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.
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!
Sauwelios, yes.
I have thought about it.
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.
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.
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.
No it doesn’t.
Only if they believe that their simplifications correspond exactly to (an) objective reality.
“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.”
[Schopenhauer.]
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.
PG: 
You got it.
Yes.
PG: I think you need to go to a planet where there are no standards, or facts. You have dug your own grave.
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? 
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.
Oh, and LEARN TO QUOTE! It is a waste of my time to have to make every post readable again.
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.
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).
I guess you define dogmatist different than I do. Most people would not say Einstein’s knowledge was dogma.
I don’t drink coffee, but thanks anyway.
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.
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??? 
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?â€
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.