Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
uhhh yeah. ok. you bounce around in circles so much it is not funny.
Uhhhh no . OK I asked you one question regards the self and where its located you admit you don't know yet you're back.at your usual stalking.
i guess from this point you will resort to insults and ridicule
No that's normally your game I'm not playing so what do you want?
. I suppose it is your way of gaining attention and to make sure others talk to you on this site; sounds like a very sad and lonely life that you have
Here you go right on cue not one insult from me and here you are on the attack again.also I think at this stage we know who the lonely one is as you stalk me constantly. Had you yet another bad day at work!
. If you think newborn babies can think that is up to you
I said they have proto thoughts neuroscience agrees.
, howeve3r anyone knows that they only receive images that are imprinted on their brains. images are not thoughts, nor is a baby capable of thinking; they do not have language.
Pay attention.......PROTO THOUGHTS
It is hard to debate with some one who considers psychology a pseudo science, yet then turns around and says that philosophy is a science.
It is hard to debate with some one who considers psychology a science, yet then turns around and says that philosophy is not a science.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
first this is my post, i am not stalking you; you came here
I came here said my piece yet you keep tagging me trying to convince me that the "sellf" which you've zero proof for somehow exists.
You admitted it cannot be located so why are you constantly stalking me trying to convince me otherwise?
. You also stated that babies can think. I know what proto thoughts are; sheese, psychology 101 for petes sake
Proto thoughts are thoughts , you claimed babies don't think did you learn that also in your 101 / psychology / pseudoscience class?
.. i have answered your questions many times.
I asked you one question regards the self and where its located you admit you don't know yet you're back.at your usual
constantly stalking trying to convince me otherwise after admitting you cannot prove a self.
The actual self is the motor of the brain running, the spark that turns the brain on.
I thought it was the soup in the bowl....LOL
OK where's it located? You're exactly like a bible thumper trying to convince people of something you admit cannot be located.
instead of constantly asking me the same questions over and over, either end the debate, or ask new question
I'm constantly asking you nothing, the debate ended when you admitted you had zero proof for the self , yet you're constantly inventing new ridiculous analogies hoping to convince me otherwise.
Every point you made you were corrected on , you don't even understand the cogito.
It's not surprising you post up another debate and as usual have zero proof for your assertions, that's your thing .....everytime.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think that the issue here is terminology. You seem to think that the state you achieve by meditating is characterized by disappearance of thoughts, yet they never go anywhere, they just become less clearly verbalizable. It is like the difference between reading about a sunset and watching a sunset: in the first case you are having a clear internal monologue telling you what is happening, and in the second case your monologue is much more vague or even absent and you perceive what you see in more of a "stream of consciousness" way - yet in both cases the thoughts are all there. You cannot watch a sunset and make any sense out of it without thoughts popping up in your head bringing up associations between the sensory input of your eyes and the physical reality around you. In other words, without a thought of a sunset, you cannot be aware that you are watching a sunset.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
i am not tagging nor stalking you
Really you just tagged me again.
. i am simply replying to your questions
I asked one you admitted you had no evidence for the self as you cannot locate, yet here you are again.
. that is up to you if you consider that stalking
I do ,read above.
. If you consider the debate ended, fine by me
Yet here you are.....again.
. It is philosophy, not a science that requires proof
Philosophical assertions have to backed up by evidence you have zero. BTW Philosophy is a science , I've corrected you on this already.
. I answered all your questions, yet you simply say i did not
I asked one you admitted you cannot locate the self so what are you even arguing about?
. and yes you are constantly asking me the same questions, so i fail to see why you claim you are not.
I'm not , I asked one.
In philosophy, one can argue the self exists without proof
That's why no one takes you seriously.
. If you have proof that babies think, then create a debate on it
I proved it , it's a fact babies have protothoughts neuroscience agrees
. If you have proof that proto thoughts are babies thinking with words then show it
I never said that stop lying
. or better yet, if you have proof that protothoughts are not simply images and abstract pictures that the babies receive, then show the proof.
I never made any such claims quit the lying and stalking please.
Watch now as Maxx continues stalking trying to convince others the fictional self somehow exists.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
As far as the highlighted passage goes, you have to define "self" to argue anything about it. That is what people here are having trouble understanding: what exactly you mean by "self". It is not a placeholder word, I assume, but something tangible. But what is it?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
MAXX STILL STALKING
I proved it , it's a fact babies have protothoughts neuroscience agrees.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm entitled to comment on your topics and I do so as an act of charity to correct you.
You keep stalking people when the debate is over trying to convince them of your nonsensical rantings.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Please stop tagging me every half hour,lay of the stalking might work on kids not on me.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maxx back stalking .......at the least the kids are safe .....for now....
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
MAXX COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING STALKED WHILE HE TAGGED ME TO TELL.ME HE'S NOT A STALKER
.......ROFLMAO...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
ARGUMENT TOPIC : MAD MAXX THE CONSTANT STALKER KEEPS TAGGING ME TO SAY HES NOT A STALKER
I WAS NEVER CALLED A STALKER YOU ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE BEING CALLED A KIDDY FIDDLER BY 2 OTHER MEMBERS OF COURSE YOU DENIED IT BUT HERE YOU.ARE PROVING HOW YOUR TYPE OPERATES
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The question of where our thoughts are is very clearly answerable: biology has found the answer a long time ago. The question of where our "self" is is not, as long as "self" is not even properly defined. And just saying, "Oh, it is all philosophical and metaphorical", does not void your responsibility to properly define the term you are using.
Philosophy that is not rooted in facts seems to be just a fun mental exercise, completely useless for anything practical. Maybe it can still be called "philosophy", but it is of zero interest to me, honestly. It is like talking about the diplomatic relations between Orcs in Mordor and Hobbits in Shire: fun for Lord of the Ring fans, but not something of much interest from the intellectual perspective.
Now, if you are curious about my (makeshift) view on conscious, here it is. Human brain is very similar to a synthetic brain: it is just a processing plant constantly calculating something based on the inputs it receives and producing outputs that then direct our actions. Consciousness itself is just an abstraction, it does not really exist as a physical entity, and ChatGPT in this respect has the same kind of consciousness as humans do. What you seem to be getting at, that in this consciousness there exists something underneath thoughts and memories, is just the description of basic instincts and knee-jerk reactions, and that ChatGPT does not possess since it does not possess a body - but human instincts and knee-jerk reactions are completely automatic, and there it is not possible to get to them by "quieting" the mind. Instincts simply are acted up when they are triggered by sensory inputs, and you cannot "observe" them independently of them acting up. There is nothing that you can "feel" in you that would say, "I know that if you touch a hot stove with your hand, I will send a sharp pain signal to you and force you to jerk the hand away". It is just a part of your body.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are right, I have never discussed a kingdom built by flying elephants while sipping on tea: I do not find the topic very interesting. But I have discussed a lot of topics related on certain empirical observations, and your topic seems to be one of them - only now you are arguing that it is not, are you not? You initially talked about how you practiced meditation and learned to quiet your thoughts, and something was underneath those thoughts... That something is not some philosophical fantasy given the context. Or is it? Is there nothing underneath in reality and you are just talking about the imaginary world in which there is?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Naturally, everyone has a vision of themselves, of some consistent properties that they observe themselves exhibiting. I am not sure what there is to have beyond that. If you strip me of my thoughts and memories, there is not much of "me" left, just a shell acting on instincts. Biologically or metaphorically, I cannot see how I can be separated from my ideas, memories, identity and so on.
When I do not intentionally concentrate on my thoughts, memories and identity, they do not go anywhere, they are just put in the background. It is much like being in a room with music playing, but working on something intently and not paying any attention to the music: the music is still there, you just divert your attention elsewhere.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes i have stopped actual thinking for many minutes at a time;
No you haven't you have the illusion you have ......
Live science
But the brain never actually stops "thinking" in a broader sense. Most thoughts are actually happening in the background without us being aware of them, and "there's not really a way to turn these things off," Halassa told Live Science.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think you are getting a little confused, maxx: you are saying that we have a "self" as you call it, not me. In my view, thoughts are all I have as a conscious being, some verbalizable and others not. Thoughts, in fact, are what makes us conscious/intelligent/sapient, whatever the best term is: remove thoughts - and you only have a body operating on instinct left.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
maxx... If you are going to keep redefining words of English language, you might as well create your own language, as you proposed in another thread. "Thought" in English does not refer to the chatter in your mind, but to conscious processing of data. When someone messages, "I am thinking about you", to their lover, they do not mean that they are writing an essay about them in their mind, but that whatever is happening in their mind is connected to that person. It can easily just be an image of their face popping up in their mind, or their voice, or the feeling of touching their hand.
Indeed, I do not narrate everything I experience. Do then by "self" you mean thoughts not accompanied by explicit words?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am going far out of my way accepting your arbitrary redefinitions of conventional words and ignoring of most of my points and just pushing the same points as if you were talking to yourself - and still this conversation is not going anywhere. Do you ever wonder why it happens so often to conversations between you and other people, maxx? Could it be because you view conversations not as collaborative, but as competitive? As some kind of struggle for dominance where the most persistent person wins?
If by "self" you call the function of the brain that processes data without putting it into an easily defined shape (such as words, images or sounds), then it appears extremely reductionist to me. You are just throwing away an enormous amount of aspects that make humans humans. Why are those not part of the "self"? Why is me thinking with words, "I want an ice-cream", not being an expression of the "self", but me looking at an ice-cream and salivating is? I do not understand what standard you use in order to make such a distinction.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If your philosophy contradicts science, then it is of little interest from the practical perspective since it has no relation to this world. Which brings me back to the earlier possibility I suggested: that your idea of philosophy might be "shooting sheet" while smoking pot and just having fun, with no interest in arriving at any sort of intellectual enlightenment. I am fine with this kind of activity, and I partake in it often myself - I just do not see how it can be called "philosophy". These are just intellectual games with no extraneous consequence. Like chess or go. Chess is not a philosophy, it is a game.
I think (although I am not sure) that it is possible to take human intellect and upload it to a computer server (although not with the current architecture, obviously). If "self" of any kind exists in the human, then it will be transferred there as well. But if thoughts do not contribute to "self", then what does? What exactly on that server would you call "self"? If we digitize the electric output of the server, which shape within that output will "self" have?
Once again, you are ignoring all of my questions, even as you say that you "fail to see what points i am not addressing". I asked you a few very direct questions in the very last comment:
- "Why is me thinking with words, "I want an ice-cream", not being an expression of the "self", but me looking at an ice-cream and salivating is?"
Not even pretense of an attempt to address any of this. This is no bueno, maxx. You are talking to yourself, but pretending to talk to me. This is extremely disrespectful.  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The first part of your question on the ice cream analogy i have answered in many ways and many times; because "it is your thoughts" telling you that you want an ice cream cone, just as it is your thinking that decides it is the self. Also i do not believe i said that instinct is what i consider the self; that was just you mis-understanding. I stated that the brain running , operating; is the self; just like a brand new computer. Now because i know you will say, but that is just instinctive behavior; the brain running without thoughts; ( you would be delving back into science again), I am saying (philosophically) that the brains running without regard to thoughts, images, memories, external stimuli, or instinctive behavior is the self. You will say at this point; but that makes the brain nothing more that a lump of gray matter in a veggie state; HOWEVER, ""it is still running"!! That is the part that is the actual self. Perhaps this analogy: Take a wrist watch; the numbers are our thoughts; the hands are our instincts; now let us erase those numbers and hands, because they are just a secondary part of our self; and what do we have left? The watch still functioning, which is the actual self. @MayCaesar
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A scientist is someone who does science professionally, which Socrates did not, albeit Aristotle and Gallio did. However, Socrates made an extensive use of real world examples: he had no interest in fantasy concepts not grounded in reality. One does not have to be a scientist to talk about the real world, and not being a scientist is no excuse to talk about fantasies and call it philosophy.
And you are correct, you have the right to pick and choose what to reply to and what not. But when you do not reply to most things your conversation partners say, there is very little incentive for them to keep putting effort into the conversation. Why would I expend energy and make a sophisticated argument when there is 90% probability of you just outright ignoring it?
A brain cannot "run without regard to thoughts, images, memories, external stimuli, or instinctive behavior". See, the problem here is that you keep talking about things that do not exist, and justify it by saying that they are metaphorical or philosophical. But they do not exist! How am I to make sense of something that does not exist? The "self" the way you define it does not and cannot exist in reality, therefore I have to conclude that there is no "self". In which case I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, when the object of your argument is non-existent.
Let me give you a different definition of "self" that I just came up with. "Self is that part of the brain that makes unicorns teleport from Saturn to Jupiter and back". Let us talk about this definition. Have any deep thoughts/insights?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is basic neuroscience: thoughts are direct product of the work of the brain. Thoughts only completely go away the moment the brain shuts down. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to take your arguments to the next major conference on neuroscience.
There is no recorded evidence of human brain running without producing thoughts. It does not prove that it is impossible, but it does suggest that assuming that it is possible for every single brain and calling the entity that does it "self" is unreasonable.
Once again you are ignoring most of my questions. Why are you doing that?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Once again you are ignoring most of my questions. Why are you doing that?
Unfortunately May he does it every time as he constantly ignores most everything you say or ask so as to repeat constantly his postion which he decided from the start , he never deviates from his original postion as he's not interested in others opinions but pretends he is.
Maxx constantly says the same thing and constantly asks the same thing by slightly adjusting the wording.
His tactics include claiming he's being misunderstood , insulted or being bullied intellectually. No good ever comes of debating with him.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think most of us go through this phase in life when we think that we have everything figured out and everyone who disagrees with us is just wrong and will come to our way of thinking eventually - and that prompts us to dismiss their arguments/questions and just keep reiterating our own. I know I have gone through this phase myself twice, when first in my late teens I thought that "adults were all morons", and then in mid-to-late-20-s I had developed the ability to make very sophisticated arguments and enjoyed what I saw as crushing my opponents with them. @maxx is probably going through it now, and there is no shame in that. It is a part of the growing process.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
***@maxx is probably going through it now, and there is no shame in that. It is a part of the growing process.***
I hope you're right it would explain everything.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
Why are you getting so annoyed maxx you're the one saying definitely what the"I" is ...... The actual "I: is simply an observer, it utilizes no action on its own. it is simply there. Now this is just a off spring of a philosophical idea and i am sure many some will not understand the gist of what i am saying; however those who do, i am curious on what you think of the idea. ........
And you ask ....what do you think of the idea? So you asked for May's thoughts and mine yet fly into continuous rages that others hold different views?
. I swear if i made a post on the game monopoly, you would start talking on the economics of it and dee would say how childish, do you enjoy playing with the kiddies/ Both of you simply need to chill out! @MayCaesar
I think i'm fairly chilled and May is also, you obviously not being entirely sincere when you say .... i started this debate as nothing more than to be an exchange of what if ideas.
Really? Yet I told you my view yet you kept saying I was wrong you were right and I as I keep telling you I'm entitled to my view on the topic just as you are yours.
You went the very same on the psychology debate where I gave my reasons for not seeing it as a true science in my opinion but that wasn't good enough as you constantly posted up content telling me you were right and I was wrong.
It seems in every debate you pretend you want a conversation until the moment one disagrees with you and you're doing it again here, whys that?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
your ideas? no you did not, you just kept asking the same questions over and over, no matter how many times i answered.
You didn't answer you gave 7 or 8 analogies that came nowhere to addressing the one question I asked , I also predicted you would fly into a rage , you did so more or less straight away.
I also never said, dee you are wrong. I can not even ask you a question without you turning it around and just saying i am wrong. You realize how annoying that is? is that why you are on this site. Then you started in on me saying i am stalking you on my own topic. I kept explaining that this topic is not about proof yet you and may just kept yelling for proof.
No one " yelled for proof" you were asked to demonstrate the veracity of your claims you cannot do so it's just you opinion which I'm fine with you can believe as many things as you want without proof but please stop trying to bully others to do likewise.
. I explained it is not about science; yet what do i get? The only view i read of yours that there is no self, but then you changed that view. Fine
I never deviated from that view, you're making stuff up now. So Neuroscience is not interested?
. So here is the question in which you do not answer; philosophically speaking what is the self?
There is not self just a bundle of memories, dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.
you answer, our thoughts, idea and memories
I never claimed there was a " self" stop attributing things to me I never said.
. i reply; do we not have a self without those thoughts;
That doesn't explain what the " self " is.
because it is only our thoughts that state we are the self.
So Anger is your "self"? Love? Hate? What is the "I" you keep referring to? Where is it located?
If you say no, then I ask why nopt
What does that even mean
My very first point and still remains unchallenged.
The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just as here, you said, "you are totally devoid of imagination". Is it a fantasy or reality statement? Do you really think that there is a human being on Earth that is literally "totally devoid of imagination"? What if I tell you that I daydream all the time - will you think it a lie?
Imagination has its place, but when talking about real concepts, it has to be constrained by reality. You may have heard the phrase, "Your mind should be open, but not so open that the brain falls out" - perfectly applicable here.
You are welcome to point out a single instance where I sent "cheap insults" your way. Once again, you seem to be fantasizing. And I never mentioned anything about "growing up", just about going through different phases of life - and I never said that those phases of life have to come at certain ages. I only said at what ages they came to me, and I am not representative of the entire human population. I never talked about you being or not being an adult.
Funny you mentioned talking about games, for I just did a collab a while ago with my chess streamer friend and 90% of the stream was us joking around and laughing. Do not make strong assumptions about strangers, maxx, just because something they said and you misread happened to upset you.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
MAXX AS USUAL INVENTS ARGUMENTS HIS OPPONENTS NEVER MADE AND TOTALLY IGNORES WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID IN FAVOUR OF ACTUALLY ARGUING WITH HIS OWN REINTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE KNOWS WASNT SAID.
Typical. you sked for proof and i could quote you, but what is the use; as well just in your last reply, you told me to prove it; so no matter how many times i tell you that this debate topic is not about proof, you keep asking for some.
I asked you what the "i "you keep referring to is and you keep referring to self but don't know what that is , so at last you admit you don't know , so what are you even arguing about?
Nice. You ask how the I in consciousness is not any of our thoughts/ Because it is your thoughts just saying so
I agree there's no self well done Maxx you've caught up
Kind of redundant to say my thoughts are my self because my thoughts tell me so.
But I never said that , I don't believe in a self.
Pure circular reasoning.
But you' re now fabricating stuff I never said..... I clearly stated .....There is not self just a bundle of memories, dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.
You and may both claimed i am angry or fly into rages in my replies, but you know what?
Yes I claimed that you seem to be constantly in a rage if people hold different opinions.
One can not assume someone's state of emotion based upon written content
One can and I do it seems like you get very annoyed at people disagreeing with you of course you will deny it.
.I was simply being sarcastic.
Nice.
Oh and before you jump all over that; don't bother; I know what i was, and it was sarcasm
Well done you at least its different to your usual rages.
. What gets me is here you are asking me to prove my idea that our thoughts are not the self when you agree with it
I dont don't believe in a self and I've said from the start you cannof prove you have a "self" yet youre still attempting to convert others by constpreaching the same old tripe .........There is not self just a bundle of memories, dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra