facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

You don't understand and aren't qualified to say I'm afraid.

oh do f**k off - the only qualification required for any philosophical statement is being alive.

Philosophy isn't about correct. It's about knowledge.

I'll put those words - your words - into the right order so their meaning is clearer......

Philosophy is about knowledge that isn't correct.

I'm so glad that you're so 'smart' that you think it such a worthwhile pursuit.

[eFestivals]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you doubt your existence go throw yourself under a bus. If you won't throw yourself under a bus then you don't doubt your existence. Obviously.

Done & dusted.

Who needs more than a moment's study on Descartes? Only morons.

[eFestivals]

They've revealed nothing. For instance, the wing does not depend upon a seminal genetic construct as the eye does.

the eye is simply a sensing device.

Sensing devices are not sentient.

Edited February 5, 2009 by eFestivals

[worm]

If you doubt your existence go throw yourself under a bus. If you won't throw yourself under a bus then you don't doubt your existence. Obviously.

[worm]

oh do f**k off - the only qualification required for any philosophical statement is being alive.

[eFestivals]

What has that got to do with ''everything about things outside of our own experience is confirmed by our belief in our own existence. We can operate no other way''?

I never once said that I doubt my own existence. And 'I think therefore I am' does not confirm that anything exists outside of our own existence. It simply says that thinking is evidence of existence. It says nothing about things at all. And it has everything to do with Descartes. He said it.

If you believe your own existence then you also believe what your existence informs you of.

(I was about to type joining up the dots isn't your strong-point, but then I realised how silly that would be. Nothing is your strong point ).

[worm]

the eye is simply a sensing device.

[worm]

If you believe your own existence then you also believe what your existence informs you of.

(I was about to type joining up the dots isn't your strong-point, but then I realised how silly that would be. Nothing is your strong point ).

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

True. But for a discussion on a particular philosophy one would expect the other to have at least read a f**king text.

why? Do you think that only someone super-special has a brain and is able to think for themselves?

There's f**k all you can parrot from any philosophy book that's beyond my comprehension. Or very probably beyond what I've already worked out for myself.

That's certainly one philosophy. The philosophy of scepticism and nihilism. Welcome to the late ninteenth and early twentieth century Neil. You've moved away from Descrtes.

Yeah, that's right, it's the philosophy of nihilism.

Except it's not. Nihilism would have me believing that there's no ideas that are true. Do I believe that? Nope. I'm simply stating the truth that you yourself are aware of, but won't admit to because that would also have you admit how worthless your own existence is, given how you've swallowed the library but understood nothing.

Try again: which philosophy is 100% correct??

It's a very simple question - is it too simple for your simple mind, or is it just that you're scared of the answer?

[eFestivals]

The eye is part of a biological construct. One belonging to animals and nothing else. That's if you're talking about an animal eye of course, which we are. So it's obvious that the eye has the same composite structure. Unless there were two sets of creatures that evolved into animals (highly unlikely).

The wing is part of a biological construct. One belonging to animals and nothing else. That's if you're talking about an animal wing of course, which we are. So it's obvious that the wing has the same composite structure. Unless there were two sets of creatures that evolved into animals (highly unlikely).

Except it's not obvious because it's not true.

Your hypothesis is based on a nulled idea.

(ooooo .... I'm starting to drivel just like you. Doesn't that make me sound smart :lol)

[pinback]

Ooops. No, obviously that wasn't meant.

[eFestivals]

I think therefore I am means that there is no belief. That was the point.

then throw yourself under that bus.

But you won't. So you posting idiot bollox that you know is wrong is proven. The point of your existence is what? It's certainly not the pursuit of knowledge, you're discarding it.

[worm]

why?

[worm]

then throw yourself under that bus.

[worm]

The wing is part of a biological construct. One belonging to animals and nothing else. That's if you're talking about an animal wing of course, which we are. So it's obvious that the wing has the same composite structure. Unless there were two sets of creatures that evolved into animals (highly unlikely).

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Because otherwise you're limited as to what you're talking about.

that's right. I can't think for myself.

