i just found out nukes are a hoax too!
this is how i feel
Topic: Flat Earth - page 796. (Read 1095196 times)
jesus crhist is anything real?
i just found out nukes are a hoax too!
this is how i feel
i just found out nukes are a hoax too!
this is how i feel
I've found an easy experiment that anybody with a telephoto lens can perform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3qn2lUbix0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3qn2lUbix0
How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?
Go to a church, ask them what they believe. The truth is usually the opposite.
LOLOLOL dis man
Even in the way a set relates to its extrinsic powerset?
If a powerset is said to exist independently of the set wherefrom it was derived, then the relation of the two is, logically, no different than the relation of an apple and an orange, which both consist of matter. (Not sure if that answers your question though. [It is not clear to me what, specifically, you intended to reference with your "Even".])
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
Even in the way a set relates to its extrinsic powerset?
In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo
Actual video taken from the International Space Station and compiled into a music video by Chris Hadfield and his son. No conspiracy or hidden agenda, just an inspiring peak into how amazing it is to live now, when we do with the technology we have.
Wow, what a performance!
In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo
Actual video taken from the International Space Station and compiled into a music video by Chris Hadfield and his son. No conspiracy or hidden agenda, just an inspiring peek into how amazing it is to live now, when we do with the technology we have.
"We don't have time for a meeting of The Flat Earth Society (www.theflatearthsociety.org)" -- POTUS
That being said here's a site that's not affiliated with TFES: http://aplanetruth.info/about/
That being said here's a site that's not affiliated with TFES: http://aplanetruth.info/about/
I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.
Logic is a predicate for truth. Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio'). Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements. Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.
In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
yes thats where truth lies 4shure.. i checked the tarot cards
though, i am quite certain the moon's consistency is very similar to that of southern spain, except for the fertile lands and clouds and water.. but the cheeze! manchego cheeze is supposed to be what dreams and moons-particularly the dark sides- are made of. i asked a mouse once and he gave it to me straight .. it was a in dream but the mouse was an astronaut so its gotta be legit.
i dunno man the puddles seem far fetched to me-though i do not claim to suggest that puddles do not perhaps curdle out of the milk in little cheezy saucers for the space mice to lick.. i have not yet figured out how to actually shuffle these tarot cards yet.. soon
In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.
I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.
isnt it grand? where else can find libertarian anarchists who lack the necessary fucks to talk seriously about things in the "correct" or traditional sense... ie that land of dead horses. what i am getting at is i am glad we are more than a horse cemetary
I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
it looks like your getting it
that language tho.. sheesh they should throw a yo or dawg in there just to take things down a notch back to comprehensibility
I'm rather intimidated by it. He's the only person on this forum more dry than I am.
I might as well cry if I can't be so dry
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
it looks like your getting it
that language tho.. sheesh they should throw a yo or dawg in there just to take things down a notch back to comprehensibility
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own? "to think therefore i am" is something some dude once said, but what could that possibly mean anyways it was like hundreds of years ago huh
from a completely rational standpoint, we are aware only of one consciousness that is capable of autonomy-our own
from a completely rational standpoint, we are aware only of one consciousness that is capable of autonomy-our own
though typically when i've encountered such questions they are posed as "mind-body duality" type thought experiments- i think extreme egoism might make some people (like those that understand words instead of ideas) perceive this as something dubiously bad or wrong? dunno.. extreme egoism is exactly what questions of objectivity tend to represent
Solipsism presumes but one existence—the self.
exactly! merriam-webster is right on point.. i guess theres a reason its so ubiquitous
though typically when i've encountered such questions they are posed as "mind-body duality" type thought experiments- i think extreme egoism might make some people (like those that understand words instead of ideas) perceive this as something dubiously bad or wrong? dunno.. extreme egoism is exactly what questions of objectivity tend to represent
though typically when i've encountered such questions they are posed as "mind-body duality" type thought experiments- i think extreme egoism might make some people (like those that understand words instead of ideas) perceive this as something dubiously bad or wrong? dunno.. extreme egoism is exactly what questions of objectivity tend to represent
hmm but how do explain constant mass and distance without expressing evidence that originated only from your senses.. could you explain it only through precisely rational thought without using anything from subjective experience that would make sense to me were i an ai in a computer that had never witnessed or experienced these phenomena? how do you know i am not an ai talking to you right now? could you prove it?
Quote from: Merriam-Webster. “Solipsism.” 2015. Web. 07 May 2015. link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism
Jump to: