PoliteActivist:


So if you die in a dream and put in a box, you'll no longer wake up??

You don't need to prove anything, it simply underscores the fact you don't know what this reality.realy is

This is just plain stupid and a waste of time.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! Once again more shallow stupidity from the perennial dumbarse. You went shopping on Quora but failed to actually comprehend the substance of what is being discussed.

I think it must be concluded that he thinks his senses can not be used to verify what he reads or even if his senses exist at all, my Lord.

budaatum:


I think it must be concluded that he thinks his senses can not be used to verify what he reads or even if his senses exist at all, my Lord.

LoLz. Yes my dear buda they must think their senses are like that of a mannequin, painted on and not to be used.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! You posted junk from Quora but still have mouth to talk. Go and check the same Quora you'll see that Descartes WAS NOT a solipsist on there. I posted a Brittanica link there showing clearly that Descartes was not a solipsist but fool like you will ignore it to continue to wallow in ignorance.

Stupid arse that didn't even know who a solipsist is is now forming knowledge that Descartes is synonymous with solipsism. LMFAO!

You keep embarrassing yourself. I said Descartes adopted solipsism to write On Method - something Britannica clearly agrees with!

budaatum:


This is just plain stupid and a waste of time.

See below

PoliteActivist:


See below

Your argument is that you are not certainly sure that you exist. And that despite the fact that you must have woken up somewhere today, and eaten today and have relatives and friends and neighbours who must have communicated with you today, and have people you call mummy and daddy and who call you their child. So, kindly explain the point of further explaining to you that you must exist just to respond to this post.

And would you also claim not to know for sure if the children you go on to have exist or not?

PoliteActivist:


See below

By the way, your entire argument is based on dishonesty, and finger pointing to evade your own actions of repeatedly insulting and avoiding answering questions you know point out the flaws in your position.

budaatum:


Your argument is that you are not certainly sure that you exist. And that despite the fact that you must have woken up somewhere today, and eaten today and have relatives and friends and neighbours who must have communicated with you today, and have people you call mummy and daddy and who call you their child. So, kindly explain the point of further explaining to you that you must exist just to respond to this post.

And would you also claim not to know for sure if the children you go on to have exist or not?

Once again, the ONLY thing we are SURE exists is thinking, which Descartes declared long ago, and based on that he declared he must exist because someone had to be doing the thinking - ie he himself. Well, the only rebuttal he got was that he didn't go far enough - that thinking did not prove he existed because there was NO proof that thinking needed him to exist.

PoliteActivist:


Once again, the ONLY thing we are SURE exists is thinking......

Who or what is it that thinks your thought above if you do not exist to think it?

Who or what is it that thinks my thoughts that differ to what you think if I did not exist to think it and write it for you to read and think about?

You are way too sold on Descartes, who's doubting was to prove the existence of a God, which it seems he did not bother to doubt too much despite having no evidence for the existence of his god, and which shows you are just beginning the journey of understanding your own existence.

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neuroscientist António Damásio.

I've included a pdf link so you have no excuse not to get a copy and read it.

https://archive.org/details/antonio-damasio-descartes-error

budaatum:


By the way, your entire argument is based on dishonesty, and finger pointing to evade your own actions of repeatedly insulting and avoiding answering questions you know point out the flaws in your position.

I'd still go back and read that your post where you said you asked questions. But I don't know what you might have asked that haven't also subsequently repeated

budaatum:
You are way too sold on Descartes, who's doubting was to prove the existence of a God, which it seems he did not bother to doubt too much despite having no evidence for the existence of his god, and which shows you are just beginning the journey of understanding your own existence.

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neuroscientist António Damásio.

I've included a pdf link so you have no excuse not to get a copy and read it.

https://archive.org/details/antonio-damasio-descartes-error

Oh, I'll read it when I have time. Thanks 4 the link.
There is NO WAY to disprove solipsism - that's just the way our reality is structured. Descartes started out saying he'd doubt anything he could possibly, conceivably doubt. Well, he forgot to doubt that there was necessarily a link between him and thinking. Also, as you pointed out, the cogito statement is flawed because it started out already assuming "I" existed - which was what it was out to prove!

PoliteActivist:


You keep embarrassing yourself. I said Descartes adopted solipsism to write On Method - something Britannica clearly agrees with!

Bwahahahahaha! Here comes the changing of mouth because you've been schooled.

PoliteActivist:


Embarrassment because I taught you the primary meaning of solipsist. Shame on you Dr. Reed for not acknowledging when you've been taught something.
And by the way Descartes WAS a solipsist (secondary meaning). He made himself a solipsist {at least for the duration he was writing "On Method"}, and also convinced himself of the existence of God [see below]

You claimed he was a solipsist now you want to change to he adopted solipsism. BTW he absolutely didn't adopt it. He came close to it but the fact he acknowledged the existence of others beside himself means he was NOT A SOLIPSIST.

Lemme keep schooling you while you keep dreaming of defeating.me. LMFAO!

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! Here comes the changing of mouth because you've been schooled.



You claimed he was a solipsist now you want to change to he adopted solipsism. BTW he absolutely didn't adopt it. He came close to it but the fact he acknowledged the existence of others beside himself means he was NOT A SOLIPSIST.

Lemme keep schooling you while you keep dreaming of defeating.me. LMFAO!

We know you can read so we have to assume you are being intentionally deceptive. See the underlined, that's what I said from beginning

budaatum:
You are way too sold on Descartes, who's doubting was to prove the existence of a God, which it seems he did not bother to doubt too much despite having no evidence for the existence of his god, and which shows you are just beginning the journey of understanding your own existence.

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neuroscientist António Damásio.

I've included a pdf link so you have no excuse not to get a copy and read it.

https://archive.org/details/antonio-damasio-descartes-error

You can't prove solipsism wrong. Only thing you can do is say: "I know I exist. Trust me on that one. If I didn't exist wouldn't I tell you?? And by the way, you exist too!"

PoliteActivist:


You can't prove solipsism wrong. Only thing you can do is say: "I know I exist. Trust me on that one. If I didn't exist wouldn't I tell you?? And by the way, you exist too!"

budaatum

this thing

again says you ,despite not being sure of you, cant do bla bla bla

the b@stard has 4tified her bank account despite not being sure


she wud say it can happen in a dream



but y cant she send murny 2?


cant she send murny in a dream?


what a crook!

PoliteActivist:


We know you can read so we have to assume you are being intentionally deceptive. See the underlined, that's what I said from beginning

Bwahahahahahahaha! The liar here is you.

HellVictorinho6:


budaatum

this thing

again says you ,despite not being sure of you, cant do bla bla bla

the b@stard has 4tified her bank account despite not being sure


she wud say it can happen in a dream



but y cant she send murny 2?


cant she send murny in a dream?


what a crook!

I guess you didn't read these posts below.
As for money, let me "work" tonight, let's see

HellVictorinho6:


budaatum

this thing

again says you ,despite not being sure of you, cant do bla bla bla

the b@stard has 4tified her bank account despite not being sure


she wud say it can happen in a dream



but y cant she send murny 2?


cant she send murny in a dream?


what a crook!

See the father of all cr00ks calling another person a cr00k! Hahaha

See this 40 year old expelled teacher Victor Omerigwe, a paedoph!le g@y rap!st and Ch!ld molester, resident Nairaland beggar and perpetual internet scammer also known as HellVictorinho6 aka TrustNone aka EbenezerTriumph aka keet13 aka MrsAminaBello aka abba190 and 40 other monikers....

I will keep coming for you until you are arrested for scouting for underaged kids on the internet to m0lest and sc@mming poor innocent w!dows. You must pay for all your evul doings

LordReed:


Bwahahahahahahaha! The liar here is you.

budaatum:

Your argument is that you are not certainly sure that

Bwahaha my ass. I clearly said from beginning that Descartes assumed solipsism to write - he doubted everything he could possibly doubt including his own existence. Then concluded falaciously that thinking meant he existed. He should have stopped at thinking existed. But even that can be doubted - what appears to be thinking might not be thinking. The only thing that cannot be doubted under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES is that SOMETHING exists. "But we are not sure what the something is or it's nature"!

PoliteActivist:

Bwahaha my ass. I clearly said from beginning that Descartes assumed solipsism to write - he doubted everything he could possibly doubt including his own existence. Then concluded falaciously that thinking meant he existed.

This is precisely what we've been trying to inform you, yet you keep yelling Descartes, but go even worse than he does by claiming you are only sure you think. And when we ask you who this particular entity called you that thinks is, you go blind and don't see the question.

budaatum:


This is precisely what we've been trying to inform you, yet you keep yelling Descartes, but go even worse than he does by claiming you are only sure you think. And when we ask you who this particular entity called you that thinks is, you go blind and don't see the question.

LordReed tell him
Something I've been saying since forever. Go check out my last thread, where I was trying to tell DeepSight this and he was arguing.
Infact I'll find the debate and post it here just for the heck of it!

PoliteActivist:




Bwahaha my ass. I clearly said from beginning that Descartes assumed solipsism to write - he doubted everything he could possibly doubt including his own existence. Then concluded falaciously that thinking meant he existed. He should have stopped at thinking existed. But even that can be doubted - what appears to be thinking might not be thinking. The only thing that cannot be doubted under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES is that SOMETHING exists. "But we are not sure what the something is or it's nature"!

Bwahahahahaha! You clearly wrote Descartes was a solipsist and even doubled down with a post from Quora. Then tripled down trying to prove Quora is better than Reddit. Dumdum you are just a duplitous phony.

PoliteActivist:


LordReed tell him
Something I've been saying since forever. Go check out my last thread, where I was trying to tell DeepSight this and he was arguing.
Infact I'll find the debate and post it here just for the heck of it!

Tell him you are a clueless phony? I sure will.

Budaatum, PoliteActivist is a clueless phony. Bwahahahahaha!

PoliteActivist:


LordReed tell him
Something I've been saying since forever. Go check out my last thread, where I was trying to tell DeepSight this and he was arguing.
Infact I'll find the debate and post it here just for the heck of it!

It is you that misses the point still.

It's this simple: the faculty of thought requires the existence of a being.

Unless you can show me thought occuring absent a being - and you can't. Obviously.

Oh, PoliteActivist, when I saw you decided to play the role of both "for and Against" I knew you'd end up In a wormhole. However, an exciting idea---- not knowing you exist. I just concluded an anime titled "Monster." It's a 100/10 masterpiece, so deep that Dostoevsky would be stunned.

It shares a similar theme; the 74-episode saga is too long to put down here. But it tries to intrigue the viewer's mind by steering the viewer to question their own existence. It does this throughout the entire plot, but even more, it is a psychoanalysis of one's self. Who are you? Are you what you are because you are? Or are you what you are because others say you are? How can you know what and who you are? Even if you say "I am," do others see you as "I am"?

Furthermore, is "I am" all there is to you? Or are you "I am" today and "I am becoming I am" tomorrow? This philosophical dilemma and the struggle for self-identity are narrated in one of the metafiction stories in the Monster series.

[center]
"Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a nameless monster. The monster was dying to have a name. So he decided to set out on a journey to find his name.
But the world was a large place, so the monster split into two on his journey. One monster went to the East. And the other went to the West. The monster who went East came to a village. "Mr. Blacksmith, please give me your name."
"You can't give someone a name."
"If you give me your name, I'll jump into your stomach and make you strong in return."
"Really? You'll make me stronger? Okay, you can have my name."
And the monster went inside the blacksmith's stomach.
The monster became Otto the blacksmith. Otto was the strongest man in town. But one day, "Look at me, look at me. The monster inside me has grown this large."
Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. The hungry monster ate Otto from the inside. He went back to being a monster without a name.
[/center]

[center]
He jumped into the stomach of Hans the shoemaker, but Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. He went back to being a monster without a name.
He jumped into the stomach of Thomas the hunter, but Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. And once again he was a monster without a name. [/center]

[center] The monster went to a castle to look for a wonderful name.
"If you give me your name, I'll make you strong."
"If you'll heal my sickness, I'll give you my name." The monster jumped into the boy's stomach. The king was delighted.
"The prince is well. The prince is well."
The monster liked the boy's name. He liked living in the castle. So even when he was hungry, he stayed put. Every day he was so hungry, but he stayed put.
But one day he was just too hungry. "Look at me. Look at me. The monster inside me has grown this large," said the boy. The boy ate the king and and all the servants. Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp.
[/center]

[center]One day, the boy came upon the monster who had gone west.
"I have a name. It's a wonderful name," said the boy.
The monster who went west replied, "You don't need a name. You can be happy without a name. Because we are nameless monsters."
The boy ate the monster who went west. Even though he had finally found a name, there was no one left to call him by it.

What a wonderful name it was, Johan......
[/center]

You see, Johan is the antagonist of the series. He believed himself to have been experimented on in a research facility by a psychologist and writer, Franz Bonerparta.

Franz wrote the poem quoted above. To others, it's a story, but to Franze, it's a tool that can strip any human of their identity. He tested this out in his experiments, which were somewhat successful because Johan, a subject of the experiment, was without memory and identity. However, Johan was a creation Franz had not anticipated. Instead of a monster, Johan turned out to be a demon- a demon capable of eating monsters.

But Johan, like the monster, faced the same challenge, "am I a monster?" He asks.

Johan believes the experiments carried out on him during his childhood robbed him of his memories and shaped him to become the "Monster" that he is. This experiment smeared Johan's perception of himself as a monster needing an identity. This monster has no name. This monster searches for its name. This monster sees its own reflection as a monster. Thus, the monster journeys to discover its identity and name.
[/b] Thus, the Monster is left without a name or identity. If no one knows its name, how could it be sure it existed?

Now, to go back to your thought experiments, if there is no one to call the "monster" by its name, does the monster exist? Of course, the monster exists. However, what I think would make more sense for your arguments would be if it were not leading towards existence itself, but to a personality profile, so to speak.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! You clearly wrote Descartes was a solipsist and even doubled down with a post from Quora. Then tripled down trying to prove Quora is better than Reddit. Dumdum you are just a duplitous phony.

Folks please help me tell ODB (Obtuse Dr. Reed) (funny how it can also mean "Old Dirty Bastard" ) only a retarded person cannot see what is meant in the screenshots below

LordReed:


Tell him you are a clueless phony? I sure will.

Budaatum, PoliteActivist is a clueless phony. Bwahahahahaha!

No, tell him I have been saying that since forever.
He already knows you're a "clueless phony". You don't have to tell him that

PoliteActivist:


No, tell him I have been saying that since forever.
He already knows you're a "clueless phony". You don't have to tell him that

LMAO! budaatum knows who the clueless phony is and is certainly not me. Bwahahahahaha!

PoliteActivist:


Folks please help me tell ODB (Obtuse Dr. Reed) (funny how it can also mean "Old Dirty Bastard" ) only a retarded person cannot see what is meant in the screenshots below

Everyone tell the clueless phony their own post saying Descartes was a solipsist is inescapable.

LordReed:


Everyone tell the clueless phony their own post saying Descartes was a solipsist is inescapable.

Wow, talk about someone needing spoonfeeding!!
Even if I didn't say it I meant Descartes made himself a solipsist to write "On Method". BUT I ACTUALLY SAID IT!!!

PoliteActivist:


Wow, talk about someone needing spoonfeeding!!
Even if I didn't say it I meant Descartes made himself a solipsist to write "On Method". BUT I ACTUALLY SAID IT!!!

Yes you said so I dunno why you are arguing. Bwahahahahaha!