Shamshir

It's quite simple, darling. I'm guessing.

Don't they? Won't they? Can't they? Shouldn't they? Wouldn't they? Couldn't they? Proportionally you're too big to fit in to that tiny mind, much as G...

I wonder if the denizens of the ocean's bottom think likewise of humans?

Your awareness of an idea is as irrelevant to its life, as it is to my own. Probably.

https://i.imgur.com/1giKWvY.gif

@"Isaac"

@"BrianW" Can you confirm~?

What about ideas that do not possess electrochemical properties? What about ideas: not felt, not imagined, not pondered, not spoken, not heard; lone, ...

I did not ask what ideas are, but what their physical attributes are. Pay attention, please.

What are their physical attributes?

Must it? Is it incapable of rest, stasis and even death?

Buddha is not a man; Prince Siddhartha is. Jesus Christ is not a man; Jesus of Nazareth is. Let's infer a substitute: 1. Persona is corpus. 2. Corpus ...

Metaphysics is To Be Continued. So it is just physics.

Maybe. Maybe they want to run away, but just give up in the end. Maybe they don't want to run away, maybe they want to be eaten by the Slime. Maybe it...

Goodbye and stay safe~

You can be entirely unaware of the simulation, but be unable to run away. Sleep paralysis is an obvious example; lest it be authentic?

The screen doesn't embody fiction, but it is an attribute that may be correlated with fiction. A livestream should be sufficient proof. Your sight ope...

What if you're aware of the screen, but unaware of the fiction - similar to beholding a shark behind the aquarium glass? Let's say that your belief of...

What's different between the inauthentic meeting with the tiger behind the cage and the inauthentic meeting with Jaws behind the screen? Why aren't yo...

Now apply that to the tiger in the zoo cage.

Perhaps the observer's belief includes the awareness of the barrier separating it from the threat, similar to how someone views tigers through a cage ...

They will be dealt with, but will they be dealt with sufficiently or will it be too late to reprimand these instigators? This is yet another slippery ...

Have you ever contemplated the phrase 'Rest in Peace'?

And that is the gamble. Without free will, you couldn't take those odds - as there would be no for or against free will; it would be quite homogeneous...

But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they? So with safety being an inherent right of all living t...

How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each ...

Anything that causes violence is an advocate of violence. It is not a difficult idea to grasp.

Gambling away your free will, will do you no good - even if you're determined to do so.

That's its purpose, dear. First the spark, then the inferno. Wait your turn, please.

Advocation of violence is itself violence.

No, dear. It's not romantic spurning to be prohibited, but the advocation of violence as a fair mean to settle an issue. The problem is not with the s...

What if the speech sparks violence, and consequently violence sparks genocide, and consequently genocide sparks the annihilation of the human race? Wh...

There is an old-fashioned atheist that once rebelled, and was cast out and unto the Earth. Perhaps he may advise you? Though I wonder what would ensue...

The difference is as simple as the hands of a clock. The mouth determines where the head and tail of the Ouroboros lay. It's all in the angle, dear ob...

Scientific enterprise is far older than the Greeks, who acquired their knowledge from the local Thracians. Depending on how far back you're willing to...

Anyone who'd know that innately, would know what I know innately and would validate my claim. I wouldn't need to respond. It can transmute laws, and b...

Innately. All my life I haven't learned a thing, at most I've just remembered things. Well, regardless if these minds are free or not - they can't act...

All I'm saying is, Eisenhower outlined the motives for the current problems - be they warmongering or faulty science.

Ever seen Eisenhower's parting speech?

It clearly is, emphasis on clearly. The mind is a prism.

It clearly is, but your perception of it is not mind independent - hence the first question.

You don't depend on me and I can freely act upon you; same with the world. Isn't it obvious?

It's both. The difference lies with 'to'.

And I told you, it's because it's an indirect experience. Now, how you deal with that is your own issue - I just provided the distinction.

I'll give you my own little explanation and you take it from there. Being is first-hand, whereas what is perceived is second-hand. Your experience rel...

Let's draw an analogy of Logos as 'the Word' through a paintbrush. In the beginning God must be the brush, then after creation - the brush may separat...

No has the flavour of sauerkraut, Good Boy has the flavour of fillet mignon.

Sure, in a way. It's not completely throwing it away, but of course going up a step requires that you remove yourself from the current step. I get wha...

Object would be colour. Illusion would be the mock-up of colour.

I don't think that is necessarily so. You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter. It's a ...