A hard sceptic of anything, but with a polite agreeable personality/or rude if i snap, help

Is english your first language?

forget the request in the post to save it now, i've decided please

Like you: "There is a world you have a past" i see you said

Okay, learn English and see a doctor.

And him; No.9298110: "Argue this, go on, say it's there and don't look it up - distracted"

indoctornate me huh lol

Tbh the option i see when a person talks to me and i'm obligated to respond is to believe something that makes the person a someone like me, e.g.:

1. believe they experienced a thing
2. believe their delusional, so they have a mind
3. believe there memories are in there head so what there saying is in there head, so they have a mind

so i guess believe them or believe they're delusional (like 2 and 3). Or believe there lying - also makes them have a mind

See my point: If they are like me already, why am i limited like this

>why am i limited like this
because you have schizophrenia
take your meds

Are you asking how to be polite while rejecting rational discourse? Become a priest.

Explain

Become a demigod more like it

What is the difference between you and the person you're talking to? They are not part of your body. If you look at a monitor you're accessing information that is also not part of your body. If you had no eyes and were deaf, you'd use your sense of touch to understand your surroundings. You might even understand the shape of an object you're touching. What if you couldn't feel the touch through your skin anymore. Now you cannot see, hear or touch. You're left with inner body perception such as a headache or upset stomach. That is now gone too. What are you left with? Memories. What if the memories were gone? You'd have no way of forming a thought, since there would be no information to assemble it. No inner monologue, no concept of color or shape. You wouldn't even know what a memory is.

Now you're stripped to nothing but an empty vessel, a processor without a program or data. How are you different from a rock? You are the rock. And you are the person you're talking to.

I've been to a psych ward before and the staff (and some patients but staff mainly) there knew my name, also they raised topics of interest to me with me, they knew details of my life but that could have been gossip, but some things one staff male knew about that i never shared with anyone; not obvious either it was from my portals. And also things they said where very relevant to thoughts i was having that where unrelated to anything in there really - not mind reading at all but more like coincidental - and they asked some questions that where out of normal that raised topics like they knew everything. So please explain, what do you mean it's schizophrenic to be limited to making people like me? Cause these staff where nothing like me more like... dunno.. better people who had knowing above knowledge

Can't argue with this. Spock level logic

So are you suggesting i should tell myself to stop with these people and there stories and facts? If so, do you mean while i'm talking to the person.. Like, guy says "I went to the coast last week" should i say (in front of him facing him) "fuck this sort of shit of, this guy's trying to make me believe something and/or make him a consciousness, and i don't want that, and my reasons (good reasons)"? lol

>I was going to say your full of it
>Your
Oh boy you have a long way to go.

Knowing that was specifically about me above knowledge i mean.. and from portals lol that would make no sense on Veeky Forums i mean more like about fantasy lives

Not original guy but again misused the word there. But no matter...you need to seek psychiatric help if you somehow grasped that thought from that post.

K

I suggested that you are also me and them, and the rocks you step on. The difference between your eyes and theirs is in semantics, for all intents they are also your eyes with a segregated memory. What you call consciousness is the individual fragment defined by this segregation between you and them. Had your bodies melded in such a way that you both shared the same memories and senses, you'd be the same consciousness. You can arbitrarily subdivide your current experience and each would be a separate consciousness.

I used to be a man experiencing this universe, this world and its people

Now I am the universe experiencing a man.

And I understand both points of view. This is the neverending debate using different words. And for lack of a better word it all comes down to "faith"

A nice and succinct way of putting it.

Yeah then what's "they're" ffs it's the one confusing me. They're thing - they are thing wtf

Stole it from Jim carrey

So you first said without memories i couldn't have a thought, so say i see a few memories and have a thought, right?

Now secondly your saying the other person can even see and remember, but here's where you're philosophy fell apart, they obviously can't have a thought in my thought, because of what my thought would do, unless i think they had a thought.