No it wouldn't. It would be telling you that ideas are meaningless.

do I think ideas are meaningless? Nope.

Do I think philosophy is meaningless? Yep, because it is. It has no application, and the only think it informs us of are wrong things that it believes to be right.

If I'm wrong, then show me a philopsophy that doesn't claim to be able to tell us right things (erm ... what would be the point in that? ), show me a philosophy that can be applied AND WORKS 100%.

And so it's the case that all philosophies know they're wrong yet claim themselves right. Which has the point of ..... nothing at all.

You can spend your lifetime at it, and all you'll know at the end of it is what I've just said.

I've already answered that. Philosophy is about knowledge, not being correct or truth. It sits above truth as truth is a philosophy.

yes, you've answered it, and I'll summarise it better than you do yet again: it teaches us worthless stuff, pointless stuff, stuff of no value whatsoever. It is knowledge only for the worthless of this world.

[eFestivals]

A wing is an adaption of the animals basic formal composite structure. The eye is an adaption of the animals core central nervous system. They are not the same.

The form of the body can change in relation to the body's composite gene and the environment. The form of the eye is subject to the central nervous system that is integral to animals alone.

a wing is just flesh and bone if not a part of the central nervous system.

There is only once set of original genes for all animals. Yet all animals descended from that don't have eyes.

Every direction your wrong idea is approached from has definitive knowledge that proves it wrong. But you're 'too clever' to reference those facts, eh?

[worm]

that's right. I can't think for myself.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

a wing is just flesh and bone if not a part of the central nervous system.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

A wing is an adaption of the animals basic formal composite structure. The eye is an adaption of the animals core central nervous system. They are not the same.

The form of the body can change in relation to the body's composite gene and the environment. The form of the eye is subject to the central nervous system that is integral to animals alone.

[worm]

I just realised why i'd stopped posting in these threads

[eFestivals]

But you keep getting it wrong. Mainly because you have no knowledge of it. Ooo, look, a need for philosophy.

.... you're saying I have it wrong because you've hoovered up daft shit that you believe to be right even tho you know it's wrong. If you think it's not wrong tell me what's right as I've asked you - you don't because you know you can't; and so you know you have nothing as the basis for telling me I'm wrong.

Meanwhile, I just simply need to point at clear and indisputable facts to know that you're wrong. You know, the same facts that stop you stating any philosophy is right.

The difference? Ultimately it's this: I'm not using some daft blind faith to push forward ideas I know to be wrong as you're doing. My only blind faith is in my existence and what I take from that.

But what you said was nihilistic. It used the philosophy of nihilism, whether you subscribe to it or not.

Oh dear, am I now going to have to give you a philosophy lesson?

Yes, what I said was nihilistic - but only to the extent that we all are. We believe some ideas and dis-believe others.

Did it use the philosophy of nihilism? Nope.

We apply it everyday. Whenever you think, you use philosophy.

philosophy, not *A* philosophy. I'm not so f**king stupid as to think there's anything worthwhile from eating your own shit.

Argumentation works quite well. You use it a lot. That's Socrates. You seem to use social equality quite a lot too. That's Marx. I could go on.

No, they're ideas - ideas that existed before them.

That's certainly how post modernism has it. Neil being a post modernist, eh?!?!

shame you don't practice what you preach.

That's nihilism again i.e. ultimately pointless.

no, that's truth. A truth you fully recognise but won't accept. Which shows just how f**king stupid you are.

It teaches us every single thing we have come to know. You can't have knowledge without philosophy. You simply do not understand what philosophy is. So, I don't see why you're discussing.

it's just a f**king stupid label that idiots like you have put onto ideas as a way to try and big-up your own self importance. It's like a two years tantrum.

There is value in ideas. There is no value in any philosophy - if there is, tell me which one has got it all right.

Edited February 5, 2009 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm speaking of the biological composite here. I figure that the genes back this.

Rather than "figure" that the genes back what you've fantasied, why not go read some stuff and discover the indisputable truth that they do not?

[worm]

you're saying I have it wrong

[worm]

Rather than "figure" that the genes back what you've fantasied, why not go read some stuff and discover the indisputable truth that they do not?