Posts by Eric Wells3

silentridge8 said:Such a precious little avatar, with that adorable round head just thumping away against the wall... honestly, I was under the impression you were a girl at first.😕

I suppose Case usage was always your strong suit, wasn't it?😁

silentridge8 said:😱 I simply cannot bring myself to believe you; please, just go ahead and trip over your own feet if that’s what it takes to make sense...

Is it possible you have absolutely no clue what a political smear campaign actually entails?😁 It seems only the most seasoned, career politicians truly grasp the art of the dirty play.😁

silentridge8 said:Wait, when exactly did we first cross paths?

Blah, blah, please spare me the tactical interrogation tactics right now; I already understand the situation perfectly well.😳

Kosmarac said:How fascinating. My own observations suggest that people rarely show much interest in philosophers. Perhaps you shouldn't attempt to play the part of a novelist; are you simply reciting something?

Oh, please, as if they don't care! Philosophers are actually the ultimate players in this game—mark my words—because the moment I walk up to a girl and confidently declare, "Listen, darling, let me explain the Hegelian critique of Schelling," she is practically mine already.👍

silentridge8 said:Can someone please enlighten me on what exactly "filth" means in this context?😕

Honestly, you’re better off not knowing. It is a level of depravity far worse than any common gutter trash you might encounter on a street corner in Chicago.😁

casualfalcon7 said:Well, I attempted to get a clear visual on Eric Wells3's junk, but frankly, there is absolutely nothing to be seen here.

Maybe if you took it out of your mouth, you'd actually be able to see it.

Pale Blue Eyes said:Well, it is certainly true that Eric Wells3 doesn't just sit there like a sack of potatoes; he is quite frankly an engaging, sharp-witted, and highly educated individual, making it nearly impossible to drift off when he is speaking... he is almost like a male version of Scheherazade.

And then there is her, still blissfully unaware that Perdita has fallen head over heels for me, though she refuses to admit it...

I mean, really, Perdita, you must stop this obsession; I am well aware that the spring fever has taken hold of you—as it does all of us mere mortals—but there is absolutely no need for such aggression.😳

Nancy Morales2 said:I simply refuse to believe a word of it until I see hard evidence right before my eyes... and honestly, even Little Maya was out there acting like she was the toughest person on this entire board... but once I actually looked closer at the situation... 😱 🙂 it turns out she doesn't have an ounce of backbone to her name 🙄 😢

Just look at this absolute piece of trash, acting out of pure, unadulterated jealousy.🙂 😁😁

Pale Blue Eyes said:i'm a man and you're a woman, basically the hottest thing ever😉 😍

I am well aware😳😁 I simply didn't phrase it quite that way, though frankly, you're far more stunning than I could ever hope to be😁😁😍

Eric Wells3 said:To you hardcore communists, anyone even slightly to the right is basically a fascist.

I consider myself to be firmly in the center, if you please,

Well, to you hardline centrists, anyone who shows even an ounce of affection for Marshall or Marx is labeled a communist.😳

😁

Sophia Evans76 said:Eric Wells3 is the absolute best part of this entire forum.

I find myself wondering why we haven't all collectively reached a consensus by now that you are actually the one being described here.😍>

jadetinker85 said:if that particular storyteller actually concluded from my unbiased posts that I am some fervent ultra-nationalist extremist, then he is clearly hallucinating and quite frankly, lost his grip on reality entirely😁

And maybe you are?😁

Personally, I have always found conservatives to be incredibly attractive, though I must confess I have never had a single moment of luck in my life with them, being far more drawn to liberals😢, yet I find myself instantly revitalized the moment they start discussing the legacy of Francklin D. Roosevelt😁

illegale said:It’s like when a kid looks up at his grandfather and says, "Gramps, who cares about everyone else? I’m just looking out for number one."

You really need to grasp the metaphorical weight of what I am saying here.

When a man begins to contemplate the idea that the true retribution for immorality must originate from within his own soul, then everything changes... because if you watch all those mobsters and white-collar criminals living their lives in total luxury without ever facing a single consequence, well, it makes you wonder why on earth anyone wouldn't follow suit, doesn't it?

However, if you view theft through a different lens—as the moment you violated your OWN internal moral compass and betrayed the very principles you preach to everyone else—then we are discussing an entirely different level of existence altogether...

Nathan Hayes31 said:From a third-person perspective, we are strictly limited to observing the qualities of consciousness—that is, its various manifestations. Every individual possesses their own unique sense of consciousness and self-awareness; there simply isn't any other way for it to function.

Well, that is more or less what I was getting at.

I am just somewhat perplexed as to how you managed to weave science into this entire narrative in the first place.😕

Nathan Hayes31 said:It is fundamentally impossible to write about consciousness from a third-person perspective, not merely because we lack a definitive definition of what consciousness actually is, but because that consciousness remains perpetually subjective.

Well, now... I cannot simply crawl inside your skull and see what you see... though one could arguably observe someone from a third-person vantage point in an indirect fashion... you watch another individual fail to be aware of something, while you remain perfectly aware that they *ought* to be conscious of it. But that proves absolutely nothing until you experience those very same sensations within your own Self—or at least, that is how they claim to feel, and we have no choice but to take their word for it—so I fail to see how we are meant to draw any meaningful conclusions.

For instance, imagine I am watching someone strike you over the head with a wooden plank. I observe your body lying motionless on the floor, and I am acutely aware of your physical presence there. However, if you wake up a few minutes later and declare, "I don't remember anything," then it follows that you were experiencing a total void of consciousness during the period I was observing your unconscious state.

If I were to follow your theory to its logical conclusion, we would have absolutely nothing to debate regarding consciousness... given the fact that we possess no access to anyone else's internal reality whatsoever.

Sandra Wilson68 said:There exists only ONE single entity, and in order to establish the necessary conditions to observe and acquire knowledge, it must inherently divide itself internally into smaller components—essentially splitting into subjects and objects that interact and gather experience, which is to say, knowledge, all while maintaining its own existence as a cohesive Self.

That is quite well put.

However, I must insist that there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as a subject existing without an object; one cannot possess consciousness without there being something specific to be conscious of... much like how phenomenologists argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something... you simply cannot claim to be conscious while simultaneously lacking an object of awareness. Consciousness and its object are truly ONE, inseparable, and impossible to contemplate in isolation from one another.

Nathan Hayes31 said:Furthermore, the naturalist here is essentially trampling all over the law of non-contradiction, given that A cannot be identical to non-A; yet, he attempts to equate them by merging a single identity of consciousness with a single identity of nature into one solitary entity, which inevitably results in this logical aporia.

Brilliant.
So now we have arrived at the grand conclusion that you possess no awareness whatsoever.
Because if you are merely an object (to my Self), and since A cannot simultaneously be non-A, and I am both aware and, moreover, the subject, then it follows logically that you cannot possibly be conscious.

Do try to apply some actual thought here... I am speaking from a third-person perspective...

Sandra Wilson68 said:The existence of the Self is beyond dispute. Even Descartes recalled how one proves such a thing, famously stating, "I think, therefore I am," and consciousness, in its purest essence, will forever remain a fertile ground for philosophical debate.

I have always found it deeply intriguing to wonder how two distinct consciousnesses can possibly exist simultaneously.

I am the subject, and within my consciousness, you serve as the object. Yet, the inverse holds true just as firmly; within your own consciousness, you are the subject, while I am relegated to being the object.

Which of us, then, truly exists at the end of the day?🤔

And ultimately, does this not point toward the inherent limitations and the ultimate futility of using the word "I," when both of us are claiming that very same identity?

Humanity committed a profound and distasteful error by attempting to locate the very source of morality outside of itself. Instead, people desperately hunt for it in God, or reincarnation, or whatever other nebulous concept they can conjure up to feel secure.

Consider a small child asking their grandmother why they aren't allowed to climb certain things, only to be met with the response, "God will punish you if you do."
And once that same child inevitably steals something for the first time and realizes that no bolt of lightning descended from the heavens to strike them down, questioning the validity of that entire moral framework becomes an absolute certainty.

However, if that grandmother were to instead say, "Because you wouldn't want someone to steal from you," then the fundamental nature of the conversation shifts entirely.

It has always been my firm assertion that atheists, on average, exhibit higher moral standards and pose significantly less harm to society than those who cling to religious faith.

Paul Campbell3 said:-anything that can be achieved through chemical means can also be attained through spiritual techniques!!

I would humbly request that you share whatever specific technique you possess for feeling high without using Ganja, because I would quite dearly love to experience that euphoria without actually having to smoke, thereby enjoying the sensation while completely bypassing all those unpleasant side effects...