And btw i could have a thought if i had no memories lol another hole in your theory so obviously you's don't even know what a thought is do you, real but not axiomatic person.

Fantasy lives was just said because you's scientists are trying to use maths to open wormholes, fyi i need to tell you's - i've made a portal or two.

There should really be a "OP is a paranoid schizophrenic" option when you report a post
I don't know if it's always the same guy, but I have seen a few threads like this one already

What would you think about if you had no memories and no sensory input from your body?

It's understandable you're afraid, the unknown is scary and the uncontrollable doubly so. No need to lash out in rage at what you don't comprehend.

Elaborate please! So i'm accused of be schizophrenic again.. Just tell me, is this because i know your consciousness is not axiomatic but i act like it is? Or is this because i know your consciousness is not axiomatic? see the first person on this thread who said it said it was because i'm limited to saying things to make the people like me. So i'm guessing it's because i act like you's have consciousnesses when you's don't.

If it's the people that is making me schizophrenic by complying then it's time everyone stops acting like they're the same kind of thing as me anyway.

Anything at all.

>So i'm guessing it's because i act like you's have consciousnesses when you's don't.
It is your choice to assume that only you are conscious. You could have equally assumed that only you don't have a consciousnesses, or everyone has a consciousnesses, or any combination of thereof. Your dilemma seems to be with politely explaining to them that you chose to assume that only you are conscious, when in reality your problem is that you cannot comprehend anyone else being conscious. This stem from your definition of consciousnesses, which presumes that only existence ends where your perception stops. This is on the level of a retarded child not being able to understand that just because they know a red car is in a box, automatically everyone knows the red car is in that box.

The schizophrenia accusations come from your lacking ability to form coherent sentences in proper English. Not everyone can understand you.

Pick just one thing.

If i'm so retarded then how can i see you changing this part: "only existence ends where my perception stops." by putting this in front of it: "consciousness presumes that". Some compliance to temptation of reconsideration or some shit that you would do. Now you didn't say what you should have and your convincing me your conscious because i saw you fucking around in the text box

What???

If you can't get around the idea that you're not the only conscious thing then you have way bigger problems than letting someone off nicely in an argument.

> Oh look at me, my name is this guy and you're all fake because you're not in my head.

You really are showing symptoms of mental illness. The inability to distinguish between what can be proven (the existence of consciousness) and what is both reasonably "proven" and reasonable to assume.

BTW you can't even prove that you are conscious or that something as consciousness exists unless one makes a lot of assumptions.

It's not a problem. Found out about a retarded child? If i put a red car in a box the problem is if people are 2 retarded to say it. If they where conscious of it and knew about it they could say it 2 but they don't need that. I'm not to be responsible for blood sweat and tears here. That they'd say it would be good enough here

did shit

did shit

As long as it's unreasonable for people to believe they have been beaten by me. Like mathematicians who can't time travel and like scientists who can't cause. It's reasonable for me to determine they are not axiomatic people. Especially when the only reasonable explanation for existence is my perception. I have accounted for everything down to the idea's that cause the information available online, that is supposedly a collaboration of millions of peoples input if i suppose that they are all mistaken or lying about, absolutely everything but yet they are educating anyway is unreasonable.

Nothing to people is reasonable to assume except proof, truth and fact - and that is unreasonable.

I'm saying nothing at all is reasonable to assume. Truth, proof and fact are assumed based on probability and, and i can tare probability up, into shreds, watch:

2 different definitions:
a) favourable outcomes/possible outcomes,

Favourable outcomes does not include the favourable causes? In this definition, overlooked!

Possible outcomes - only includes outcomes that are possible, so believably probable. Unbelievable outcomes? Unlimited and not included!

And again with possible out comes, causes of all outcomes are ignored!

b) total number of ways it can happen/possible outcomes

Total number of ways! They say a 6 sided dice has 6 ways an outcome can happen.. That's so stupid it's a 3d die rolled the ways any number can happen is unlimited, can roll in a bit to the left, a bit to the right. This formula tried to include causes - but the people who publish this don't even understand that because the example given is a six sided dice roll - now assuming someone knew this - that's unreasonable because the dice example published.

Once again total possible outcomes is believable outcomes only! so "reasonable outcomes" leaving ME unreasonable to include because it's reasonable to define me as impossible, supposedly. Because possible is believably probable, the whole formula is inside it's self.

Not to mention that the probability of cause would come into question if we are being reasonable, because it's unreasonable to assume a possible cause without questioning the probability of a coincidence, which is mathematically improbable after 3 coincidences or so - so unreasonable to believe and therefore supposedly impossible.

So because of the probability of cause probability is inside its self/ (as i said a few minutes ago) possible outcomes means believably probable, so its inside it's self again

probability=probability/probability

fact, proof = stupid

If everything you perceive can be wrong, that means the experiences you perceived that lead you to this conclusion could have been wrong.

I think I have managed to translate your argument:
1. your perception is limited to your point of view
2. since you cannot perceive anything beyond your perception, you cannot say with certainty that it exists
3. intent of anyone but yourself cannot be directly perceived by you, only deduced
4.you cannot with certainty say anything but you has any intent or non-malicious intent

Does that sum it up?

It seems I was correct, you are describing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

What do you mean it seems you where correct? Because it's unreasonable for me to win, is it?

Nah but right track

I have a solipsistic trait

Nothing is reasonably "proven" to assume, see 9298784

>What do you mean it seems you where correct?
I mean that your ideas and arguments are something called solipsism, in that I was correct. I do recommend you read what solipsism describes as a philosophy. I am not making claims about correctness of your arguments.

With that out of the way, here's a nice counter argument to your argument en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsistic#Falsifiability_and_testability

I can defend my solipsism, unbelievably:

1) My thoughts cause things to happen, because i am the only true solopsist. Nobody else can cause with thoughts, see 9298415
2) I do not need to comply to the unbiased scientific method to define and determine what suits me, and i don't need a reason. See i'm not collaborating and see 1)

3) I can see what exactly what group of supposed scientists are behind every publication, i can see down to every expression that was supposedly involved. I can see what they supposedly considered and what they supposedly thought, and this is irrelevant - but trust me, it's not unbiased at all. But it's all supposed, the fact is there is no scientists, the true cause of any publication i have ever seen is my laptop, and all it ever shows me is in support of my old ideas, that i don't even want anymore - including you're replies: All in support of an idea for the people that i don't even want anymore either.

>1) My thoughts cause things to happen, because i am the only true solopsist.
This can be countered with a simple experiment: with only your thoughts, create a gold ingot. If you cannot create it with your thoughts, then there are things that you cannot make with only your thoughts. This implies that your thoughts have limited influence over your perceived world, which implies an actor or existence outside of your control or perception.

Since 2 and 3 stem from 1, there is no need to argue against them.

Yeah i've tried. It took about two hours before my dad brought this for me because it was on sale while i was waiting in the car. This isn't a photo of mine, this one's off google because i don't have a camera/phone but it's the same. I have actually made thing's appear before but not the gold ingot, the gold ingot specifically didn't work, it's not the first time people have tried to do something (without me saying a thing to anyone of course) and have just interfered.

>the gold ingot specifically didn't work
Why do you think that is?

>not being an epistemological pragmatist

Dunno, i tried a billion dollars once, and this is a time that something did appear - it was money, i got 50 cents

holy shet

Is it a fact that you got 50 cents?

It's what happened

The reason you cannot answer my question with a binary yes/no answer is because either of them would have undesirable consequences for your arguments, just as evading it does.

>The reason you cannot answer my question with a binary yes/no answer is because either of them would have undesirable consequences for your arguments

No shit

> just as evading it does.

Like what?

>Like what?
End of a conversation.

have we been baited, lads?