What do the stars mean?

I think the title is just fine. Stars don't have a meaning by themselves, but what they mean to the individual.
I take it seriously (if you're implying me and coconutt) because I do believe that stars have a meaning.

@coconutt I wake up in enjoyment to hear such a hearty response from you, thank you. Again, my responses will be in chronological order.

1. I'm not quite sure whether you are disagreeing with the statement of " I am the 'God' of my own universe" or whether you are disagreeing with the dictionary definition. But based on your reasoning later on, I assume it is my statement. My rebuttal is : in which part of my paragraph did I mention that the definition of the word 'God' would be used in my statement. I was merely referring to the earlier statement, "whatever the fuck God means to you" and finding some common ground between us.

2. Again, why do you point out things that somewhat contradicts yourself? Keyword here is 'subjective'. As stated in point 1, which was quite poorly conveyed by youself, the target phrase was 'I think, therefore I am.' The rest of that paragraph, which I thought you would have identified, was an explaination of that, aside from the definition and the bad language you had used. 'Subjective' means that if I do not exist, the world does not exist to me. Before this, not having such a heated debate with you would mean me not knowing about your existence at all. Of course you exist, in this 'actual reality' you claim but in my reality, you appeared 2 days ago, when I read this forum. And since my point isn't really getting to you, I suppose I will approach it from the medical point of view. Your brain, is living in a void. It lacks the senses to sense the 'actual reality', to see, to feel, to taste, to hear and to touch. Fortunately it has tools for that, that feed it information ABOUT your surroundings. Your brain takes all this information and compiles it, creating a logical world that makes sense of this information. You can rip a brain out of the skull, and it will never know that it has been removed from it's casing other than the fleeting moments of feedback from the pain receptors in the head. Like you said, even information that has been TAUGHT to you, is again just pieces of a puzzle that your brain reconstructs. In simpler terms, you will never know anything 'actual'. Therefore you can't even claim this 'actual reality' exists because it is just a manifestation of what your senses experience and what your brain puts together.

3. Very simple rebuttal towards this one, so you're saying if a noble or a baron (which I assume is equivalent in terms of power to a doctor) said that a witch was not one, witch hunting would not occur? (This is rhetorical, and if your answer is yes, please do say something so I can further elaborate my point)

4. From that, can I assume that you like playing the jester? Like one of the side quests of this debate, which I think I haven't complete, I ask you, does correcting someone through your own opinions require you to employ words that bring such a strong connotation? But like you said, if you don't care about the outcome as long as it doesn't affect you, do you do it solely for the banter and jesting? If that is the case, you win point 4.

5. Okay, my bad for not relaying my message well enough. By 'universally accepted' do you imply that the bars set by humanity should be applied to every single living thing that have and will exist? For example, if we encounter an alien species that has a totally different type of mathematical and physics counting system that works, should they abandon it and follow ours?

6. In point 5 of my earlier post, I did agree with you, meaning all 'facts' that I would be mentioning would be 'scientific' not 'absolute'. As a creationist I hate to disagree with you. This is not the topic at hand, but since you decided to persue it I have no choice but to say 'no I do not accept that'. I would also like to point out your shift in stance in describing evolution, from 'scientific fact' to 'established theory'. Is there a reason for this? Or do they both mean the same to you?

7. For you have failed to identify, you will not see.

8. Pretty redundant point, but refrain from using forceful words. I do agree you do not have control, but you do have control over your own words. In me telling you that I have a dislike for the type of word usage employed by you, will you change you writing style? In the latest response you have, so kudos to you. But from the alleged tone I'm receiving, your just as hard set as a rock.

9. By cat-earing 'absolute truth' I was hoping that both of us would have known, based on me conceding my definition in the earlier discussion, I was hoping you would have realised it meant
something else.

10. In your opinion, meaning it is absolute for you, and you only. Therefore anything you say in absolute in your opinion. One question before I hand over your victory in this point, when you say ' To say anything exists for any reason is pretty naive in my opinion tbh' what do you try to achieve? Personal gratification that you might think that the person whom you targeted this at might be naive if he didn't agree with you?

11. Good, here have a cookie.

12. Are you saying that it's not my fault if I shoot you? But your fault for being shot?

13. I do not remember mentioning that you should be removed from discussion, so inept usage of sarcasm maybe? Also, you took 'in case' for a implication, which I actually don't know how you managed to do that.
Also, when you quote, please state the author, if you want to be correct that is.

14. Have another cookie, but have more thought.

15. Meaning? We are already struggling to reach a common ground on 'reality' and you're dishing it out like yours is the correct one.

16. You should, it would make my standpoint a lot more easier to understand.


I eagerly await your response.

I can't agree or disagree with that statement, because i don't know how you define the words 'god' and 'universe'.



I haven't.



Saying "the world does not exist to me" presupposes an existing subject, therefore that statement is incoherent.



Not knowing doesn't equal not existing. Lack of information doesn't mean the information you don't have doesn't exist.



And this is why scientific theories and truths are not absolute.

What i mean when i use the phrase 'actual reality' is to simplifie the difference between personal perception of reality and the reality we all occupy. I can't prove to myself or to anybody that i exist or that the world i live in exists, all i am (and everybody else is too) is the information my brain gives to me. All i can do is to live and experience, and therefore i don't see much sense in thinking that the reality i live in doesn't exist because they both feel the same. And here is where the science comes in. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It is logical and rational, it helps us better understand everything that we know, it helps us to know what don't currently know and even tells us what we don't know or can't know. It explains how the information my brain gives to me can be wrong and it helps me to fight against it. That is the reality i live in, whether i can prove its existence or not.

After reading that you should understand why i or anybody can say that stars don't exists for our enjoinment and be right about it.



I don't give two shits about what nobles or barons say, a persons medical condition is not decided by a 'person of power', it is decided by our current understanding of medical science and the most trust worthy people who understand medical science are medical scientists (like doctors for example).



No, i don't do it for banter or jesting. If somebody asks a question here or wants to talk about an idea, i give them my answer. If i think somebody has given the wrong answer, i debate them to the best of my ability. If somebody learns something new or changes their mind based on what i said, great. If not, well it's not like i am gonna loose any sleep over it. The point in which i do really care what other people think is when they try to control my life based on their unscientific, illogical and/or irrational beliefs and ideas.



'Universally' as in planet earth.

I don't know what you mean by 'bars'. (For the sake of clarity, i know you are not talking about the bars where we go drink).

And to the alien question, no.



They mean the same thing to me (and to the scientist).

Every single theory that we currently have and accept can be proven wrong in the future, this is why they are not absolute. This is also the reason, even though scientists use the word 'fact', all theories are ever evolving as our understanding of reality increases.



M'kay, if i understood what the hell that meant, i could give you an answer.



This is a lot coming from a guy who called me a dick. And no, i won't.



I hope i have foursome with 3 girls one day.



My opinions are not absolute to me, i change my opinion when i learn new information or when i am proven wrong.

I tried to teach him/her new information with my answer.



No thanks.



You don't believe in freedom of speech? Is saying/writing words the same as shooting a gun? I don't know where you live, but here where i live and also the country in which this website is based everything i have i written here would be covered by freedom of speech. You shooting me is only covered in terms of self-defense (not even as self-defense in some countries). Most other cases would be either murder or man-slaughter.



You have been constantly complaining about my use of language here as if your complaining was going to change me. If you don't like the way i type, you don't have to respond or if you think my language is some how wrong you can report me. Either way you don't have to keep reminding to yourself that i use strong and uncouth words.

I don't know what the hell you mean by that 'in case' implication thing, my inglesios not so good.

I wasn't quoting, it was my statement. (I guess i am not so inept in sarcasm after all).



Don't need no cookies, but more thought would be nice.



Meaning i define reality based on what nature and science tells me. I base my answers on what nature and science tells me. If nature and science prove my knowledge of something wrong, i change my opinion.

And btw it is, care to prove that stars are high up in the sky for our pleasure and not for any other reason?



I doubt it, i know what the movie is about, and all it shows that we humans can be deceived by many things like hallucinations, illusions, delusions, propaganda, indoctrination, so on and so fort.

@coconutt thanks for the response, greatly appreciate it. Again same deal, chronological order.

1. I was under the assumption that you have disagreed. Do you need to know the definitions of the other words as well? My centrepiece is 'I think, therefore I am' and the only thing you seem to be targeting is my definition of it. Do you agree with 'I think, therefore I am'?

2. Do you need me to point out the 2 instances you have?

3. I supposed the misconception here is that nothing as a subject cannot exist as one. But it can.

4. You just repeated what I said 0.0

5. Prove that we all occupy the same reality and we will talk about your 'actual' reality. It is true we do not know what we experience.( again another reiteration of what I mentioned earlier ). All you can do is, live, experience and process. Agreeably science does make this world a rational place, but the rational deductions you obtain from science goes through your senses. All science managed to do was tell you, 'this is what's actually happening instead of that' in a more methododical way, but all the same, through senses. Your brain cannot give you information, you are your brain. Your brain deduces the information obtained to make a larger, more sensible construct to understand. And in the case of 'fighting against it' all you have managed to do is persuade your brain that one way of explaining something is more logical than the other.
Even after all that I do not believe that stars exist not for my enjoyment or superstitions.

6. Do you know how power is obtained? It is by a group of people who share the same viewpoint. In the baron, in terms of leadership. In the doctor, in terms of medical professionalism. They are the same, except for the areas they excel in. You should give a 'shit'.

7. Do you have to criticise their answer if it is different from yours?

8. And here I thought that universal meant the subject had to be know throughout the universe. By bars I mean standards. I.e. The professor set the bar really low this time to pass the test. I guess this means you can't say 'universally accepted' then.


9. Are you a scientist? If not, I don't think you have a right to represent them. Our understanding of reality does not increase. Our ability to explain what we experience does not increase either, it is the content in which we use to explain that increases, that is why facts are changing.

10. Exactly.

11. But it's only my opinion. It also takes a lot for a guy to sleep soundly at night after offending people. And my point proven.

12. I hope you will enjoy that someday as well, you have my blessings.

13. Are they not absolute even at that moment in time to you? If it isn't, do you say everything with uncertainty, because it is bound to change?
Do you think that's the best way to teach someone new information?

14. You're welcome anyway.

15. Look at the essence of the statement, are you saying, just because you have a right to hurt someone, you will? It does speak a lot about yourself, if that is the case.

16. Or I can keep telling you and making you irked about the responses. It is a plea against something that does not violate anything. But I will not choose the path of ignorance.

17. Was it your statement that was made by someone else? In that case I think it becomes quoting.

19. Cookies make people friendlier, and agreed.

20. I can't prove something to you if you will not believe it. So I shall not try. And how do you know ( I don't know why nature is added into this) nature and science is right?

21. You can't claim to know the gist of it if you haven't experienced it yourself. So give it a shot and not throttle it down ' hallucinations, illusions, delusions, propaganda, indoctrination, so on and so fort.' ( I assume fort was meant to be forth)

I await your reply.

No i don't, because i don't understand the 'i am' part. I am what? To simply be? Be what? What if we live in the matrix and my thinking is just a process conducted by a computer, creating the illusion that i am? Am i still then?

I assume that probably came from some philosophers mouth, but i have never heard it before or thought about it.



Yes



Care to elaborate?



Claiming something doesn't exist, because you lack the information of it is not the same is simply not knowing something doesn't exist. Once you read my text, it's not like i simply popped up into your reality, i was already part of the reality, you simply lacked the information about my existence.

For example i can't prove heaven and hell don't exist, i simply don't know whether they exist or not, and also nobody can prove that they do exist. The difference between me and a religious person is that i don't assume which i don't know. I simply live in ignorance regarding the information.



If i already stated that i can't prove my own existence, it should be pretty obvious that i can't prove that. I could say it is a scientific theory that we exist, because thinking either way is the same and doesn't change anything. As far as i know there is real person behind those words (you) and not a computer, and that is evidence for you occupying the same reality as i do.



Yes we do, we are our experiences whether real or not, we are our brains, and science can helps us tell the difference between the real ones and the fake ones, but i guess you dismiss that since you don't seem to think you yourself exist or the reality you live in since you can't prove either one of them.



I don't understand how any of this goes against what i have said. You just repeated what I said.



Which is a good thing.



You couldn't say this in any more sensible way? You believe what?



Do you know? Barons leadership role doesn't give him power over anybody if nobody trusts him, unless he asserts it by force. Doctors medical professionalism doesn't give him power over anybody if nobody trusts him unless he asserts it by force.

No, i don't.



Do i have to, no.
Do i want to, yes if i think their answer is wrong.



Many people when they say 'universally accepted' mean that all intellectual life accepts it and we know no other intellectual life in the universe except in planet earth. This is a universally used term.

Yes i can.



Human standards should not and cannot be applied to every single living thing.



I don't represent scientists, i simply repeat what they themselves have said.

Our understanding of reality does increase. When ever we learn new information about the nature and the universe, our understanding of them increases. And yes, our ability to explain what we experience does increase as well, through new information and better understanding.



Ohh, i finally got what you meant by that phrase, but that phrase in it self doesn't prove anything. You could say the same thing even if there were no flaws and since you can't point them out, there must be none.



It's my opinion that i don't use strong, uncouth or forceful words. All i do is use the common english language.

It is not my fault certain words offend people.

And no, you haven't proven any points.



No, they are not and no, i don't. I have my opinions knowing they maybe changed one day, scepticism and doubt are good things. If my opinions were absolute to me, it would mean they would never change no matter what.

No i don't think that my method of 'teaching' is the best way, but then again, i am not a teacher, nor is my main reason for coming to this website these forums or even debating, it is rather few other things.



If i think something as pathetic as specifically the words i have been using here hurts somebody, not that i intentionally want to hurt them and given the context of us being on the internet, it wont stop me from using those words.

In a society the right to freedom of speech is more important than the hurt feelings of certain individuals, because that brings forth to censorship , to limited speech. Give me a list of words that do not offend somebody in a global society of over 7 billion people. All forms of speech could be censored because somebody claims it offends them.

Does it speak a lot about me? Sure, it speaks that i respect everybodys right and liberty to say what ever, regardless whether i like it or not.



You can try.



I said that statement, i didn't create it, but i certainly said it.



You can't prove what you don't have evidence for. I believe in scientific evidence, but you have none. When you don't believe something that somebody tells you, what goes through your mind when they tell you "I can't prove something to you if you will not believe it"?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It is logical and rational, it helps us better understand everything that we know, it helps us to know what don't currently know and even tells us what we don't know or can't know. It explains how the information my brain gives to me can be wrong and it helps me to fight against it.

That is how i know. Nature gives me experiences, science validates them.



Waste of time.

Doouuublleee poooosttttt

@coconutt go to see your hearty response, again same deal.

1. You should endeavour to understand. Just as I treat your rebuttals with respect, I expect the same from you. Whenever I do not understand or comprehend, I seek to clarify, either on the Internet or with you. Whether you meet this demand is your choice, and again it reflects on what type of person you are ( you can be Peppa pig if you desire so)

2. I've already forgotten what 2 instances you have contradicted yourself, but "
There is no 'my' actual reality. I simply live and exist in the reality that is. My world view is based on what science tells us, not what makes me feel better. Anybody can say that "i enjoy watching stars" and feel good about it, but once you say or claim that the stars in the sky exist so that we humans could enjoy it, that is a false statement and contradicts science. It is a claim you can't prove, it is purely subjective."
And
"Second, it is not a code i live by. Just because i don't care which team wins in a football game, doesn't mean i can't enjoy the game. Just because i don't care what other peoples personal beliefs are, doesn't mean i can't enjoy debating about ideas with them."

3. Does it need elaboration?

4. In my opinion, your opinion is fundamentally wrong, and unless you can come up with something that is more solid on why you existed before I knew you to me, I will believe you.

5.you pretty much can't convince me of your point above either. If you can't prove that to me. Also I might just be the new A.I that Google has improved to be able to communicate with you. And still, no proof that by talking to me, we talk the same reality

6. Another misconception that should be apparent to you, but is not

7.i think you've failed to fully comprehend what I've actually said.

8. Which is good, but does not align to what you've said

9. I can't say this in a more senseless way for you to understand. Look up double negatives.

10. Could you make your second part of the statement more sensible? You should, but you're not.

11. You need to re-adjust your priorities, in my opinion.

12. You just established that a sane person living in a world of delusional people, is still sane, with the same logic, I appealed to both 'medically' correct terms of the word universal fact, meaning, engrossing the whole universe. So no, you shouldn't, whether you have established this or not.

13.care to show me proof that they've said that?
Our understanding of reality does not increase, like I said, if you do not fully comprehend my argument you should not give a misguided rebuttal.

14. Exactly.

15. Again, is it not your fault if you shoot someone? It seems like your conception of common and uncouth is quite flawed. I said don't use uncouth words, not don't use common English language.

16. So you say everything with uncertainty.

17. Freedom of speech starts wars. Lack of freedom of speech causes outrage.

18. I always am

19. Credit the author.

20. All I've said is pretty much based on scientific evidence, and just because I take a different standpoint does not mean my view is disqualified as unqualified. Most of your argument is based on assumptions, and so shall mine.
You've said that before, and I do not disagree. Maybe this proves your lack of understanding again of my earlier arguments.

21. Time is wasted when you fail to comprehend. Loss is granted when you deem something a waste of time. And again, waste of time in your opinion.

Peppa pig is my idol.



I don't contradict myself in those two examples. If you can't point them out and explain how i contradict myself, there must be none.



Yes, because a subject in philosophy is a being that has subjective experiences, subjective consciousness, or a relationship with another entity. Therefore nothingness cannot exist as one.



It's not wrong, there is scientific evidence that i existed before you knew me. (Not that i am going to convey them through these forums though).



I can if you accepted evidence as proof.



You could be.

I don't know what reality you are talking about. I already explained what reality i am talking about.



Apparently Googles new A.I creates its own misconceptions.



Loud mouth Peppa pig can't understand everything what incoherent beings think and say.



I think you've failed to fully comprehend what I've actually said.



So in other words you could have said it in a more sensible way, english isn't the first language everybody use.



I can't make it in a more senseless way for you to understand.



Peppa pigs priorities are in order.



'Universally' can mean different things in different context, so yes, i can.



Nope



Our understanding of reality does increase, like I said, if you do not fully comprehend my argument you should not give a misguided rebuttal.



Exactly, there are no flaws.



So are you arguing against yourself now?

Usually when you use the word 'again', you ask the same question as previously, not a new one.



No they are not.



And i say i use both.



No i don't.



Should we abolish freedom of speech since it starts so many wars? Can you name a war that was started by freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech in it self doesn't start anything, it's the people who get so easily offended that start them.

Lack of freedom of speech causes tyranny and totalitarianism.



I did.



Maybe like one fifth of what you have said is slightly based on scientific evidence, starting from your first post. All rest are incoherent responses based on, in my guess, delusions.



I agree, you must have wasted a lot of time.



If the thing i try to understand is incoherent and illogical, and therefore i don't comprehend it, it is not a loss.



Yes, because the worth of my time is decided by me, not you.

@coconutt wow, not much to argue for this time, but yeah same deal.

1. I would assume so, based on your interest in the opposite sex.

2. If you can't see the contradiction, of course there must be none.

3. You already started off wrong, should I elaborate more?

4. Because you can't.

5. I can convince you too, if you do the exact same.

6. And so have I, and I do understand yours, but in my opinion it is wrong. So strive to understand both, before casting a judgement.

7. An A.I. 's flaws can be treated, a human's iq or a pigs for that matter, not so much.

8. Peppa pig is not a loudmouth, for you are not her. And she is not the loudmouth. Already, you think yourself as a pig, who is trying to understand something greater than it's existence. But I can't change you.


9. I can't actually comprehend what pigs say, so you're right, I can't.

10. In other words, maybe because you're a self proclaimed pig, you could not be bothered / or unable to look up what I'm saying. You're just as futile as your inability.

11. "So in other words you could have said it in a more sensible way, english isn't the first language everybody use."
-coconutt

12. You might want to talk to psychiatrist.

13. You being a pig can't change under any circumstance. So I don't see why 'universally accepted' can be used differently. Explain its duality. And in case you can't, because you're a pig, I forgive you.

14. Because you lack the intelligence as a pig?

15. Being able to comprehend and disagreeing are 2 different things. You being a pig, I think it is already hard for you to understand why you're heading off to the abattoir. I don't think I can call you misguided, for you lack the iq to do so, as a pig.

16. Exactly does not mean flawlessness.

17. Hence why I used the word, 'again' ? You failed to convince me as to why freedom of speech is legal and shooting is not. Maybe because I was under the misconception you were not a pig.

18. You said you used common English language. "It's my opinion that i don't use strong, uncouth or forceful words. All i do is use the common english language." -coconutt
You don't even bother to read what you've written, I assume. Maybe you can't, because you're a pig.

19. And how not? Maybe you can't answer that too, due to the inability of your species.

20. I don't know, but I'm not about to let a pig to tell me what to do. Can I? Or can I be bothered, is the real question.
Back your statements up before you say them.

21. Can you even remember what we are talking about?

22. I really like how a pig assumed that it could be the judge of that. Needless to say, but I think the delusional one has been established quite firmly in this reply. And if you still don't know who, it is you.

23. Drawing a comparison, you must have wasted probably your entire life.

24. I agree, it is not a loss when all you live for is the abattoir.

25. Why repeat what I've just said? It's like if I agree with you, you assume your argument becomes flawless, but you with me, it's like pulling a stake out of your anus, sideways.

I think after mentioning that you are a pig, the entirety of your argument falls into shambles. For now I understand why it is so hard for you to understand me, and likewise.

Await your detailed response.

If you can't point them out and explain how i contradict myself, there must be none.



No, because you can't.



I can. (Not that i am going to convey them through these forums to you though).



I do accept evidence, it just is that you haven't shown any since your first post.



Yours is incoherent.



I see, your IQ is as low as it was when you were born, since you didn't go to any school to 'treat' your IQ. Well, it certainly does show.



I do try and so far doing better than you do at it.



Ouch, that hurt my feelings, now i am sad. Well, time to move on to the next one.



Why do you use so strong and uncouth words man, i don't like that, it makes me sad again. Well, time to move on to the next one.



One day, everybody is going to remember that quote.



Can you recommend me to your psychiatrist?



You should get a new appointment with that psychiatrist of yours, you are starting to hallucinate.

I explained it to you how it is used differently, but i guess because of your low IQ you don't comprehend it, sorry i forgive you.



I am not sure anymore that a psychiatrist can help, we might need brain surgeon.



I never said they were the same thing. Hellooooo, help yourself, call 9-1-1 already!



Uuummm... okay... Maybe the brain surgeon can't help you either.



If the explanations i gave didn't convince you, then i must say you are an idiot. Seems like you want to live in a society where we are not allowed to talk one another, but we are allowed to shoot one another.

Are you part of ISIS maybe?



I try ;)



Because the things i say are not absolute, but i do wish we weren't the same species, you make us look pretty bad.



So you can't in other words. Saying words is bad, but shooting guns is good in your 'reality'.

My statements should be self-evident to a rational human being, but i doubt you are rational since you are so obsessed with pigs that it doesn't even sound funny anymore.



All i have done is explained my position and answered your questions that have led us this far off-topic, because i guess you want to try to prove something to yourself, idk.



This one actually made me laugh :D



Nope, my life is pretty great. Thanks for worrying though ;)

You on the other hand, stuck with the same IQ your whole life since you don't know how to treat it, maybe not a waste, but probably does suck, doesn't it?



If you are not funny, you just ain't funny, sorry.



Why so serious?

And no, i don't assume that, i simply explained it better than you did.



Lets put a smile on that face.

Great, there was so much to read I didn't read a single thing.

Stars are stars, you can do whatever you like. You think those are fuckin angels, hope or light? Go ahead.

Stars don't mean anything to you unless if you preference it. Fucking hell, fucking fuck fuck fuck. I don't know why but I needed to type irrelevant swearing, I just can't stand the fuck is everything. But whatever, post reply.