Total posts: 2,481
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could care less what nihilist think, if something is either a or b, and it is not a, then it is b.
Do you care what theists think? Because why do you consider them an option but not nihilists?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In short...Everything is the same, but with different labels.
Not according to the dictionary.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you didn't even fully address my syllogism
I could go searching for it but I think it would be quicker if you reiterate.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality defacto does
I’m sure nihilists disagree with that.
I got tired of your nonanswers.
Pardon me but you gotta question for me? Ask away.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Second, I don't think objective morality exists, prove that it does and then we can get talking
I can’t, but maybe you can prove subjective morality exists and we can get talking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t know if I can, but that shouldn’t be necessary unless your a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please provide an example of something you believe is objective.
Morality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that everything we can possibly speak about is strictly OPINION?
No, I’m suggesting that by definition objective things don’t require a mind for its existence and facts are objective. I don’t know why you’re disputing this by definition I’m correct I’ve supported this before do you need to see it again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.
I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
Claiming that definitions apply (somehow) regardless of whether human minds exist or not is INCOHERENT.
Facts is more than its label, all humans did was put a label on something that was always there, that’s all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.
Again, how do you know objectivity is limited to just objects?
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?
No, again I fail to see your point, please make it rather then point out the obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.
I fail to see your point.
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?
What do you consider a tautological statement and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
I don’t know, now what?
YOU seem to believe that certain specific fragments of that definition are MORE important than other specific fragments.
How so? Your the one that’s limiting the definition to just humans when I asked you to support it you only reference one of many subsets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.But that's fine.
How so?
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Me answering this doesn’t answer how I view the definitions of both terms so I ask again what’s the point of this question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Today.
A narrative you randomly chose not me.
Objects are also a process. No object is eternal.
No they aren’t, if anything a process is abstract because a process can mean anything depending on what your talking about.
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.
Like I said before you can’t just pick and choose a subset of a definition and expect it to crossover, facts includes but is not limited to identification.
Only ACTUAL objects (that are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary) can be proper FACTS.
My last response in this post applies to this too just swap out the word identification for objects.
Even (IFF) one supposes that unfalsifiable objects are "facts"
It’s not unfalsifiable if it happened, the fact that it happened is enough proof on its own, you don’t need humans to rationalize it for it to be fact, human ignorance is a separate issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Pardon me, but when was them changing over time ever the narrative? The narrative is objective things don’t require a mind for its existence, well whatever created the human mind didn’t need a mind for its existence therefore it’s objective and objective things are factual and since that factual thing created a human mind it wasn’t dependent on a mind for its existence proving facts existed before humans. I know that was a bit redundant but hopefully you get the picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did I bristle and demand you explain why you're asking?
No but you have every right to especially if you feel the questioning isn’t relevant.
Mammals, plants, and even fish change over time.
What do mammals, plants, and fish have to do with humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can’t apply whatever process goes into the creation of dogs and apply it to humans, we’re a completely different species dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm comparing FIRST DOG to FIRST HUMAN.
The creation of the first dog is just as unknown to you as humans so what does that prove? It doesn’t prove that it wasn’t a person or thing. Also I’ve had it up to here with the random goose chases you’ve been sending me on so unless you explain how they’re relevant please don’t waste my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You never mentioned a comatose person....Just an MND sufferer.
Correction I mentioned both, the latter first and the former second.
And I bring up points that clearly refute your argument.
If that’s what you believe then so be it.
Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.
Not all humans can that’s my point (my comatose example proves this). Like I said before facts is beyond us it isn’t something we created. Before humans existed there were no humans, that statement being a fact proves that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Deliberately misinterpreting figures of speech is poor argument......Your clutching at straws now Tarik.
I didn’t misinterpret (wasn’t given the opportunity hence my confusion). I simply asked you to make yourself more clear and repeatedly gave you your chance to give your clear interpretation and you couldn’t answer the call.
And where did the comatose person suddenly appear from?
After you made that argument about fact deduction, I used that as an example proving you wrong.
Though in terms of function, "comatose" is a generalisation anyway.
Even if it was I don’t see the point of bringing that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not dead men for sure
What? You’re not sure there’s dead men? If you have a point you’re not making it very clear.
That which one possess
The same guy that called me out for not explaining myself refuses to name the “one”, a comatose person cannot deduce facts that’s just a fact in itself, and the human brain isn’t a device (devices are along the lines of technology, the dictionary is free). I think you’ve dug yourself in enough of an ignorant hole and I’m gonna stop the bleeding by just telling you where your blatantly wrong, too bad I’m the only one that can give truisms here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Foxes and humans are related? I didn’t get the memo, but even if I accepted the comparison the narrative is the first human mind, the only way this comparison is somewhat fitting is if it deals with the first fox. Not to mention that it was the human species that was responsible for the breeding of the foxes if your example is fitting then another species is responsible for the first human mind, hence why I said something or someone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".
What’s the known facts that made you presume it’s a process? Also isn’t a process a thing? For example intercourse is a process but it’s also a thing life forms engage in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.
But you weren’t defining the human mind you were defining noumenon (whatever that is).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.
And how do you know this?
NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).Since when was ignorance logically necessary?That’s a huge contradiction.
How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?
That’s what an opinion is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Fair enough but what I take from that is
the definition includes but it’s not limited to humans, perhaps I should’ve responded different to
There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS "existed" before humans.
There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS didn’t exist before humans there’s many subsets to the definition of fact you can’t just pick one and say no facts existed because of that one definition because it ignores the others that say nothing of the sort. Let me ask you a question the person or thing that created the human mind if it’s existence isn’t factual then what is it because you don’t seem to know the answer in regards to the creator so how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS "existed" before humans.
Correction there’s no dictionary that mentions humans in the definition of fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not a dead man's fact though.
Facts aren’t property no one owns facts, not dead men not anybody.
If a system is functioning it's functioning..... Maybe not at 100% capacity......And M.N.D. Primarily affect muscular function anyway, leaving data management fairly intact.
What data are you managing? It’s not an argument it’s a question zedvictor4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you distinguish it? Because I agree with the dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
What’s the point of asking me this, how does this address my argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well it was a hypothetical situation, so therefore not factual....
... Doesn’t change a thing dead men are dead that’s still a fact.
If they are alive systems are still functioning.
Them being alive isn’t the narrative, the narrative is them managing data, so pretell the data they’re able to manage, they can hardly manage themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So what? That’s not always the case with objective facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That wasn’t for you, what’s your retort to this argument?
Well whoever or whatever created it, proves that an objective reality is beyond what your human eye can see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ask a dead man.
The dead man is dead, that’s a fact for you.
And Typical Tarik...."And yes I do"...But no explanation.
Explanation is on your part, what data and systems could someone with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis manage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No....Facts and opinions are both internal data constructs, which we make in response to observations of external reality. When sensory mechanisms detect an external stimulus, all processes are internal....Stuff doesn't float around out there, with fact and opinion stickers attached.
First, I view data along the lines of facts, so no opinions isn’t data. Second we don’t make facts they’re above and beyond us (your giving humans way too much credit there).
Yep it's an internal data and systems management unit or device....Organic rather than mechanical.
You’re sure that’s the case for everybody’s brain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I use the word "stuff" to differentiate between external reality and internal conclusions.
Isn’t that difference simply facts and opinions?
How long is a piece of string....Though internal data and data processing is a functional reality, internally constructed concepts do not necessarily correspond with anything external.
The length of a piece of string isn’t an internally constructed concept.
The human brain
You consider the human brain a device?
I do not see the relevance of your last comment. Nonetheless, systems failures or deliberate repetition are two possibilities.
You didn’t say that previously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope...Stuff existed before we acquired the knowledge to understand it.
... Facts qualifies as “stuff” does it not?
Hence we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that certain data is representative of reality..... We then refer to this as fact.
What data isn’t representative of reality?
In short... To be able to say that something is factual, you firstly need a device that is capable of making such choices and decisions.
What device is that?
Shorter still...Stuff is out there and fact is in here.
Why is “stuff” relevant here and how is it different from facts in this context?
And content in this instance is a specific data sequence we choose to output as narrative...If we were unable to consider and vary this process, we would just keep repeating ourselves, like a parrot.
Repeating ourselves like a parrot is still possible regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Facts and opinions stem from knowledge, that is acquired and stored data.
Not true, facts existed before knowledge and opinions have nothing to do with knowledge, I refer back to my singing example as proof of this.
The application of knowledge, as facts or opinions, are all processed and output from the same database.
Which is?
Variation in content is the only deviation within the process.
What do you mean by content?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what actually are the objective and subjective things that you refer to?
Facts and opinions
And more importantly, where do they come from and what would be the two separate processes that generate them?
Facts stems from truth and opinions stem from emotional appeal.
And what do you mean by deviation?
Difference
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what textbook you know would make the bold claim that objective and subjective things are subject to the same creative process? If that’s the case then what’s the deviation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Well whoever or whatever created it, proves that an objective reality is beyond what your human eye can see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly, tell me why you beg to differ.
Because the dictionary says different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Only OBJECTS can be (hypothetically) "independent" of a mind.
The sun rising in the east and setting in the west has nothing to do with our minds, just objective reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I concur maybe concept wasn’t the best word but outside of that my argument still holds.
Created: