New Discovery

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Postby peacegirl » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:20 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
shotgun wrote:Far be it from me to misrepresent the position, and arrive at a faulty conclusion on that basis! If there are distinctions between this new philosophy, and any prior form of determinism, then I would be interested in critiquing them.

Your plea for us to set aside our own presuppositions in order to take up yours for the purpose of critiquing the propositions of the author, is a sound request!


It is my contention that only by standing on the presuppositions of the Christian God revealed in the Bible, can we make sense out of any of our experiences. The "mathematical formula" you describe, unless attributed with Triunity, Transcendence, and omnipotence, (as well as all the other characteristics of the Christian God,) cannot take the place of the Christian God. Thus, at some level, it is indeed invalid, and self contradictory, presumably on the same points as other stoic deterministic type philosophies.

PG: The definition of determinism the author gives is not the definition of hard determinism. Nevertheless, if you believe in a Christian God revealed in the Bible, then this work would absolutely turn you off. I am not here to take your belief system away from you if you are happy. As I stated earlier, this messiah, the bringer of peace, is not a person; it is a law of our nature that, when it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, prevents that for which punishment, damnation, and threats of hell are no longer necessary as deterrents because the actions that caused the threats will be eliminated.

While I realize that I have not fully articulated my own epistemic stance on the issue, and have only made assertions, it is my hope that you can at least see now why I am critical of the so called, "discovery."


PG: You can be critical if you want to, but be sure that your criticism isn't skewed by your belief system just as Sawelios' and my friend Satyr's belief system have made it impossible for them to be objective since they are filtering this knowledge through theories (albeit good ones) that have become hardened into dogma.

It is impossible to be objective, period. If you fail to acknowledge this, it is you who is a dogmatist.


So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios. Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is. You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all. If this is true then how did we land men on the moon? Didn't this take objective thought? How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought. Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists? You are so off it is laughable.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby shotgun » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:00 pm

I would also point out (at risk of getting completely off subject) that Mr. Sauwelios cannot deny objectiviy without utilizing objectivity to make the denial!
User avatar
shotgun
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: NC

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:44 pm

peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.


Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.


You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.


If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.


How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.


Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.


You are so off it is laughable.

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident."
[Schopenhauer.]
Last edited by Sauwelios on Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:00 pm

shotgun wrote:I would also point out (at risk of getting completely off subject) that Mr. Sauwelios cannot deny objectiviy without utilizing objectivity to make the denial!

It is my opinion, yes. In my opinion, anyone - supposing other minds exist - who is not of the opinion that one can only experience experiences (and not "things") is a dogmatist.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:49 am

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.

Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.

PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.


You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.


If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective? If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.

PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B. If we didn't have this external reference we wouldn't be able to do anything that requires these calculations. Everyone perceives reality differently, but there is reality out there even though we need our minds in order to perceive it. I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.


Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?


You are so off it is laughable.

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident."
[Schopenhauer.]


PG: :) You got it.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:03 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.

Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

Not facts; hypotheses.


Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.

PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.

I am not. Check out my thread, Questioning Ingenium.


You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.

Is that a program?


If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective?

Has it been tried out in every instance? Including all past and future instances? Of course not. Mathematics is just probability, not certainty; prediction, not foreknowledge. It argues that, as it has worked in the past and is working now, it will probably work in the future.


If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

Mathematics can only approximate. It can never calculate something with an accuracy of an infinite amount of decimals. Indeed, I contend that "an infinite amount" is a self-contradiction, as an "amount" is by definition finite. "Quantum" literally means "amount"; but an amount cannot exist, as it presupposes an exact amount (exact with an accuracy of an infinite number of decimals). The thing about "quantum" physics, about subatomic "particles", is that things are really indefinite. Mathematics presupposes a world of definite things. For this reason it can only approximate objective reality - supposing this really exists.


How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.

PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B.

"We" regard ourselves as bodies among other bodies, yes (a car too is a "body").


If we didn't have this external reference we wouldn't be able to do anything that requires these calculations. Everyone perceives reality differently, but there is reality out there even though we need our minds in order to perceive it.

No one or nothing can prove to me that he, she or it exists outside of my mind.


I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.


Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?

Yes.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.

Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

Not facts; hypotheses.

PG: Whatever Sawelios, I am not here to psychoanalyse why you resist any objectivity. Could it be because you are so rebellious that you miss the target when the target is correct?

PG: Why did you miss this question? Whyyyyyyyy?

Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.

PG: Maybe you have, but your thinking has holes in it. :(

PG: Cool, then think about it more because you might, you just might, be incorrect. Maybe you are the one who is in la la land in order to feel good about yourself.

PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.

I am not. Check out my thread, Questioning Ingenium.

PG: No, I won't do that unless you carefully read my thread. My thread is absolutely undeniable and I will not get off track for one person who thinks he is right, when I can show proof there are loopholes.

PG: I will not check out your thread until you check out my thread which you have failed to do, and have made all the people in here turn against reading an important post. I'm not blaming you directly, but this has happened as a result. I know you aren't malicious. I feel that.

You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.

Is that a program?

PG: I guess it depends on the definition of a program.

If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.

PG: Why did you miss this particular discussion. Why are you so selective in what you answer? Could it be to make it appear that you are right. This is so sneaky, I can't believe you are doing this.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective?

Has it been tried out in every instance? Including all past and future instances? Of course not. Mathematics is just probability, not certainty; prediction, not foreknowledge. It argues that, as it has worked in the past and is working now, it will probably work in the future.

PG: Well I would bank on those who follow mathematical reasoning to get me to the moon, over a person who thinks that one plus one equals three. Come on Sawelios, admit that you would never get on a rocket ship if the control person was using subjective reasoning. ADMIT IT AND BE A MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

Mathematics can only approximate. It can never calculate something with an accuracy of an infinite amount of decimals. Indeed, I contend that "an infinite amount" is a self-contradiction, as an "amount" is by definition finite. "Quantum" literally means "amount"; but an amount cannot exist, as it presupposes an exact amount (exact with an accuracy of an infinite number of decimals). The thing about "quantum" physics, about subatomic "particles", is that things are really indefinite. Mathematics presupposes a world of definite things. For this reason it can only approximate objective reality - supposing this really exists.

PG: Your reasoning is so convoluted I could barely get through it. The bottom line is this: I will repeat: Would you choose a rocket where the person didn't believe in math to get you where they said you would go? Or would you take the alternate route where the controller knew about math and he believed he had the exact route so you wouldn't go off into space never to be seen again. Tell me the truth Sawelios and stop your false analysis. If it isn't false, then you will have to prove to me that you care nothing about math when it would involve your life or the life of your family. If you can't do that, you are lacking in your proof.

How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.

PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B.

"We" regard ourselves as bodies among other bodies, yes (a car too is a "body").

PG: So what you are saying is that a car could take you anywhere other than the point that you desired. Right? It's getting so ridiculous it's beyond laughable. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you are not proving your case at all.


If we didn't have this external reference we wouldn't be able to do anything that requires these calculations. Everyone perceives reality differently, but there is reality out there even though we need our minds in order to perceive it.

No one or nothing can prove to me that he, she or it exists outside of my mind.

PG: Maybe not. But if you hurt someone unintentionally in the world that I know is coming, you would not be able to justify it. You would have to prevent the hurt in order to *not* feel the remorse that you know you caused. You can't get away with hurting people in the new world. Try it, and you will see that none of your justifications work. This knowledge is not mine.


I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.

PG: Once again, you are selective. This is very sneaky. Answer the question or else people will catch on to your game.

Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?

Yes.


PG: I think you need to go to a planet where there are no standards, or facts. You have dug your own grave.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:35 pm

PG: So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

S: Sauwelios, yes.

PG: Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

S: Not facts; hypotheses.

PG: Whatever Sawelios, I am not here to psychoanalyse why you resist any objectivity. Could it be because you are so rebellious that you miss the target when the target is correct?

PG: Why did you miss this question? Whyyyyyyyy?

S: Because this is the first time it appears in this thread.

-----

PG: Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

S: I have thought about it.

PG: Maybe you have, but your thinking has holes in it. :(

PG: Cool, then think about it more because you might, you just might, be incorrect. Maybe you are the one who is in la la land in order to feel good about yourself.

S: Feel free to prove anything (anything) to me. Prove to me that there is proof for anything.

-----

PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.

S: I am not. Check out my thread, Questioning Ingenium.

PG: No, I won't do that unless you carefully read my thread. My thread is absolutely undeniable and I will not get off track for one person who thinks he is right, when I can show proof there are loopholes.

S: Show it to me, then. In any case, that thread "proves" that I am not kidding.

-----

PG: I will not check out your thread until you check out my thread which you have failed to do, and have made all the people in here turn against reading an important post. I'm not blaming you directly, but this has happened as a result. I know you aren't malicious. I feel that.

S: Well, then it must be true, right? :wink:

-----

PG: You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

S: I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.

S: Is that a program?

PG: I guess it depends on the definition of a program.

S: What is philosophy 101? Where can I check it out?

-----

PG: If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

S: Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.

PG: Why did you miss this particular discussion. Why are you so selective in what you answer?

S: I did not miss it, I just ignored it. But okay, what is the author's discovery on death and consciousness?

-----


PG: Didn't this take objective thought?

S: Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective?

S: Has it been tried out in every instance? Including all past and future instances? Of course not. Mathematics is just probability, not certainty; prediction, not foreknowledge. It argues that, as it has worked in the past and is working now, it will probably work in the future.

PG: Well I would bank on those who follow mathematical reasoning to get me to the moon, over a person who thinks that one plus one equals three. Come on Sawelios, admit that you would never get on a rocket ship if the control person was using subjective reasoning. ADMIT IT AND BE A MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S: Oh, I would probably want him to try and be objective (that is, try to approximate apparent reality as closely as possible).
One plus one equals two because that is our definition of "two".

-----

PG: If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

S: Mathematics can only approximate. It can never calculate something with an accuracy of an infinite amount of decimals. Indeed, I contend that "an infinite amount" is a self-contradiction, as an "amount" is by definition finite. "Quantum" literally means "amount"; but an amount cannot exist, as it presupposes an exact amount (exact with an accuracy of an infinite number of decimals). The thing about "quantum" physics, about subatomic "particles", is that things are really indefinite. Mathematics presupposes a world of definite things. For this reason it can only approximate objective reality - supposing this really exists.

PG: Your reasoning is so convoluted I could barely get through it.

S: I wonder if that is the reason. This is difficult stuff, I should say.

-----

PG: The bottom line is this: I will repeat: Would you choose a rocket where the person didn't believe in math to get you where they said you would go?

S: By "believe in math" I guess you mean "believe in the absolute accuracy of math". I might still choose such a rocket in this case. If by "believe in math" you mean "believe in the sufficient relative accuracy of math (to be workable in astrophysics)", then no, I would not choose such a rocket.

-----

PG: How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

S: No it doesn't.

PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B.

S: "We" regard ourselves as bodies among other bodies, yes (a car too is a "body").

PG: So what you are saying is that a car could take you anywhere other than the point that you desired.

S: I don't follow this conclusion.

-----


PG: I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.

PG: Once again, you are selective. This is very sneaky. Answer the question or else people will catch on to your game.

S: There is no question in the part I made bold.

-----

PG: Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

S: Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?

S: Yes.

PG: I think you need to go to a planet where there are no standards, or facts. You have dug your own grave.

S: Really.
Last edited by Sauwelios on Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:37 pm

Oh, and LEARN TO QUOTE! It is a waste of my time to have to make every post readable again.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:46 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.

Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

Not facts; hypotheses.

PG: Whatever Sawelios, I am not here to psychoanalyse why you resist any objectivity. Could it be because you are so rebellious that you miss the target when the target is correct?

PG: Why did you miss this question? Whyyyyyyyy?

Because this is the first time it appears in this thread.


Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.

PG: Maybe you have, but your thinking has holes in it. :(

PG: Cool, then think about it more because you might, you just might, be incorrect. Maybe you are the one who is in la la land in order to feel good about yourself.

Feel free to prove anything (anything) to me. Prove to me that there is proof for anything.


PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.

I am not. Check out my thread, Questioning Ingenium.

PG: No, I won't do that unless you carefully read my thread. My thread is absolutely undeniable and I will not get off track for one person who thinks he is right, when I can show proof there are loopholes.

Show it to me, then. In any case, that thread "proves" that I am not kidding.


PG: I will not check out your thread until you check out my thread which you have failed to do, and have made all the people in here turn against reading an important post. I'm not blaming you directly, but this has happened as a result. I know you aren't malicious. I feel that.

Well, then it must be true, right? :wink:


You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.

Is that a program?

PG: I guess it depends on the definition of a program.

What is philosophy 101? Where can I check it out?


If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.

PG: Why did you miss this particular discussion. Why are you so selective in what you answer?

I did not miss it, I just ignored it. But okay, what is the author's discovery on death and consciousness?


Could it be to make it appear that you are right. This is so sneaky, I can't believe you are doing this.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective?

Has it been tried out in every instance? Including all past and future instances? Of course not. Mathematics is just probability, not certainty; prediction, not foreknowledge. It argues that, as it has worked in the past and is working now, it will probably work in the future.

PG: Well I would bank on those who follow mathematical reasoning to get me to the moon, over a person who thinks that one plus one equals three. Come on Sawelios, admit that you would never get on a rocket ship if the control person was using subjective reasoning. ADMIT IT AND BE A MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I would probably want him to try and be objective (that is, try to approximate apparent reality as closely as possible).

One plus one equals two because that is our definition of "two".


If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

Mathematics can only approximate. It can never calculate something with an accuracy of an infinite amount of decimals. Indeed, I contend that "an infinite amount" is a self-contradiction, as an "amount" is by definition finite. "Quantum" literally means "amount"; but an amount cannot exist, as it presupposes an exact amount (exact with an accuracy of an infinite number of decimals). The thing about "quantum" physics, about subatomic "particles", is that things are really indefinite. Mathematics presupposes a world of definite things. For this reason it can only approximate objective reality - supposing this really exists.

PG: Your reasoning is so convoluted I could barely get through it.

I wonder if that is the reason. This is difficult stuff, I should say.


The bottom line is this: I will repeat: Would you choose a rocket where the person didn't believe in math to get you where they said you would go?

By "believe in math" I guess you mean "believe in the absolute accuracy of math". I might still choose such a rocket in this case. If by "believe in math" you mean "believe in the sufficient relative accuracy of math (to be workable in astrophysics)", then no, I would not choose such a rocket.


Or would you take the alternate route where the controller knew about math and he believed he had the exact route so you wouldn't go off into space never to be seen again. Tell me the truth Sawelios and stop your false analysis. If it isn't false, then you will have to prove to me that you care nothing about math when it would involve your life or the life of your family. If you can't do that, you are lacking in your proof.

How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.

PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B.

"We" regard ourselves as bodies among other bodies, yes (a car too is a "body").

PG: So what you are saying is that a car could take you anywhere other than the point that you desired.

I don't follow this conclusion.


Right? It's getting so ridiculous it's beyond laughable. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you are not proving your case at all.


If we didn't have this external reference we wouldn't be able to do anything that requires these calculations. Everyone perceives reality differently, but there is reality out there even though we need our minds in order to perceive it.

No one or nothing can prove to me that he, she or it exists outside of my mind.

PG: Maybe not. But if you hurt someone unintentionally in the world that I know is coming, you would not be able to justify it. You would have to prevent the hurt in order to *not* feel the remorse that you know you caused. You can't get away with hurting people in the new world. Try it, and you will see that none of your justifications work. This knowledge is not mine.


I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.

PG: Once again, you are selective. This is very sneaky. Answer the question or else people will catch on to your game.

There is no question in the part I made bold.


Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?

Yes.


PG: I think you need to go to a planet where there are no standards, or facts. You have dug your own grave.

Really.[/quote]

PG: Sauwelios, thank god that God knows best. We humans can only infer what we see, and often what we see is wrong. You are a sweet guy and I could easily have coffee with you, but I won't try to defend the proof that I put forth in this thread. And I won't go off onto a tangest Sawelios, so stop trying. I will accomodate you in one condition and that is you read what I posted. You won't do that, I know this. So we can't communicate at all. It's very unfortunate because I believe you are a deep thinker and only searching for what is true.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:16 pm

I have edited my post so as to make it readable again. I suggest you never touch the "Quote" button again. Just copy the post you want to replay to and paste it in an empty post (use the "Post reply" button at the bottom of the thread).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:31 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So you are saying that there is no proof for anything Sawelios.

Sauwelios, yes.
Then there is no basis for communication because there has to be some objectivity based on certain facts, and I am sure you use these facts to do things everyday.

Not facts; hypotheses.


I'm not talking about hypotheses, I am talking about facts. So you are in agreement with me then.

Think about what you are saying to see how ridiculous it is.

I have thought about it.

PG: I don't think you have, you are just trying to humor me.

I am not. Check out my thread, Questioning Ingenium.


I will try to do this later but it still doesn't have much to do with this thread and that is why I'm here.

You are saying in so many words that there is no objectivity at all.

I'm not saying there is no reality independent of the mind (Merriam-Webster, definition of "objective", 1 b). I am saying that no mind can ever know whether there is a reality independent of it.

PG: That's one of the questions asked in philosophy 101.

Is that a program?


I agree with you that no mind can know because we see reality only through our mind.

If this is true then how did we land men on the moon?

Did "we"? Let us evade the question of "we" for now and consider the claim that "men have landed on the moon". Have they? Haven't they done so only in my mind? Are there men and moons independent of it? Prove it.

PG: You are right. The knowledge that man landed on the moon can only be adknowledged through your consciousness. This ties in to the author's discovery on death and consciousness.


Didn't this take objective thought?

Even if it happened, no - why? It need only have taken subjective thought which "worked" in objective reality. Mathematics is not objective truth. Even quantum mechanics is not. Quanta need not exist for quantum physics to "work". It need only be relatively accurate, a workable simplification.

PG: Well, however you want to frame it, there is an objectivity to mathematics. It has to work in every instance so how can that be subjective?

Has it been tried out in every instance? Including all past and future instances? Of course not. Mathematics is just probability, not certainty; prediction, not foreknowledge. It argues that, as it has worked in the past and is working now, it will probably work in the future.


If I were going to the moon I wouldn't want someone whose knowledge of math wasn't precise. And subjectivity doesn't sound very precise to me.

Mathematics can only approximate. It can never calculate something with an accuracy of an infinite amount of decimals. Indeed, I contend that "an infinite amount" is a self-contradiction, as an "amount" is by definition finite. "Quantum" literally means "amount"; but an amount cannot exist, as it presupposes an exact amount (exact with an accuracy of an infinite number of decimals). The thing about "quantum" physics, about subatomic "particles", is that things are really indefinite. Mathematics presupposes a world of definite things. For this reason it can only approximate objective reality - supposing this really exists.


I'm not a mathematician but I will say, once again, that for the purposes of the world in which we live, math is precise and it has allowed us to build, create, and travel to distant lands. Without mathematical precision we couldn't have done any of these things. As far as infinite and finite, that is a philosophical discussion that has no impact on our reality where bridges must stay up, planes must fly, and buildings must not topple.

How do we ride in cars? This takes objective thought.

No it doesn't.
PG: What I meant is that we interact with reality so we can count on the fact that we will get from point A to point B.

"We" regard ourselves as bodies among other bodies, yes (a car too is a "body").


All I am saying here is that in order to exist in the world there is a reality and within that reality we all must interact.

If we didn't have this external reference we wouldn't be able to do anything that requires these calculations. Everyone perceives reality differently, but there is reality out there even though we need our minds in order to perceive it.

No one or nothing can prove to me that he, she or it exists outside of my mind.


Maybe they can't. I don't see where thinking one way or another has any consequence as far as how you see the world.

I don't want to get into these existential discussions because, once again, you are leading this thread astray.


Are you telling me that the people who made these discoveries are dogmatists?

Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.

PG: So Einstein was a dogmatist?

Yes.


I guess you define dogmatist different than I do. Most people would not say Einstein's knowledge was dogma.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:14 pm

I don't drink coffee, but thanks anyway.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:22 pm

Sauwelios wrote:I have edited my post so as to make it readable again. I suggest you never touch the "Quote" button again. Just copy the post you want to replay to and paste it in an empty post (use the "Post reply" button at the bottom of the thread).


PG: I will try my best. Sorry for messing up your post. As far as your answer to the previous post there is nothing more I can add. You have your ideas about mathematics, and I have mine. We define things by their nature. When we put one thing and another thing together we call it two because we are using a mathematical operation that works in the reality of space and time. Obviously, we can never be in the future; all we have is the present, so we can only use the past and the present to project what we know to be true (which is different than a hypotheses) into the future in order to trust that our projections will be correct. Otherwise, our world would never have advanced with its technologies. In fact, we wouldn't be conversing either because the computer and its pixels involve math. You can tell me math is not an exact science, and that Einstein is a dogmatist . But I'll stick to my beliefs on these subjects since it is irrelevant to the purpose for my being here. It doesn't change the truth of this discovery at all. And the only proof is that it works. Any test of the validity of something is that it works. If a key opens a door, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't work. There is no confusion in this regard. It's very easy to negate anything anyone says by saying nothing exists, and we are worms believing we are people. There has to be an objective way to determine whether something is true or is not true. There has to be a standard that distinguishes between what is false and what is not. As far as the author's chapter on death, it's very interesting and comforting. If you want to read it you will have to buy the book because I'm not posting it online. It's worth reading if you are interested in the proof of why death is not the end. His proof has nothing to do with reincarnation or an afterlife.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:26 pm

Now we come across the reward for such belief in absurdity.
Finally!!!!

Comforting, indeed. Mathematically so.

This is funny.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby peacegirl » Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:59 pm

Satyr wrote:Now we come across the reward for such belief in absurdity.
Finally!!!!

Comforting, indeed. Mathematically so.

This is funny.


Satyr, I'm tired of defending myself. You won!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Lollipop King » Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:04 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Satyr wrote:Now we come across the reward for such belief in absurdity.
Finally!!!!

Comforting, indeed. Mathematically so.

This is funny.


Satyr, I'm tired of defending myself. You won!
Won what?
Just discussing with you, such an absurdity, was an overall loss.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby peacegirl » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:26 am

Satyr wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Satyr wrote:Now we come across the reward for such belief in absurdity.
Finally!!!!

Comforting, indeed. Mathematically so.

This is funny.


Satyr, I'm tired of defending myself. You won!
Won what?
Just discussing with you, such an absurdity, was an overall loss.


Believing that math works is a belief in absurdity??? And the reward is that it's comforting? What the x*%& are you talking about Satyr??? #-o
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby delbolt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:33 pm

I think all truth is personal - even tho for convenience we "go along" with apparent cause and effect.
For instance: the following is my truth-

"We are nothing more than an experiment by the Creator in the

hypothetical illusion of separation, which, because of

Eternal Oneness, can never actually be.

“But why does our physical existence seem so real?”

Because the Experiment is as perfect as The Creator -
Because The Creator designed our senses to produce that effect.

We are The Creator having a hypothetical Human Experience

and, as such, we are, have always been and always will be.

Knowing this I can, as The Creator, enjoy the hypothetical illusions

of the experiment, and, at the same time, have the comfort

of the foreverness of my being."

I don't expect anyone else to believe my truth - any argument only reflects the opinions of the responder - and it's fun to share realities - without judgement.
My Essence - The Still, Quiet, Singularity Point of my Being - knows only 3 things absolutely:
I Exist, I Create, I Am Aware.
http://delboltblog.blogspot.com
delbolt
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:11 pm

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users