A question

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 157
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
 We exist because we're objective beings.
Using our subjective mind?
Doesn't that play a part in our objectivity?
  I objectively have consciousness and that's not my opinion because I could have the opposite opinion and I would still experience my consciousness.  
A consciousness that is subject to the environment it is in?
That means my opinion doesn't change the nature of my existence and therefore I exist under your definition.  
Your nature of existence does change. When you are dead you are not alive. If you are in growing up in a poorer household chances are you would be poor in the future. If you are growing up in a wealthier household chances are you would be wealthy in the future.
Since there are many variables to someone's existence how is it objective? 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think, therefore I am could be considered the first real truth to be metaphysically proven in philosophy and it's the reason that we can have knowledge at all. 
How so?
Metaphysically proven?
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The mind itself is not subjective.  Our post hoc assessment that we make with our mind is subjective.  The mind exist objectively because my opinion of my mind doesn't change the fact that I have a mind.  My opinion can only change my thoughts and beliefs and fears, etc, etc. 

Sure, it plays a part.  But that's only a problem if you think you can't go from subjective to objective.

Well when you say it's "subject" to the environment, that's a different word than the one used in subjective.  The subject is the point of interest or the point of action.  So yes you're subject to your environment in the sense that the environment makes you the subject of interactions.  That still isn't problematic.

Yes, but I didn't die because that was my opinion, that makes my death objectively true, I don't see a problem here.  

I don't see how variables make things not objective.  If I grow up poor, what does that have to do with my subjective mind? You might have to explain this one a bit more to me cause it seems like a non sequitur the way you worded it. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
Metaphysical means "at or beyond the limit of physics"  So once something has been proven 100% you're at the "meta" or final limit.  If something was 80% known, then the other 20% would be the "meta"
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
To answer it better.  It's self evident. Just like I said before. The requirements for this are.

A) The act of proving it is absurd and redundant.

B) The contrary is impossible. 

So if I asked you if you exist, and you say no, the very act of you saying that you don't exist is impossible because you have to exist to fathom your own nonexistence and then verbalize it to me.  

Furthermore, the act of trying to prove your existence is redundant and absurd.  "I exist because I am here"  It's an absurd and redundant proof and it's true, so it's self evident. 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Our post hoc assessment that we make with our mind is subjective. 
Can you change post hoc to something else?

 The mind exist objectively because my opinion of my mind doesn't change the fact that I have a mind. 
The mind might exist but we don't have a way to prove it.
Lets say we can we would still be using what is inside this world to prove not what is outside. So it is subject to what we currently know inside this universe not what is objective. 
So yes you're subject to your environment in the sense that the environment makes you the subject of interactions.  That still isn't problematic.
Why not?
but I didn't die because that was my opinion, that makes my death objectively true, I don't see a problem here.  
Which was confirmed by another subjective life-form.
 I don't see how variables make things not objective. 
With the variables like being a part of this world does stop us from knowing what is. Feelings come in the way of that but even existing lets say in whatever capacity it maybe we are still subject to an environment that we can never truly know. That chess analogy would help. We are the chess pieces being moved around. We don't know what is because we weren't the ones who made the rules but we can make rules in the existence we are in. We can make our own version of chess which would be objective to the world we are in. 

This is difficult for me to put across for some reason. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Metaphysical means "at or beyond the limit of physics"  So once something has been proven 100% you're at the "meta" or final limit.  If something was 80% known, then the other 20% would be the "meta"
How was it metaphysically proven?

A) The act of proving it is absurd and redundant.
B) The contrary is impossible. 
I don't understand this. Why is it absurd to prove it if it is not that one who is the contrary impossible?
the very act of you saying that you don't exist is impossible because you have to exist to fathom your own nonexistence and then verbalize it to me.  
Why do you say this? Why can't I live in a subjective reality?
Furthermore, the act of trying to prove your existence is redundant and absurd.  "I exist because I am here"  It's an absurd and redundant proof and it's true,
Why is it redundant and absurd?
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sure.  Post hoc = after the fact. 

What makes you think there's anything outside of this world?  Where's your proof for that?  You don't get to use your thing that doesn't exist to throw shade on my mind which actually has evidence.  Btw, why do you think something can't prove itself?  Can you give me a logical reason why not? I'm willing to bet that you can't.  I think the reason you can't get past this is because you're presupposing that something can't be self evident.  But where's your evidence for that? 

Can you tell me why it is problematic?  Because if you're the one saying it's a problem, then you have the BoP on that claim. 

Okay, it was confirmed by a subjective life form.  What's your point? 

You're only assuming that we can never truly know.  The fact is that we can know SOME things for certain and that's all we NEED to know.  If we can never know something, then functionally speaking, it's the same as non existence because it can NEVER have an affect on us in any possible way.  If it could, then it's knowable.  Only a fool denies what is Literally right in front of their face (reality.)

It's absurd because the act of proving it is so basic that it's silly.  It's redundant because to prove it amounts to A = A  

There's no such thing as a subjective reality.  subjective reality is just your opinion of reality, it doesn't change the state of affairs, it only changes how you feel about them.  That's why you can't deny your own existence.  This wasn't even just my proof.  Maestro quoted the philosopher who confirmed this. 

self evidence. 

The A part of the statement tells you that it's a tautology which leads you to B because: 

If A = A  then A or Not A

So now I have a tautology and only one of these answers can be true because for both to be true is a contradiction.

Therefore, If I prove either one to be false, then it's proved.  Self evidence Proves A and disproves Not A all at once by showing the impossibility to the contrary.   
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The contrary is impossible because the very act of denying your existence requires you to exist. 
MrMaestro
MrMaestro's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 35
0
0
4
MrMaestro's avatar
MrMaestro
0
0
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Try this reformulation of the argument:

  • I know I am thinking
  • Something must be doing the thinking
  • A mind must exist that is capable of thought
  • Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
  • Therefore I (my mind) exists.
Also just pointing out that this argument is a fundamental cornerstone of Western Philosophy. I'm appealing to authority here but much smarter philosophers than us have thought this through and accepted the proposition.
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@MrMaestro
See. What he wrote is a good example.  The whole thing is a logical proof and it's riddle with absurdities.  To even prove it, you have to assume your reality.  saying (I) know (I) am thinking is absurd.  It's proven so easily it's laughable.  Good comment. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@MrMaestro
I'm jumping off for a bit.  I'll be back on later if you guys want to keep this going.  Good discussion so far. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What makes you think there's anything outside of this world? 
I know that in the reality I live in I can perceive other realities across the world who are living in their own reality. Is that enough?
why do you think something can't prove itself?  Can you give me a logical reason why not?
We are using it and we were not in a state where we were not using and can see for ourselves if what we are observing with the senses are correct.
 I think the reason you can't get past this is because you're presupposing that something can't be self evident.  But where's your evidence for that? 
That information is out of our grasp. We are using the very things we are testing to prove it to be true. 
Can you tell me why it is problematic?
You made the claim that it was problematic. I wasn't the one stating that. I just wanted to know why said that. 
Okay, it was confirmed by a subjective life form.  What's your point? 
Our senses go through our brain before we can state what it is. When a person seeing things sees something it can be that the senses are altered or the brain is creating illusions of some sort.
 The fact is that we can know SOME things for certain and that's all we NEED to know.
Okay then remember when you pointed out the metaphysical definition to me? Doesn't that go against what you said here. The "some" that we know does that include we exist?
it's the same as non existence because it can NEVER have an affect on us in any possible way.  If it could, then it's knowable.  Only a fool denies what is Literally right in front of their face (reality.)
Why can't it be the case that something is affecting us but we can never truly know what it is? Sure we can call it lets say the force but I am even Star Wars Jedi and Sith do not know the full capabilities of the force but are still able to know it exists. Hopefully you get something out of what I said here.
It's absurd because the act of proving it is so basic that it's silly.  It's redundant because to prove it amounts to A = A  
Why not instead of calling it absurd why can't you prove it to me?
 subjective reality is just your opinion of reality, 
Isn't what we are opinions in a sense? Sure you can say we know gravity exists but we are using our brain which you have said it is subjective to verify it. Since that is subjective how are we not percieving subjective reality? My reality is different to yours. 
The A part of the statement tells you that it's a tautology which leads you to B because: 

If A = A  then A or Not A

So now I have a tautology and only one of these answers can be true because for both to be true is a contradiction. 

Therefore, If I prove either one to be false, then it's proved.  Self evidence Proves A and disproves Not A all at once by showing the impossibility to the contrary. 
I did not understand this. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@MrMaestro
  • I know I am thinking
  • Something must be doing the thinking
  • A mind must exist that is capable of thought
  • Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
  • Therefore I (my mind) exists.
Your mind exists but you can't prove it. You are logically deducing it. Am I wrong here?
fundamental cornerstone of Western Philosophy.
That western world triggers me. Don't say it. Can you say what person said it?
I'm appealing to authority here but much smarter philosophers than us have thought this through and accepted the proposition.
That doesn't matter. I am not going to say your fallacious because you are saying your argument because your a appeal to an authority figure. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I'm jumping off for a bit.  I'll be back on later if you guys want to keep this going.  Good discussion so far.
Feck off. (Joke)
Sounds funny doesn't it or maybe that is me?  

Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yeah I've thought about this before.
I find objectivity as a shared concept irrelevant to an individuals senses, although at the same time the concept with its nuances are subjective.
Just like language for example. 
Objectivity and subjectivity aren't mutually exclusive.  

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Reece
I find objectivity as a shared concept irrelevant to an individuals senses
How so?

Objectivity and subjectivity aren't mutually exclusive.  
I can agree they are linked but my argument we can never truly prove objectivity if we are using subjective senses to get there. 
MrMaestro
MrMaestro's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 35
0
0
4
MrMaestro's avatar
MrMaestro
0
0
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your mind exists but you can't prove it. You are logically deducing it. Am I wrong here?
Logical deduction is a type of proof.

That western world triggers me. Don't say it. Can you say what person said it?
That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.

Also, don't give up on western philosophy just because you don't like western politics :)

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm going to answer these and then jump off for a bit.  I had to put groceries away , lol. 

What other realities?  Can I get an example?  Because I only experience one reality so that would be news to me. 

Okay, so first your senses are already outside of you so you can see them externally.  I think you're confusing your senses with your consciousness. They're two different things. Even if this were true, how does that stop something from being self evident?  If you want evidence of an apple existing and the apple presents itself to you in reality, is that not the apple proving it's own existence to you? 

Okay, we're using them to prove themselves. Why is that not logical?  I know people say that all the time.  But can you actually tell me why it's wrong?  How do you test to see if a weed scale is correct?  You test it right? You put it into action using a weight and calibrate it accordingly. Is that not the scale using itself to check itself? 

No.  I said it wasn't problematic and you asked me why.  You automatically implied that it was problematic by posing it as a potential problem to my claim. 

Yes, but if the brain is doing that it would have to being doing it consistently which means that we're still getting a congruent picture of reality.  If that wasn't the case then we wouldn't perceive the way we do.  Even if you doubt our reality, the viewing of it can still give us information even if it is false.  It' just like If I'm playing a video game and I do something wrong and die, I now know that was wrong and I can use that information to find the truth in the game. 

It doesn't go against what I said because I never said that we could know all things metaphysically.  I'll elaborate.  We can know some things.  Out of those things.  We can know some of them metaphysically and some of them physically.  Not knowing one thing doesn't disprove what we do know. 

Well, it doesn't matter if I call it absurd.  that's just a guideline to help recognize something that might be self evident.  Like if I say:
I am a bachelor because I'm an unmarried man.  Assuming that I'm not lying, I would have just proved that I'm a bachelor, it was absurdly easy and the contrary is impossible so it's self evident.

I could say I am God because I made the universe and that was absurdly easy to prove if I'm not lying, but then we look at the contrary and find out that it's not impossible so It's not self evident.  You following me here? 

It could be the case that something is affecting us and we don't know it.  However, since it is affecting us, it is possible to know it if we have the right means of observation.  The reason for this is that if it is affecting reality, then when we try to account for everything, there will be a gap that can't be explained and that will tell us that something is there.  This is exactly how antimatter and other similar things in physics were discovered.  

Well an opinion is us.  But it's not all of us.  That's the difference. We may have an opinion of gravity and that is part of us.  but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity.  Your reality is no different than mine because you don't experience different rules of gravity.  IF you do, then you should fly to the store for me on weekends, lol. 

Okay.  So A = A  Just means A which is the "Bachelor = Unmarried man" Since they're both A, they function as the same thing.
  Then we have A or Not A  "Either Bachelor or Not Bachelor"  This covers all possibilities in the universe for this proposition.  Due to the law of non contradiction, since these are the same premise, Only one can be true at any given time and place.  That means that if you disprove one, the other is automatically the truth.  







TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@MrMaestro
Logical deduction is a type of proof. 
Yes but you are using your perception as a basis to prove it. Am I correct?
That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.
No the name is the best.
That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.
It is just that there is hardly anything western people agree on apart from being in a similar geographical location the west. Western values are a lie and western philosophers are from the west and I am sure disagree on many things. So I rather the person who said it be referenced rather it be shoved together with western philosophy even though there is hardly a consensus between anything in the west. The best thing I can find is that we are all apart of the west and everything is cherry-picking what you like and discard in the west what you dislike 
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I find objectivity as a shared concept irrelevant to an individuals senses

How so?
Well like language, objectivity isn't just based on an individuals senses. It's based on the senses of multiple people. 

"irrelevant" might have been too strong a word. 
MrMaestro
MrMaestro's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 35
0
0
4
MrMaestro's avatar
MrMaestro
0
0
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
  • I know I am thinking
  • Something must be doing the thinking
  • A mind must exist that is capable of thought
  • Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
  • Therefore I (my mind) exists. 
Logical deduction is a type of proof. 
Yes but you are using your perception as a basis to prove it. Am I correct?
The only assumption here is that we are thinking. Everything else logically follows. It's fairly easy to assume that the first assumption is true, even if our perception of reality is somewhat subjective.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What other realities?  Can I get an example?  Because I only experience one reality so that would be news to me. 

Your reality is different to my reality. We perceive things in different ways due to our differences in hearing, seeing etc.
If you want evidence of an apple existing and the apple presents itself to you in reality, is that not the apple proving it's own existence to you? 
No we are looking at the apple. We are not the apple proving its own existence (don't think it is capable of that but you do know what I mean).
How do you test to see if a weed scale is correct?  You test it right? You put it into action using a weight and calibrate it accordingly. Is that not the scale using itself to check itself? 
I don't know what a weed scale is. Is it something that scales weed? I am guessing that. The differences we are not the weed but we are our senses so saying we know our senses is self refuting if I ask the question. Do we know our perception perceiving our own perception is true? It is a paradox. I can go on and on with the perception perceiving part but I think you get the point. I read through other debates I had and found this.
No.  I said it wasn't problematic and you asked me why.  You automatically implied that it was problematic by posing it as a potential problem to my claim. 
No I asked a question. You said something. I wanted clarification on your position.
It' just like If I'm playing a video game and I do something wrong and die, I now know that was wrong and I can use that information to find the truth in the game. 
That games has rules the developer has assigned to it and we are able to know if it is a good game but that such liberty is not offered for our own sense. Imagine if we were in the game testing the rules can we ever truly know if we are correct?
Not knowing one thing doesn't disprove what we do know. 
So is existence as an assumption or accepted as true because we can't prove it and we need it as a basis of understanding the world?
I am a bachelor because I'm an unmarried man.
That is part of the definition. Human is defined not in a way to say it exists instead in what a human is.
I could say I am God because I made the universe and that was absurdly easy to prove if I'm not lying, but then we look at the contrary and find out that it's not impossible so It's not self evident.  You following me here? 
No not following. So if you were God it would be easy to know? I don't think it would be. It would require scientists to observe what just occurred if God created something and see if Creatio ex Nihilo is true. I don't follow can you try a different example?
However, since it is affecting us, it is possible to know it if we have the right means of observation.
What if it is based on the whim of what is outside our reality? It chooses to do what it does. So basically we cannot prove it to be consistent or reliable but people can see instances were it does have an impact but are not able to yield consistent results. What do you say to that?
but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity.
My stance is that we can never truly understand how this world works. We can know things like gravity but we might not be able to understand the full extent of it because we did not create the rules we are just living in the world making it up. 
but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity.
What if I live in space. Would our reality be different then since our gravity would be different?
 IF you do, then you should fly to the store for me on weekends, lol. 
I wish I can fly.
Only one can be true at any given time and place.  That means that if you disprove one, the other is automatically the truth. 
I still don't know how you got to that. One A can only be true at once? If I disprove one the other A is true? If that is true then I don't know what you are saying. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@MrMaestro
The only assumption here is that we are thinking.
Isn't that important we don't know that we actually think?
Everything else logically follows. 
Okay then. My assumption is that God exists. Everything else logically follows.
Do you not see the problem here?
It's fairly easy to assume that the first assumption is true
It is fairly easy for a theist to assume God exists. 
MrMaestro
MrMaestro's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 35
0
0
4
MrMaestro's avatar
MrMaestro
0
0
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Referring to "I think therefore I am"

The only assumption here is that we are thinking.
Isn't that important we don't know that we actually think?

We don't need to know WHAT we think, we simply need to assume that a thought has occurred in our brain.

You can't logically disprove that you were thinking while also thinking about yourself thinking. It's self-evident, no religious assumptions required.

The best known argument against this proposition is that we cannot prove with certainty that these thoughts belong to us. For example, we could just be a simulation that only believes it has freedom of thought. So under the strictest scrutiny, all we can say with absolute certainty is that "A thought has occurred". 

If you really want to defend this position you should read up on cogito (the shorthand for this prop). This is a pretty well researched philosophical theory so you would gain a lot of insight from both sides.


TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@MrMaestro
We don't need to know WHAT we think
How is that not important?
You can't logically disprove that you were thinking while also thinking about yourself thinking. It's self-evident,
I didn't make that claim. How did you get that from what I said?

 all we can say with absolute certainty is that "A thought has occurred". 
If we assume that we are thinking. 
If you really want to defend this position you should read up on cogito (the shorthand for this prop). This is a pretty well researched philosophical theory so you would gain a lot of insight from both sides.
cogito ergo sum does that ring a bell? First thing that came to mind when you said the word.
Just found out it means. I think therefore I am. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently.  The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features.  You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.  

I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me.  For instance.  You prove your existence by talking with me right now without having to make a single argument.  You could be a program or something, but for the sake of argument lets just say you're a person and you're standing in front of me.  So you being in front of me is evidence of your existence.  You tell me that the bundle of atoms standing in front of me is named Omar and I agree to accept that identity that you have assigned your bundle of atoms.  That is a self evident proof. 

We are not our senses.  We are our perception.  Furthermore, that sentence that you wrote was not a paradox.  It was a tautology and tautologies are necessarily true assume that they accurately describe the thing they define.

Well pose the question again and I'll answer, but if you answer the same way as last time, we'll just end up back at you explaining why it's problematic so maybe just skip to the end and you tell me?

Incorrect.  If I was a character in the game, I would at least know some of the rules.  I would know that some unknown force (The Gamer) somehow can only make me do limited things (The Buttons)  and I cannot be moved through certain objects (Collision detection Rule)  I would know that when I'm not being controlled, I can't move anymore, except when I get transferred to this weird infinite loop where I do an oddly specific set of things that is always the same in each respective case (cut scenes).  I did this with your chess scenario before as well.  I knight knows that when something moves it, it always ends up in an L shape, it knows that if it crashes into an enemy piece that the piece it touches goes of the board and same if the knight gets touched.  The knight will know that for some reason I never knows a piece of the same color off the board.  Etc. etc.  So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false. 

Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it.  There's just people around who are too stubborn to accept the proof.  Identity law is a proof.  Non contradiction is a proof.  Math is a proof.  Even if you don't trust science, there's countless truths that one can ascertain without any science.  Even solipsists don't actually believe their own claims. That should tell you something.

Yes Human is defined a certain way that doesn't imply existence.  You're right about that.  However, Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist. 

If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word.  I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity.  If I did meet humans and they described what god meant and they were right, then I would know I was god.  I don't know where you get this idea that truths have to be this giant tower of babel where each idea is stacked on another.  That's not how it works.  It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim.  You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base.  If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception.  But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree. 

You know... That's actually a pretty good question.  I would divide that into two scenarios. 

A)  The force is random and has not mind.  In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever. 

B) If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first.  So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If this being had a good spot picked out, it could mostly avoid this but would have to move spots if it ever got spotted.  In this extremely wild scenario, I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc.  But this requires piles and piles of assumptions. 

A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect.  We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it. 

B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible.  So score one for you I guess. 

Okay, so we might never know absolutely everything about gravity.  That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth.  It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested.  Not one time ever has it failed.  That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise. 

Your reality wouldn't be different.  Just your experience of it. 


I'm Just going to send you a link about tautologies, because you're not going to believe me if I don't show you.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

 




Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Reece
Sorry for the late response.  I was going to say that I've considered what you implied and I've always called it a collective subjective.  That not a formal phrase.  I just use it because it's succinct. good comment!
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Reece
Also, a word could hypothetically belong to the subjective of the individual, but without a third party to share the word with, it would be impractical.  I could actually think of one exception.  I'm DnD nerd and when I used to make my character sheets.  I would write in short hand which was essentially nonsense if you didn't know why I was using them.  so shorthand would be an example of a completely subjective and valid form of language.  shorthand could also be collectively subjective if I was in a group of DnD nerds and we all used the same shorthand for the sake of solidarity. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@MrMaestro
I'd highly recommend checking it out (only 7 minutes, and it's pretty funny).
Thank you for that video... as deep as it is and the implications it gets you thinking about... it oddly made me feel really good watching it. 

My uncle is a neurologist and we play golf almost every weekend. This is one of our favorite subjects to talk about. He's the expert on the mind, and i'm a 'self-proclaimed' expert on the what if questions. One thing i noted that is interesting, he agrees with all the stuff he said in the beginning down to that study that our neurons basically make the decision before we make the decision. It kinda makes you question freewill, right?

But the story always comes down to who is "you"? I'm glad he touched on that in the end of the video the way he did. He left the question open. Even talking to an expert of brains, we can hit a wall. He thinks it's all the stuff you process, your environment, how you were raised, etc. But i always kinda stump him on that. I oddly have a good memory of really early years. I can remember things i like and did when i was about 4 or 5 (some even earlier that i'm not even sure are real at this point). I remember how the first time i saw legos of the good guy ships and the pirate ships... i wanted the pirate ship. There has been a consistency throughout my life i can say is "me." Of course, i agree with him that the self changes throughout the years... but, it's that meness i find curious. I use a color analogy. Why is it i found black the be my favorite color the first time i was given that choice? Then, my life turned out that i like a lot of things that correlate with the reason i picked that color... like horror, metal, gothic stuff, haunted mansions... that was the feeling i got when i wanted to pick black. It was scary which made it beautiful to me as a kid. So, that meness is almost the objective you... it depends who you agree with though, the neurologist says it's an subjective you through experience... but he has conceded these reasons do make him question. It's a very interesting topic that i'm lucky to have with an expert on the topic.