Conquer Club

I agree with Woody 100%, but I can't seem to escape worrying about things like this. Hopefully it'll just change as I get older.

(I heard the same thing Woody's saying once on a Christian radio station as I was flipping through the stations. Worrying about stuff PERIOD brings nothing but uneeded stress. If you have the ability to do something about something, then do it and don't sit there "worrying" about how it's going to turn out. If you can't change anything, then just find something else to do)

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:You're supposed to be the logical one Woody!

Correct. Worry about things you can affect/change. Things such as this, which you have no control over in any form, are stupid things to worry about.

its natural to worry about things especially those things in which we have no control over in any from.

There are many things which are "natural" which are not healthy nor intelligent.

alex951 wrote:its stupid to not worry

Not to worry at all? Sure. To worry about things that you cannot control? No...not at all.

your reasoning is illogical

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:You're supposed to be the logical one Woody!

Correct. Worry about things you can affect/change. Things such as this, which you have no control over in any form, are stupid things to worry about.

its natural to worry about things especially those things in which we have no control over in any from.

There are many things which are "natural" which are not healthy nor intelligent.

alex951 wrote:its stupid to not worry

Not to worry at all? Sure. To worry about things that you cannot control? No...not at all.

your reasoning is illogical

Not at all, actually. You are creating only bad by worrying about something you have no ability to affect, by unnecessarily adding negative stress to your life, thus very likely shortening it.

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:its stupid to not worry

Not to worry at all? Sure. To worry about things that you cannot control? No...not at all.

your reasoning is illogical

Not at all, actually. You are creating only bad by worrying about something you have no ability to affect, by unnecessarily adding negative stress to your life, thus very likely shortening it.

lifespan is irrelevant. perhaps you are unable to think about your existence

If your thinking about yourself does that (wondering do I exist) does that not indeed prove your yourself atleast exist...because if you didnt then there would be no I....other might be a figment of your imagination but you yourself can not imagine yourself if yourself has nothing to imagine opon per se that yourself does not exist therefore you could not imagine your self to be existing whereas you could imagine everyone else existing based on your own existance so therefore you should be asking does everyone else exist or am I really alone?


if you got all that congrats

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

alex951 wrote:its stupid to not worry

Not to worry at all? Sure. To worry about things that you cannot control? No...not at all.

your reasoning is illogical

Not at all, actually. You are creating only bad by worrying about something you have no ability to affect, by unnecessarily adding negative stress to your life, thus very likely shortening it.

lifespan is irrelevant. perhaps you are unable to think about your existence

Oh, I see. You didn't actually want to have a serious discussion about reality. Never mind then...carry on with your trolling, I'll bow out.

Woodruff wrote:
Oh, I see. You didn't actually want to have a serious discussion about reality. Never mind then...carry on with your trolling, I'll bow out.

i thought you were the one trolling

I thought I was trolling?

Army of GOD wrote:I thought I was trolling?

your BOXXY!

You're right!

alex951 wrote:how do i know I'm not a bad ass artificial intelligence that thinks she is living in the "real world"? how do i know this "world" is not fake?

how do i prove to myself that i really am

I don't see you so the answer is no, you don't exist.

And don't try to tell me that your post is proof of your existence either. That's just dumb to think like that.

whether you exist in a matrix, in marvel hanging from a cat collar, in the earth, in a dream, you exist only by thinking, thus being

Nice unibrow

nietzsche wrote:whether you exist in a matrix, in marvel hanging from a cat collar, in the earth, in a dream, you exist only by thinking, thus being

thats awesome

FRUM BOXXY <chuckle>

where are you taking this pics from? are you all the same, all the alexs and all who have a picture of a guy who i think is of one of those geeky series in a UFO?

.

alex951 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:"You [I] think therefore you [I] are [am]"


Descartes started the scientific movement by doubting everything else.

i could be a hard core computer program that is like made to think and reason like the mind of a person

Well that's the point of the "I think, therefore I am" thing. I may be deceived, but if that is true, then there must be an "I" to be deceived. I may be perceiving incorrectly, but that means that there must be an "I" that is perceiving.

I may be a computer program, or an elephant seal, or a mote of dust floating in an updraft, or a disembodied spirit, or something that I have never conceived of, but there must be something which I can refer to as "I". Well, arguably, whatever "I" am must have a consciousness to be perceiving, or "think"ing.

That is how you can know that you exist, according to Descartes anyway. Then you use that as a launch pad to figure out what else you can know for sure.

The only hole I can see in it is this: It's based on laws of causality: "IF THIS is true, THEN it logically follows that THAT is also true." But if you are assuming that you could be deceived about ANYTHING, then how do you know that THAT logically follows, and you are not deceived about the laws of causality too?

But like Woodruff said, if we are that far gone, there is no point in trying to think about anything anyway, so do the best you can with reality as you perceive it. Actually, he never said that, I was interpolating and extrapolating from what he did say. Sorry if I misrepresented your thoughts, W.

Army of GOD wrote:I agree with Woody 100%, but I can't seem to escape worrying about things like this. Hopefully it'll just change as I get older.

(I heard the same thing Woody's saying once on a Christian radio station as I was flipping through the stations. Worrying about stuff PERIOD brings nothing but uneeded stress. If you have the ability to do something about something, then do it and don't sit there "worrying" about how it's going to turn out. If you can't change anything, then just find something else to do)

Reminds me of "The prayer of St. Francis":
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

[edit] I double-posted, and the first post, which deals more with the subject of the thread, ended page 3.

alex951 wrote:how do i know I'm not a bad ass artificial intelligence that thinks she is living in the "real world"? how do i know this "world" is not fake?

how do i prove to myself that i really am

You think you are not artificial?

CRAZY!

daddy1gringo wrote:Well that's the point of the "I think, therefore I am" thing. I may be deceived, but if that is true, then there must be an "I" to be deceived. I may be perceiving incorrectly, but that means that there must be an "I" that is perceiving.

I may be a computer program, or an elephant seal, or a mote of dust floating in an updraft, or a disembodied spirit, or something that I have never conceived of, but there must be something which I can refer to as "I". Well, arguably, whatever "I" am must have a consciousness to be perceiving, or "think"ing.

That is how you can know that you exist, according to Descartes anyway. Then you use that as a launch pad to figure out what else you can know for sure.

The only hole I can see in it is this: It's based on laws of causality: "IF THIS is true, THEN it logically follows that THAT is also true." But if you are assuming that you could be deceived about ANYTHING, then how do you know that THAT logically follows, and you are not deceived about the laws of causality too?

But like Woodruff said, if we are that far gone, there is no point in trying to think about anything anyway, so do the best you can with reality as you perceive it. Actually, he never said that, I was interpolating and extrapolating from what he did say. Sorry if I misrepresented your thoughts, W.

thank you!

daddy1gringo wrote:But like Woodruff said, if we are that far gone, there is no point in trying to think about anything anyway, so do the best you can with reality as you perceive it. Actually, he never said that, I was interpolating and extrapolating from what he did say. Sorry if I misrepresented your thoughts, W.

Nope, you nailed it.

Woodruff wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:But like Woodruff said, if we are that far gone, there is no point in trying to think about anything anyway, so do the best you can with reality as you perceive it. Actually, he never said that, I was interpolating and extrapolating from what he did say. Sorry if I misrepresented your thoughts, W.

Nope, you nailed it.

Woodruff doesn't exist.

See:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116286