Total posts: 3,192
-->
@zedvictor4
Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.
Are you inferring that logic is the same as opinion as 3RU7AL suggested? And if so, how are they the same?
I'm a sceptic, so not incorrigible.
I was joking.
I accept a GOD principle but not myths embellished with fantasy.Show me real evidence of your particular god and I will be instantly converted.
The fact that you sought to qualify evidence with the description "real" means that whatever is offered to you will be subject to the concept of "real" you accept. In other words, God is not "real" because you, zedvictor, don't accept him as "real." If we were to sustain this rationale, then the inverse must necessarily apply: i.e. God is "real" because you, zedvictor, accept him as "real." Hence, you are making my point. What is evidence? Evidence is the availability of "facts" or argument substantiating the truth of a statement. Your limiting the scope of evidence not only informs my aforementioned point about standards you accept, but also, it's all on you. You don't have to accept God. But by registering the notion that God's existence is contingent on your acceptance is tacit concession to my argument. Either way, my argument remains sound.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel no need to substantiate your claims and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to. I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level.
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel
My feelings are irrelevant.
no need to substantiate your claims
I substantiated my argument.
and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to.
I understand the reason I'm expected to substantiate my argument quite well. That has little to do with my participation in this argument. I reject that a spiritual substance is subject to a materialist standard. So let's take a look at your contention:
Just to make sure we are staying on topic here is your original argument1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual (non imaginary) god(s) I do not accept that this is true though I am happy to accept that they have percieved stories told by other humans about some god(s) and or the concept of some god(s)3. Therefore God exists.This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises. I can percieve fiction but if all you mean is that god(s) exist at least as fiction then as I predicted your argument isn't saying very much.
It's not that that my argument is "unsubstantiated"; you just "disagree." There's a difference.
I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level.
"There's no one like me; only me."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I find it vastly superior to judged voting.I realized at some point, that skewering your friends and family members with incisive logic is shockingly naive rhetoric.In "real-life" you often need a more subtle debate technique that aims to win your most hardened opponent over to your side.Judged debates are the polar opposite of "productive negotiations" and they promote the idea that clever insults and cheap rules wonking always win the day.I believe this fundamental misunderstanding of the ultimate goal of dialogue is contributing to the toxic environment we find ourselves embroiled in.For example,
Judge voting, in my opinion, serves the same function as a mediation. Two parties in dispute defer their sought resolution to the decision of a third party. Ideally, this third party would sustain the trust and respect of both parties involved. Would that necessarily lead to clever insults and cheap rules wonking?
As for the video, Jon Stewart was right. But he was also being hypocritical. One of the less glamorous aspects of his career as a "comic" was that he'd frequently attempt to hide from any scrutiny by claiming that his show was just a "comedy," as he did with Tucker Carlson. At best, his show was a "political satire,"; in actuality, it was a liberal platform lampooning mostly conservative politicians and politics. I suspect that the reason he "lashed out" toward namely Tucker Carlson--which was another bit of irony considering that he condemned the reactionary aspects of their show--was that Carlson called him out on his bull. If his show--Jon Stewart's that is--were just a "comedy," why would a high profile politician at the time, John Kerry, do an interview on his show? Carlson was correct in criticizing Stewart for not asking tough questions either and pointing out his hypocrisy. The "just a comedy" mantra was always a red herring, which unfortunately Stewart perpetuated into the twilight years of his tenure as the Daily Show's host.
With that said, I'm all for rooting out the toxicity of the debating and voting processes. If it's ever subject to a referendum, I'll take no issue supporting your proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logical necessity demands "something" (NOT) "purely conceptual" (NOUMENON).
But isn't the necessity in and of itself purely conceptual? I'm not attempting to contradict that logic requires consistency, but consistency is just that: consistency. If logic allows us to replicate, reproduce, and even "predict" events within an order, then logic is limited to the aforementioned. But that doesn't necessarily inform logic's preceding "being." These analyses presume that we accept logic.
Your experience (perception) of "pain" is perfectly legitimate relative to zero.
Have you experienced the absence of pain?
Well, then you don't know "everything".
That's a temporal circumstance. I didn't "lose" that knowledge; I just can't at the moment recall it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).
I don't necessarily disagree with this proposition. I don't believe removing the audience will result in a more honest discussion (that will always depend on the participants) but it may remove the inclination for "politicking" since the decisions are determined by majority point accumulation. The debate mechanism you describe seeks humility, which I don't necessarily equate with honesty. Nevertheless, I see it as no less valid than the other debate options.
Let me ask: this proposition you offer, do you find it more preferable than judge voting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logical necessity.
Logical necessity isn't purely conceptual?
You can compare two pages to figure out which page contains more information.There is absolutely no reason to demand "perfect knowledge" of a "known maximum".
The differences between what one knows and what another knows is inconsequential because it's all contained in what "we" know, as far as epistemology is concerned. "More" depends on the standard, which necessitates a maximum. Take this for example, when visiting an E.R. or a private physician, and one is experiencing pain, they're typically asked to gauge their pain on a scale from one to 10 (stupid, I know.) They relate these instances of pain with respect to what they experience as the worst and mildest pain they've ever felt. Each degree bears an implicit relation to its minimum and maximum. Even when discussing it qualitatively, each comparative bears an implicit reference to its superlative. For "less," it's "least," and for "more," it's "most." So even when you state that one page bears more information than another, this always bears the implicit reference on the maximum information that can be put on that page. Like numbers on a scale.
I'm unable to detect your point of contention.
The point is that we don't know the extent of that which we don't know. Any discoveries may "add" to our knowledge and "reduce" our ignorance, but that'll be contained in everything we know.
Do you remember how this conversation started?Do you remember every single word you've written?Do you remember every song you've ever sung?Do you remember what you were doing exactly 800,000 seconds ago?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment.
"Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment" is what you were thinking at that particular moment.
It's apparent. This conversation would be impossible without it.
I would entertain a devil's advocate stance, but fair enough.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is anyone in here even trying anymore to argue that a god really exists? I've been following this a while and it seems we're REALLY far down the rabbit hole of reason. I think the original spirit of the topic was likely more along the lines of what's your best reason to be convinced a god is real, but we're talking about all sorts of other tengents, which, fifteen pages in, I guess is to be expected. Carry on I guess. I just don't think it's winning any converts.
Because when all arguments are reduced, what's left is an indication of value. I press on to test the consistency of my points, not to necessarily win any converts. I suspect the same is true for 3RU7AL. As for secularmerlin and zedvictor, they're just incorrigible heretics...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Claims of GNOSIS/OPINION do not require proof (because they are unfalsifiable).Claims of REAL-TRUE-FACT absolutely DO demand empirical verification and or logical necessity.
Not that either. Case in point:
1. Athias claims his shoes are red. (This requires no proof because it's a claim. Claims by definition bear no proof.)
2. Athias's shoes being red can be proven (this requires proof because it's an affirmation of evidentiary information.)
In other words, claims aren't real-true-fact. Once they require proof, they are no longer claims. Real-true-fact require proof because they're proven.
Yes. (IFF) you pretend your claim is "true" (THEN) you must demonstrate by empirical verification and or logical necessity
A claim isn't a claim if it's true. So why must one demonstrate its "truth"?
In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.
How is "useful" devoid of opinion?
What "point" are you trying to highlight? Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered". How is this claim even remotely useful?
All the more reason the statements mentioned by secularmerlin contradict. If something does not necessarily require tests to exist, but also require tests to "claim" existence, then what is the function of the first statement?
Existence must be tested for in order to verify efficacy of a claim.
Perhaps "statement" will suffice. And verify "efficacy" in what respect? That what you're perceiving is actually what you perceive? If you cannot escape the bias of your own experience, then how do tests preclude you from being duped by "con-artists"? How is consistency not one huge "CON-JOB"?
(P1) GNOSIS = UNFALSIFIABLE(P2) OPINION = UNFALSIFIABLE(C1) GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION
Let me try:
(P1) Athias is happy.
(P2) Athias's cousin is happy.
(C1) Athias is functionally indistinguishable from his cousin.
You need more than just relating them under the context of falisfiability.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, in order to engineer useful systems, all materials, forces, and properties (to be utilized) must be quantified.
What is "useful" if not qualia?
Any undefined variables will degrade the reliability of your system.
What is reliability if not qualia?
The Scientific Method is a framework for reducing uncertainty (+3 sigma).
Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain. Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?
The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).
The evaluation of which is informed by qualia. You call it a computer; you call it a bridge; you call it medicine; you assert that what it does is distinct from what it doesn't do based on definitions used to rationalize your perception of it. You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception. Efficacious toward what? That you're capable of perception? Logic is a regulation of consistent perception. But ultimately what does consistency indicate? Value (qualia.)
If a superior framework renders The Scientific Method obsolete, I will be the first to adopt the superior alternative.
I don't think there's a method superior in analyzing Science-y things.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Separating fact from fiction
The distinction between fact and fiction is immaterial.
most particularly in a way that improves human quality of life
Quality of life is immaterial.
which I have vested interest in as a human.
Your vested interest is immaterial.
If the scientific method could be shown ineffective in this regard or a more reliable method were to present itself I would have no choice but to adjust my beliefs accordingly.
Your beliefs are immaterial.
This does not seem likely to me based on reasonable expectations based on past experience.
You're both appealing to your own incredulity as well as rendering argumentum ad antiquitatem. [Also, "seem" is not an argument.]
And my overall point in mentioning the instances of immaterial notions is to indicate that which you grasp or accept about the material is fundamentally informed by the immaterial.
It only needs tested for if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your claim can and should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't care about your arguments being taken seriously by all means disregard.
Why does anyone taking me seriously matter? I cannot control that. What I can control is whether my argument meets a description of logical consistency as it is defined. And my argument is both consistent and sound based on my premises.
Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims.
They're not unsubstantiated. They just don't meet a standard informed by your confidence.
Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
"Equally"? Since when is "acceptance" quantifiable? And the acceptance of that which I don't know bears no utility in ontological examination. But as I told zedvictor, the FSM exists as it is perceived/identifiable.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to distinguish EXISTENCE from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.
How are existence and qualia/gnosis/personal-private-experiential/opinion distinct?
Amazing.
Thank you.
If you are unable to distinguish your statement/claim from opinion, then your statement/claim is FUNCTIONALLY indistinguishable from opinion.My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).
Please reference and/or demonstrate the tautology which indicates that gnosis is functionally indistinguishable from opinion.
It affects our ability to make (reasonable/logical) TRUTH-claims about existence.Without perfectly clear-cut lines of separation between (claims of) REAL-TRUE-FACT and (claims of) GNOSIS-OPINION, "science" itself devolves into DOGMA (COERCION) which is functionally indistinguishable from religion.
No, it affects your ability to validate (qualia) your application of empiricism. I don't reject the necessity of logic, but empirical verification =/= real true fact necessarily. Real true fact is an expression of logical consistency. And once again, you're making my point: Science is necessary for science. Is existence contingent on the distinction between religion and science? And if so, can you express this distinction in a manner that is fundamentally discrete from the principles/qualia espoused by religion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything that is "conceivable" is not necessarily "purely conceptual".The scope of our analysis (discussion) is necessarily limited to the "conceivable".
How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?
Not necessarily.Even a printed page can contain MORE data than another printed page.
How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?
The total percentage of "everything" "known" in relation to the total percentage of "everything" "unknown" is indeterminate.
It would be the total amount of "everything" "known" in relation to the total amount of "everything" "known" and "everything" "unknown" presuming of course that "everything" consists of the known and unknown. The closer the unknown is to 0, the closer we are to knowing everything; the closer the unknown is to infinity (or indefinite quantity) the closer we are to knowing (next to) nothing. Tautologically, we don't know what we don't know. It serves no utility in any expression of a relation. Past experience may indicate that we've made "discoveries," but the unknown with respect to what we do know has never changed.
Simply because we don't know the full scope of what we don't know, does not contradict the demonstrable fact "we don't know everything".
Presuming of course there is a "scope." And please demonstrate that we don't known everything.
The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).
Please demonstrate or reference this proof of falsehood.
Without variation, individual identification and ontological division would be impossible.
That begs the question: why is individual identification and ontological division necessary?
Because of the definition of "existence".
There are many definitions of existence.
"The Mind" is a series of divisions (variations).These divisions necessitate interaction.The predictability of these interactions are LOGIC
If logic is the predictability of these interactions, how then is the mind dependent on logic? Does the mind require prediction?
"The Mind" is not 100% known (or perceivable).
Please elaborate.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps I should have said, that logic is not consistent.
How is logic inconsistent?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Efficacy is the ultimate validation.
Efficacy in what?
This is a statement of GNOSIS (which is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION).
Yes, it is necessarily one of Gnosis, but its being "functionally indistinguishable from opinion" is opinion.
Historically, something like radio-waves (might be said to have) "existed" "before" they were demonstrated (colloquially).HOWevER, NOBODY could CLAIM they "existed" before they were demonstrated.Certainly anybody could HYPOTHESIZE that radio-waves existed before they were demonstrated.But that HYPOTHESIS, could not be considered REAL-TRUE-FACT until AFTER empirical demonstration.
Yes, but its qualification under empirical demonstration did not affect its existence, only our "considerations." If anything, you are making my point. The scientific method facilitates the expression of that existence within its framework. Why is it necessary then? In a roundabout way, both you and secularmerlin are essentially stating that "Science is necessary for Science." And I don't deny that.
The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.
Nice try. But that wasn't secularmerlin's argument. Secularmerlin stated:
There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.
First, claims don't require proof. In order for the claim to be qualified as "true" it necessitates logical substantiation. Second, my question was: why does existence need to be tested for? (And consider that you both pretty much admitted that existence precedes your tests.) Not, "why does empirical verification require tests?"
It must be distinguishable from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.
Why?
MONISM.
Yes.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It seems far more logical to me, that something that cannot be proven to exist is unlikely to exist.
"Seem" is not an argument. And "unlikely"? How is ontology subject to probability?
Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.
Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary if one does not affirm its nonexistence.
Let's take the flying spaghetti monster for example.....Do you find it necessary to disprove it's existence?
It isn't that it's necessary. One wouldn't be able to disprove its existence. Your capacity to identify it, especially distinguishing it from a "flying rigatoni monster" or "flying fettuccine monster," indicates your perception of it; therefore, it must exist.
I think that this just goes prove, that logic is not reliably logical.
I understand your intent to be rhetorical but this makes no sense.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes after observing that it is an effective method.
"Effective" in what?
That us why I have confidence in it and not in faith based beliefs which cannot be demonstrated.
What you described is a faith-based belief. You bear "confidence" in a method (scientific method) that provides meaning to an environment (reality) of which you claim you are uncertain. (And no, arbitrary percentages will not suffice; in order to relate your knowledge to that of which you claim you are uncertain would necessitate that you grasp that of which you are uncertain, contradicting that you are uncertain.
When you baldly state something without some demonstration that is by definition a bald assertion. You cannot demonstrate your perceptions to anyone but yourself and peoples perception and senses are testable observably unreliable.
Except, I did demonstrate. I just did not demonstrate in a manner which you can "test." And you have yet to substantiate the necessity of tests as it pertains to existence. Why must existence be tested for?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
No. My confidence does not precede the method the method showing its efficacy precedes my confidence. My confidence is contingent.
Then you're applying circular reasoning because when asked, you stated you have confidence in the scientific method. And if the scientific method precedes your confidence, then what exactly are you confident in? Uncertainty?
Well they all certainly have been equally demonstrated.
Insofar as my argument would apply to them all, then yes.
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
This is called a bald assertion. It is a logical fallacy not a demonstration of reality.
It's not a bald assertion. My statement concerns a single, subjective observer: I. My statements are true by virtue of my stating them. They're not falsifiable.
And fallacies typically comprise in errors of form, relevance, consistency etc. Which fallacy have I imputed?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless you can demonstrate some god(s) I have no reason to believe that you percieve, observe, identify
My capacity to perceive, observe, or identify is neither validated nor contingent on your belief. (And I did demonstrate; I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.)
and are aware of more than your own internalized feelings about the concept of some god(s).
You mean like the confidence that precedes your acceptance of the scientific method? Why does it have to be "more"?
Unless of course you are willing to grant the existence of every god ever believed in by any human.
I've never been unwilling. All gods exist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right. This was kind of a "how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife" type of question of course.Just making it clear that the premise of a woman's choice is that she can do whatever she wants to her private property.
I see. I understand.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
a thing which doesn't exist produces an equal amount of evidence as a thing which does exist but which we cannot demonstrate to exist.
Explain and substantiate.
No they do not please see above for an explanation of why.
Yes they do. You're claiming that you acknowledge things can exist without being tested for, while simultaneously arguing those things cannot be claimed to exist or "expressed" as existent without being tested. Now if we apply your standard, how are you able to substantiate your first claim without conducting any tests? In your own words (in the absence of tests): "Otherwise, how do we know it exists?" Your statements contradict. Your standard through your own tacit admission is limited.
You mean like claiming something exists which you cannot demonstrate simply because it cannot be disproved?
No, I mean by arguing that a claim is true by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been proven false. One can claim whatever one wants.
Independent and repeatable (preferably peer reviewed) scientific demonstration of the proposition in question.
How and why does this standard apply to the spiritual?
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective. Either we can test for the presence of a thing or we cannot.
Strawman argument with the use of an ad hoc redefinition. I'm not applying the term "presence," which is placement in a given space. I'm applying the term "exists," to which I've already provided the description. Second, why does it need to be tested for?
If we cannot then it necessarily either exists but we cannot demonstrate its existence or it does not exist.
This statement is unsubstantiated. This is what you must demonstrate. You've only redundantly claim it.
If we cannot test for or detect something we should not maintain a belief in said thing.
Why?
That is why existence needs to be tested for.
Why does experience's being inextricably subjective necessitate a test for existence?
That is the consensus of neurologists.
Irrelevant; consensus does not inform truth.
It is a sufficient explanation and it is observable and testable in reality.
You have to demonstrate the pertinence of a testable explanation.
There is observably a measurable physical correlation.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation is not causation.
If you wish to claim some extra component it is you who must demonstrate your claim.
It's not my obligation to prove your arguments "wrong." It's your obligation to prove them "right." You claim that Concepts have a physical explanation. Substantiate.
Seeing is irrelevant to proving the existance of a proposition. Our eyes can be deceived.
Hence I included "observe."
I have had a CAT scan and I can inform you with a high degree of confidence that my brain is in my head.
You observed an image. Did you observe your brain?
Yes. I will just have to settle for a high degree of confidence in the issue given my apparent inability to have objective certainty on any given issue except that I am experiencing something.
So your tests are subject to your confidence?
Just the opposite. Even "reality" may not exist. I accept our shared reality as a convenience only and only because it is the only "reality" that I can percieve.
If it is the only reality you can perceive, then why do you ponder that it "may not exist"? Are you capable of observing beyond your capacity to perceive? How so?
It would be far more accurate to say that I have confidence in the efficacy of the scientific method in separating fact from fiction only because of the physical effects on our world and our standard of life.
How is your "confidence" not fictitious especially if it precedes that which you "accept"?
Also a method, or set of behaviors, is an existent part of the physical world. The scientific method is not immaterial it is physical and the proof of its efficacy precedes my belief.
No it doesn't. You used your confidence in explaining the reason tests are necessary (and efficacious.) How then does the efficacy precede your "confidence"? And the scientific method is immaterial; it's a "method."
This seems like a non sequitur to me. I am uncertain how you have determined that there is nothing that is objective or why that would lead to the ability to know everything let alone the necessity.
"Seem" is not an argument; objectivity is incoherent because it necessitates rationalizations independent of one's observation.
I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent
You don't have to accept it. It needs only be consistent with the description I offered.
Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual
I'm aware of God; I identify God (obviously through his name); I've observed God. There: I've demonstrated a perception of God.
I do not accept that this is true
My argument does not require that you "believe."
This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises.
Your doubting my premises does not make them dubious. My argument is consistent with my description; they are not consistent with your descriptions. And your descriptions aren't relevant.
Please feel free to reformulate your argument in light of these issues
There's no need to reformulate my argument. The only thing that needs reformulating is your understanding that my argument is not beholden to your understanding of existence. If you cannot demonstrate an inconsistency in my argument--i.e. my premises and conclusion, then I'll consider your challenge over.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly....Case not proven.
