out of whack said:
A lot of nothing is tossed around here. The last page or two show a sore lack of intellectual rigor. I read that what doesn't exist is relevant. I read that physical concepts we can all confirm don't exist. I see gratuitous inferences from vague statements presented as proof. Point them out and you receive a "you don't get it" followed by a repetition of the same idle claims. Reason has left the building. This thread has sunk to downright goofy levels.
Who are you talking about? Some people sure are not thinking correctly, no doubt about it. But they assume they have knowledge to make informed comments on the matter. If you have beef with someone(s) you have not demonstrated your case. Which word or which statements do you have a beef with and with which posters? Certainly some posters are misinformed, but others are not. You're trying to hit everyone at once, let's see what should be done about this.
Person A makes statement X (the claim is there it exists)
Person B says statement X is false/incorrect, based on faulty notions/definitions, etc, etc.
This means Person B detected, read into his mind the statements and found that they were false, incorrect, misleading, therefore person B has the knowledge to demonstrate to us the error of our ways right away, point out which word or which statement is incorrect. He must also point out the errors themselves. He cannot say "all of it" unless he can demonstrate point by point how each statement or word is incorrect, else he has no valid claim.
Person B does not point out where and demonstrate it for us.
Therefore person B's claims can only be considered once he has pointed out errors, and demonstrated why they are incorrect assuming person B's conceptual understanding and learning is not flawed from the outset.
Concepts are the lenses by which we see and interpret the world -- errors in concepts equals error in judgements, therefore we can go back in the chain to see if the concepts behind the words were conceived properly and question whether or not they were conceptualized from nature coherently.
Therefore person B has no valid claim until he demonstrates his claims against those who he has a beef with.
Every concept you have was derived from previously existing matter and energy, i.e. every thought you can ever think is made of something that pre-existed you, all you are doing is reshaping it, and in the end any thought incongruent with how nature actually is, is by definition incorrect.
