Philosophy Discussion Forums

The inward only dualistic debate ends in silence.You need to exist to be able to claim that you don’t exist.

Xenophon wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 4:14 am You're fixated on one meaning. "Debate" often means no more than "lively argument."

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 10:39 am Yes------ it does.in everyday parlance. However, I think the use of 'debate' in a philosophical context can be seen as a more formal usage, such as is being discussed here, in this topic?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 14th, 2024, 12:14 pm The most used formal medium for a serious philosopher is a book. This is because when one reads a book one debates with the author. Unless this silent debate is going on the reader risks being indoctrinated by a clever or charismatic author.

The debate with the author of your book should happen with a good novel , or any other work of art or imagination. There should be a conversation going on between you and the author. If a conversation with the work of art or the text is not possible the book or work of art is probably meant for decoration , protest, entertainment , instruction, polemical or financial profit.

Yes. In my OP, I described my concerns about debate, a practice that prioritises winning and persuasiveness over learning, knowledge, and understanding. The 'debate' you describe here is not what I described, and I support my own OP-view, and yours too. I find no contradiction or concern in your words.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 3:32 am The inward only dualistic debate ends in silence.You need to exist to be able to claim that you don’t exist.

Please tell me — does your comment relate to this topic, or to anything posted within this topic? I'm sorry, I can see no connection at all.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 9:17 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 3:32 am The inward only dualistic debate ends in silence.You need to exist to be able to claim that you don’t exist.

Please tell me — does your comment relate to this topic, or to anything posted within this topic? I'm sorry, I can see no connection at all.

Yes,of course they relate to this topic and the philosophical debate Pattern-Chaser.Sound science is founded upon sound philosophy.

The presently accepted starting philosophy of +=- and -=+ is not working at any level of the sciences.We know this because cosmology is failing by observation and more and more individuals are having serious psychological issues.Send a JWT2 up into space that can see further back in time and it will continue to confirm that they have got it wrong.But why bother wasting money?

Science could adopt a starting -=- and +=+ philosophy but atheistic science isn’t going to go anywhere near that philosophy and yet it could have easily guessed this as its starting philosophy.Why not? when equal but opposite electromagnetic forces have not cancelled out in nature and so we know that +=- and -=+ is incorrect and definitely doesn’t apply across the sciences which are all interconnected.

+/-=+/- philosophy is a balanced and symmetrical compromise and the science that backs up this philosophy is perfectly sound and adopts known forces of nature rather than unknown forces as I keep saying in other discussions.

You will not get answers to the psychological including consciousness with the presently adopted starting philosophy and its associated science so they might as well give up now.You need the science behind balanced vibratory equal but opposite electromagnetic forces that don’t cancel out to be able to explain the psychological and the consciousness experience.Scientists are wasting their time with +=- and -=+ starting philosophy and science because nature does not agree with it.

I predict that philosophy and science is going to go down two different paths.

You will always get scientists who will not accept the obvious and keep flogging a dead horse but we don’t all have to go there do we?

This debate needs to cut to the chase Pattern Chaser.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 3:32 am The inward only dualistic debate ends in silence.You need to exist to be able to claim that you don’t exist.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 9:17 am Please tell me — does your comment relate to this topic, or to anything posted within this topic? I'm sorry, I can see no connection at all.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm Yes,of course they relate to this topic and the philosophical debate Pattern-Chaser. Sound science is founded upon sound philosophy.

But this topic has no direct connection to science. <confused>

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm The presently accepted starting philosophy of +=- and -=+ is not working at any level of the sciences.

But there is no "starting philosophy of +=- and -=+". <still confused>

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm We know this because cosmology is failing...

But this topic has no direct connection to cosmology. <even more confused>



Do you have a view on whether debate, as described, is a useful philosophical tool?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 16th, 2024, 8:35 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 3:32 am The inward only dualistic debate ends in silence.You need to exist to be able to claim that you don’t exist.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 9:17 am Please tell me — does your comment relate to this topic, or to anything posted within this topic? I'm sorry, I can see no connection at all.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm Yes,of course they relate to this topic and the philosophical debate Pattern-Chaser. Sound science is founded upon sound philosophy.

But this topic has no direct connection to science. <confused>

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm The presently accepted starting philosophy of +=- and -=+ is not working at any level of the sciences.

But there is no "starting philosophy of +=- and -=+". <still confused>

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:51 pm We know this because cosmology is failing...

But this topic has no direct connection to cosmology. <even more confused>



Do you have a view on whether debate, as described, is a useful philosophical tool?

......................"But there is no "starting philosophy of +=- and -=+".......................

Of course there is.

Generally accepted philosophy and science states that equal but opposite forces have cancelled out in nature Pattern-Chaser. They claim that equal but opposite forces don't exist. That is the starting philosophy that it has taken into all its science which is why it is failing and will continue to fail. We know that equal but opposite electromagnetic forces exist between two spinning objects in nature and have not cancelled out. Not yet anyway.

If +=- and -=+ was correct then all 4 off electromagnetic force interactions between 2 spinning objects (macro and micro) would give exactly the same result and yet they don't

-/- gives a repulsion
+/- gives an attraction
-/+ gives an attraction
+/+ gives a repulsion

You need these 2 equal but opposite electromagnetic forces to explain the psychological experience also sinusoidal electrical signals in the brain and sinusoidal light/wave particles in the cosmos. How else are you going to get a symmetrical output waveform unless you have balanced equal but opposite forces acting on these electrical signals & light/wave particles as they pass through the vibrating electromagnetic force fields which saturate the cosmos?

Stop trying to relate these equal but opposite forces to good and bad. That's the mistake that science made. They are merely equal but opposite forces of nature that EXIST and are required.

Do you have a view on whether debate, as described, is a useful philosophical tool?

Yes, it is claimed that equal but opposite forces cancel out in nature and yet that is incorrect because they don't not according to natures philosophy (+/-=+/-) they don't.