Non sequitur. "Proof" is not contingent on consensus. Proof is contingent on a sound argument. And I've provided a sound argument. You don't have to endorse it; but, you must concede its logical consistency as a patron of logic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. At what point does a baby stop becoming the property of the mother?
That wasn't necessarily my point. I neither sustain nor assert that a baby whether in its zygotic, embryonic, or fetal stage is the property of its mother. My point is to highlight the inconsistency in the reasoning. Those who claim to sustain a "pro-choice" position when it comes to reproduction, after scrutiny and reduction, tend to discover that they're not "pro-choice" at all; they're just "pro-abortion." If her exercising discretion over the use of her body is her right, then why would that change at any point in the pregnancy? Why would there be any limitations to the time frame in which she can have an abortion?
Why stop at giving birth? Why is the mother obligated to take care of her child afterwards or required to find custodians who'd take care of the child? How she behaves her body is her choice, but how she applies her time, labor and resources aren't? When these arguments are reduced to their fundamental rationales, they're just conveying drudges demanding privileges from the State, not the exercise of any "right." However, for what it's worth, I do credit the pro-life position for sustaining fewer inconsistencies despite my sustaining a pro-choice position--a "true" pro-choice position.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
At 6 weeks in; when the fetal cells specialize.
The question was rhetorical, but I'll entertain your response. Why does cell specialization justify coercing its mother to gestate a fetus (a manifestation of prohibiting abortion)? Why is a zygote not human despite its having a human genome? How is selecting these divisions of human development in which to sanction or prohibit abortion not merely arbitrary?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Things may exist that cannot be confirmed to exist but from pur perspective there is no difference between a thing which cannot be detected and a thing which does not exist.
"Our" perspective? I've made no such claims. Nonexistence is incoherent. In order to perceive the nonexistent, it must consist of no perceptible information on itself. How would one, for example, know something does not exist if it does not exist? If one is able to identify the nonexistent, much less identify it as "not existing," then the nonexistent provides perceivable information rendering it existent.
There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption,
The two clauses between "but" contradict.
and argument from ignorance.
That is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance presumes the substantiation of a proposition based solely on the inability to prove its inverse.
You can make zero accurate statements about an unobservable and untestable thing.
On what rubric do you base your standard of "accuracy"?
Perhaps but without some demonstration that there is more than a physical component any hypothesis which includes one can be dismissed out of hand.
You can dismiss at your leisure; that however is not pertinent to my argument; Once again: why does existence need to be tested for?
Any abstract concept relies on a thinking agent to conceive it. All thinking agents of which I am aware are physical in nature and so if we are going to consider abstract concepts nonphysical (something I remain unconvinced of since brain activity is physically measurable) then it is still an emergent property of the physical unless demonstrate otherwise/
Except none of that which you've stated is controlled for independent from the mind. Your notion of that which is required for empirical observation is just that: a notion. Your understanding of physicality: a notion. Your concept of the brain: a notion. Emergent properties and the like: notions. Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.
You've asserted; you've not substantiated.
Apparently electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. So nothing immaterial or nonphysical.
Have you seen/observed your own brain? How would you rationalize what you see without concept? What would you see without concept?
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point.
Making such a relation necessitates a grasp of 100 percent which is contradicted by the statement that one is not capable of 100% certainty.
I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.
In other words, "perception" is reality.
Now if I accept these experiences at face value then I can make certain determinations about this perceived reality especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method but knowledge claims that are too certain are generally a result of flawed reasoning.
In other words, you "believe" in the application of the scientific method. And if your belief precedes the scientific method, then you are making my point that the immaterial informs the material.
The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.
Wisdom lies in understanding that we know everything. Because everything is not objective; it's without fail subjective.
Is my answer rather than a clarification of terms. So which is it? Are you willing to help clarify your language or am I to somehow verify what you mean when you use a term without your input?
That's context; not definition. If you need help understanding the context in which I apply these definitions, I take no issue indulging you.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?
You're still not answering the question. You're attempting to have me prove you wrong (i.e. "Otherwise how do we know it exists"?) rather than you proving your statement. Why does existence need to be tested for? That is your claim, not mine.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces.
"Seem" is not an argument; seem is your impression.
If you cannot demonstrate some non physical thing let alone how we would detect one then you cannot blame such a thing exists.
I don't have to. It is your claim that existence needs to be tested for. You're making suppositions about existence and holding me liable in proving you wrong; it is you who are responsible for substantiating said suppositions.
An example of the non-physical would be a number.
Since immaterial is colloquially considered to be a synonym for non being or a lack of existence
Colloquial use is immaterial; my use is relevant since it's my argument and its semantics being examined.
perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.
Conceptual. That is not to be confused with the manner in which I used it just above denoting "insignificance." There are quite a few "colloquial" uses of the term "immaterial." My point stands nonetheless.
Also you have not demonstrated this fundamental informing whatever that is.
Immaterial --> Concept --> Numbers --> Mathematics --> Physical Laws --> Materialism.
If my diagram is a bit unclear, here: the immaterial gives rise to concept; numbers are conceptual; numbers and arithmetic inform mathematics; Physical Laws are defined by mathematical proof; materialism claims existence is physical.
At the moment this proposed spirit/essence/immaterial spinds like nonsense. Is there any way you could clear this up?
What is nonsensical about it?
If I have the wrong impression I got it from you.
No, you did not. I don't concern myself with impressions in serious discussions. You'll never see me use the terms, "seems," "looks/sounds like," "appear," etc. in arguments I author because they are not relevant. Take responsibility for your faculties.
The things that a knives have without which they cannot be defined or recognized as a knife are a blade and a grip (or at the very least a tang) those are physical objects.
Sure, that would be the "spirit" of a knife. What is your essence?
If this isn't what you meant then I request a more comprehensive/accurate definition.
Verify the provided definitions at your leisure if you bear questions of their "accuracy."
No but I have reasonable expectations about this conversation based on past experiences
Experiences which have nothing to do with either me or my argument. They're not "reasonable" expectations; you're projecting.
in fact I don't know exactly what psychic even means so unless you are prepared to offer a definition maybe we should drop it.
Psychics claim to make "predictions" usually based on probing for intimate information.
Clearly not as I am asking for clarification in this very message.
Once again, take responsibility for your own faculties. If you need help understanding something I've stated, then I take no issue in helping you clarify; that is not however a reflection of my capacity to define especially since the descriptions I've provided are verifiable (even with a mere google search.)
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How else would we know it exists?
You're not answering the question. Why does it need testing?
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?
You're "smuggling." (More so redefining ad hoc.) Substantiate the necessary biconditional between materialism and observation.
Note: in my description of perceive, the term "observe" is included.
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.
Your concern is not what it "sounds like." Sounds like is your impression, not a reflection of my statement.
Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.
It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.
I made a prediction.
You're a psychic?
If after this discussion it turns out I was wrong I will happily admit it
You'll have no choice but to admit, your happiness notwithstanding.
but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.
Really? Have I not defined every term you've requested?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?
Why does it need to be tested?
What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
Make explicit the parameters of that which I've emboldened.
Ok please define essence.
The property without which one/it would lose its capacity to be identified as oneself/itself; an intrinsic quality that determines its fundamental character.
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.
So you levied a bald assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I blocked you several months ago. And there's nothing that prevents you from communicating with me; the only difference is that I'm not notified of your responses. If you wish to be unblocked, then the melodrama can be spared. You are now unblocked. Don't blow it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Some might argue that spirituality is a state of mind rather than actual existence.
Some might argue that a fundamental difference between the two has yet to be substantiated.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
What does it mean to exist spiritually?
There's no need to modify the term exist with the adverb, "spiritually," especially since the description I've provided already includes for it. And by applying simple logic, it's rather simple to discern the meaning you seek. If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.
What even is spirit?
Essence.
Also the whole point is that we are examining your argument to see if I was correct or incorrect in my assessment of it so don't get to hung up on my assessment before we have thusly examined said argument.
No, the whole point is that you attempted to mock my argument by accusing me of using semantic gerrymandering (in spite of the fact that all arguments are semantic) with the use of inept metaphors. And I am by no means obliged to help you substantiate your contention. You are the only one obligated to substantiate your contention. If you believe that my argument meets the description of your assessment, then by all means, demonstrate this. If you're waiting for me to argue my way into disproving my own argument, then sit down, grab some food and drinks, because you're in it for the long haul. The logic is solid. So examine at your leisure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion
Jesus was in a three day coma.
- Jesus was born of a virgin
In-vitro fertilization. (Or a turkey baster.) Mary's being a virgin is primarily a Catholic/Luciferian argument. The immaculate conception is in reference to the Mother Goddess having both her husband and son as consorts. Since the son is the reincarnation of the father, the Mother Goddess is said to have given birth without seed.
- God created the universe
The mind is God.
- the book if Genesis is to be interpreted literally/not literally
Since there's a lack of observational data on the creation of Earth, the interpretations of the Bible are worth just as much as that of any textbook.
There was a Global flood, as described in the Bible
Almost three quarters of the Earth's surface is submerged in water. Besides, I like using the term antediluvian.
-The earth is young(6,000-10,000 old) years/old ( about 4.5 billion years old)
Who would've observed the Earth before the first human? Or before its first documentation? How does one verify this independent of any biased interpretations?
- The bible is the source of all truth. (meaning humans cannot reach truth without it, and the bible is necessary)
Christians believe in the integrity of the Bible.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is your argument and they are your words.
Now that you've reached that understanding, how am I "smuggling" if it is "my argument" and "my words"?
Please give your preferred definition of believe percieve and exist as used in this context.
1. Exist: to have actual being whether material or spiritual.
2. Perceive: to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe.
3. Believe: to accept as true.
And I noticed your continued use of the proviso, "as used in this context." Since as you mentioned above, it's "my argument" and "my words," the context is informed by premises and conclusion. Nonetheless, you are free to challenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If the government intervenes too little, then it is anarcho-capitalism, which will furtherly turn to chaos.
No. Anarcho-capitalism is not the precursor to chaos. It simply rejects (centralized) governments as ruling mechanisms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The author of the video has a misconception about Capitalism. First, no country--at least the Industrial countries--are Capitalistic; they're either communist or quasi-communist countries. Second, positive freedom is incoherent. There are freedoms (negative) and entitlements (positive.) Capitalism facilitates freedom and contractual entitlements, not the "feeling" of entitlement (e.g. "freedom to a 'fair' share of the economy," and "the freedom to health care.") Each government regulates the prices and supply orders of these allegedly private businesses, which for the most part are just crony corporations funded with public subsidies. Capitalism can only be experienced in a society without a centralized government, so the youtuber's premise is either incorrect or incomplete.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's all or nothing. When does it stop being her choice? When does it begin to be murder? Those who appeal to moderation cannot escape the whimsical arbitration. If one is "truly" pro-choice, then one would sustain that a pregnant woman can terminate her pregnancy at any point in time. She'd have plenary discretion over the use and content of her womb. A discretion which is subject to no time constraints.
Created:
-->
@Barney
oh geez. i was jus' playin. for shits and giggles. just for kicks. not to be taken seriously.
In future, please don't name specific other users in this type of post without their permission.That said, this is otherwise not a callout thread as defined within the CoC: "Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."This thread seems like a joke, which the new CoC allows people to do so long as it does not cross the line too much or too often.-Ragnar, DM***
Looks like a cut and dry attempt to insult Greyparrot. If there's a "joke" in there, only n8ngrmi is "shitting" and "giggling." Greyparrot obviously gave him an out.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what are the rules of the trump supporter circle jerk that we have in this forum?can anyone join the circle jerk? or do you have to be someone who sucks trump's dick? would a liberal be cast out of your circle jerk or is it a free for all orgy?is greyparrot the alpha male of the circle jerk? he is the one that gets the most like, slash jerk offs. of course it's assumed that the orange man himself, trump, is the ultimate alpha male of your circle jerk.do you guys do other sexual shit beside the circle jerk? is a reach around considered proper etiquette? do ya'll fantasize about trump when jerking off each other?i'm sure i'll have more questions, but this is just for starters.
So in your fervor to criticize the politics of Trump supporters, you're "homo-bashing/shaming?" Does that not undermine one of the core principles of the politics you claim to sustain?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Look at you smuggling existence in with perceiving and smuggling perceiving in with believing. Your such a good smuggler!
Is there a contradiction (or possibly a counterargument) in your claim that I'm a "smuggler"?
Congratulations!
Your adulation is neither solicited nor necessary.
Of course I think if we examine your definition of the three terms as used in this context we might not come away with as much as your argument promises.
Then examine away. There's no need for "if's." Demonstrate that the argument is in dereliction of its promises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your mind can know what it knows.Your mind can also know that it doesn't know everything.This creates a clear (modal) distinction (but NOT a fundamental distinction).
The model is flexible.Some minds know more.Some minds know less.In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.
The model is flexible.Some minds know more.Some minds know less.In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.
Whatever we do understand is a fraction of an incomprehensible (not infinite) progression.Whatever is beyond our epistemological limit is of unknown quantity/quality.This emphasizes (magnifies) the relative importance of what we know.The very concept of "important" only exists as a byproduct of our own ignorance.
Would this not render "everything" in your argument as conception? You mentioned that some people know more and some people know less. This relation could only be made with respect to a fixed quantity or quality. If "we don't know everything," then any amount we relate automatically would be dictated by the domain of possibilities we conceive (not this metaphysical "everything.") Therefore, the statement "we don't know everything" (of course, in place of "I don't know everything") would be contradicted since the domain of "everything" is necessarily informed, at least for our epistemological purposes, by everything we do know.
Definitions themselves are (unfortunately) not limited by logic.Any number of terms and concepts can be defined by contradictory (incoherent) combinations of primary axioms.For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).
Agreed.
Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).
Could one not reciprocally the coherence of variation? Why is variation necessary?
In a similar manner, "objectivity" is defined (by common definitions) as "incomprehensible" and "unobservable" ("independent" of human observation).
Agreed. And I'll revisit this below.
The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).
Why not?
Logic is an integral aspect of "the mind".Logic cannot exist "independently" of "the mind".And "the mind" cannot exist without logic.
If there's a necessary mutual dependence, then logic could not be merely an "aspect" of the mind.
Please make your perceived conflict explicit.
Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception? What function does the mind bear under that condition?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"Black" is neither a race nor a culture. It's a corporate designation intended to catalog drudges of the State. "Hip-hop" culture is a mere psyop intended to cultivate both dysfunctional and victimized mentalities among so-called "Blacks," all while generating billions of dollars in commerce. So what causes more problems for so-called "black folk"? Susceptibility to paternalizing the government while infantilizing themselves. And this is due in some effect to this so-called "black community's" being a virtual matriarchy.
The article was correct at least about one thing: the attitude toward women. That's the reason I never call my bitches, "hoes."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They are not "independent" (because if they were "independent" they would not be able to detect each other).They are inter-dependent (both aspects of a single, monistic system). In the same way your eye is distinguishable from your brain.They are distinguishable, but not "independent".
Yes, but the difference between the eye and the brain presumably can be "observed" (?) by an independent party. How is this done with the mind and NOUMENON? Can one see one's own brain?
Even at the level of the brain, we know there are chemical triggers and electrical signals that are constantly in motion that are integral to our thought process.We can model most of these, but you cannot simultaneously function and know everything your brain and body are "doing" under your skin at every moment you are awake."Your conscious mind" has a very limited capacity to accumulate and store and retrieve data.
Yes but the understanding of these phenomena are reflected by the scope of our consciousnesses. Would the data be the same if the limits of our consciousnesses were either broken or expanded? Wouldn't that beg for new limits?
In order to be 100% conscious of your function, you would require the capacity to fully understand all of the inner workings of your own physiology and the inner workings of all systems that interact with you in any way. The very definitions of "human" and "sanity" preclude such understanding (at the very least it precludes communication of such understanding).The "you" that is distinguishable from "everything else" is only a fractional part of many much larger and much more complex systems.The "everything" is only "knowable" to the "you" through the function of "your mind", but that does not mean the window itself is the world.
Wouldn't that conclude that we know nothing. Because whatever we do understand will be a fraction of an infinite progression (or regression dependent on how you see it.) Any constant outside of infinity over infinity produces zero, right?
In 6 minutes,
Interesting video.
Objective existence is logically necessary (an integral aspect of NOUMENON).However, it is buried beneath an incomprehensible number of indistinguishable layers of subjective phenomena beyond our epistemological limits.
(This is very identical to something I'd argue.)
And by the very definition of "objectivity" it is fully inaccessible to humans.
Then how can one perceive it, let alone identify it in the form of definition?
Only comprehensible concepts can be entertained.The incomprehensible (NOUMENON) can only be "known" by logical deduction (as more of an abstract category).Any "thing" truly "independent" of "The Mind" can never logically interact in any way with "The Mind" and as such can be considered indistinguishable from non-existent (THEREFORE, EPISTEMOLOGICAL MONISM IS NECESSARILY TRUE).
Wouldn't this suggest that logic is independent of the mind? And if this is the claim, how so?
Every component is integral and necessary.Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.
So then how do you reconcile your description with its definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is an incorrect statement. The common example to try to explain this goes like this: Your house is on fire and you are trying to get people/the fire department to come and put it out. They respond "with well all houses matter, not just yours". Your house is the one on fire. pointing out the problem and trying to draw attention to it is not an attempt to tell people that their houses don't matter. But you are the one with the biggest, immediate problem.You are attempting to argue that drawing attention to the acute issues black people face is somehow racist. They aren't saying white lives don't matter. They are saying that black people's lives matter, because to politicians and society in general, they often don't.
"Black" is a corporate designation; it's neither an ethnicity nor a cultural demographic. The BLM is also based on a false narrative: "blacks" are victimized more by the police. The BLM has no proposed solutions because the issue with which it's allegedly concerned eludes them. They're not concerned about "black lives," or particularizing their narratives to "black lives" (look at the fact that their mission statement includes for lesbians, transgenders, and the fight against "patriarchy.") If anything, it's a lesbian separatist movement given the majority of those who participate in their protests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Your mind" is like a lens through which "The Mind" observes (explores and catalogs) aspects of NOUMENON.
If the mind is being described as the "lens," then what is NOUMENON independent of said lens?
"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.
The problem with quantifying these relations especially with the employment of percentages is the presumed lack of understanding of 100%. If the mind is not 100% conscious of itself, then how would one know or experience a mind that is 100% conscious of itself? Much less quantify the relation between one's current state to this presumably intangible projected state?
"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) has subconscious impulses that you can indirectly observe the effects of (post-facto).
Like dreams?
And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.
So then, does the "objective" exist?
Please explain.
Because tools like reason are of the mind. How can one "reason" that which is independent of the mind? Once one employs reason, the mind subjects that which is reasoned.
Your mind" is a fully integrated module of "The Mind" which is itself a fully integrated module of NOUMENON.There is no "part" that is "independent".
Isn't Noumeon independent of the mind by definition? One can argue that one's mind, and the mind, are dependent on Noumenon, but is Noumenon dependent on one's mind, and the mind?
Click to watch 39 seconds,
Great movie. And a great line (at the end) delivered by Dustin Hoffman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it."Self-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination"God-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination"Spirit-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combinationThis is tautological (encompassing all possible variables) and NOT an "appeal to ignorance".No claim can be considered SOUND unless it is presented in the appropriate format.You don't get "the benefit of the doubt". Neither do I. Nor does anyone.
I do not question this, only whether soundness is contingent on my presentation. And that's what your biconditional did even if you didn't intend for it to communicate that stipulation.
How do you draw this particular conclusion?
By description and the irrationality of its negation. The mind is "that" which facilitates/allows for reason, discretion, emotion, cognition, perception, experience etc. Let's consider these two arguments:
1. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena, all of which is enclosed in Noumenon, the extent of which is imperceptible to any subject. In other words, the mind--presumably the faculty of logic--acts as an intermediary between subjective and intersubjective (or objective) existence. This is irrational. It would presume that a faculty of the mind can be employed to "reason" that which is independent of the mind.
2. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena all of which is enclosed within in the mind, the extent of which is perceptible to any subject. The mind is not an intermediary; the mind is the whole, allowing us to reason all that which we experience without the irrational presumption that said reasoning can be conducted where the mind and its content are not the subjects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've very carefully and comprehensively laid out the variables.(EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combinationAnd you're "answer" is "nuh-uh".This is not an "argument". Technically this is referred to as "gain-saying".
My response wouldn't amount to a "nuh-uh." I'm pointing out that you're evaluating the veracity or falsifiability of the claim, "self-caused" contingent on my capacity to substantiate it, rather than evaluate the claim itself. [You have done so before but not in this instance.] That's an appeal to ignorance:
(IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
You created a logical biconditional premised on my capacity or "willingness" which are impertinent to the soundness of a claim.
Strangely enough, I agree with you that Quanta (science) is a sub-category of Qualia (metaphysics).HOWeVer, this does not mean that you can simply throw empirical observation out-of-the-proverbial-window.
I'm not suggesting that it be thrown out the window; I'm suggesting it be understood in context. The mind is the starting point for all evaluation.
This bald assertion is beyond our epistemological limits."The Mind" might be our individual metaphysical "bedrock", but that does not exclude the possibility of "The Mind" being an aspect of NOUMENON.
Actually, it's precisely within our epistemological limits because the premise doesn't presume that everything is "metaphysical." And you presume that which one has labeled "Noumenon." Pondering the possibility of Noumenon is a manifestation of your mind, and even if you were to comprehend and rationalize it, Noumenon would then be subjected by your mind, making it not Noumenon. It is not a bald assertion to state that the Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it because the mind informs subjective experience. And subjective experience cannot be controlled for independent of the mind. Even one's conception and understanding of the brain is informed by the mind. As I stated above, the mind is the starting point for all evaluation. And existence independent of these evaluations is irrational.
I agree, it is irrational to attempt to discuss anything that might be considered "truly" "incomprehensible" (GNOSIS).
I see what you did there. But that does not define the scope of the premise.
Have you ever "changed your mind"?
Yes, as in changing an opinion, not swapping. That more an issue of lexicon than anything else.
This conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises, and therefore fails to qualify as sound logic.
Yes it does.
P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
P3: One's mind and One are the same.
P4: I perceive myself.
C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
You can challenge my rationalizations of the premises but the conclusion does follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
I think the minimum wage should be below $15 an hour for sure, but it should probably exist. The data suggests that it actually decreases earnings for minimum wage workers . But, it doesn't lower employment like many believe. Are there any studies that disagree?????
It needs to be understood that there's a distinction between disemployment and unemployment. Disemployment is when one is fired. Unemployment is a broad umbrella term referring to those who don't have a job, can't get a job, or are in between jobs. The minimum wage doesn't necessarily create "disemployment." The minimum wage however does necessarily create unemployment. When a price floor is forced in the labor market, it creates a distortion among those supplying labor, and those demanding labor. So for example, a $15 minimum wage does not mean that everyone will be paid $15. It means that those whose marginal productivity (contribution to production) is worth $14.99 or less are now legally unemployable. To illustrate this with an analogy, let's say I own a nightclub. The government comes in an imposes an age restriction of 25 years and older. Does this mean that every 25 year old and older in the area will now frequent my club? No. It means that those who are 24 years old and younger are now legally prohibited from entering my nightclub. And this produces negative effects. It lowers my revenues. And depending on the elasticity of the product I disseminate, the cost I incur can be extended to said product, making it more expensive to the patrons. The minimum wage has the same effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
The irony is that this is an appeal to ignorance: my unwillingness or incapacity to substantiate an argument doesn't not render it unverifiable or unfalsifiable; thus, you must qualify your statement with "indistinguishable" rather than extend your premises to their logical conclusion.
But I have no problem substantiating the argument: I am because I am (tautology.) And I'm not referring to the trillions of cells which constitute my corporeal form. I'm referring to that which is discoverable only once it manifests--the self. You can argue that the transitivity of causation necessitates an infinitely regressive reduction, but this is no less subject to the qualia one exhibits/experiences since one cannot control for that which occurs independent of his or her own experience of it (epistemological solipsism.) The only argument I can posit with certainty is that I as a subject of everything I experience have a mind which exists. (To contradict this is to contradict my contradiction.) And since I cannot experience anything (physics, logic, etc.) independent of my mind, I therefore conclude that my mind necessarily informs and/or "causes" the entirety of my experience. [Yes, I would argue that the laws of physics is QUALIA; and QUANTA is subject or subordinate to QUALIA.]
So then, doesn't the mind have a cause? I would presume some would argue the brain, but even one's perception and understanding of the brain is subject to the mind. If we are to sustain the transitivity of causation, it would then follow that the mind is the first cause (anything before or "outside" the mind is irrational.) And anything conceptualized or experienced starts with the mind.
P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
P3: One's mind and One are the same.
P4: I perceive myself.
C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am showing what happens when you just invent meaning such as saying a house is a factory (house = factory) without qualification.All three laws, contradiction, identity, and middle inclusion.House = factory stated without qualification and clarification is contravening these laws.
Quote where I stated that a house=factory. Or was my argument not that the descriptions do not exclude either from the other?
And the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle don't apply to vocabulary. Because, for example, "mine" does not always equal "mine."
You confuse my subjective mind with objective knowledge. It is still possible for my subjective mind to understand objectively or else communication would be impossible.
No, you're confusing "intersubjective" with "objective." It is not possible for the subjective mind to understand anything "objectively" because it would have to be done independent of the mind. We are fundamentally subjective (i.e. experiences where we are the sole subjects.) Communication is possible because we've conceived and cultivated a logical standard that, for lack of a better term, "translates" our experiences to a "universal" code.
Are you saying that when someone communicates something it is not possible to be the authors meaning?
I'm stating that when someone communicates anything to you, it is automatically "translated" by your mind.
It follows that if your mind is the necessary mind in the physical universe existing, then you are creating what is necessary from your mind.
The mind is necessary and inform the experience of physicality; thus, it creates/conceives that which is necessary to rationalize said experience.
I am following through on the consequences of your stated belief system as you have conveyed it, and trying to make sense of it. I question to find out more of what you believe. I am discovering contradictions and implausibility then highlighting them.
The contradiction and implausibilities are a manifestation of your projection. You assume that I'm making this argument based on objectivity. I am not. Far from it. And that's the point. The metaphysical objectivity which you've referenced and based your arguments on, is epistemologically insignificant and irrational.
I can go back to our OP and subsequent posts again to qualify my concerns, as you stated them, if you like.
Please do.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.
How am I capable of confirming "nothing?"
Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves. Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void.
Where are you getting this from? This is the reason I always mention "seem" is not an argument. Quote me verbatim and demonstrate how your recent "reference" compares with mine.
How is it not logical. Please back up your thinking instead of just asserting.
Because nonexistence is irrational. If something does not exist, one would not know it does not exist because it does not exist. It is imperceptible. We are only capable of perceiving that which does exist because the existent provides information to be perceived. As the absence of existence, nonexistence can therefore provide no information to be perceived. Any ontological analysis other than sustaining nonexistence as the logical placeholder for the negation of the argument for existence is irrational. In other words, and this tautology should suffice: Nonexistence does not exist.
Are you saying that you will still exist in the physical or earthly realm when you die, other than being dust or ashes?
Non sequitur. You're projecting your conflation of nonexistence and death onto my argument.
Did you always exist then in this physical realm? You have said previously that you had a beginning. I would argue that you had a beginning, that you began to exist.
No, you presumably perceived a period where you did not acknowledge my being. But if I didn't exist, then you would never know, rendering your argument insubstantial. I said earlier that my sentience had a beginning.
Will you always exist in this physical realm? If so, give me evidence of this.
Non sequitur. I never argued my existence in relation to my physicality.
My mind is not the necessary mind for the existence of the universe, only for my perception of it.
The second clause informs the first clause, making the entire statement contradictory. Once again, how would you know?
Common, meaning specific meaning is necessary, and words in context convey specific meaning. There is a standard that you cross and confuse. Thus, a home is different from a factory although sometimes a home can house or include a factory and visa versa.
What? This has nothing to do with that which I've said. We were discussing the mind's role in existence. Why are you bring up definitions of home and factory?
Yes, confirmed through the coming into existence of others makes it logical to believe. It is most reasonable to believe. If you think not, are you being reasonable? Explain.I confirm it by conversing with you. You exist apart from me, or are you confirming and saying you are a figment of my imagination and that you do not exist as anything separate from my mind? If so, my mind is necessary and you are not. I think I will create a new imaginary character. I will also eliminate any physical record that my conversation with you existed since this conversation thread is just my imagination working overtime. Bye!The impossibility of the contrary or the unlikehood of the contrary is sufficient reason.
How is your conversing with me not informed by your mind? You're reading the words that I'm typing right? You understand the language in which I communicate, right? How is any of that independent of your mind? What have you confirmed?
Then try stepping in front of a speeding bus and not suffer any physical harm or hurt since it is all perception. I think you will find that the physical bus is more than just a perception but it actually exists. And not only you perceive it.
How do you feel a bus hitting you? Somatosensation, right? Is that not within the umbrella of perception? How do you calculate and place a value on pain and non-pain without the concept of differentiation? You'd feel "something" but it's not rational until you apply a concept to it, right? Whose to say that you're in "pain" or "hurt"? You may argue that it's merely a indentification to a physical phenomena, but even the most extensive research into neurology hasn't demonstrated a consistent intersubjective standard of pain. Case in point: I once sustained blunt force trauma to my head, and I didn't feel any pain at all even before the anesthetic. I suffered numerous, yet minor lacerations over random parts of my body--including one resulting from the blunt force trauma I spoke of earlier--and endured "different" sensations of pain with the others. So what does example actually demonstrate other than the hyperbole of your presumptions?
Am I speaking to THE necessary being here? Are you it? I know I am not. My conscious experience began. I became aware of my being.
And did you confirm my "nonexistence" or my "beginning" from the time when your conscious began to the current state in which you allege conscious awareness is now?
Can you confirm this?
Yes I can. Because I'm the subject of my own experience, I must necessarily experience my own sentience including its beginning.
You have confirmed it, yourself, so your previous paragraph is answered by your present one.
Yes, about my experience not your observing my experience which you've yet to substantiate.
I guessed as much about your profile since 1930 and your mental acumen at that age (90) was unreasonable. I surmise you are fairly young in relation to my age although I was not aware that you made up the whole thing.
I didn't make up the whole thing; just most of it (I was born in French Polynesia, and I do speak French.) I don't take profiles seriously. And one of the reasons is behavior you yourself have exhibited. It's been my experience that people tend to "profile" others and their philosophical positions before getting to know anything substantial about them. They take these snapshots and tidbits of information and form their conclusions. So an exaggerated profile is my way of lampooning all those who rush to my profile page in some contrarian fervor in an attempt gain some "inside information." Not to mention, I thought it was funny. Had you merely asked me, and not exhibited the behavior I just mentioned, you would've learned the truth sooner--I'm always forthcoming about it when asked directly. But indulging the whole "my god is better than your god" dynamic was bordering on regressive, so I'm now letting you know. (Those whom I've argued before usually catch on and can automatically identify the exaggeration, while others don't I suppose.)
It seems to be a common thread in our conversation, your invention or creation.
Seem is not an argument.
Then you are not necessary for its existence as has been my contention from the start. I was offering a scenario based on you as the creator of your own universe since you seemed to be suggesting you are necessary for the physical universe. It took a lot of effort to hear differently.
Seem is not an argument. And quote me verbatim. I do not presume objectivity. And thus, I've repeated that my mind is necessary for my subjective experience. My belief that there are those who experience existence independent of my mind is still subjective. Because I cannot exist in an experience where I am not the subject.
I was following through on your comments that seemed to imply you created the physical universe via your mind.
This is the reason "seem" is not an argument. It is not a correct assessment of my argument.
I'm not being mean. I am just investigating your thought process and trying to understand what you believe by candid questions and following through with the implications. I am not going to defend myself further. I initiated the conversation because I thought your position was inconsistent. If you do not believe I am here in good faith then it is your problem, not mine.
Once again, you're projecting. I never suggested that you were being "mean." I informed you that my emotional state is neither relevant, nor your concern. That's all that needs to be said on that matter.
It is being argued that A mind is necessary but that mind is not your mind or mine.
No. I mentioned frequently that my mind is necessary for my own subjective experience just as your mind is necessary for your own subjective experience. All experiences are subjective--whether it's individual or rationalized through a common standard--i.e. logic. You are arguing that God's mind is necessary and objective, and all minds are derivative of this divine progenitor. When asked to substantiate how this information is not informed by your subjective experience, you impute consensus fallacies (i.e. 66 writings) and appeals to ignorance and incredulity (How does consciousness stem from that which is devoid of it?)
You turned it into your mind being that necessary mind for the existence of the physical universe.
Quote me.
While this is true, it does not equate to there is no physical universe without your mind existing.
There would be no "my experiencing" a physical universe without my mind. This is consistent among every individual. I cannot experience anything indepedent of my mind, and therefore, any rationalizations of that which can be experienced independent of one's mind, is epistemologically insignificant, and irrational.
If I buy one dog, then buy another dog, that does not mean I bought three dogs. The concept of oneness exists without your mind thinking it.
No it does not. Your statement is a contradiction. Look up and define "concept."
. It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning, unless you can point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality.
This argument makes no sense. (E.g. requiring "mindfulness" yet "separate" of the mind.) This is just a roundabout proposition that "God" is responsible for Math and physics. And once again, you're appealing to ignorance. I don't have to "point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality"; you have to substantiate, "It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning" because it's your argument.
Created: