|
How do you know you exist? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
You suck! |
hey! that's champagne comedy i'll have you know! |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hey! that's champagne comedy i'll have you know! |
I think its the truth ;)
ha ha ha |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hey! that's champagne comedy i'll have you know! |
What? You have to be drunk to enjoy it? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Yes, but what about lips? |
You know, that's why I don't believe in God. Ass and titties are so wonderful, what kind of God would've done such a sloppy job exactly in the most important place?!
:sadgreen: |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| See? My question has real philosophical merit. Put THAT in your intellectual pipe and smoke it, Arjaytee. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sorry, i dont understand what you mean. |
Do you know what a feedback loop is? What I'm asking is whether or not we could look at our own existence, or existence in general as a feedback loop that we keep adding new content to - and I attempted to use language/communication as a somewhat tactile example of this.
Wilfrid Sellars argues that our sense perception of the world around us is deeply tied to language and that though experience comes prior to language, we don't really think until we have attained the means to communicate in a coherent fashion. This, however, begs the question of where did communication come from - in any form - which may seem a foolish question, but the idea I'm getting at is contained within Chomsky's argument for innate linguistic frameworks. This is namely that language/communication is this constantly evolving and changing entity that seems to reference some sort of "starting point" into which all known language refers back to.
What I'm wondering is:
A. What you think of this concept of language - specifically because it's directly tied to how we deal with sense experience.
B. Whether or not you think the concept of a self-referential loop could be used as a satisfactory metaphysical framework.
Sorry if this is all a bit jumbled - very stream of consciousness kind of stuff right now as I'm right in the middle of re-reading Doug Hofstadter's book for the third time. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
See? My question has real philosophical merit. Put THAT in your intellectual pipe and smoke it, Arjaytee. |
:stongue:
See, kids? We should teach creationists about vaginas, not about Darwin! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Wilfrid Sellars argues that our sense perception of the world around us is deeply tied to language and that though experience comes prior to language, we don't really think until we have attained the means to communicate in a coherent fashion. |
Stop reminding me of how much I want to buy this book :mad: :D |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Stop reminding me of how much I want to buy this book :mad: :D |
I have two copies - would you like one?
:) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I have two copies - would you like one?
:) |
OMG, yes! Is there anything you want from Brazil? |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You know, that's why I don't believe in God. Ass and titties are so wonderful, what kind of God would've done such a sloppy job exactly in the most important place?!
:sadgreen: |
Another proof that there is no od or that he simply hates us men. If god was truly merciful he would give men their own set of tities to play with when they are bored. And i mean proper nice tities not those that you et when you snack on a pie one too many times. So in absence of on men i can only call that god does not exist, because if he did i would have a nice pair on tities on me right now to have something to play with while i wait until my insomnia passes. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Another proof that there is no od or that he simply hates us men. If god was truly merciful he would give men their own set of tities to play with when they are bored. And i mean proper nice tities not those that you et when you snack on a pie one too many times. So in absence of on men i can only call that god does not exist, because if he did i would have a nice pair on tities on me right now to have something to play with while i wait until my insomnia passes. |
Hear, hear!
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You know, I always thought it would be nice to fight for the equality of breast distribution.
Women almost always have a nice pair of bags full of fat on their torso, which can be a lot of fun. Men, however, don't. Now, think about it: there are more women than men in the world, and women have usually a pair of breasts. Wouldn't it be nice if men could adopt just one of the breasts? It would still be attached to the woman's body, but the breastsitting man could play with it, fondle it and take care of it as if it were his own.
I've been thinking of calling this "Tit for Teds", "Ted" being a short for tedium. Life without is just boring.
What do you guys think? |
[source] |
|
|
|
|
