Defeat JK in exchange . . . | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Philosophy
JK
JK Oct 11 '13
Here's how it works: you decide on absolutely everything, then notify me. I'll be there.

Seriously.

JK
BeastXeno
BeastXeno Oct 11 '13
Alright JK I'll bite.. Prove 'divinity' exists. ;)
JK
JK Oct 11 '13
OK, I will.

First, my definition: Divinity = the demonstrable immeasurability of a particular/unique thing.

Now, consider:

the ratio of Circumference and Diameter on any and all circles.

Commonly, Pi. A specific, finite quantity incapable of any degree of finite measure. A bound infinite. A divinity.

JK

p.s. to any who think this is weaksauce, it is only the first rejoinder. AKA, testing the plane.

Glad to have at you, BX . . .

#proveexistenceisreal
Entropic
Entropic Oct 11 '13
I've got one for ya. Define consent and the threshold that must be reached before one can consent. Also explain who/what is capable of giving consent and why they are able to consent.  The consent can be to any thing.
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 11 '13
Who died, and how? We don't eat apples. We don't eat fish. Tell me why?
JK
JK Oct 11 '13

Quote from Entropic Define consent and the threshold that must be reached before one can consent.

The bounds of consent are simply those sentient beings which are capable of understanding/defining the concept of "consent".

Seems redundant, but it's not. Only a being who can understand the meaning of "consent" is capable of such.

JK
JK
JK Oct 11 '13

Quote from Interrogist Who died, and how? We don't eat apples. We don't eat fish. Tell me why?

The monkey in the grass is not worth two. Once again, it points back to you.

JK
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 11 '13

Quote from JK
The monkey in the grass is not worth two. Once again, it points back to you.
I'm like you, You're like me, therefore: "???"
The Forum post is edited by Interrogist Oct 11 '13
JK
JK Oct 11 '13

Quote from Interrogist Who am I?

This guy:


I guess videos don't work, LOL. You just got spared 50 HP, dude.

JK

The Forum post is edited by JK Oct 11 '13
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 11 '13
Alright man, if you give up on my riddle, that's cool.

Just for the record, the clues are:

Who died, and how? We don't eat apples. We don't eat fish. Tell me why?

I'm like you, You're like me, therefore: "???"

Who am I?
JK
JK Oct 11 '13

Quote from Interrogist if you give up on my riddle

This isn't the "defeat JK in riddles" forum, dude. Riddle me this: "once I was young, now I'm unborn: WHO AM I?"

Correct answer: "deez nutz"

Why? Because I said so. And I'm clever <internal golf-clap> like a rickety-beaver.

JK
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 11 '13
;) I'm sure you will figure it out in time man, you always do.
BeastXeno
BeastXeno Oct 11 '13
Quote from JK
p.s. to any who think this is weaksauce, it is only the first rejoinder. AKA, testing the plane.


Nah man.. I'm sure someone could try to call it weaksauce, but anyone* with a three digit IQ should realize, I gave you the short-end of the stick. I do recognize, however, that is why you took it up in the first place. 


Now I'm going ask you for a little further clarification, before I rejoin fully. How do you demonstrate something as immeasurable? I always get a little lost in that simple circle magic.  Though I've only ever needed pi for scaling circles or determining the circumference of one. So I'm not really sure how a tool for measurement proves a ( O_o) "demonstrable immeasurability of a particular/unique thing". Is* the circle immeasurable? Is Pi supposed to be? Can't be Pi because I know exactly what Pi is 3.14. You can measure circumference and diameter. So mind shoring that up a little? 

#ispidivine

The Forum post is edited by BeastXeno Oct 11 '13
JK
JK Oct 12 '13

Quote from BeastXeno
Quote from JK
p.s. to any who think this is weaksauce, it is only the first rejoinder. AKA, testing the plane.


Nah man.. I'm sure someone could try to call it weaksauce, but anyone* with a three digit IQ should realize, I gave you the short-end of the stick. I do recognize, however, that is why you took it up in the first place. 


Now I'm going ask you for a little further clarification, before I rejoin fully. How do you demonstrate something as immeasurable? I always get a little lost in that simple circle magic.  Though I've only ever needed pi for scaling circles or determining the circumference of one. So I'm not really sure how a tool for measurement proves a ( O_o) "demonstrable immeasurability of a particular/unique thing". Is* the circle immeasurable? Is Pi supposed to be? Can't be Pi because I know exactly what Pi is 3.14. You can measure circumference and diameter. So mind shoring that up a little? 

#ispidivine


When we take the measure of a quantity, we always do so in units of measure (i.e. the number one). The thing about demonstrably transcendental numbers is that they cannot reduce to anything other than an infinite series (of measures). And yet these are finite measures.

When I first understood this, and the true implications, my mind was blown. A definite, finite number incapable of measure in any base system (e.g. we use 10 as a base). How is such a thing possible? How does reality transcend our ability (or the ability of any finite algorithm) to measure?

The only answer is that reality is truly transcendent, or in layman's terms, divine.

JK
JK
JK Oct 12 '13

Quote from Meq Explain how metaphysical idealism is a superior paradigm to metaphysical materialism/physicalism in granting a satisfactory (or more satisfactory) answer to the "hard problem".

The "hard problem" of consciousness isn't so hard once you get the fact that existence is "maya". In other words, there is only a hard problem if you assume materialism as ontology.

The trick, though, is to understand that neither pole (sensing subject vs. sensed object) is existentially primary. What is primary is the given-ness of such dualities. As maya.

Idealism and Materialism both fail in that they assume some degree of primacy in the presentation. Mind-first and matter-first both ignore the fact (as Kant pointed out) that BOTH are indispensable for any true phenomenon. "Worlds manifest on selves" is just a vector of something more broad. I call it the "infinite (fractal) expression field," but it is also Dharmakaya. Or Hadit exploring Nuit.

JK  
Davidson
Davidson Oct 12 '13
At the sect you criticised me for saying I enjoy conflict and don't participate in some forms of drama because the intent can be so arsed nothing I say will matter. 


Not only did you miss this context, you said in one of your own videos ( the venus satanas one, I'll link it with the time you said it, if I find it) that you didn't comment on certain videos because the people were stupid and they'd block your comments.


Are you a hypocrite or blind to your own stupidity and basic context?

glgl
JK
JK Oct 12 '13

Quote from Dyavol At the sect you criticised me for saying

No, I was criticizing something else.


Quote from Dyavol Are you a hypocrite or blind to your own stupidity and basic context?

Demonstrate, or STFU.

I have zero idea what you are referring to.  Help me out, then we can move forward.

JK
Davidson
Davidson Oct 12 '13
What were you criticising? you can't expect me to demonstrate but still leave that unexplained.





JK
JK Oct 12 '13

Quote from Dyavol you can't expect me to demonstrate


Quote from JK Demonstrate, or STFU.


Quote from Dyavol Are you a hypocrite or blind to your own stupidity and basic context? glgl

I certainly hope we're clear.

JK
Entropic
Entropic Oct 12 '13
Quote from JK
Quote from Entropic Define consent and the threshold that must be reached before one can consent.

The bounds of consent are simply those sentient beings which are capable of understanding/defining the concept of "consent".

Seems redundant, but it's not. Only a being who can understand the meaning of "consent" is capable of such.

JK

Nah, that's a fine starting point for me.


Human beings are sentient and are capable of understanding consent.


Children are human beings and they are sentient.


Therefore, children are capable of understanding consent.


At what point are children considered human beings?  


If children in the group of human beings are capable of understanding consent, and can give consent, do they have any limits on consent that adults do not? Why?

Pages: 1 2 »

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.