Search Results
7/22/2025, 5:09:39 PM
>>17863224
>the issue is not so much whether the response is coherent
it very much is, if it is coherent, then that mean the input is intelligible and contemplateable by the machine. Therefore the input is valid, which still begs the question as to what its origin - the referential - is if nothing qualifies in the machines' closed matrix as a source, which is the entire point of the argument to begin with.
>but that after careful and prudent consideration of the input the response is unwarrantedly excessive, and wildly so.
according to what standards? I made my point about Perfection being an existence, you made yours concerning the nature of the input, I told you that such an input has to have an origin in an observable or contemplateable input to the system in which it is used despite no evidence of it existing internally being put forward, and then you call my response wild.
>I arrive back yet again at the hypothesis that your brain is beset by an impatient urge to skip over steps 2,3,4,5,...29 and just go straight to 30. Are you by any chance addicted to amphetamines?
And then you go to ad homs and assumptions on your interlocutor instead of attacking his argument.
Did the notion of "Perfection" offend you personally or something? Because I can't seem to grasp why else someone would get so defensive as to grasp at straws completely out of the scope of the argument in order to close it. Void your assumptions about me and consider that maybe your argument is not that strong or coherent to begin with.
>the issue is not so much whether the response is coherent
it very much is, if it is coherent, then that mean the input is intelligible and contemplateable by the machine. Therefore the input is valid, which still begs the question as to what its origin - the referential - is if nothing qualifies in the machines' closed matrix as a source, which is the entire point of the argument to begin with.
>but that after careful and prudent consideration of the input the response is unwarrantedly excessive, and wildly so.
according to what standards? I made my point about Perfection being an existence, you made yours concerning the nature of the input, I told you that such an input has to have an origin in an observable or contemplateable input to the system in which it is used despite no evidence of it existing internally being put forward, and then you call my response wild.
>I arrive back yet again at the hypothesis that your brain is beset by an impatient urge to skip over steps 2,3,4,5,...29 and just go straight to 30. Are you by any chance addicted to amphetamines?
And then you go to ad homs and assumptions on your interlocutor instead of attacking his argument.
Did the notion of "Perfection" offend you personally or something? Because I can't seem to grasp why else someone would get so defensive as to grasp at straws completely out of the scope of the argument in order to close it. Void your assumptions about me and consider that maybe your argument is not that strong or coherent to begin with.
7/17/2025, 6:47:14 PM
>>17849844
>Solipsism stops at halfway; it is correct that nothing external to the consciousness exists, but fails to realize that it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists, therefore nothing exists.
>it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists
*blocks your path*
>Solipsism stops at halfway; it is correct that nothing external to the consciousness exists, but fails to realize that it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists, therefore nothing exists.
>it's also impossible to prove that consciousness exists
*blocks your path*
Page 1