Force isn't a thing, it's a difference in sensual experience. We sense differences and differences alone.

[eFestivals]

Yes you are.

As blatant lies and misrepresentation is the only basis of your argument, you really are an odious little turd.

Immediately under the words you quoted was a precise statement that makes clear to anyone with better reading skills than a 6 year old that what you say here is a clear lie.

Yellow isn't a thing. It's a difference in sensual experience. Force isn't a thing, it's a difference in sensual experience. We sense differences and differences alone.

yep. but differences can only be detected from a reference point. And the reference point for the first sensual experience is nothing.

So a first experience creates a difference from nothing, and with that difference an awareness of being able to sense comes about.

The sensual experience is no less dependent on there being that difference as it is the senses themselves. You cannot know of your senses without sensing something, and you cannot sense something without senses. They are logically and literally inter-dependent.

I'[ll ask again - and this time, if you have a basis to your argument, you'll be able to give a meaningful answer. If you can't give a meaningful answer then just say you can't give a meaningful answer. If you can do neither then you have no place in this discussion, because it's clearly beyond your your sensibilities and your intelligence....

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

Edited March 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

yes, but why would we sense difference if there weren't differences between objects to be sensed?

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[worm]

yep. but differences can only be detected from a reference point.

[worm]

I agree with neil though - something must cause the difference in sensation, or sensation at all.

Edited March 29, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

You're missing the point. It is only due to sensory experience (difference in feel) that we realise that there is a cause. The experience comes first and from that experience we reason that x causes the experience. Therefore, x is bound to the experience.

That's what I'm on about Feral. You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y.

Edited March 29, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

But why can't we say that x exists in principle, independent of y, or at least independent of any experiencers of y?

[eFestivals]

No. The reference point IS difference.

How do you know that a door is a door? Because it's different to the rest of the wall.

You're completely f**king shit at the most basic of ideas.

How do you know a door is a door? because it's different to the wall.

How do you know a sensation is a sensation? Because it's different to the 'nothing' that there was before you had the first sensation.

See: your idea, and my idea, both the same. Now, read on....

That first sensation brings with it an awareness that there are sensations, that there are senses able to pass onto you those sensations. But it's only able to do that because there's something that can be sensed. Without the something that can be sensed there is only nothing - no sensation, no senses, and no sensual stimuli ('things').

And that means that both the senses and what can be sensed are inter-dependent. You cannot sense 'things' if there are no 'things', and you cannot sense 'things' if you have no senses with which to sense. Your senses and what is sensed both come into existence at the same moment.

(even beyond the first thing which is sensed - tho I'll keep things simple for your clearly simple mind by pretending this just happens with the first thing).

So your senses depend on 'things' for their existence, and the things depend on senses for their existence. You can't have one without the other.

You say that you can, yet I've asked you many times to say how and you never have done - clearly because you can't.

You just revert back to shit ideas that don't stand up to logical scrutiny. Because your head is full of unthinking shit.

[eFestivals]

You have no evidence of objects existing outside of sensation.

and you have no evidence of senses existing outside of what can be sensed.

There's no evidence of objects outside of sensory experience. You're merely speculating.

There's no evidence of sensory experience outside of sensory objects. You're merely speculating.

The problem is that your speculation uses sensory based language (the language of difference), so it's completely flawed.

The problem is that your speculation uses nothing useful, only stupidity, so it's completely flawed.

Edited March 29, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That's what I'm on about Feral. You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y.

"You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y."

"You cannot say what senses are, and senses do not even exist, without the experience of 'things' that can be sensed."