• Can this post refer to itself?
    Consider this sentence:
    "Hi, I am this sentence"
    True or false claim? False, because the one who wrote the sentence is not the sentence. the 'I am' refers to the writer of the sentence.

    Imagine we are hanging out in a coffee shop. Out of nowhere I say to you "I am a self-referrencing sentence." Would there be two claims? One of me claiming to be a self referencing statement, and the other the statement itself which is claiming to be a self referencing statement?
  • Can this post refer to itself?
    ↪Yohan Yeah, silly buggers. They're a bit like the folk who think they have to specify that letters can't read themselves, presumably to guard against sentence sentience...Banno
    I don't mind being silly, unless it means I am wrong or offensive. I think you meant the perception of sentence sentience?

    I guess my point about the subjectivity of beauty is so bad it's not even worth addressing? I have to admit, I do kind of think trees are beautiful objectively.
  • Can this post refer to itself?
    Stove's gem again. This post cannot refer to itself without a mind to interpret it, therefore it cannot refer to itself.Banno
    It seems like people who believe stuff can happen without a mind are very selective on what those things are...apparently words can mean things without a mind giving meaning to the words.... but a tree can't be beautiful without a mind present to give a tree that particular kind of meaning. Or do you think the beauty of a tree can exist without a mind
  • Can this post refer to itself?
    Define what it is to be the post, and then define what it is referencing the post. You might find that part of the post is referencing the whole. So a thing cannot reference it self, but can use part of itself to reference itself, like using your fingerprint.
    Harry Hindu
    I think its always a mind who labels sensory data as being objects, then interprets objects to be symbols, then attaches meaning to the symbols, eventually creating the idea of a post. It's actually the mind that arranged the post and referred to it, and/or the reader as well after it was posted, but not the post itself. The post does not exist as a form of communication without some least I can't conceive how it could.
    It makes sense that part of the post is used to refer some mind to the whole post.
  • Can this post refer to itself?
    Yep, your post refers to itself.jorndoe
    So if there was a painting with the words painted on it "I am a painting". You think the painting is literally referring to itself? Isn't reference a type of thought? Wouldn't that be the same as saying the painting is having a thought?
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Hi I am back to this old thread. Thanks for all the good conversation before. I started reading it again and may reply to old posts as I've thought more about this stuff. If anyone is still interested in this topic, I don't know?

    Here is my current argument

    1. Possibilities(essences) cannot be created or destroyed.
    2. I am a possibility/essence (currently an actualized one)
    3. I cannot be created or destroyed (although the actualized me can)
  • Can this post refer to itself?
    Or is self-reference inherently contradictory so that nothing can actually refer to itself, but only to objects outside of itself?
  • I came up with an argument in favor of free will. Please critique!
    Except that isn't the case. You read the above, you thought about it, you referred to past thoughts and experiences, decided what you wanted to convey, thought about it, worded it in what you thought we be an efficacious way again based on past experience, and posted the above. There is a distinct process A > B > C > D in what you did that involved weighing up alternatives and choosing relative to your frame of reference, i.e. based on your experience and reasoning capabilities, whittled down all possibilities to one without external bias.Kenosha Kid
    Except that isn't the case.[/quote]
    You described my thought process from a 3rd person perspective, thereby demonstrating that there is not only a first person perspective of my thought. I can describe any of my thoughts from a third person perspective. But you are right if you are saying that the 3rd person perspective occurs from a first person perspective. You can't actually excape the first person perspective.
  • I came up with an argument in favor of free will. Please critique!
    Imagine two people in a debate, one is in space, and one is on earth.
    One says:
    The sun moves around the earth. Everyone on earth has witnessed the sun rise in the east and set in the west. Witnesses have made the same clame on the opposite side of the globe.

    The one in space says:
    What you are experiencing is an illusion. It's just based on a limited point of view because you are stuck on the earth. Don't believe your eyes. Your expereince is an illusion. Come to space and see the bigger picture.

    It's the same kind of thing here.
    From a first person perspective, there is the experience of personal doing
    From a 3rd person perspective the body, feelings, mind, thoughts, actions are just "happening"
  • A thought on the Chinese room argument
    Before you can claim consciousness depends on matter, you have to clearly define matter and conciousness. Science has not defined either adequately. It doesn't know what we are looking at, nor what is looking.
    This is plainly obvious for all to see.
    As far as we can tell, its impossible to know anything about objective reality. Science has not revealed a single objective truth as of yet, only subjective observations (repeated observations sure. But no amount of subjective observation will change the fact that its subjective)
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    An acceptable definition must be clear, plausible, and internally consistent. It must also either be in correspondence with our intuitions or be supported by arguments that show our intuitions are mistaken.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Brain function is clearly not more fundamental than brain. For brain function, you need a brain. The opposite is not true.Kenosha Kid
    I think this is your argument, which kind of reads in a confusing way...:
    1. The mind is a brain function.
    2. For a brain function you need a brain
    3. However a brain doesn't require a brain function to exist. (not relevant)
    4. Therefor the mind requires a brain.

    Can you see what is wrong with this argument? If you want to convince anybody of your argument, you need to start with a premise that is self evident or easily testable so that everyone will agree at the starting point. Otherwise you have offered a valid argument but not a sound one.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Here is another thought experiment but first I want to restate an argument I didn't have a reply to:
    Consider the fact that if consciousenss correlates with bran activity, that for each person, their experience of themselves and the world will correlate with brain activity. Eliminate the activity of the brain which corresponds to someone's sense of self, and presumably they will not expereince themselves as a self.
    Eliminate the brain activity that corresponds to someone's experience of the world, and presumably they will not experience a world.
    How is it not special pleading to in effect say that some brain activity corresponds to the mind and nothing beyond the mind, while some other brain activity corresponds with the mind but also something beyond the mind? Why is the experience of self reduced to a mere experience with no external correspondance except with brain activity, but the expereince of the world corresponds not only with brain activity but also with a world outside of the brain?

    Anyway, here is the thought experiment which is based on the same problem as above.
    Imagine we found an actual physical super-meta brain that is the brain of the universe. All features of the universe and its activity correspond with the brain activity of the brain of the universe. Would this prove that the universe is merely brain activity within the brain of the universe? I would say that that would seem to be the case, but that would mean the universe is within itself... which leads to an infinite regress. The brain of the universe you see is really just a thought of the brain of the universe, and you can't find the final true objective brain of the universe...because it too will have to be a thought of the universe, rather than the thinker. The only way to resolve the infinite regress, is if the brain of the universe doesn't exist in just in the brain of the universe, but in the mind of reality. If this is true, it means the Brain of the universe is a representation of the mind of the reality. But it's not the mind of reality itself.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    In neuroscience, brain function is mind.Kenosha Kid
    And in Christian Science only God and mind have ultimate reality. Calling something a science doesn't necessarily make it one. And a "scientific" discipline can have an admixtur of actually rational guidelines mixed with unfounded assumptions or dogma, which I would say is possibly the case with most materialism-based scientific traditions. Idealogy seems to form when masses of people get together with a common vision, even if they all genrally share values like it seems to me. Maybe its part of human tribalistic nature...sorry for small tangent.
    I should think an Idealist could practice any science that deals with observing the material world. It's just from their point of view, the material world is a sub-set of mind. Just like one person can take psychedelics and experience hallucinations and believe the hallucinations are real, or mind independent, while another can take psychedelics and experience the same kinds of hallucinations yet believe or know they are mind based, rather than objectively real.
    Another example: two people can play a videogame together, learning the rules of the game, with one of them thinking the three-dimensional world of the video-game is fundamentally as it appears, with literal 3d space, while another recognizes that the 3d space only appears there due to mental projection, and that the video-game world in general is a sub-set of a more necessary reality outside of the videogame, which is also a sub-set of mind.

    1. If you wish to claim that a mental activity that corresponds to a brain activity is not causally linked, one has to reproduce the success of neuroscience at explaining such correlations without the benefit using what is apparently to neuroscientists accurate, predictive and obvious. It's a difficult position to be in.Kenosha Kid
    So neuroscientists have demonstrated that there is not only correspondance but causation between mental and brain activity? How can one ever prove that corresponce is not only correspondance, but that one actually is the cause of the other? Further, you said before that to neuroscience brain activity is mind activity. If brain activity IS mind activity, then there is no causation between one or the other, rather there is no separation between the two in the first place. If one can cause the other, then there are two things. But I don't think an idealist has to disprove any neuroscience findings, he just has to show that materiality is an idea.

    2. Otherwise one ends up in a turf war that dualism can only lose. You might accept that yes that brain activity does indeed describe a particular mental activity, but that's -not all that mind is-. As neuroscience explains more and more, this separable dualistic component must necessarily retreat, else resort to (1) above.Kenosha Kid
    Here is a simple argument why I think, if monism is the case, mind is the fundamental rather than the material world.
    You can't locate consciousenss in the material world. But you can locate the appearance of the material world within consciousness.

    Edit: Here is a thought experiment:
    Say you are talking to Jim. Jim has access to his awareness, thoughts, feelings, etc. He knows what it is like to exist as himself from his first person experience.
    You have access to a 3rd person perspective of Jim. You see him objectively. You can observe all you want (lets say you can also observe the insides of his body)
    Question: Which side of Jim is more essential? How he appears to you from the outside. Or how he experiences himself from the inside? I would argue that, from observing the body, you don't actually see Jim at all. You just see a body, not a being. Jim is the subjective being.
  • Who was right on certainty...Descartes or Lichtenburg?
    An experience being had by nobody is an experience not being had at all, and an experience being had of nothing is again an experience not being had at all.Pfhorrest
    That sounds logical but could experiencer, experiencing, and experience... or self, perception, and object perceived...could such division be a delusion of the experiencer or self?
  • Who was right on certainty...Descartes or Lichtenburg?
    one cannot doubt that an experience of doubt is being had, and so that some kind of experience is being had.Pfhorrest
    Makes sense.

    But I then say that the concept of an experience is inherently a relational one: someone has an experience of something. An experience being had by nobody is an experience not being had at all, and an experience being had of nothing is again an experience not being had at all. This indubitable experience thus immediately gives justification to the notion of both a self, which is whoever the someone having the experience is, and also a world, which is whatever the something being experienced is.Pfhorrest
    This sounds rock solid...But, does it necessarily imply duality?
    But If duality is not true, I think that would necessarily infer that self and world are not two things, but rather two sides of the same thing, reality. Reality as an appearance in the self's experiece, and reality as awareness of the appearance.
    I don't think we are justified in claiming that because we experience something, that that something necessarily exists separate from the appearanace of it within awareness.
    I think its necessarily the case that Reality is one thing only, awareness, but can create the th experience of the appearance of duality, without actually creating an objective duality.
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Kenosha...thinking some more, I don't think I had understood your point about a brain not requiring a brain function, but a brain function requires a brain. Is the implication that "brain activity" is what generates the mind? So that, a brain can exist without a mind, but a mind can't exist without a brain?
    If so, for me that is not obviously true. It's obviously true IF materialism is true, but its not true from an idealist point of view...
    So maybe I can ask. Can you show why its necessarily true without having to first assume materialism is true?
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    Hi Kenosha Kid
    You expressed a tautology (if I use that word right) that can apply to any thing.
    a materialist can say:
    A brain can exist without activity. But brain activity can't exist without a brain.
    An idealist can say;
    A mind can exist without activity. But mental activity cannot exist without a mind
    (I hope I didn't miss your point)

    And that's just brains. There's toasters, rope, jelly, shoes, trees, water, air, chinken nungents, mud, sand, oil, car keys, bedsheets, cups, and so on, all material things that show no evidence of thought, that we would be astonished to discover had thoughts. And no evidence of thoughts without some material foundation.Kenosha Kid
    Do ideas think? Are ideas mental? Conclusion: Both ideas and material objects show no clear signs of thought. Whether or not something has thoughts is irrelevent to whether or not that things is an idea or a material object, since thoughtlessness can apply to either.
    Further, how do you recognize if a material object is or isn't showing signs of thought. For example, do brains show signs of thought? If so, what are the signs?

    And no evidence of thoughts without some material foundation.Kenosha Kid
    I had edited my original post quite a bit. I tried to explain that correspondance between mental activity and material activity does not in itself prove either one to be the foundation of the other.
    Does that make any sense? I can try to explain why from the idealist position, what we call material objects are actually mental objects, if you want.
    Thanks for the conversation, hope it stays fun! peace
  • All mind, All matter, Dualistic
    I would like to offer a counter argument to a 'matter is primary' argument I heard before.

    I think the argument goes 'Thinking correlates with certain brain activities. If those brain activities cease, then so does the experience of thought. So apparently, thought is dependent upon brain activity, which is a material object, so apparently thought is dependent upon the material world. There is no evidence of thinking still going on after the brain activity has ceased, and so there is good reason to think that thinking depends on the material brain.

    True, thought correlates with brain activity. Change or eliminate the activity, and so do you change or eliminate the thought, apparently.

    However, the same correspondance argument can be applied in reverse, to the brain(and matter in general) being merely a thought in the mind, by the idealist.
    An idealist can argue the brain is a thought the mind is having. And changes in their thinking correlate with changes in their brain activity, so that brain activity, and the material world altogether are reducible to thought. And they can say that there is no evidence of matter existing independent of mind, since all experience of the material world will necessarily correlate with mental activity.

    So, summarized...all mental activity corresponds with material activity, and all material activity corresponds with mental activity. They seem to always correspond, and it seems impossible to demonstrate how one could have activity without corresponding with the other having activity.
  • Who was right on certainty...Descartes or Lichtenburg?
    Sorry I want to simplify my position.
    Thought occuring doesn't prove self, but it does prove awareness. Whether or not awareness qualifies as being called a self depends on what we mean by self.

    Is awareness the only thing necessary to justify the label of self. Or is it just the bare minimum.

    If a computer processes data but has no awareness, I'm not sure I would call it a self, probably not. If the computer does have awareness, I think I would call it a self.
  • Who was right on certainty...Descartes or Lichtenburg?
    Lichtenberg's statement seems like it makes less assumptions at first.
    Instead of saying "I think" just say "thought is occurring". I think he is right, thought can occur without a thinker.
    But its impossible to be aware of thinking occurring without a personal awareness of it.
    I am certain that thinking is happening for ME, because I AM aware of it.

    Consider if Lich had said "The mind is certain that thought is occurring."
    But that could go further to
    "There is an awareness of the mind being certain that thought is occurring"
    Can we describe what is happening any more essentially?
    Are we justified in calling the awareness self? On the one had, I can see how maybe 'awareness' is less conceptual, more real than an idea of a self. On the other hand, calling awareness an 'it' almost seems to imply that it's like...outside, external...but since it's not somebody elses awareness, in a sense it is not an 'it' because from the point of view of awareness, it is not 'outside'. You can talk about it as an object, but I don't think the personal experience of awarness is like that.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Everyone thinks I'm talking about the ephemeral I concept.
    The concept of the world and the I concept are both constantly changing and relative.
    I'm talking about what is beyond such, which is, to the relative mind, nothing, for it can't understand how something non-relative can exist.

    You are you. Always have been you. Always will be you.
    "You" does not point to the personal fluctuating I concept, but to the impersonal selfless awareness, that seems more in the background, watching change occue
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    I suggest you get the essence of the Republic by Plato. You don't have to read the entire danged book itself, just Google it.god must be atheist
    I must admit I've read some plato, including the Republic - Thanks though (I could perhaps read more.)

    You are a brilliant mind: you reinvented the wheel that was first described 2500 years ago, and constantly remindered. This is actually brilliance, to come to the same conclusion as Socrates, without prior knowledge of his teachings. Well done. (I am NOT being facetious.)god must be atheist
    thanks. Doing philosophy is quite hard. Especially being unbiased and questioning what seems obvious. The more obvious something seems, the more I try to question it. I still feel hopelessly inadequate to understand reality, a lot or most of the time, but I try to keep going down the rabbit hole regardless. Death will come some day, and I figure if death is the end, then it wont have mattered if I wasted my life philosophizing. If there is even an miniscule possibility of immortality, I figure its worth seeking since the prize of immortality is of infinite worth. Whereas a life, no matter how great or horrible, if it leads to permanent exinction, such a life will equate to absolute meaningless in the end.

    My theory is that a person's IQ is equal to the extent to which a person is capable of questioning their thinking/perceptions. I have no idea what my IQ is though, or how well the test is grounded in empiricism
  • Everything In Time Has A Cause
    When did God create time, and how long did it take him?
  • Fundamental questions in philosophy
    By the way...
    I think the problem of consciousness could relate to the question 'how does a singular entity arise from a multiplicity'
    When a group of people get together, apparently, while we can abstractly talk of a singular entity called a 'group', there doesn't appear to be a singular entity that is greater than the sum of its parts. And the word 'group' doesn't imply a that we don't refer to ourselves as groups of cells, but something more than a group, an individual rather than mere separate parts.
  • Reason as a Concept
    Sorry...I got carried away. You asked about the “origin of the concept “reason””, which is easy enough to answer: understanding. Understanding is the source of all concepts, but the question remains as to whether reason is a concept. The argument has been made that a definition is sufficient to justify the possibility of a concept, but we find so many definitions for reason that conceptual veracity for it diminishes accordingly.Mww
    I disagree that understanding is the origin of all concepts. I think it is misunderstanding that is the origin of concepts. Concepts are generated in an attempt to resolve misunderstanding. Misunderstanding leads to the creation of concepts, which leads to greater and greater misunderstanding
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Maybe I should wait for a response but...another quick point...
    At most we could say that our experiences correspond with a world. But no amount of correspondance makes the experience of the real world itself.

    Just like if you look at a photograph of the statue of liberty, you have not actually experienced the statue of liberty in its essence. You have only seen an image of the light reflected from it.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Explain away if you’re so inclined; no argument from me.......promise.

    Yes, I favor idealism of a certain sort, along other disciplines. But that doesn’t matter here, cuz I’m not arguing anything. Just listening, even though I might ask a question or two.
    Well, physicalists claim ...correct me if I'm wrong...atoms of light reflect off of atoms in a "world" and those atoms hit our eyes. And the atoms of our eyes trigger atoms that make up "our" brain...and then what? many triggered atoms collectively have a particular atomic activity that corresponds to an "experience of an external physical world"
    Did the atoms that make up "your" brain have a direct experience of a physical world?
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Direct experience does not reveal an external physical world.
    — Yohan

    Why wouldn’t it?

    You actually have to assume metaphysical physicalism in order to have the illusion of experiencing an external physical world.
    — Yohan

    What if I don’t want my experience illusory?
    I could try to explain my point of view ... But I don't want to argue it.

    I figure it's likely you know the basic argument in favor of idealism.
  • Universe as simulation and how to simulate qualia
    It's easier if you consider that the whole universe is a dream.
    That doesn't require any computers.
  • Universe as simulation and how to simulate qualia
    If the whole universe is a simulation, then it is being generated by consciousness, not by computers.
    Any computers you could find in the universe would be part of the simulation.
  • Infinite Bananas
    Kinda left of center observation.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Direct experience does not reveal an external physical world.
    You actually have to assume metaphysical physicalism in order to have the illusion of experiencing an external physical world.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    But if I truly didn't exist before, yet now I do, then I came into being from nothing...
    — Yohan

    The one does not necessarily follow from the other. While true you didn’t exist at one time, and did at another, doesn’t mean you came from nothing. Granting that the mechanics of standard reproduction gives the body, and if no mind is possible without the body, it follows that the possibility of mind is given from the certainty of the body. One would be forced to show how mind absolutely cannot arise from body, or, show how body is insufficient for mind to arise from it, to disallow that it does, which only then makes room for coming into being of mind from nothing.
    How is switching from non-existence to existence any different from switching between nothing and something?
    Either before consciousness I was nothing at all, or I was something, for example the body before to developed a mind.
    And if I was the body, what was I before that?
    And then how far back can we go? If we go back in time far enough can we get to a place where I didn't exist?
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    So no need of the arrow of time? There is no content expectation from pre-existence to existence, but if from post-existence to existence holds, then there should be content expected from the former to the latter. Post-existence implies an existence already done, then to return to it should bring the content with it. If there is no such implication, and the return from post- has no content, how can it be said it is a return at all?Mww
    So you are saying if you exist again, then you didn't really cease existing prior.
    Which is my point, and what necessarily follows if pre and post existence are identical states.

    Which is it....all things or possible things? All things except impossibilities, or all things that can exist, which is the same as all possible things that exist, do exist? If all possible things actually exist, they are not merely possible. In which case, the proposition is the same as all things that exist, exist, a mere worthless tautology, true by meaning alone and having absolutely no particular knowledge derivable from it.Mww
    Tautologies are only worthless if they are obvious.
    If everyone was saying some bachelor's are married, and I pointed out that actually nobody who is unmarried is would be a tautology, but it would be worthwhile to understand it if not yet understood.

    All proofs involve some form of axiomatic circularity. The key is getting good at discerning what is and isn't rooted in axiom.

    You said if all possibilities exist, they are not mere possibilities.
    What is a mere possibility? Is a mere possibility something that could be but isn't?

    I'm saying for something to be possible, the thing has to have actual existence in a seed form.

    So a seed implies the possibility for a tree. In a sense though the tree already exists in the's just undeveloped.

    Seems nobody is getting my points. Oh well, sorry if it's a waste of time.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    It would seem I was associated in some way with this body before it came into existence. Or else it would have been born without me.
    — Yohan

    Yeah - only in the sense that it was Yohan who did not yet exit.

    I mean like, in order to make a clay bowl, you have to first have clay.
    You don't really change the essence of the clay just because you shape it into a bowl or undo the shape.

    So if my body became conscious, and I am the body, then if my body lost conscousness, I would still be the body, just a body without consciousness. If you eliminate consciousness from my body, and then turn on consciousness again in my body, I would hope it's me that regains consciousness, since it's the same body.

    How did I become the body prior to my body becoming conscious?
    I couldn't have merely began at consciousness right. I had to be a body first.
    And what did I have to be before I bacame a body? The matter or energy that makes up the body, no?
    But how did I become the energy or matter that became a body that later became conscious.
    Does the physicalist not believe that ultimately it is is matter that becomes conscious and that matter is what is objectively real?
    And if I am really real in some way, if I am, then isn't my identity in matter/energy?
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal

    As far as I can tell, part of me goes to sleep at night, while another part remains aware of myself sleeping.
    What goes to sleep, is the ego, not my essential being. This is why in the morning I have a vague memory of time passing. Because deep down some part of awareness was aware of time passing.

  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    Look with care, and you might notice that you assume your conclusion, around about were you imagine your self as seperate from your body.Banno

    But imaginability vs non-imaginability can work as a form of proof.

    I can imagine existing without having memories or a body etc.
    I can imagine all so called physical things as not existing, and yet I remaining conscious.

    What I cannot imagine is;
    1. Being unconscious.
    2. Observing consciousness itself objectively

    So I have as of yet no reason to think I can be unconscious or that matter can create or become conscious.

    And I think that, others who think that they can imagine such things are involved in double think.
  • Attempting to prove that the "I" is eternal
    pointSamuel Lacrampe

    You should be careful with "=" signs. It means "identical", which is not the case here. Pre-existence has non-existence as a property, but is not identical with it. Pre-existence implies a thing will exist eventually. Non-existence does not imply that. With that, point 3 does not follow from points 1 and 2. Consider this other example:Samuel Lacrampe

    How can pre-existence have a property?
    How can non-existence BE a property? Do not only things have properties? Non-existence isn't a thing. It refers to an absence of thing. Or rather, it tells you that not anything is being referred to. Like a finger that isn't pointing at anything.

    Consider three identical bowls:
    One is empty
    One is pre-filled
    One is post-filled

    Is the emptiness of one of those bowls different than any of the others? How about the properties of the bowls themselves irrespective of their emptiness?

    Explain to me how an empty bowl is any way different than a pre-filled bowl. You can say we have more information about the pre-filled that we know that it will be filled. But that is information about what will happen to it. Not what it is.

    1. A unicorn has non-existence,
    2. A phoenix has non-existence, therefore
    3. A unicorn is a phoenix.
    Samuel Lacrampe
    I agree that that is wrong, but I think what I said is more like saying 3. A unicorn and a phoenix are exactly the same while NOT existing.

  • Nothing, Something and Everything
    There ain't nothin to say about nothing.
    It ain't, and that's it.

    As soon as you turn nothing into something, you go from making sense to talkin no sense