> Executive Function wrote:

>> On 15 May, 21:50, mika gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On May 15, 1:57 pm, Executive Function

>

>>> hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On 15 May, 20:26, mika gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On May 15, 12:32 pm, Executive Function wrote:

>>>>>> On 15 May, 16:11, mika wrote:

>>>>>>> On May 14, 3:48 pm, Executive Function wrote:

>>>>>>>> It's a philosophical issue

>>>>>>> Not for Absorbed.  Quite the contrary - it's a practical issue.

>>>>>> It was a practical issue to start with until he started getting
>>>>>> philosophical with the term 'belief' in a desperate attempt to pull
>>>>>> his pants up.

>>>>> No.  *You* tried to turn this into a philosophical discussion when you
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Personally, I take each thought and look for it's opposite, then try
>>>>> and see what the two have in common, look for the opposite of that
>>>>> thought, and try and see what they have in common.  Follow any chain
>>>>> like this for long enough and you come to an unanswerable, and that's
>>>>> when you stop and *hopefully* live in the moment with a smile on your
>>>>> face.  :)  Whatever thought it was you started with, doesn't matter by
>>>>> then. "
>>>>> Absorbed pointed out that your response comments were not relevant to
>>>>> his post, which was accurate.  You then tried to divert the
>>>>> conversation further into some kind of philosophical discussion about
>>>>> belief, which has even less to do with Absorbed's original post. So,
>>>>> now you're scrambling to save face, and it's really sadly pathetic.
>>>>> The conversation as it actually occurred is right up thread for you or
>>>>> anyone else to see.  Will you check it out, or are you too lazy for
>>>>> that as well?

>>>> Absorbed was talking about verifying belief, and the amount of effort
>>>> he puts into that.

>>> No, he wasn't.  He was talking about *experiences* and the amount of
>>> effort one puts into determining what they mean.

>

>>> Apparently you really are too lazy to verify exactly what is being
>>> discussed.  Here, I'll do it for you.  This is what was actually said:

>

>>> Absorbed wrote:

>>>> Tom wrote:

>>>>> "Absorbed" wrote

>>>>>> I find that spending a lot of time thinking about the things I've
>>>>>> experienced, that I've begun to figure things out.

>>>>> Yes, but is a lot enough?  How do we know when to stop thinking about
>>>>> our experiences and decide, once and for all, what these experiences
>>>>> really mean?  It seems to me that the more I think about things, the
>>>>> more conclusions I start to question, whereas, for some people, it works
>>>>> just the opposite.

>>>> ...
>>>> I think the way to approach this is to set strict boundaries about how
>>>> much to think about something. It's similar to playing Blackjack in a
>>>> casino; it's sensible to say "I'll quit when I lose X amount of money".
>>>> The problem is how do you set such a boundary. With some decisions, you
>>>> make the best decision with the evidence available and that's that. But
>>>> if we consider a Chess position as an example, you could think about it
>>>> for ages, reading ever deeper. So then I could say how long I consider
>>>> it depends on the importance of the decision. And then the boundary has
>>>> blurred, as how does one decide how important a decision is? ...
>>>> As you can't verify belief (using the ordinary
>>>> dict. definition) then I suggested a method where he could break out
>>>> of a silly circular time wasting cycle.

>>> Which was an irrelevant comment that had nothing to do with his
>>> original statements.

>

>>> You have this habit of attempting to participate in serious
>>> discussions without understanding exactly what is being discussed,
>>> which wouldn't be a big deal if you were willing to learn a thing or
>>> two.  However, when your errors or misunderstandings are pointed out
>>> to you, instead of asking questions and reviewing the thread to gain
>>> some clarity, you defend your errors as if they're relevant and try to
>>> divert the conversation, avoiding the fact that you don't grasp the
>>> topic at hand.  When that doesn't work, you accuse others of taking
>>> the conversation too seriously or being too judgmental or whatever
>>> other personal attack.  Your defensiveness, attachment to your errors
>>> and unwillingness to admit mistakes is transparent.  I think Tom may
>>> be the only participant here who has the patience to deal with that
>>> kind of bullshit for much longer.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>> lmao.  Look - disagreement or a different perspective, or even a
>> different cognative style is not a personal insult to anyone.

>
> Many people are insulted by such things. You should look at the
> disagreements on here that have insulted people.
>

>> As you
>> pointed out some time ago, understanding a point made is not the same
>> as agreeing with it.  Of such things discussions are made of where the
>> finer sublties can be expressed and enjoyed.  I partcipate in the
>> insult thing as much as anyone here and enjoy the giving and the
>> recieving.  I don't take it seriously, and I don't expect anyone else
>> to either, Ms Judy:P

>
> The fact of the matter is that you misinterpreted what I said. You have
> since tried to use our different definitions of "belief" to explain your
> misinterpretation, and I've explained that the paragraph that you
> originally misinterpreted didn't contain the word, and therefore you're
> talking out of your arse. You're either unable to admit your mistake or
> unable to realise your error. Either way, you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -