Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do FACTS have words?
No because “it’s an abstract concept independent of the mind making it inherently objective.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In terms of production... Other than the appreciable narrative, both are subject to the same creative process.
I beg to differ, what adequate proof you have of this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?
I don’t know, again let me return a question back at you where is your science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...No we don’t agree to that, me asking a question in regards to your belief doesn’t mean I agree to it, are you going to answer or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t know, maybe I should turn that question back to you considering your making more claims then I am on the matter. Who is the genius human mind that’s responsible for science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...No that’s the point, it’s an abstract concept independent of the mind making it inherently objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CONCEPTS ARE NOT "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
...So what about science? If you wanna dispute mathematics then fine, but nature isn’t limited to human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...The definition does not say that, just because it includes objects doesn’t mean it’s limited to objects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can’t just nitpick and choose in regards to the definition, much more was said outside of what you put in bold, arguments I’ve been making for quite some time like reality independent of the mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
Can you support the claim that objective means objects?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In short, objective is subjective unless subject to a level of sensory certainty (perhaps)....Though an appreciable narrative does not in itself validate an internal data construct as a representation of an external reality.In fact, considering the nature of human function and process....I think that it is fair to say that we can never be 100% certain of anything.....Though our ability to be uncertain does offer us a high degree of confidence in our existence......I think therefore I am as it where.
What dictionary you’ve seen that defines objective as subjective? If you truly believe this then that’s definitely one of things you shouldn’t be certain about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Claim: FACTS are comprised of WORDS.
For arguments sake I’ll bite but those words there comprised of are objective.
OBJECTIVE = OBJECT
Can you support this claim, because I can think of a plethora of abstract objective things such as mathematics, science, and energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Claim: WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
Isn’t the word object a word?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do FACTS have words?
I don’t understand that question, so are you going to defend your claim or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please find a definition that is not COMPRISED OF WORDS.
That’s not the narrative, no one is disputing that definitions have words, however if your going to claim that facts aren’t facts before they’re stated then you’re going to have to support that claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FACT = A STATEMENT AND OR CLAIM AND OR DESCRIPTION (COMPRISED OF WORDS)
Please support this definition of fact because every source you cited said nothing of the sort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.You're basically saying, when I say "stone" and you think of a "stone", there is not a "literal stone" inside your head.Your concept of "stone" is not a "literal stone".
So in other words everything is not what it seems and if you truly believed this then you would realize that a reality exists independently from your mind, kinda like the definition of objectivity 🤔.
And no I’m not saying that at all you came out of left field with that narrative all on your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...Well the objectively correct words should be used.
What are you disputing here? Objectivity? Facts? Or both?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?
No, but I would care if we you reject it as an objective fact.
Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?
Because I believe things should be represented as they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone is misguided about something that isn't important to you, why would you care?For example, if some group of people incorrectly called "torches" "flashlights" or "handlamps", would you call them "misguided"?
I don’t care the only reason I brought up the shape of the earth is because it’s an example of an objective fact, also caring about objective facts has no bearing on its objectivity FYI.
You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).
What do you mean by “literal object”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't mention it.If you didn't care what shape the earth is, you wouldn't think "flat-earthers" are "misguided".
That’s not true, people being misguided is what I care about that’s why I mentioned it.
You're basically saying that "objective" is functionally indistinguishable from "incomprehensible".
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossibleto make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".
Like I said before “a description isn’t necessary.”
Why do you care what shape the earth is?
I don’t, I have no personal feelings or opinions in regards to that subject. Logic and emotion isn’t always necessarily intertwined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can a non-human "consider" and "represent" "facts"?
They can’t, I forgot to highlight the broader definition which is “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”
How can a human "consider" and "represent" "facts" without being "influenced by personal feelings or opinions"?
What personal feeling or opinion are you influenced by when you consider and represent the shape of the earth? Because I don’t believe their is one.
Why would you consider one "fact" and not some other "fact"?
The same reason you don’t believe everything you hear is fact.
Are you suggesting your attention itself (and sample-bias) is not "influenced by personal feelings or opinions"?
No, depending on the matter I too have personal feelings and opinions.
Why do you find certain things "interesting"?
“certain things” can mean anything what specifically are you referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You’ve asked me this before but I’ll reiterate “I don’t mind Google’s (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Objectivity has to do with facts, because all facts are objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No I’m saying talking about it has no bearing on objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But if a description isn't necessary, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU TALK ABOUT IT.
Talking about facts isn’t necessary either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FACTS are technically "accurate descriptions of REALITY".
No it’s just that reality, a description isn’t necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The claim that facts don’t exist without humans, that’s self refuting because your claiming that statement under the assumption that it’s true but what is truth? Truth is fact therefore your position proves itself wrong on its own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you support this claim?
The BOP is on you since your the one that’s adding external factors into the equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FACTUAL = VERIFIED
Yes but it doesn’t = VERIFIED BY HUMANS, which is what you are claiming and the definition you cited doesn’t imply that, not in the slightest.
It doesn't make any sense to try and talk about a FACTUAL CLAIM that is "independent" of human thought.
That’s not the case here, because I understand that whether or not something is claimed has no bearing on facts, they exist on their own, claiming otherwise calls for support that you’ve yet to provide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Only humans can make FACTUAL CLAIMS.
That doesn’t matter, you see? It’s my lack of emotion in that respect as to why my position is objective.
Only humans can verify FACTUAL CLAIMS.
Maybe but how do you know those claims weren’t factual before they were verified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
🤔 ...Not sure I asked that, but anyway let me put you on to speed. Last question I asked you was “what's so special about human involvement that dictates whether of not something is fact?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I can't define what I don't know which I've uttered before, by the looks of it your applying the principle of charity because you don't know what you're taking about either and since we both can't follow it I think the most logical move forward is to abandon the argument and present another one to make your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You pick whatever definition you personally prefer, and I'll demonstrate how it can be condensed down to its core components.
Excuse me? You're the one that's making a claim so the burden of proof is on you to provide support of the definition your using, and for the record you can't define something by telling me what it's not you define it by telling me what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe, maybe not, one way I get to the bottom of this is by asking what this "logically-coherent" statement means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well you didn't prove that point by asking me that question, especially when you take into account the answer I gave, I don't know is open to all possibilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know because I don't know what any of that means, but what's your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
LOGICAL-NECESSITY IS DETERMINED
It doesn't matter how it's determined, that's my point it's still a fact regardless of whether or not we can determine if it is, what's so special about human involvement that dictates whether of not something is fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.
Where'd you get this definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL.
How do you know this? Anybody can call a false claim tautological, what do you think fallacies are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What I do know is that FACTS can only be statements which are implicit claims.
How do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t but you don’t know that it wasn’t either, which was your initial claim that humans had to approve facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FACT is a concept.
It can be but it’s not limited to.
A FACTUAL STATEMENT must be phrased and presented as a STATEMENT.
Yes but facts aren’t limited as statements, simply stating something doesn’t make it fact.
Created: