It's not anywhere. It's like asking where an object you imagine in your head is. It's not anywhere. It exists solely as an abstraction. I can imagine infinity. I don't need to use infinite neurons to process that because it's not real.
Abstracts are real, everything begins in someones imagination, then they replicate it into reality using their hands and tools. I don't study gay-reek philosophy, because they are fucking gay, and nothing they say, is actually demonstrable.
Do you see the monitor you are talking to me on, using a keyboard? That is an abstraction, that existed, in someone's brain. Are you saying that nothing is real?
If your definition of existence is strictly material, then your thoughts don't exist. Unless you want to argue that neurons = thoughts, then abstractions obviously exist even physically.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
'Thought' is just another word abstraction for something we don't fully understand, so yes they might not exist in the manner you think they do.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>'Thought' is just another word abstraction for something we don't fully understand
No, it isn't lol. "if i think it then it real". I don't know what I expected, but better than something a 5 year old might say about his imaginary friend.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA, but can you tell me where things are? Have you ever seen anything outside of what you see?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>NTA, but can you tell me where things are?
Sure. What things? >Have you ever seen anything outside of what you see?
Well clearly not. That's a truism. Have I seen things I haven't seen? No. Just like I never ate foods I've never eaten. You're putting the answer in the question.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What things?
Everything. >Well clearly not.
Well that's my point. Everything is a hallucination, including you.
I don't agree with Plato or believe in the forms either. I just figured that both sides here seem to believe they know what reality is, when in fact, we don't really. We've got our own little carnivorous primate ideas about the universe, working with minds designed for tribal living. It's a bit goofy to say that anyone knows what's "real" or not, much less to make statements about the whole Universe.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Everything.
Everywhere. If you don't specify and just ask where things are then they're everywhere. You need to be more specific. >Well that's my point. Everything is a hallucination, including you.
Thar's a non-sequitur. I didn't see what I never saw therefore it's all fake? That's literally retarded. I can't see what I didn't see because if I did not see it, then I never saw it. It's a truism. But I have seen things. I just clearly cannot see a thing that your very question defines I haven't seen. You never breathed air you never breathed so you're really dead by asphyxiation. This is bottom of the barrel.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Everywhere.
Where do you see everywhere? >I didn't see what I never saw therefore it's all fake?
No, I'm saying that we can't say anything at all about the true nature of reality, because we simply don't know jack.
Some things are real enough, and relevant enough to the brain's desire to survive in the body. But basing hard statements about all existence in the WHOLE UNIVERSE on the ramblings of a species of pack-hunting carnivorous primates, now that's some veeeery thin soup. I don't go out on a limb like that, and I don't think anyone else should.
Naïve realism is as goofy as naïve idealism.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Where do you see everywhere?
You mentioned things. A thing has to be someplace. So where is everything? Everywhere. You never specified a location so this vague retardation is the best you're gonna get. Things are in places. It occupies space and time. So a thing necessarily exists some place. There's no other option. If a thing was nowhere then it doesn't exist.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can think that I have two heads and it stil won't make it real. I'm not the guy you were arguing with btw.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I might not fully understand it, but at least I know it's there.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You don't. You know there's something that we have named thought. You have no idea what it is other than what it appears to be, you don't even know what causes thought, or whether thought can be reproduced in a material experiment.
>Abstracts are real
No, they aren't. If they were I couldn't imagine a sun or a black hole. My brain would melt and fold in on itself due to the mass necessary to process that.
Just like if I imagine a spear it's not real. I can get a stick and a sharp rock and make one, but the one I imagined isn't real. It doesn't exist, it has no form, no weight, no mass, nothing. Do really have grown fucking men in here that think imagination = real? That can't be. That's a new level of low. I know people are dumb, but come on this isn't even trying anymore.
Whatever you say my love, I am literally inside your brain right now, shitting on your toilet, and that is real, and you can't stop me.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Whatever I say? That's a cop out. You don't got shit. If you did you'd show a real abstraction. The things I imagine would have serious effects like my 2 examples. How can I imagine infinity if it's real? If it was I wouldn't have enough space or energy in the universe itself. I'd blow apart into a singularity or vaporize. Abstractions are imagination. They aren't anywhere. I can imagine a field. That field in my mind's eye? It doesn't exist. You can't honestly be like this. I work with mentally retarded clients who can recognize the difference between reality and imagination. So what exactly is your malfunction?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Okay. And this shows what? This is what the 3d shadow of a 4d cube would look like in our number of spatial dimensions. What does that have to do with abstractions being real?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What do you think these prove? Use your words. I'm aware of math and geometry. Do you have a point or are you expecting me to be mystified by pretty shapes?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
These are impossible shapes, or abstractions, that someone imagined, and that can only be replicated inside cyber-space, or a computers imagination. You work with retards? That is a fancy way of saying you work at Mcdonalds.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You have no idea what a teseract is, and it makes my laugh. Perhaps you should stare into more greek assholes.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If the mind exist, so too does it's content. That is abstraction.
So you seem to agree that abstracts exist in some non-material realm.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nope. I don't know where you got that idea.
You have no idea what a teseract is, and it makes my laugh. Perhaps you should stare into more greek assholes.
Concession accepted.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
Read it, it's in plain english, my dear.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That does not mean they exist in some other dimension. Nothing I said even hints at that. Let me explain further since you have such a low IQ you seem to think "if abstract exist it needs new realm".
Imagine a perfect circle. Does it exist? No. I can think "object that is a perfect circle". That doesn't manifest it anywhere. I can also imagine "human head growing out of a rose". That doesn't exist. I can imagine a sun or a black hole. My mind doesn't run out of processing power making a real one. When you imagine something you aren't looking at anything real. Imagination and seeing things there is not the same as sight. Imagining a sound is not the same as hearing.
Your mind is giving you for all intents and purposes a hollow facsimile of an idea. Like you know what a ball is. You can imagine one. That does not mean "there is some ultimate round ball thing". Everyone would imagine a different ball. Because we have a concept of rounded things and our minds can "picture" that. Nothing physical or transcendental is occurring. We can put your ass in an MRI or other scans and even look at the areas lighting up and being active in your brain for different things. I had no idea grown adults struggled this hard to understand the difference between imagination and something real. That's incredible.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Shut up homosexual, I literally blew your brain apart with some funny words and scriptures. Enjoy sulking in your own feces and ignorance, don't even try to read the scriptures either, you might cut your head off with all the edge they contain.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What scriptures? Scripture is irrelvant to geometry, dimensions, or even Plato's idea of forms. Are you fucking retarded or trolling?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>don't know where you got that idea
because you've repeatedly stated you don't believe thoughts exist in the real world? Are you retarded?
Objects you imagine in your head either exist entirely of neurons, thus in some thought space, or they exist outside of the physical world. Thus we've reached the OPs question, which you don't seem to understand in the first place.
>Objects you imagine in your head either exist entirely of neurons, thus in some thought space,
There is no "thought space". Do you think if I picture an apple my neurons assemble in front of my eyes like an atom would to make a picture of one? >or they exist outside of the physical world.
Well we can rule that one out instantly since our brains and their activity? Solely, exclusively, within the material world. So that one isn't even a possibility.
You are contradicting yourself. You both say that thoughts don't exist in your head and that they definitely do. Just because your neurons don't reshape into what you think the form of an apple looks like, doesn't mean that the shape of an apple isn't represented in the neural network. I think this topic is just outside of your ability to comprehend, and this isn't very difficult. You're definitely a midwit and NGMI if you don't understand that
>Was Plato right about the forms?
Probably not. How would he know? He literally just made stuff up in his mind and wrote it down >Do ideal forms exist?
How would we know >How do we know?
We don't
How do you render a 4 dimensional object in 3-D space, my fragrantly, good smelling fellow, who wrangles tards for a living. You need to wrangle yourself.
>How do you render a 4 dimensional object in 3-D space
You just showed how when you gave images of it. We know 3 dimensions work. We exist in that. I'd hope you grasp what 3d is. And geometry in 3 dimensions has certain laws. There's certain things that necessarily follow from that. So how do we know and picture it? We take those same rules and add one more dimension. So a 4d object now casts a 3d shadow. We can't see or conceptualize a 4d object. No matter how hard you try. It's beyond human experience. Your mind can't picture that in its actual state like you can for 3d or 2d and so on. Just like 3d would be incomprehensible to a 2d being. They have no concept any other axis. But we do know 3d. And those things you just showed are cubes in 4d, as represented in 3d space. That's what the shadow would look like. The part that intersects our 3d space. There's a kid's book called Flatland that even lays this out. Do you even know basic geometry?
What scriptures? Scripture is irrelvant to geometry, dimensions, or even Plato's idea of forms. Are you fucking retarded or trolling?
>Show me an abstracted goal post
I meant to say pictures. Impossible shapes are abstracts, the 4th dimension doesn't actually exist. Some say it is time, but some say that time doesn't actually exist either, since it's simply how we measure our revolutions around the sun. Time not existing, seems like an abstract as well.
>Show me abstracts
I can't apparently, because you are gay and dumb.
>Impossible shapes are abstracts
Okay. But the shapes you showed aren't impossible. Ya just fucking saw them. You just can't conceptualize 4d and can only see in 3 dimensions. Just like a 2d being could never conceptualize our 3d space. >the 4th dimension doesn't actually exist
Complete speculation on your part and an uneducated opinion. >Some say it is time, but some say that time doesn't actually exist either
1. Nobody says it is time. Time is temporal, it's irrelevant to geometry and spatial dimensions.
2. Nobody says time doesn't exist. It demonstrably exists. Even in physics it does. You can even fuck up and end up going backwards in time once you hit relativistic speeds and things like that.
So you're just stupid then. I was hoping for a troll honestly. You don't even have a "i read the wikipedia page on the topics" level of knowledge since you brought up time and how it apparently doesn't even exist now when GR has done that for at least 100 years now. Embarrassing.
Come wrangle me sweety, I'm waiting. Prove to me any of what you say is real, and that it isn't all just abstractions, show me the 4th dimension. Is that where Jesus hangs out? Which direction do I go?
>show me the 4th dimension.
I can't. This is like asking a 2d being in 2d space to show 3d. They don't have the ability to. It's not physically possible. They don't have the space to do it. So I can't show you something that you cannot even physically comprehend and would be invisible to us in 3d space.
Same for your other questions. Assume we were in 2d. What direction do we go? Outwards. We add a third axis. What is "outwards" to 3d? None of us know because we can't conceptualize that. What other axis of movement can there be? Just like a 2d being can understand "another axis" to their 2d space, but could never possibly see it while to us we can.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why would you believe something has any importance if it won't even do you the good graces of showing itself? The Machine Elves, Bigfoot, and UFOs at least do you the honor occasionally.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Why would you believe something has any importance if it won't even do you the good graces of showing itself?
For the same reason a 2d being could prove and show that there could be 3 dimensions. You can know it's properties just fine. It's how we know what those weird shapes from 4d space would look like to us in 3d space. I don't know if 4 dimensions exist. But I know its properties if it does exist. It's at least possible. I can't UV light, I can prove it's real. I can't see atoms, but I can prove that too.
I don't have to see 4d. That's quite literally impossible for me to do as a 3d being anyway. I would never be able to comprehend or conceptualize that. Because I have 0 possible grasp of another degree of freedom from the 3 we have. Does it exist? I don't know. Maybe other dimensions exist. But that doesn't matter to being able to figure out what properties it would necessarily have. Especially when dealing with shapes like that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That stuff can be fun, but I really wouldn't put much stock in it being a good readout on what the nature of reality is. Just like any other mental game, it's just good fun.
>Where do you see everywhere?
You mentioned things. A thing has to be someplace. So where is everything? Everywhere. You never specified a location so this vague retardation is the best you're gonna get. Things are in places. It occupies space and time. So a thing necessarily exists some place. There's no other option. If a thing was nowhere then it doesn't exist.
I'll jump to the point because I think your brain is fried from the gobbeldeeasiatic ITT, my point is that you only see waht you see. There is no reason to assume that secondary qualities are that way. You never see charge, spin, or whatnot. But you do experience color and feeling. So color and feeling are reality, and everything else is just fairy dust and fun games.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You never see charge, spin, or whatnot. But you do experience color and feeling. So color and feeling are reality, and everything else is just fairy dust and fun games.
Yeah, we all of those. Do you know what a magnet it? Lightning? That's charge right off the bat. We can not only see it, but actually manipulate it and create tesla coils and entire industrial societies by understanding and using charge. This has been done since the 1800s. Understanding of charge, even before that.
Wave particle duality is also real as we can. But we can't really grasp a thing being both a particle and a wave. Yet we can use electrons or photons and a couple of holes in a box and see direct evidence of it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's a lot of really fun fantasy stuff, but I'd like to ask you again, have you seen charge, or did you just see colors and feel feelings? Those are primary, because those are what experience is made from. And all you've got is experience. Everything else is hearsay, at best.
Yeah, because you're in 3d space. Of course a 3d printer would not give you a 4d object. I even clarified that in the very next sentence.
No, what you printed is a physical representation of a math equation. Not anything from some goofy place called the fourth dimension. But did make something beautiful, and that's what matters. Not "realness" of hypercubes sitting around doing nothing in some far off misty place.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>That's a lot of really fun fantasy stuff, but I'd like to ask you again, have you seen charge
Fantasy? Is electricity fake now? You can see magnetic fields and charge. Not even using hard technology. There are some animals that can see and use electromagnetism. Yeah, we see charge all the time. The others you need far more specialized equipment, but charge and electromagnetism was already fundamentally solved by the 1800s. It's something we deal with on a daily basis. Spin and stuff obviously not, but you can't be denying that electricity is real.
>No, what you printed is a physical representation of a math equation. Not anything from some goofy place called the fourth dimension.
I didn't say it did spawn from some fourth dimension. Nor that I even necessarily believe there is one. I'm arguing against the idea of forms. Not for them. If you don't know shit or even what's being argued, go talk to your alleged dying friends and loved ones instead of debating topics you're too mentally crippled and emotionally primed against learning because you got faced with mortality.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you can't be denying that electricity is real
I'm saying that only the experience of it is primary. Everything else is just conjecture, as much as talk about "forms" is.
Beauty is primary. All discussion about things that are not part of experience is mere fantasy. Not to say it isn't useful, the whole endeavor of modern science is tied up in the demoniac system of making and selling bullshit to people who don't need it, after all.
You're a naïve realist. You think we know what reality is made of, and therefore have any idea what it is.
My entire thing here in this thread is that we DON'T know. Reality sure isn't atoms, it sure isn't charge or spin, because, well, when was the last time you had a conversation with an atom? Or felt a swell of love for a charge? Or had an ecstatic vision of a spin?
For example this. Random basedboys online can even image it. Charge is about the worst example you could have picked. And if you're this ignorant on shit that was solved hundreds of years ago, maybe you shouldn't be arguing about cutting edge stuff. It's evidently far beyond your league and you should stick to being wowed by voodoo or whatever other woo you happen to buy into because mortality scares you. Your science like 200 years out of date. There's no excuse for that.
>you happen to buy into because mortality scares you
I'm not that guy.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Everything else is just conjecture,
No conjecture is necessary. It's objectively verifiable. It's no more speculative or conjecture than the fact that gravity exists. Electromagnetism is well understood and has been for 200+ years. Hence why I say there's no excuse. Spin and stuff like that I can let slide. But this is shit you can figure out with simple things you'd find around your house. Electromagnetism is one of the most well understood things in our world right now.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Everything you're rattling off is a series of MODELS. Not reality. Reality is what you're seeing right now. Feeling right now. You can't say anything about it, because you don't know enough. NONE of us do.
We try to compress it into our models. Flat worlds, round worlds, animism, theism, Plato, and now, reductionism and physicalism and existentialism.
But the unspeakable is always there, ready to fuck our models right over and laugh about it.
So all I'm saying is, you DON'T have a good grasp on reality, because no one does.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Everything you're rattling off is a series of MODELS.
Which in this case are proven and you can even see this in all of the numerous examples this guy gives. From paper clips to iron shavings and so on. Anon, people have understood this so well and put it to such use that our entire modern day society relies on electromagnetism.
I don't even know what to say. You've been given 2 videos full of examples showing you charge and just about every facet of electromagnetism and the best you can do is a flat earth tier "nuh uh cuz i dont believe it even if i see it". This is bait. Not even naggers in fucking jungles are this dumb. 8/10. Ya got me good, but this isn't real. Insisting it's all fake and reality is only what I can see with my own eyes (as I witness charge in action) is too much. It's either fake or you need assisted living and a handler to make sure you can complete daily tasks.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>"nuh uh cuz i dont believe it even if i see it"
If that's all you've taken away from what I've said, then I can't waste any more time on this. I'm not arguing from the standpoint of the naïve realist.
I'm talking about the futility of ultimate statements about reality and the whole Universe, REGARDLESS OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY, because we don't even have access to anything outside of our own experience, any our own experience is not "made" from charge, spin, neurons, or anything like that. It's the Great Mystery.
Everything else is provisional. It seems nice and comfy and "real", until you go to a new land, or in the case of the UFO the new land comes to you.
I'm arguing at the higher level of things, you're arguing that because you have a video, that you now can make an ultimate and universal statement about the nature of reality. That's what I'm rebuking.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you're arguing that because you have a video, that you now can make an ultimate and universal statement about the nature of reality.
Yeah. This is what people call "experiments". People say "hey if this charge stuff is real how can we show it and see it". And you have a ton of examples most of which can be done in your own home because this is science that has been figured out since people rode around on horses. The fact that you apparently trolling is just concerning. In the modern world that relies so heavily on electricity we have people like you who don't even know what charge is or that we can see it and even magnetic fields. Holy shit. That cannot be good for the future of society. I hope your family gets you the care you need.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I feel like you might not fully understand the discussion you're having, because you seem to directly avoid dealing with my points philosophically.
Do you have a firm grasp of the English language? Have you graduated highschool?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Of course I graduated high school. That's why I know how charge and electromagnetism works and you still say we can't see it despite 2 videos full of endless examples and explanations. One of which is an entire crash course on the topic. You need a handler. I don't know how you get in civilized society when you're basically on par with a person from several hundred years ago. Life must be so confusing for you to go around and understand so little about one of the major forces we deal with. And this very conversation is even taking place because of. That's incredible. We need to overhaul the educational system.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you still say we can't see it
I'm saying you've never SEEN anything. Naïve realism is for children.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I'm saying you've never SEEN anything.
>hey why is your hand in the cookie jar >bro stfu you didnt see anything im not doing anything bro >But I can see y- >YOU DIDNT SEE ANYTHING CUZ I SAID SO NUH UH
Oh okay then. So we're fully in the realm of childish arguments.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nothing he says is Childish, your perceptions are just that, perceptions, they can be skewed and distorted and they soul-ly belong to you. You are such a gay homosexual, maybe your greek ancestors will come save you, from the ass ravage you have experienced in this thread.
Your reality is language. You've never directly perceived any "real" reality. That's what I've been saying.
Naïve realism is as foolish as theism. It's the thinking of children.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
%3D
For example this. Random basedboys online can even image it. Charge is about the worst example you could have picked. And if you're this ignorant on shit that was solved hundreds of years ago, maybe you shouldn't be arguing about cutting edge stuff. It's evidently far beyond your league and you should stick to being wowed by voodoo or whatever other woo you happen to buy into because mortality scares you. Your science like 200 years out of date. There's no excuse for that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So then, you can craft me, a tesseract with a 3-D printer and computer right? Nope. Clearly it exists, because the computer can see it also. But yea, you are just an athiest trying to disprove everything with science.
I used to be like that, but then I became old, and I have outlived most of my friends, and most of my family is old and dying. Seems like a big waste of flesh, and stuff like that. So then I started actually studying occult stuff and other spooky books, like the bible. And I started to understand what the prophets were actually talking about. And that, "hocus pocus" and "voodoo" does actually exist, some people call it luck, some people call it god. What do you call it, my friend?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So then I started actually studying occult stuff and other spooky books, like the bible
This stuff is exactly the same as the stuff you made fun of him for believing.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So then, you can craft me, a tesseract with a 3-D printer and computer right?
Of course I could. There's even klein bottles that people make. So if you wanted extra dimensional shapes you can make those easily. Just like you found images of them easily. If you mean can a 3d printer make you a 4d object then of course not. >What do you call it, my friend?
I call it cope because you're apparently older and losing friends and family. So to cope with reality you have delved into mystic nonsense that makes no sense and it makes you say things so foolish a child in grade school would laugh at you.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Of course I could.
Well technically the lore is that all you could make is a 3d shadow of a 4d hypercube. But I think it's a bit funny that mathematicians believe their lore is preeminent over all reality.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, because you're in 3d space. Of course a 3d printer would not give you a 4d object. I even clarified that in the very next sentence.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I call it cope because you're apparently older and losing friends and family. So to cope with reality you have delved into mystic nonsense that makes no sense and it makes you say things so foolish a child in grade school would laugh at you.
That's your opinion. Good luck on your athiest quest, I believe in you.
>Was Plato right about the forms?
No. >Do ideal forms exist?
No. >How do we know?
There is no such ideal anything. Everything is made of everything else, no thing has it's own nature as it's own self. A perfect table must be made from wood, which grows from soil, water, seed, and sunlight. But at no point is there ever a table.
>a street-shitting lice-headed pajeet said so!
well that settles it then
good thing he didn't claim to be the son of god or you retards would have started a new cult
No.
Not really. Unless you consider abstract things like a perfect circle that exist only in theory.
>Unless you consider abstract things like a perfect circle that exist only in theory.
Where is "in theory"?
It's not anywhere. It's like asking where an object you imagine in your head is. It's not anywhere. It exists solely as an abstraction. I can imagine infinity. I don't need to use infinite neurons to process that because it's not real.
Abstracts are real, everything begins in someones imagination, then they replicate it into reality using their hands and tools. I don't study gay-reek philosophy, because they are fucking gay, and nothing they say, is actually demonstrable.
>muh death rays
Demonstrate the existence of abstractions
Do you see the monitor you are talking to me on, using a keyboard? That is an abstraction, that existed, in someone's brain. Are you saying that nothing is real?
If your definition of existence is strictly material, then your thoughts don't exist. Unless you want to argue that neurons = thoughts, then abstractions obviously exist even physically.
'Thought' is just another word abstraction for something we don't fully understand, so yes they might not exist in the manner you think they do.
>'Thought' is just another word abstraction for something we don't fully understand
No, it isn't lol. "if i think it then it real". I don't know what I expected, but better than something a 5 year old might say about his imaginary friend.
NTA, but can you tell me where things are? Have you ever seen anything outside of what you see?
>NTA, but can you tell me where things are?
Sure. What things?
>Have you ever seen anything outside of what you see?
Well clearly not. That's a truism. Have I seen things I haven't seen? No. Just like I never ate foods I've never eaten. You're putting the answer in the question.
>What things?
Everything.
>Well clearly not.
Well that's my point. Everything is a hallucination, including you.
I don't agree with Plato or believe in the forms either. I just figured that both sides here seem to believe they know what reality is, when in fact, we don't really. We've got our own little carnivorous primate ideas about the universe, working with minds designed for tribal living. It's a bit goofy to say that anyone knows what's "real" or not, much less to make statements about the whole Universe.
>Everything.
Everywhere. If you don't specify and just ask where things are then they're everywhere. You need to be more specific.
>Well that's my point. Everything is a hallucination, including you.
Thar's a non-sequitur. I didn't see what I never saw therefore it's all fake? That's literally retarded. I can't see what I didn't see because if I did not see it, then I never saw it. It's a truism. But I have seen things. I just clearly cannot see a thing that your very question defines I haven't seen. You never breathed air you never breathed so you're really dead by asphyxiation. This is bottom of the barrel.
>Everywhere.
Where do you see everywhere?
>I didn't see what I never saw therefore it's all fake?
No, I'm saying that we can't say anything at all about the true nature of reality, because we simply don't know jack.
Some things are real enough, and relevant enough to the brain's desire to survive in the body. But basing hard statements about all existence in the WHOLE UNIVERSE on the ramblings of a species of pack-hunting carnivorous primates, now that's some veeeery thin soup. I don't go out on a limb like that, and I don't think anyone else should.
Naïve realism is as goofy as naïve idealism.
>Where do you see everywhere?
You mentioned things. A thing has to be someplace. So where is everything? Everywhere. You never specified a location so this vague retardation is the best you're gonna get. Things are in places. It occupies space and time. So a thing necessarily exists some place. There's no other option. If a thing was nowhere then it doesn't exist.
You can think that I have two heads and it stil won't make it real. I'm not the guy you were arguing with btw.
I might not fully understand it, but at least I know it's there.
You don't. You know there's something that we have named thought. You have no idea what it is other than what it appears to be, you don't even know what causes thought, or whether thought can be reproduced in a material experiment.
We're talking about them, aren't we? Demonstrate your own existence, nagger!
>Abstracts are real
No, they aren't. If they were I couldn't imagine a sun or a black hole. My brain would melt and fold in on itself due to the mass necessary to process that.
Just like if I imagine a spear it's not real. I can get a stick and a sharp rock and make one, but the one I imagined isn't real. It doesn't exist, it has no form, no weight, no mass, nothing. Do really have grown fucking men in here that think imagination = real? That can't be. That's a new level of low. I know people are dumb, but come on this isn't even trying anymore.
Whatever you say my love, I am literally inside your brain right now, shitting on your toilet, and that is real, and you can't stop me.
Whatever I say? That's a cop out. You don't got shit. If you did you'd show a real abstraction. The things I imagine would have serious effects like my 2 examples. How can I imagine infinity if it's real? If it was I wouldn't have enough space or energy in the universe itself. I'd blow apart into a singularity or vaporize. Abstractions are imagination. They aren't anywhere. I can imagine a field. That field in my mind's eye? It doesn't exist. You can't honestly be like this. I work with mentally retarded clients who can recognize the difference between reality and imagination. So what exactly is your malfunction?
Okay. And this shows what? This is what the 3d shadow of a 4d cube would look like in our number of spatial dimensions. What does that have to do with abstractions being real?
What do you think these prove? Use your words. I'm aware of math and geometry. Do you have a point or are you expecting me to be mystified by pretty shapes?
These are impossible shapes, or abstractions, that someone imagined, and that can only be replicated inside cyber-space, or a computers imagination. You work with retards? That is a fancy way of saying you work at Mcdonalds.
They're not impossible shapes. You're looking at them right now. Those are 3d representations of an object that has 4 spatial dimensions. And an impossible shape isn't an abstraction. These aren't equivalent terms.
You have no idea what a teseract is, and it makes my laugh. Perhaps you should stare into more greek assholes.
If the mind exist, so too does it's content. That is abstraction.
So you seem to agree that abstracts exist in some non-material realm.
Nope. I don't know where you got that idea.
Concession accepted.
Read it, it's in plain english, my dear.
That does not mean they exist in some other dimension. Nothing I said even hints at that. Let me explain further since you have such a low IQ you seem to think "if abstract exist it needs new realm".
Imagine a perfect circle. Does it exist? No. I can think "object that is a perfect circle". That doesn't manifest it anywhere. I can also imagine "human head growing out of a rose". That doesn't exist. I can imagine a sun or a black hole. My mind doesn't run out of processing power making a real one. When you imagine something you aren't looking at anything real. Imagination and seeing things there is not the same as sight. Imagining a sound is not the same as hearing.
Your mind is giving you for all intents and purposes a hollow facsimile of an idea. Like you know what a ball is. You can imagine one. That does not mean "there is some ultimate round ball thing". Everyone would imagine a different ball. Because we have a concept of rounded things and our minds can "picture" that. Nothing physical or transcendental is occurring. We can put your ass in an MRI or other scans and even look at the areas lighting up and being active in your brain for different things. I had no idea grown adults struggled this hard to understand the difference between imagination and something real. That's incredible.
Shut up homosexual, I literally blew your brain apart with some funny words and scriptures. Enjoy sulking in your own feces and ignorance, don't even try to read the scriptures either, you might cut your head off with all the edge they contain.
What scriptures? Scripture is irrelvant to geometry, dimensions, or even Plato's idea of forms. Are you fucking retarded or trolling?
>don't know where you got that idea
because you've repeatedly stated you don't believe thoughts exist in the real world? Are you retarded?
Objects you imagine in your head either exist entirely of neurons, thus in some thought space, or they exist outside of the physical world. Thus we've reached the OPs question, which you don't seem to understand in the first place.
>Objects you imagine in your head either exist entirely of neurons, thus in some thought space,
There is no "thought space". Do you think if I picture an apple my neurons assemble in front of my eyes like an atom would to make a picture of one?
>or they exist outside of the physical world.
Well we can rule that one out instantly since our brains and their activity? Solely, exclusively, within the material world. So that one isn't even a possibility.
You are contradicting yourself. You both say that thoughts don't exist in your head and that they definitely do. Just because your neurons don't reshape into what you think the form of an apple looks like, doesn't mean that the shape of an apple isn't represented in the neural network. I think this topic is just outside of your ability to comprehend, and this isn't very difficult. You're definitely a midwit and NGMI if you don't understand that
No, there is no ideal
first bad post chuddie
>Was Plato right about the forms?
Probably not. How would he know? He literally just made stuff up in his mind and wrote it down
>Do ideal forms exist?
How would we know
>How do we know?
We don't
How do you render a 4 dimensional object in 3-D space, my fragrantly, good smelling fellow, who wrangles tards for a living. You need to wrangle yourself.
>How do you render a 4 dimensional object in 3-D space
You just showed how when you gave images of it. We know 3 dimensions work. We exist in that. I'd hope you grasp what 3d is. And geometry in 3 dimensions has certain laws. There's certain things that necessarily follow from that. So how do we know and picture it? We take those same rules and add one more dimension. So a 4d object now casts a 3d shadow. We can't see or conceptualize a 4d object. No matter how hard you try. It's beyond human experience. Your mind can't picture that in its actual state like you can for 3d or 2d and so on. Just like 3d would be incomprehensible to a 2d being. They have no concept any other axis. But we do know 3d. And those things you just showed are cubes in 4d, as represented in 3d space. That's what the shadow would look like. The part that intersects our 3d space. There's a kid's book called Flatland that even lays this out. Do you even know basic geometry?
>Show me an abstracted goal post
I meant to say pictures. Impossible shapes are abstracts, the 4th dimension doesn't actually exist. Some say it is time, but some say that time doesn't actually exist either, since it's simply how we measure our revolutions around the sun. Time not existing, seems like an abstract as well.
>Show me abstracts
I can't apparently, because you are gay and dumb.
>Impossible shapes are abstracts
Okay. But the shapes you showed aren't impossible. Ya just fucking saw them. You just can't conceptualize 4d and can only see in 3 dimensions. Just like a 2d being could never conceptualize our 3d space.
>the 4th dimension doesn't actually exist
Complete speculation on your part and an uneducated opinion.
>Some say it is time, but some say that time doesn't actually exist either
1. Nobody says it is time. Time is temporal, it's irrelevant to geometry and spatial dimensions.
2. Nobody says time doesn't exist. It demonstrably exists. Even in physics it does. You can even fuck up and end up going backwards in time once you hit relativistic speeds and things like that.
So you're just stupid then. I was hoping for a troll honestly. You don't even have a "i read the wikipedia page on the topics" level of knowledge since you brought up time and how it apparently doesn't even exist now when GR has done that for at least 100 years now. Embarrassing.
Come wrangle me sweety, I'm waiting. Prove to me any of what you say is real, and that it isn't all just abstractions, show me the 4th dimension. Is that where Jesus hangs out? Which direction do I go?
>show me the 4th dimension.
I can't. This is like asking a 2d being in 2d space to show 3d. They don't have the ability to. It's not physically possible. They don't have the space to do it. So I can't show you something that you cannot even physically comprehend and would be invisible to us in 3d space.
Same for your other questions. Assume we were in 2d. What direction do we go? Outwards. We add a third axis. What is "outwards" to 3d? None of us know because we can't conceptualize that. What other axis of movement can there be? Just like a 2d being can understand "another axis" to their 2d space, but could never possibly see it while to us we can.
Why would you believe something has any importance if it won't even do you the good graces of showing itself? The Machine Elves, Bigfoot, and UFOs at least do you the honor occasionally.
>Why would you believe something has any importance if it won't even do you the good graces of showing itself?
For the same reason a 2d being could prove and show that there could be 3 dimensions. You can know it's properties just fine. It's how we know what those weird shapes from 4d space would look like to us in 3d space. I don't know if 4 dimensions exist. But I know its properties if it does exist. It's at least possible. I can't UV light, I can prove it's real. I can't see atoms, but I can prove that too.
I don't have to see 4d. That's quite literally impossible for me to do as a 3d being anyway. I would never be able to comprehend or conceptualize that. Because I have 0 possible grasp of another degree of freedom from the 3 we have. Does it exist? I don't know. Maybe other dimensions exist. But that doesn't matter to being able to figure out what properties it would necessarily have. Especially when dealing with shapes like that.
That stuff can be fun, but I really wouldn't put much stock in it being a good readout on what the nature of reality is. Just like any other mental game, it's just good fun.
I'll jump to the point because I think your brain is fried from the gobbeldeeasiatic ITT, my point is that you only see waht you see. There is no reason to assume that secondary qualities are that way. You never see charge, spin, or whatnot. But you do experience color and feeling. So color and feeling are reality, and everything else is just fairy dust and fun games.
>You never see charge, spin, or whatnot. But you do experience color and feeling. So color and feeling are reality, and everything else is just fairy dust and fun games.
Yeah, we all of those. Do you know what a magnet it? Lightning? That's charge right off the bat. We can not only see it, but actually manipulate it and create tesla coils and entire industrial societies by understanding and using charge. This has been done since the 1800s. Understanding of charge, even before that.
Wave particle duality is also real as we can. But we can't really grasp a thing being both a particle and a wave. Yet we can use electrons or photons and a couple of holes in a box and see direct evidence of it.
That's a lot of really fun fantasy stuff, but I'd like to ask you again, have you seen charge, or did you just see colors and feel feelings? Those are primary, because those are what experience is made from. And all you've got is experience. Everything else is hearsay, at best.
No, what you printed is a physical representation of a math equation. Not anything from some goofy place called the fourth dimension. But did make something beautiful, and that's what matters. Not "realness" of hypercubes sitting around doing nothing in some far off misty place.
>That's a lot of really fun fantasy stuff, but I'd like to ask you again, have you seen charge
Fantasy? Is electricity fake now? You can see magnetic fields and charge. Not even using hard technology. There are some animals that can see and use electromagnetism. Yeah, we see charge all the time. The others you need far more specialized equipment, but charge and electromagnetism was already fundamentally solved by the 1800s. It's something we deal with on a daily basis. Spin and stuff obviously not, but you can't be denying that electricity is real.
>No, what you printed is a physical representation of a math equation. Not anything from some goofy place called the fourth dimension.
I didn't say it did spawn from some fourth dimension. Nor that I even necessarily believe there is one. I'm arguing against the idea of forms. Not for them. If you don't know shit or even what's being argued, go talk to your alleged dying friends and loved ones instead of debating topics you're too mentally crippled and emotionally primed against learning because you got faced with mortality.
>you can't be denying that electricity is real
I'm saying that only the experience of it is primary. Everything else is just conjecture, as much as talk about "forms" is.
Beauty is primary. All discussion about things that are not part of experience is mere fantasy. Not to say it isn't useful, the whole endeavor of modern science is tied up in the demoniac system of making and selling bullshit to people who don't need it, after all.
You're a naïve realist. You think we know what reality is made of, and therefore have any idea what it is.
My entire thing here in this thread is that we DON'T know. Reality sure isn't atoms, it sure isn't charge or spin, because, well, when was the last time you had a conversation with an atom? Or felt a swell of love for a charge? Or had an ecstatic vision of a spin?
>you happen to buy into because mortality scares you
I'm not that guy.
>Everything else is just conjecture,
No conjecture is necessary. It's objectively verifiable. It's no more speculative or conjecture than the fact that gravity exists. Electromagnetism is well understood and has been for 200+ years. Hence why I say there's no excuse. Spin and stuff like that I can let slide. But this is shit you can figure out with simple things you'd find around your house. Electromagnetism is one of the most well understood things in our world right now.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Everything you're rattling off is a series of MODELS. Not reality. Reality is what you're seeing right now. Feeling right now. You can't say anything about it, because you don't know enough. NONE of us do.
We try to compress it into our models. Flat worlds, round worlds, animism, theism, Plato, and now, reductionism and physicalism and existentialism.
But the unspeakable is always there, ready to fuck our models right over and laugh about it.
So all I'm saying is, you DON'T have a good grasp on reality, because no one does.
>Everything you're rattling off is a series of MODELS.
Which in this case are proven and you can even see this in all of the numerous examples this guy gives. From paper clips to iron shavings and so on. Anon, people have understood this so well and put it to such use that our entire modern day society relies on electromagnetism.
I don't even know what to say. You've been given 2 videos full of examples showing you charge and just about every facet of electromagnetism and the best you can do is a flat earth tier "nuh uh cuz i dont believe it even if i see it". This is bait. Not even naggers in fucking jungles are this dumb. 8/10. Ya got me good, but this isn't real. Insisting it's all fake and reality is only what I can see with my own eyes (as I witness charge in action) is too much. It's either fake or you need assisted living and a handler to make sure you can complete daily tasks.
>"nuh uh cuz i dont believe it even if i see it"
If that's all you've taken away from what I've said, then I can't waste any more time on this. I'm not arguing from the standpoint of the naïve realist.
I'm talking about the futility of ultimate statements about reality and the whole Universe, REGARDLESS OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY, because we don't even have access to anything outside of our own experience, any our own experience is not "made" from charge, spin, neurons, or anything like that. It's the Great Mystery.
Everything else is provisional. It seems nice and comfy and "real", until you go to a new land, or in the case of the UFO the new land comes to you.
I'm arguing at the higher level of things, you're arguing that because you have a video, that you now can make an ultimate and universal statement about the nature of reality. That's what I'm rebuking.
>you're arguing that because you have a video, that you now can make an ultimate and universal statement about the nature of reality.
Yeah. This is what people call "experiments". People say "hey if this charge stuff is real how can we show it and see it". And you have a ton of examples most of which can be done in your own home because this is science that has been figured out since people rode around on horses. The fact that you apparently trolling is just concerning. In the modern world that relies so heavily on electricity we have people like you who don't even know what charge is or that we can see it and even magnetic fields. Holy shit. That cannot be good for the future of society. I hope your family gets you the care you need.
I feel like you might not fully understand the discussion you're having, because you seem to directly avoid dealing with my points philosophically.
Do you have a firm grasp of the English language? Have you graduated highschool?
Of course I graduated high school. That's why I know how charge and electromagnetism works and you still say we can't see it despite 2 videos full of endless examples and explanations. One of which is an entire crash course on the topic. You need a handler. I don't know how you get in civilized society when you're basically on par with a person from several hundred years ago. Life must be so confusing for you to go around and understand so little about one of the major forces we deal with. And this very conversation is even taking place because of. That's incredible. We need to overhaul the educational system.
>you still say we can't see it
I'm saying you've never SEEN anything. Naïve realism is for children.
>I'm saying you've never SEEN anything.
>hey why is your hand in the cookie jar
>bro stfu you didnt see anything im not doing anything bro
>But I can see y-
>YOU DIDNT SEE ANYTHING CUZ I SAID SO NUH UH
Oh okay then. So we're fully in the realm of childish arguments.
Nothing he says is Childish, your perceptions are just that, perceptions, they can be skewed and distorted and they soul-ly belong to you. You are such a gay homosexual, maybe your greek ancestors will come save you, from the ass ravage you have experienced in this thread.
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/building-better-robot-eyes
Your reality is language. You've never directly perceived any "real" reality. That's what I've been saying.
Naïve realism is as foolish as theism. It's the thinking of children.
%3D
For example this. Random basedboys online can even image it. Charge is about the worst example you could have picked. And if you're this ignorant on shit that was solved hundreds of years ago, maybe you shouldn't be arguing about cutting edge stuff. It's evidently far beyond your league and you should stick to being wowed by voodoo or whatever other woo you happen to buy into because mortality scares you. Your science like 200 years out of date. There's no excuse for that.
So then, you can craft me, a tesseract with a 3-D printer and computer right? Nope. Clearly it exists, because the computer can see it also. But yea, you are just an athiest trying to disprove everything with science.
I used to be like that, but then I became old, and I have outlived most of my friends, and most of my family is old and dying. Seems like a big waste of flesh, and stuff like that. So then I started actually studying occult stuff and other spooky books, like the bible. And I started to understand what the prophets were actually talking about. And that, "hocus pocus" and "voodoo" does actually exist, some people call it luck, some people call it god. What do you call it, my friend?
>So then I started actually studying occult stuff and other spooky books, like the bible
This stuff is exactly the same as the stuff you made fun of him for believing.
>So then, you can craft me, a tesseract with a 3-D printer and computer right?
Of course I could. There's even klein bottles that people make. So if you wanted extra dimensional shapes you can make those easily. Just like you found images of them easily. If you mean can a 3d printer make you a 4d object then of course not.
>What do you call it, my friend?
I call it cope because you're apparently older and losing friends and family. So to cope with reality you have delved into mystic nonsense that makes no sense and it makes you say things so foolish a child in grade school would laugh at you.
>Of course I could.
Well technically the lore is that all you could make is a 3d shadow of a 4d hypercube. But I think it's a bit funny that mathematicians believe their lore is preeminent over all reality.
Yeah, because you're in 3d space. Of course a 3d printer would not give you a 4d object. I even clarified that in the very next sentence.
>I call it cope because you're apparently older and losing friends and family. So to cope with reality you have delved into mystic nonsense that makes no sense and it makes you say things so foolish a child in grade school would laugh at you.
That's your opinion. Good luck on your athiest quest, I believe in you.
>Was Plato right about the forms?
No.
>Do ideal forms exist?
No.
>How do we know?
There is no such ideal anything. Everything is made of everything else, no thing has it's own nature as it's own self. A perfect table must be made from wood, which grows from soil, water, seed, and sunlight. But at no point is there ever a table.
Yes, and Ramanujan proves this. He very clearly had a divine connect that allowed him to channel the forms. He believed this himself.
>a street-shitting lice-headed pajeet said so!
well that settles it then
good thing he didn't claim to be the son of god or you retards would have started a new cult
regardless of your thoughts on hindus, Ramanujan was a mathematical genius whose work is responsible for the modern world.
No, he just gave humanity a poisonous meme with the idea of a "true world".
Only Brahman has unconditioned existence. Ideal forms have conditioned existence in potentia