You're misunderstanding, you're using another definition of "not real". A hallucination is physical event, it is merely distortion of information, the information still exists, I can write a program to swizzle my screen into a hallcinatory pattern, the pattern still exists. Check out the split...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKTNg0Z35go
If they are not real you can't be conscious right now, it's a contradiction, most thought happens in subconscious processes you don't have access to and yes the are very real.
The problem with your claim is that you detect your own thoughts, you...
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which...
Where do definitions come from? How were they formed, from where? Ask those questions before you start spouting nonsense. That was the whole point you're telling me I'm using different definitions but you can't demonstrate that I am.
Either way you don't have the background to take part in...
I've already defined them multiple times, you're claiming nonsense once again.
i.e. existence = empirical reality
objective = empirical reality
You guys aren't connecting the concepts I display, once you detect and change your own thought, it empirically exists, it's game over. That was...
Of course but when people aren't capable of grasping what you're saying that's going to happen, people misunderstand each other all the time non-intentionally.
Ok let me explain further
First of all, apparently what I find trivial to understand from generalities, you need specifics...
Note I was not comparing my self to einstein (again assuming on your part), I was showing that one/few people can be right and everyone else can be incorrect, regardless of anything else. Notice how everyone here takes everything I say as a personal attack on their ego, this is not what I...
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making...
Again this is NOT reasoning now you're being idiot plain and simple and I'm going to call you on it, true statements stand independently of what someone thinks, regardless of their status, regardless of what you think of the "collective intelligence of AT", the collective intelligence of...
Or maybe the students are simply incapable of grasping the argument and should refrain from speaking on such matters they can't grasp fully, until they do, and go find another subject which they can handle and answer the teachers questions instead of resorting to insults because it offends them...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.