What I realized

Author: Tarik

Posts

Total: 449
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossibleto make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".
Like I said before “a description isn’t necessary.”

Why do you care what shape the earth is?
I don’t, I have no personal feelings or opinions in regards to that subject. Logic and emotion isn’t always necessarily intertwined.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossible to make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".
Like I said before “a description isn’t necessary.”
Hey, let me tell you about this very important FACT.

This very important FACT is indescribable.

Isn't that a very important piece of information?

Aren't you glad that I made you aware of this very important FACT?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How is any of this responsive?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Why do you care what shape the earth is?
I don’t, I have no personal feelings or opinions in regards to that subject. Logic and emotion isn’t always necessarily intertwined.
If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't mention it.

If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't think "flat-earthers" are "misguided".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
How is any of this responsive?
It is literally pointless to insist that something "exists independently of a human mind".

You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".

"OBJECTIVE" = "INCOMPREHENSIBLE"
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't mention it.

If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't think "flat-earthers" are "misguided".
That’s not true, people being misguided is what I care about that’s why I mentioned it.

You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".
How so?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
That’s not true, people being misguided is what I care about that’s why I mentioned it.
If someone is misguided about something that isn't important to you, why would you care?

For example, if some group of people incorrectly called "torches" "flashlights" or "handlamps", would you call them "misguided"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".
How so?
You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.

You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

You're basically saying, when I say "stone" and you think of a "stone", there is not a "literal stone" inside your head.

Your concept of "stone" is not a "literal stone".
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone is misguided about something that isn't important to you, why would you care?

For example, if some group of people incorrectly called "torches" "flashlights" or "handlamps", would you call them "misguided"?
I don’t care the only reason I brought up the shape of the earth is because it’s an example of an objective fact, also caring about objective facts has no bearing on its objectivity FYI.

You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.

You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).

What do you mean by “literal object”?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
I don’t care the only reason I brought up the shape of the earth is because it’s an example of an objective fact, also caring about objective facts has no bearing on its objectivity FYI.
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?

Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.

You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).
What do you mean by “literal object”?
An actual, specific rock.

In direct contrast with the abstract concept of "an actual, specific rock".
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?
No, but I would care if we you reject it as an objective fact.

Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?

Because I believe things should be represented as they are.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?
Because I believe things should be represented as they are.
It is impossible to "represent things as they are".

That's why we have words.

Words are not objects.

We use words to represent objects.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?
No, but I would care if we you reject it as an objective fact.
It sounds like you are suggesting that "the thing in and of itself" qualifies as an "objective fact".

And under a certain unfalsifiable hypothesis (naive realism), that makes sense.

The key "problem" you seem to be overlooking here is that we can never represent "the thing in and of itself" with words.

Our words are always only going to be a crude representation of the "things" they describe.

In the same way that a map can never include every detail of an actual city.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
...Well the objectively correct words should be used.

What are you disputing here? Objectivity? Facts? Or both?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
...Well the objectively correct words should be used.
WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
What are you disputing here? Objectivity? Facts? Or both?
OBJECTIVE =/= FACT

OBJECTIVE = OBJECT

FACT = A STATEMENT AND OR CLAIM AND OR DESCRIPTION (COMPRISED OF WORDS)
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

You're basically saying, when I say "stone" and you think of a "stone", there is not a "literal stone" inside your head.

Your concept of "stone" is not a "literal stone".

So in other words everything is not what it seems and if you truly believed this then you would realize that a reality exists independently from your mind, kinda like the definition of objectivity 🤔.

And no I’m not saying that at all you came out of left field with that narrative all on your own.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
So in other words everything is not what it seems
Well, more specifically, the OBJECT is not the DESCRIPTION.

and if you truly believed this then you would realize that a reality exists independently from your mind,
An OBJECT may "exist" but it is impossible to TALK ABOUT IT.

kinda like the definition of objectivity 🤔.
The definition of "objectivity" is NOT itself an OBJECT.

And no I’m not saying that at all
Why not?

you came out of left field with that narrative all on your own.
I've been saying the exact same thing fifty six different ways from the start of this conversation.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Just to make a distinction, I typically agree with what you're going on about; however, if you are to assume that our senses are reliable then there are things which exist regardless of us as individuals, and things that do not - hence the difference between constructs and objects, but if you were to not have that assumption then your position would be correct. As the previously stated assumption is needed for logical conversation, it is the one I make.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just to make a distinction, I typically agree with what you're going on about;
Ok, perhaps you might paraphrase what you think I'm saying.

however, if you are to assume that our senses are reliable then there are things which exist regardless of us as individuals,
Yes.  Logically-necessary "things".

and things that do not -
Yes.  Logically-incoherent "things".

hence the difference between constructs and objects,
Concepts (STATEMENTS AND OR CLAIMS AND OR DESCRIPTIONS) are not OBJECTS.

but if you were to not have that assumption then your position would be correct.
Please explain this statement.

As the previously stated assumption is needed for logical conversation, it is the one I make.
Which "stated assumption" (AXIOM) are you subscribing to?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I already explained the assumption, and incorrect, there are things that are not dependent on the mind for existence, they are dependent on the mind for perception. There is a difference.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
there are things that are not dependent on the mind for existence
Sure.

I'm not disputing this hypothesis.

I'm merely trying to point out that we cannot TALK about such "things".
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, you can, that is light, that is the earth, etc, etc, you totally can. Just because something isn't dependent on the mind for existence does not mean that the mind cannot perceive them. For example, let's say... a ray of light, of photons. You do not need the extrapolation of the brain in order for there to be rays of photons, now, without minds, there would be nothing to acknowledge or perceive them, but it is not the same thing.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, you can, that is light, that is the earth, etc, etc, you totally can.
Of course.

Yes.

You can TALK about the descriptions (OF OBJECTS).

But your descriptions are not OBJECTIVE.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
FACT = A STATEMENT AND OR CLAIM AND OR DESCRIPTION (COMPRISED OF WORDS)
Please support this definition of fact because every source you cited said nothing of the sort.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
now, without minds, there would be nothing to acknowledge or perceive them, but it is not the same thing.
It's basically the same thing.

Imperceptible (undetectable, unverifiable) is functionally indistinguishable from "non-existent".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Please support this definition of fact because every source you cited said nothing of the sort.
Please find a definition that is not COMPRISED OF WORDS.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Please find a definition that is not COMPRISED OF WORDS.
That’s not the narrative, no one is disputing that definitions have words, however if your going to claim that facts aren’t facts before they’re stated then you’re going to have to support that claim.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
no one is disputing that definitions have words,
Oh, good.

Do FACTS have words?