Total posts: 420
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I answered both of those questions before, just pretend I used those answers again and I'll drop the definition part cause I don't really care how you define me. As long as we can talk details.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The "a" is not a negation. It means without, you're just changing the meaning to fit your definition.
Furthermore, I don't think it's productive to use your own personal categories.
You'll have to spend half of every discussion you have establishing definitions for no reason.
Establishing definitions is fine in general.
However, In the case of "isms" I believe it's more productive to just ask the person how they define their "ism" and go from there. Don't you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I agree, you would just replace it with favor court using all of the good rules that civil court might have.
They would understand you most likely if they had seen something like it before. It doesn't matter if you use your perception. Evidence is meant to be given to the perception. The perception itself is not part of the proof. it's a tool.
Not sure.
Well modern Platonists don't ALWAYS say they're real. But he might say that we can't know they're not real. He might think it's like a physical property. I"m not sure because he's ambiguous as to his specific beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My round 1 argument is the general answer I tend to give. If you want to get into semantics. I'm overjoyed to do so.
In this case of proving the identity of something, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In my humble opinion.
Would you agree that things that don't exist are absent?
Would you agree that things that don't exist can't have evidence?
Would you agree that absence of evidence is a good reason to be suspicious when everything known to exist has evidence?
Let's do roots.
The-ism
The = God , Ism = belief.
Claims a belief in a god.
A - the - ism
A = without, The = God , Ism = belief.
Claims the NOT have a god belief. Does not claim to have a NO God belief.
Anti-The-ism
Anti = Against/Reject/Deny , The = god , Ism = Belief.
Claims a NO God belief.
square is a rectangle, but rectangle is not square.
Thumb is finger, finger is not thumb
Antitheist is atheist, atheist is not antitheist.
sorry but you're wrong here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This would be the norm if we all agree to help each other if they help us. Guess we can have a court of favours. Where if they don't commit to favours then they will be punished in order to keep the balance of favours.
That's an interesting thought experiment and very similar to civil court. I would use civil court as your model for that. I'm not sure if it would be the ideal system, but it could have benefits.
Isn't it because of what A means? A because of what A means.
Well X means itself obviously. But what makes it self evident is when we assign something to X. So if I assign a Rock to X I have categorized it and that category is true. Then I can go into the pieces of the rock and name those X1, X2,etc. to have the pieces. Then I can lock at the interactions going on between the pieces within the rock and look for consistencies. I can then name those consistencies Xa, Xb, Etc. I can then turn those consistencies into hard math and derive a priori truths about them without having to use identity anymore and now I'm getting myself into science. I can then take the inconsistencies and lump them into a variable of stuff I don't know yet and call it "X?1" and "X?2" etc. Once I have done this, I get a composite of the rock and I have all of the truths within it with the exception of the "X?" category. But everything outside of that category would be true.
It would be nice if laws worked that way. But we have to share space with everybody's ideas unfortunately. It's like a necessary evil, figuratively speaking.
You should look into this guy name Alex Malpass on youtube. he did a discussion with Matt slick and Matt D and there's not a lot of stuff about him but he has some interesting ideas about philosophy. I think he's a Platonist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Most people would say "gnostic atheist" but it's the same as antitheist. Some antitheists are people who are against the institution of religion. But those people are using it as a misnomer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If we all say something like I would care for if I have something back isn't that egoism?
If you're saying you would do a good deed naturally expecting that you might get something back in the future and that was you sole motivation for doing it, then yes, then would be egoism. It's what most people do intuitively. It's true that the person might never reciprocate. But if they didn't, they could never get a favor from you in the future, so it feeds into itself. Person A wants a future favor and gives a favor. Person B realizes they get can favors from Person A, so they give a favor back to Person A knowing that Person A has a history of giving favors and that raises their confidence level in getting back a favor. After exchanging enough favors. Both people have confidence they will get something in return and have no problem giving favors because there has been a precedent established.
So basically when there is more than two options. You focus on one and when you are done with that prove or disprove the others individually?
If by focus, you mean isolate, then yes. It's exactly like algebra when you try to get X by itself in the equation to solve it. You put the thing you want to disprove by itself and then disprove the contrary. Or you can put the thing you want to prove by itself and disprove it and then make a new tautology with the remaining beliefs and keep doing that until you reach two options then it doesn't matter which side you disprove.
I am not saying what you do know you can make it go through your standards but do you agree you do not know everything about lighting to say this is the final time I will be applying lightning to my standards if that knowledge was available and you lived to see it as well so basically you are immortal only to know all about lightning?
So you're asking if I can know that I know everything about lightning. I could, it would depend. If I can account for everything about the lightning and I can prove that there is no more room in the lightning for anything else, then I could say I know everything about it. Now I couldn't say that I know everything about what happens to other things that touch lightning unless I also know everything about the thing touching the lightning. So if you count every interaction that lightning has as being part of lightning, then I could probably never know it, but that comes down to how we categorize it. I would say that I know everything about the identity of lightning, I could know everything about the composition of lightning, but that I can't know about every interaction because it would have to interact with things that I don't know fully.
Why do you call it self-evidence? Is that the only kind of reasonable foundation?
Well you're saying A because A. So that means it's justifying it self. So it's automatically self evidence. Circular reasoning could be a good foundation but the problem is that at least one prong on the circle would have to be an axiom so you still have to justify that axiom. If you're a coherentist, you would just say the circle works because it's consistent and I might accept that. I call it self evidence. but there's other ways to say it. You could call it identity truth or definitional truth. You could say it's true in our reality (I believe this is what Kant argued) and that our logic is for us so it's true for us and it doesn't matter if it's true in other worlds. There's a lot of ways to word it. Ultimately, you either end up with a circle or a believe justifying itself or an unjustified infinite regress. If you want to know more about this. Look up "Agrippa's Trilemma"
Sure, if you took your happiness as an axiom, then everything you would be justified ASSUMING that your axiom is sound. I would say starting from a base axiom like that is smarter than just taking any axiom that you choose. One philosophy people have is "properly basic beliefs" which is to say you take the absolute minimum amount of axioms that you have to and that makes it as true as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I initially became an atheist because my teacher was talking to a theist in class about something biblical and then said "you know that some people don't believe in god right" I had never even considered that was an option and I become an atheist within that five minute period.
As to why. I see no evidence for any gods and all of the evidence for no gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I didn't say Atheist. I said Antitheist which means camp 1. But being an antitheist automatically makes one an atheist at the same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Philosophically speaking. Egoism would likely lead to a pretty crappy world. Practically speaking. Nature kind of automatically makes us Egoists. It's just that sometimes doing the selfish thing can also lead to helping someone. Most seemingly selfless acts are done with the expectation that the recipient would reciprocate the same act back on them if they ever needed it. I would also say that humans have a disposition for empathy so it would be impossible to truly hold this position without having exceptions to itself.
That's actually a really good question. If there are more than two options, they get loaded into the tautology. I'll show you.
Lets' as A or Not A. Where A = God created the universe A would only have God created the universe in it. and Not A would be every single alternative to that. So if B = Big bang created the universe and you said A or B. This would not be a tautology because it is not true and doesn't include every possibility. In cases where you have more than two options, it can sometimes make it difficult to prove the claim through self evidence. However, most claims with more than two options can also be reduced to more simple self evident claims and this could sometimes allow you to eliminate the possibilities on an individual level to make the bigger possibility easier to discover.
I'll try to make sure my responses point to your questions better. But I already started this one, so next time I'll use quotes. But try not to make your quote trees bigger than they need to be. If you're addressing one subject, just quote a piece of it and handle the whole subject off that quote so I don't run out of room in my message.
I am saying without knowing everything about it you wouldn't know the most important thing to acknowledge with your system in mind.
The important thing is that I know it's lightning. I can know it hurts me. I can know it makes electricity. I don't have to know anything about atoms to know those things. You're doing what's called a whole of the part fallacy (not the part of the whole. that's a different fallacy) where you say that the whole is unknown without considering that we can still know the parts.
I would ask for evidence if I didn't see. If I did see it I don't require evidence
Then you just accepted an identity truth based on self evidence. score one for me. I'm cool with that even if you don't want to call it self evidence. I care more about you using a good standard more than what I care about you naming it a certain way.
The first thing I would do is have a discussion on what ought I value for my axioms then we can have a talk about other things.
The very act of deciding what makes it in axiom makes it not an axiom anymore because you're placing another belief under it. Now your newly placed value becomes the axiom and you have to justify that value. That's why self evidence is better, it doesn't push the axiom in to the infinite regress.
A unicorn is a pink horse with a horn on his/her head.
I don't know where you got the pink thing from, but anyway. Okay and those things don't exist do they? If you want to put a fake horn on it then whatever, but you're missing the point. What if we both agreed that a unicorn was an all powerful being that shoots fire out of it's but and controls time and space and we both agree to it. Does that make it true? It would be true by definition, but it's not a tautology unless the definition is attached to something, so if you have no fire butt spitting unicorn to compare it to, then it's just an abstract fantasy and it's true under your worldview which is problematic for you.
Okay then I will be making axioms based on what I value and that is not contradictory.
Sure, then the value becomes the axiom. Now tell me how you justify the value? infinite regress again.
I will use axioms that are also reasonable.
How can you know if it's reasonable without a standard? You're just taking things that you already have evidence for and calling them axioms, why not just use the evidence?
So it is a fact that a blind person has senses but it doesn't matter about the value statement?
A blind person does have senses. They just have broken eyeballs. For you to even believe that somebody could be blind you'd have to first go outside of you mind and accept eyeballs as existing. They don't see "incorrectly" because they don't see at all. You can't do something incorrectly if you're not doing it. Thing that makes a sense "correct" is that it is sensing things. If you want to set a standard on it, then to say your sense is "incorrect" is really to say it's "inferior" which means that you're still seeing things mostly correctly with maybe a few of the details blurred. But the correctness of our senses is ultimately decided by what they're meant to do. If you eyes sees things they way it was designed, then it's seeing correctly.
What if I actually don't have the knowledge?
If you don't have the knowledge than you don't. But you do. I know you've seen lightning before, so you have knowledge of it. You're posing a hypothetical scenario that doesn't match your reality, so of course you're not going to know something if you make an example where you don't know it.
So when you have a standard you would be able to know if something is wrong or right?
You could say it's right or wrong in respect to the standard yes. There is no intrinsic right or wrong. "right" means that it fits a given standard and "wrong" means it doesn't. This applies to all words that assess values in a binary way. It's like Boolean logic that computers use.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all. Semantics are important. I don't care what anyone says. The devil is in the details. Second, some people do use self evidence to justify axioms. I'm pretty sure most do actually, they just word it differently. I don't know what you mean by "why don't they just say" You mean say it's true because it's true? That's exactly what self evidence is except self evidence takes the extra step of adding impossibility of the contrary.
Sure, it's a value statement. Do you want your logic to be wrong? If you don't share that value with me, I have no problem with that. But you're going to have a problem being logical.
Assuming and presupposing are the same in this case. a presupposition is an assumption without evidence. to "assume" is to just act in the role of something. If I "assume" ownership of someone's car. I'm acting as if the car belongs to me. If I'm making that assumption without evidence. Then I'm presupposing that I own the car.
the person is presupposing Zeus. They have no reason to give you. that's the point. They're basically saying "Zeus because intuition"
If the consensus is wrong, then that just means that people were wrong. has nothing to do with me. As for knowing the extent. It doesn't matter. The part that I can see working works the way I'm seeing it. I might not know the "ultimate" cause of lightning. But I do know what the end result of lightning is. You're trying to tell me I can't know what lightning is unless I know it down to the last atom. That's just fallacious.
It's not the same thing as I said before. In the first example, the person posited "Zeus" and the other person can't see Zeus, so he needs evidence. In the second case, the person seen the lightning with him and can agree with the person that the lightning works. If you're going to ask for evidence that you saw something then you're being foolish. Even if the thing you saw was wrong, you still saw it.
Just because a person shares your presupposition doesn't make it true. That's an ad populum argument and it's not justified in this case. By your logic, if you believe in unicorns as an axiom and someone agrees with you, then you have confidence that unicorns exist. That's why axioms lead to bad beliefs. It doesn't matter how much you intuitively know it's right, it could still be wrong. That's why you need a standard. You can critique my self evidence all day but at least my beliefs don't open up room for things like unicorns.
Any statement can be an axiom. I could invent a philosophy right now called axiomism and say that you just believe everything axiomatically. and you would end up believing contradictory things. You could believe that the earth was both flat and round and square and made of jello and made of cheese all at the same time. What is really happening here is that you believe things for the same reason everybody else does and you're just claiming it as an axiom and justifying it to be true because it's practical. So right now your assuming the role of a pragmatist. Your saying "it's true because it works the way I want" Which will get you to mostly good beliefs, but you'll still end up believing ridiculous things in the end because sometimes what is practical is not always true. Theism is super practical sometimes, doesn't make it true.
I mean if your opponent agrees with your axiom, then you will be able to use it in the debate. But if the axiom is false, then it might cause you to fail at life somehow. Like if you believed you could fly and your debate opponent agreed with you. You might feel justified to go try flying and then get killed.
It's not true because it works for us. It's true and it happens to also work for us in some cases. Some truths are inconvenient for us. Like the truth that a floor is slippery isn't very practical for us because it could hurt us. So it would work better for us if it wasn't true, but it is so we deal with it.
No, you think you don't have the knowledge. You're just choosing to not believe it. If you can't trust your senses then you might as well just never try to know anything because you're stuck with them.
Yes, for something to be correct, you need a standard. So what? Correct is just a word that you're falsely applying here. Senses aren't "correct" or "incorrect" They just are. They do exactly what they are suppose to do, which is sense things. To ask if that is correct is not is just incoherent. If you're not going to set a standard by which to be correct then you can't use the word correct on something. So you can't just say "is it correct" and then turn around and say "we can't know the standard" You're contradicting yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So in that example you gave, you just used self evidence without realizing it.
My answer would be because we both speak it
I'll set this up just like the bachelor example. A= Engilsh B= your quote. "A because B" Now if you're okay with this, then we can use the same process to justify logic. So generally speaking, to be logical, is to think properly within a system. But obviously we want that system to be good right? Because otherwise what's the point of being logical? So I can use the bachelor example to get the laws of logic and all of the shortcuts that philophers discovered in logic to do logic faster because those all get proven by the initial laws of logic. Once you have the laws of logic and you're using them properly, you can then be justified to say you're logical. Or you could just invent a personally logic and say "I am logical (according to omar logic)"
Well if you really can't know if, then why not just say I don't know? Presupposing something you don't know is exactly how you end up at theism.
"How does lightning happen? I don't know, let's presuppose it was Zeus" Case and point.
But our senses are not lightning bolts. We can know we are conscious without knowing why. If you asked my why I'm conscious, I would tell you I don't know. I could tell you why my brain works. But I couldn't tell you what makes me experience everything. But not knowing why the proof works doesn't change the fact that it works.
"How does lightning happen? I don't know, but it does" Case and point.
Those two sentences are the difference between a presupposition and self evidence. The first one is prescriptive and tries to explain the cause. The second one is descriptive and states what already has presented itself.
Okay, so if you assume something, then you don't necessarily give a strong opinion about it. I'm okay with that. But if you assume your foundation then doesn't that mean you can't give a strong opinion about anything?
Okay, the person talks about the axioms and agrees with you. Does that make them true? I suppose this would get you through the debate, but what about life?
Well if we can perceive it than we can know what we perceive at least. So you're just saying "we can never know things that we can't know" which is technically true but doesn't actually tell us if can know something or not. My view on this is that if we can never know and it doesn't effect us that it doesn't matter anyway because what we do know is still true and it works for us and every claim we make about what we do know will still be true. So you can say that we might never know exactly what an atom looks like without using light, but you can't deny the fact that it's an atom and you can't deny that it works the way we see it.
I wouldn't truly know if what I am doing is correct
Okay, so you've said this a few times. What makes something correct? If I am hungry and I want to stop being hungry and I eat a cracker, how is that not correct? I fed myself didn't I? Does it matter what the cracker is made of? It feeds me right? I had no problem picking it up right? It's useful, our senses don't care about being "right" or "wrong" about things. They just are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Also. I'm not arguing in bad faith just because I don't take axioms. If I presupposed, then I'd be arguing in bad faith. I have a standard and I am yet to have my standard disproven by anyone so that's good faith arguing in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You bring up a good point about the difference in those two claims. "I have logic" is probably true and you would probably be justified to accept it axiomatically. While "God exist" Is a claim with lots of massive assumptions and it would be necessary to justify it. While it's true that it might be possible to justify a previously unjustified axiom, my question for you would, if it can be justified, then why leave it unjustified? The problem isn't believing it. The problem is that if you are allowed to presuppose axioms, then anybody can presuppose anything. So how can you make any arguments in a debate if you can't even justify your ability to use them. What if all of your arguments come from bad axioms? What if you think you're mostly logical, but you're actually illogical in some places and you can't tell because you didn't bother to justify your beliefs. The real difference in our world views is that I don't have to ask myself these questions. Could my beliefs be wrong? Maybe. But at least I have a standard. Beliefs without a standard are just mouth noise.
Okay, well if you accept that we perceive than you have to accept that we're perceiving something. If you brain is getting messages, then something is prompting those messages. Your brain is just a translator. Reality is Spanish and your brain is turning it into English so you can understand it. That's not the same as your reality being you. If you were reality, then you should be able to control external things because they're just part of your brain. But you can't.
Okay, well if you know things can exist inside your brain then you have tools to use. You should be able to use those tools to get you to external. Hell, if you wanted to you could build a full foundationalist tree off of the assumption that your reality is you and it's true in your reality. It seems vacuous to do that to me because at that point you're just assuming that people are you. so that means that I'm part of you and that you're arguing with yourself which is strange because why wouldn't you believe yourself?
Go ahead, I'd be interested to see how you interpret philosophy. Maybe you'll find a good argument against me.
Sure so you have pragmatist who think that we should just intuitively accept reality. There's Platonist who believe abstracts are real in some sense and they don't accept the law of excluded middle so they don't believe that you can prove things with impossibility to the contrary and they proof things by making composites of reality, which means they have to be able to 100% demonstrate the thing. You get solid proofs from platonism but the abstract thing leads to contradictions and their proving power is super limited. Then you have coherentism where they believe that you can use circular logic to justify things and they build their beliefs in a web. They believe that every believe has to be "coherent" which means that none of your beliefs is allowed to contradict another one. Than you have Infinitism which believes that the infinite regress is okay and we can still know what we know and the foundation is just a mystery. I'll make a list too.
pragmatism
foundationalism
coherentism
infinitism
platonism.
btw, the three main ones are, infinitism, foundationalism, and coherentism. All other philosophies end up back here because everything stems from Agrippa's trilemma. All of these thins I named also have different versions of themselves.
Also every philosopher is either an externalist or internalist which describes where they get their justification.
Then there's a priori and eposteri I think I spelled those right. The first is just in the brain. So all of your beleifs are a priori because you don't use the outside mind. The second one is anything that is not the mind. a priori NEVER applies to objects in the world. It's things like logical arguments and hypotheticals. etc.
Some people mix a lot of these ideas together and some are newer renditions of older ones. In summation. There's a lot of "isms" in philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well if you believe in axioms then our beliefs would already be pretty close to each other. My belief is basically foundationalism where a person justifies the axiom. I don't use the term axiom because it necessarily implies that the belief is not justified and I think it is justified.
The other issue this would cause for us is we might disagree about how much we can know.
I think we can know any specific belief to a metaphysical degree and some we can't.
How about you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't necessarily believe everything that Matt D. says. I think he takes the problem of solipsism too seriously.
He believes that the laws of logic can't be justified because you have to use the laws of logic. Under my worldview, logic justifying itself is just self evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, we're basically after the same thing. We want the right definition. An epistemological definition is just one that has no equivocation. So that's why no matter what definition you bring, they're going to define the words in the definition over and over until we figure out exactly what you're actually saying. This stops people from using word tricks.
Sure. "This is a rock" is a self evidence proof because I pointed at it and named it as such. so the name is necessarily true. The contrary is impossible because you named it that way. Now if I say "This is a rock and it weighs 40lbs" That is not self evident because we don't know just be looking at it that it weighs 40lbs. However, If we define 40lbs as what the scale tells us. then it's self evident. So by these two self evident standards, we can use them as our "foundation" to create a deductive argument that the contrary is impossible. So that's two cases were something was and then wasn't self evident and both got proved using impossibility to the contrary.
Yes and if the person is answering honestly, that doubt pushes them to their axiom or foundation. If your skepticism doesn't shake my foundation, then you fail and you're not justified to be skeptical anymore. Skepticism is defeat when I answer for my foundation and you don't have a question that defeats it. When I pushed you back, I was playing the role of the skeptic and I pushed you to a presupposition that you couldn't justify so my skepticism was justified because you couldn't justify your foundation.
There's more than one way to prove something. The bachelor example can be proven with self evidence, but it is also proved with logic. But the self evidence is the base proof. The logic is a proof that comes after you've already verified the logic with self evidence. So you're still ultimately going from self evidence to the proof but you 're just adding logic as an extra step and getting a similar tree that you would see in coherentism except I have a base.
Okay, you have to show me an example of something that is both obvious and the contrary is impossible that is also not true. Can you do that?
The whole point of something being consistent is that it doesn't change. If something is consistently wrong it's the same as being right that's the point. It doesn't matter if I know whether it's wrong or right because i'll still get the result I want. If something goes from consistently right to consistently wrong, then we would notice. If gravity went from working to not working, then we would notice right?
Okay, we need thoughts for practical reasons. What's your point?
A belief is an assumption if it does not have justification. So it depends on the belief.
You could assume that you're rational and you might be right, but if you're assuming, then you can't know your right. It's just semantics at that point. Matt Dillahunty would say that if you assume one thing, than you can assume anything. So a person who uses assumptions is likely to believe in stupid things like unicorns and pixies. So you could do that. But it doesn't help you with justifying your knowledge. That would just make you a pragmatist and depending on how you choose to assume things, you might be a good or bad one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well I guess you're entitled not to believe it. I'll find to find some material on it. You might find something on it if you read about axioms. A lot of people take axioms on self evidence so I'm sure wiki has something on it under either axioms of "epistemology" which is the field that we're talking about right now.
Yes. Self evidence is not needing to be explained. One thing you need to understand in epistemology is that philosophers don't care about what definition you bring to the table at all. They do something called "fleshing the word out" where they figure out exactly what it is that you're trying to talk about when you use the word. So take self evidence for example. What does it mean that something doesn't need to be proven? Lets flesh it out. Well it would mean that it would be so obvious that the act of proving it would be silly right? If something is obvious wouldn't it be silly to try to prove it? That's why I said that proving it would be redundant. As for the impossibility of the contrary. I kind of took a short cut here and that's my fault so I'll explain. The impossibility to the contrary is not specifically part of the self evidence definition. What happened was that historically, self evidence use to only require that it was ridiculously easy to prove, ergo obvious and not needing to be proved. However, philosophers eventually realized that things that do not exist could slide by this definition, so then it was decided that the impossibility of the contrary was a better standard. However, anything that meets the impossibility of the contrary standard tends to be self evident because more complicated things generally can't be proved this way. Does that make more sense?
See you're thinking backwards. You're saying that you simply did not budge. That doesn't matter. You were playing the role of the skeptic. You were suppose to make me budge. Now it's true that I could have just been being stubborn. But I can prove this is not the case. Every time you tried to push me down to my base, I arrived at self evidence, because that is the nexus of my believes. This is the point where you could have pushed me into the infinite regress if you could show the absurdity of self evidence. But instead, all you did was keep denying that self evidence was a thing while not providing any examples to show how absurd it is. If you could show an example of self evidence being absurd, then you would have knocked my position down. But if you can't break down my foundation, then you can't touch my science or my epistemology because with a foundation, those things are proven by centuries of philosophers and scientists.
Okay, you say "how can I prove the contrary doesn't exit" Well I never said that no senses doesn't exist. The contrary is "my senses are not reliable" when I did prove the impossibility of. Our senses are consistent (they produce the same results in each specific situation). That means there is only two possibilities. A) They are consistently wrong. Or B) They consistently right. I demonstrated that in either of the possibilities, the senses would still be reliable. It doesn't matter if it's A or B or even a combination of the both. An important thing here is to consider what it actually means for you senses to be wrong. This is where we flesh out some more stuff. For a sense to be wrong for it to not reflect reality accurately. Now you know what a negative of a photo is right? I know young people don't always know that one. The negative of a photo is when the photo is inverted in colors. That's what would happen if we seen reality consistently wrong. Reality would look all messed up, but since it's consistent, we could still navigate it. The thing to notice here is that if we can still navigate it. Then we can still know things.
Okay so when I say "The senses are the only tool I have" That's not necessarily a logic statement. It's a practical statement. However, that practical statement helps me figure out where I should be aiming my epistemology. I mean, we should assume that we seek knowledge to help us in the world right? What's more helpful than something that's also practical? How would you find knowledge without using your senses? You could use your thoughts, but what kind of thoughts would you even have without your senses? I imagine not very many.
Yeah, your assessment of foundationalism is correct. Every believe needs a belief under it a "foundation" and then you need an ultimate foundation "axiom" to hold that up that is not justified by another belief. So the key for a foundationalist is to find the justification for you axiom and it can't be a belief. that's why I use self evidence. Everything self evident is a tautologies, and a tautology isn't really a belief per se, it's like a definitional truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
I'm going to stop pushing so hard on your definitions even though I do sincerely believe that they're unnecessarily confusing.
I understand enough of what your saying to talk.
So what do you believe in terms of what we can know?
Do you think we can't know anything?
Or do you think we can know some things but not others?
Or can we know everything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
@TheRealNihilist
Sorry guys. I passed out hard last night. I think I juggled too many real life tasks while trying to forum chat, lol.
I'm rested up now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Honestly, even if you came back and argued with me as a foundationalist, I'd still be happy because then we'd have a truly epic conversation.
Even though I'm not really a foundationalist. I guess I basically am, but I don't take axioms so I'm like a black sheep foundationalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Also, that's not where I got the bachelor example. I don't know where I first heard it, but it's the go to argument to explain tautologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've seen that video. So I'll point out the differences in his philosophy and mine. He's okay with accepting things like the mind body problem. He's most likely a foundationalist which means he takes axioms which are presuppositions that seem to be true. This is not the same as a mere presupp because they appeal to things like self evidence and they really really like using the impossibility to the contrary, which our Platonist friend here doesn't believe because to believe impossibility to the contrary you have to believe the law of the excluded middle, which platonists don't.
We me and the guy in the video differ is that he's okay with axioms but I go a step further and say you don't need the axiom because it's self evident. This is basically extreme pragmatism or sometimes coherentism, which is a really specific mixture between pragmatism and foundationalism. that arranges proofs in a web instead of a pillar. My "skill tree" using the reference form earlier about skyrim, looks more like coherentism but a coherentist will demand that the web has no bases because they will ultimately connect everything with at least one justification and it will basically be the most complicated version of circular reasoning you ever seen. btw, circular reasoning is not always bad. Just pointing that out so there's not confusion.
The guy in the video takes the position that he can't know anything, but he act pragmatically, so he still acts as if reality is objective and that's where he differs from you and the reason for this as he said in the video is "Because our senses are the only tool we have" which makes it necessary and proves the possibility of the contrary, and self evidence, etc. etc.
You will find solipsists on youtube. I'm not going to pretend that's not the case. But if you take the position that something is false until it's proven like I do, then you wouldn't believe solipsism because there's no proof for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
I agree that they're collective, I don't agree that they're independent and I can prove it. If it's independent that means my opinion can't change it.
lets say we got 3 people who believe something and then 2 change their mind. That was just a case of their opinions changing it. Therefore, it's not independent.
I agree they're not mutually exclusive. That doesn't speak to what you're trying to prove. It's not mutually exclusive in any model that I know of. So this is just the same as all other models.
Okay and when you explain yourself and your opponent disagrees with your definition, then what happens? Do you give up and use the popular terms or do you waste time defining?
Well don't scald me too hard. You're the one that lumped them into a category. I'm justified to think you had a reason for doing this. So prey tell what do they have in common such that they fall into the same group? I'll let you answer so I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Sure. If you say 2 or more people equals objective, then any two people agreeing on something is objective right? So if me and you agree that unicorns exist that makes it so right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You're quite wrong. I don't presuppose anything. At all. Not one single thing.
the logic is proven and as such I tell you to use it because it's proven. My confidence in it might be subjective, but that doesn't matter because as I've demonstrated to you on multiple occasions, I don't have to accept it for it to work. that's what makes it so laughably easy to prove.
I know you don't. That's not my problem. I've already put in my work trying to explain it. The problem here is you not me. You're the one who is so incredulous that you can't even get past definitions to even have an argument. Stop being unnecessarily incredulous and you wont' have trouble understanding it. I can't FORCE you to learn anything.
I'm done answer you questions Omar. I've answered more than enough to prove that I gave you a chance and they're all right here to prove it. The fact is that I gave an entire day of questioning to prove my position wrong. The same position that you claimed you could knock down with ease.
Not only did you not rebut me. You didn't even come close. You literally had to change your topic question on three separate occasions because My answers disproved you so hard that you couldn't hang on to them. I sat and took literally dozens of questions per post and bounced them back at you without so much as getting me to concede one thing.
There was that hypothetical. You know that one with about 300 assumptions in it. Even then, you didn't prove anything with it because you had to stretch it so far to make it fit that you weren't even talking about our reality anymore.
Then, after all of that huffing and puffing, you got pushed into the infinite regress not 10 minutes after I finally started my questioning.
I've demonstrated everything I needed to. It's all there in black in white. If you want the answers, then pull your head out of your butt and try reading the arguments with a better attitude instead of purposely trying to not believe it because of your fallacious presuppositions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I fixed a typo on edit but you might not see it right away. I just took the word Not of in the first sentence before illogical. I accidentally made a double negative, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nope I don't do presuppositions because they're illogical. I can prove magic and god with presuppositions. Also platonism, lol.
That's why I use self evidence. Self evidence isn't a presupposition. Well it could be if you chose to presuppose a self evident thing. But there's no need for it. Self evidence makes way more sense than anything else because it's the only thing stops the infinite regress and give you justification. presuppositions are not far off from self evidence, they're just not proven is all. The structure is mostly the same.
relative is just another way to say subjective in this case. It's just a word trick. If you actually care about what's true and you're not just trying to be right, then you should reconsider just picking up any old definition just because it confuses your opponent.(not me, but some people). If you care about what's true like I do, then you abandon bad ideas when they are proven as such. Honestly, the philosophical beating that you got trying to disprove me and the worse one you're taking now trying to defend yourself should be strong indicators that your argument is weaker than mine. Even if you don't think it's true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Wow. I gave you too much credit. I figured since you came with proof about colors that you would at least know at bit about them. I guess that was my mistake. What you see as color is just a wave of light that you perception color codes for you like a map. I'm a little embarrassed for you for not knowing this. That's what I meant by different implications. I shouldn't be surprised though. Your name is mustardness after all.
btw, when the only thing you can say to a statement is "false" with no elaboration, that's called dodging and it's not something that a person does when they're argument is good. It's something they do to hide their weaknesses. So there's that.
right when you get into finite stuff in the way you used it, that's you going into platonic abstractions and say there's finite compositions etc. etc. I'm familiar with the routine. You probably also think the law of the excluded middle is false as well.
It's funny you made that chewing gum reference because that's how I feel about your argument. I can only deal with so many people saying "false" without defending their claims before I have to acknowledge that they're not logical.
You're basically a Platonist. So we have nothing to talk about. You're even more far gone than Omar is. At least he kind of has a grip on reality. You're basically just a theist who worships shapes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I would ask you why you think sound exist. But your name is mustardness. So I think that says it all. Am I wrong?
So I'm not going to argue with you about sound existing because if your name is any indicator, you will obviously disagree to no avail for either of us.
I count sound as an abstract and I don't believe that it exist. But we'll avoid this for a second.
A deaf person lacks hearing organs. there does not affect the truth value of sound. The thing that throws me off about your argument is that the truths in your argument are not consistent with themselves, therefore they're not truths. the sky is always blue because blue is the description of how it reflect light. What we see as blue is an abstraction and does not exist. It's nothing more than a caricature. What your describing to me would be better categorized as subjective reality. Which is reality as you view it. I don't see how this is anything other than a way to try to make subjective sound more reliable than it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I know you gave the color example, but colors themselves don't actually exist. So this makes conceptualizing a relative truth difficult because I would like to see it applied to something physical as opposed to an abstraction of the physical. I'm not saying that I can't use my senses, it's just color is one of those weird things that has different implications
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Could I get some elaboration on what makes something a relative truth? I'm a bit skeptical that such truths exist, but not enough to contend outright. I was thinking you could help sway me one way or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You already had your time for questions. So you said reality is subjective, Noted.
Okay so your proof is to take a picture and then presuppose it's true? Really Omar? Really? This big foundation for you logic is a flimsy presupposition? Pictures are not your senses. I find it dubious that you rely on a camera more than your eyeballs.
So you think reality is subjective because you can't see the whole cosmos at once? You realize this does not fit the definition of subjective right? subjective means your opinion. Your opinion has nothing to do with where you are in space. Your opinion is applied post hoc to your experience. When you say subjective reality, you're saying "your opinion about reality" That is not a thing, it's a feeling, a thought even, but nothing more.
Alright. Now back to the main point. You said reality is subjective (your opinion)
1) How do you prove that?
2) Is that proof subjective?
3) How do you prove the proof?
4) Is the proof of your proof subjective?
5) How do you prove the proof of your proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
All opinions are personal. That's just a word trick. If I have 3 people with the same opinion then those are 3 personal opinions. Just because you arbitrarily categorized them as being something bigger doesn't change what they are at the fundamental level. A particle doesn't stop being a particle just because it's inside an atom. The very fact that you have to argue simple definitions like this only goes to further prove my point that your confusing language is impractical.
Lemme ask you this. Would you rather spend your debate arguments defining things every two lines or debating?
What specifically about science makes it on the same level as religion? What are religions standards for testing the truth of something? Because science has a very strict process. Religions give you a rulebook and tell you to follow it. How is that reliable. Furthermore, you missed the point of my contention. Your standard can make anything true by opinion. Your standard could literally have people arguing over the color of the sky and by your standard, all of them would be right. Rape would be right and wrong at the same time. Gravity would be true and false at the same time. How do you not see a problem with this?
It's not a strawman. I'm using your standard. When you dismissed those ridiculous things just now, you didn't do it using your standard. You did it intuitively because you know they're not right. So this tells me that you don't even believe in your own claims. Your standard is 2 or more people make objective reality. So if two people agree that unicorns are real then they're real correct? This is what you told me. Don't cry straw man when YOU are the one who built the straw man.
If you want to stay simple, then how about using popular definitions instead of your own faulty system. I'm not saying this to attack you personally, but I don't tolerate bad logic. That's how cults get started. If your standard can't even handle unicorns, then we have a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
Relative to who is seeing it.
Lets try this again. It's a yes or no question. Is your reality subjective? (based how you see the world)
I am not experiencing the same thing as you.
False, you can't know what I'm experiencing. Try again.
It is relative so don't think it fits in either category. Can't believe I forgot about the world relative.
Everything is either subjective or objective. It's a yes or no question. I don't know what you mean by relative and it doesn't matter because we're only figuring out objective and subjective right now. Prove this part then we can move onto that.
It is not based on personal feelings. I am sure if I trust the person taking the picture and me taking the picture every single second of their life by just blinking. The film reel of our life would be different.
So that's a no and it's false. If your senses are subjective like you say and you're proving them with your senses, then your proof is also subjective.
I think I did before but in the real world I guess someone can take a picture every 24 hours and we would both be experiences different parts of this world. So pictures lots of them.
So you don't have proof for it then. Interesting. taking a picture in two different spots is proof of nothing. I don't even know what logic you're using to count this as proof. Haven't you ever heard of repeatable results or control groups? Get some science in your head please.
I have to assume yes but if we assume the same things it should be fine and agree photography is enough evidence to state we are experiencing different things.
So now we've revealed that all of your proof is subjective and your base proof is an assumption.
Pictures would be my proof of people experiencing different parts of this world.
So you're using the pictures to prove the pictures that proved the other pictures?
So this is a great example of why your position is flawed. You claimed earlier today that you could topple my position easily. You spent all day failing to do so and when I finally come at your foundation it crumbles like toothpicks. Are you ready to concede that maybe your thought process might have a flaw in it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Cool so we're in agreement on the concept of it at least. That's the important part.
1) Your definition was "2 or more people" That means I can get two people together and now I have objectivity. That doesn't follow because
A) Objectivity is suppose to be apart from opinion
B) Objectivity is suppose to be consistent in all time and all places and this system could produce contradictory truths. which is bad.
2) Once I can get two or more people together to prove a truth. I can prove anything, including pseudo science. So now every god exist, so does the tooth fairy, Santa, Unicorns, Realicorns, Supercorns (Made that one up but all I need is two people). Yeah. I would say that door is pretty wide open.
I wasn't using it as an argument against you. I was trying to help you with the definitions so you can communicate with people better in debates. I'm all for personal definitions and I use them often, but What I've learned in a debate is that if you want to actually get points across, you need to speak a language that people can understand or you'll get blown out of the water every time because nobody is going to follow what you say and that will make them not believe you. This is all my opinion so take it how you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You know what. I've answered quite enough questions. I think it's your turn to ante up and explain what you believe for a change.
1. Is reality subjective?
2. How do you know?
3. Is that reason subjective?
4. Does that mean your proof of subjectivity is subjective?
5. How do you prove that proof?
6. Is the proof for that proof subjective?
7. Does that mean your proof of your subjective proof of subjectivity is also subjective?
Time to prove your claims good sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Okay, just to make this easy on you. Focus less on the metaphysical not existing, and more on the they mean the same thing. What I'm basically saying here is they're the same world and when I say that metaphysical doesn't exist. I mean that there is no category for metaphysical. So the word exist. But it's identical to objective to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Send less quotes. I don't even have enough letters to answer your questions and I'm having to delete stuff. Half your questions are just different versions of the same questions, Just put them together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It does impact it. But impact doesn't automatically make it wrong.
Who said anything about self identifying? I said it proves itself, not identifies itself. Only a thinking agent can identify something. The identity doesn't matter in this case. the apple shows itself, which proves it's something. then I name it and assess it's objective qualities
Sure, I'm cool with that. We are perception and we definitely do rely on our senses.
Well if you mean rules like the literal rules of chess, then they're subjective but the application of the rules is objective.
If you mean rules like the laws of physics. Then those are just plain objective. Even metaphysical in some cases.
That would be heavily situational. It really depends on how smart the god is.
Well my existence is proven to me by self evidence and so is yours to you. Beyond that, you get to the rest by science or whatever logical method you prefer assuming it's sound. As for the part of it not being an assumption. I can prove it without assuming anything because existence presents itself around me even when I make no assumptions about anything. Even If I walked around my whole life disbelieving every single thing that I seen in the manner an absolute skeptic would, I would still be receiving constant proofs of the things around me.
Yes it includes us, therefore we exist. because it's true by definition.
Well if we're making it a direct mirror of reality, then Skill trees would be beliefs and the avatar would be us, so the avatar would know the skills trees are there just like beliefs are there.
Everything converges at perception because of the infinite regress. Each belief needs a justification, but that justification needs a justification and so goes the infinite regress. At this point there has to be a stopping point. Now in my example, there are multiple stopping points and that's cool with me because I believe in self evidence so no problem here. But someone like you who wants their proof to be perfectly linear will want to derive those base proofs because you still wouldn't think they're true because you don't believe in self evidence. So then they all keep pulling back and that inevitably funnels into your consciousness because that's what you're using to derive the logic. For me this is just further proof, but for you this is a problem. Because now you're stuck at your consciousness which could prove itself, but you won't let it, so now you're stuck with an axiom and a hard case of solipsism. I hope that explains it.
No we'd still be right about it in that scenario. The fact that the god has to hide from us means that it can never have enough effect to mess with reality on a grand scale. Even if it messed with reality, it would have to be in short bursts and only the victims would feel like they don't exist.
On the matrix thing. First. Lots of assumptions there but I'll still bite. Our perception would be reliable, but it was being interfered with by a 3rd party. Probably another living organism like us or I guess a robot and once we got out we'd be in the same boat we're in now.
If we get to an Omni god, Then you're talking about magic and that's where my logical generosity would end, lol. Just being honest.
You're assuming it would know, but you're not using science. To see you need light, to interact with light you need to exist. To exist you need to pop into reality. Therefore, it can't see until it enters existence.
They would understand whatever they could derive from the data. There's too many variables to know how much impact it would have. It could range from no proof at all to all the proof in the world.
I said we could detect a random force. I didn't say we could get anything useful out of it. The only thing we could know is that we don't know how it works and it happens and we MIGHT be able to possibly know where it won't be depending on what kind of random it is. That's about it.
That could be correct. If magic was real, so no.
For something to be metaphysical, it's percentage must be at or above physical. For something to be a metaphysical truth. It has to be 100%
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. I'll put it this way. Even if gravity stopped working right now, it has been so painfully consistent that it is still more likely that gravity does work and something is temporarily interfering with it. All I can say beyond this is when something produces a 100% accurate results since the beginning of known history and you reject it, then you're a fool.
Well I don't know what to tell you. You don't want to take the easy route to self evidence, so unless you're going to learn how propositional logic works, then there is no other path to this. All of the evidence is screaming in your face and you're ignoring it. There is no link, no proof, and no question, that can fix a broken belief. You either need learn to let go of your presuppositions or you can live your life thinking that you're in an illusion, your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Really it doesn't matter what words we use except for the sake of practicality. We're talking about the same things and just using different words and probably arriving at different conclusions from them. Are you the person who said that the perception is the self?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Well, I personally do conflate them because I don't believe in the metaphysical. But other people aren't and I'll explain why.
Your definition of objective is not correct in relation to the popular definition. If you want to use it that way, it's your choice, but you're going to be misunderstood.
Subjective is my account of reality, it is pretty close to objective, but I might forget or not notice details or add my feelings in and it will distort the story.
Objective means that we all experience it the same way apart from our opinions or distortions. Your definition is overly simplistic and opens the door for pseudo science.
Absolute / Metaphysical / intrinsic / Etc. Mean how it actually is apart from our experience.
So subjective is feelings.
Objective is experience
and Absolute is actual.
This is the way people use this terms. Since words are defined ad populum, that makes you the one who is wrong.
Like I said. I don't subscribe to this. To me, objective and metaphysical are one and the same. But I have unpopular views about things.
Created:
Posted in:
I was just wrapping up my comments for the night so I'll respond to this tomorrow if you're still interested by then, lol. Have a good night everyone!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Well I don't think a collective subjective would be objective in any way. A collective subject would just be a shared opinion that may be true or false. You could think of some religious views as collectives. I'm not going to single out any specific one for sake of respect because this is not a religious discussion.
there can be states of affairs where the subjective, the collective subjective, and the objective are all the same thing. For example.
Bob believes X. Bob's Church believes X. X is objectively true. X could be gravity in this case, or some similar thing.
Well words themselves are just sounds or groups of letters depending on the medium. So I think we're in agreement there.
I would definitely call language a collective subjective. It's not objective because it actually does depend on our opinions. If everybody agreed that. "Pizza" and "rock" need to switch places and society adopted it. It would be the case. Now the fact that we chose that word is an objective fact. But the usage is arbitrary and we chose it.
As for shorthand. It's subjective If I only use it for myself, because nobody on earth will be likely to have the same shorthand or no what it means. If My short hand is used for something industrial, it's likely that people use similar shorthand to me. Like if I'm flow writing for a debate. Most people who flow write in debates probably have similar shorthand, so that's a collective subjective because it depends on our opinions but in some cases our opinions over lap. Everybody always uses MPP for modus ponen for insteance.
If I did miss your point. I can assure it that it wasn't intentional. It seemed to me that you were either saying that some cases of objectivity come from multiple subjectives or your were saying that all objectivity comes from subjectives. Either way. I wouldn't agree. Objective, by definition, means that it's true apart from human opinion. So a collective subjective is not the same thing as objectivity in all cases. In the cases that it is the same. It's not because the subjective created the objective, it's actually more likely to be the other way around. The objective influenced the collective subjective.
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Also, a word could hypothetically belong to the subjective of the individual, but without a third party to share the word with, it would be impractical. I could actually think of one exception. I'm DnD nerd and when I used to make my character sheets. I would write in short hand which was essentially nonsense if you didn't know why I was using them. so shorthand would be an example of a completely subjective and valid form of language. shorthand could also be collectively subjective if I was in a group of DnD nerds and we all used the same shorthand for the sake of solidarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Sorry for the late response. I was going to say that I've considered what you implied and I've always called it a collective subjective. That not a formal phrase. I just use it because it's succinct. good comment!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently. The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features. You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.
I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me. For instance. You prove your existence by talking with me right now without having to make a single argument. You could be a program or something, but for the sake of argument lets just say you're a person and you're standing in front of me. So you being in front of me is evidence of your existence. You tell me that the bundle of atoms standing in front of me is named Omar and I agree to accept that identity that you have assigned your bundle of atoms. That is a self evident proof.
We are not our senses. We are our perception. Furthermore, that sentence that you wrote was not a paradox. It was a tautology and tautologies are necessarily true assume that they accurately describe the thing they define.
Well pose the question again and I'll answer, but if you answer the same way as last time, we'll just end up back at you explaining why it's problematic so maybe just skip to the end and you tell me?
Incorrect. If I was a character in the game, I would at least know some of the rules. I would know that some unknown force (The Gamer) somehow can only make me do limited things (The Buttons) and I cannot be moved through certain objects (Collision detection Rule) I would know that when I'm not being controlled, I can't move anymore, except when I get transferred to this weird infinite loop where I do an oddly specific set of things that is always the same in each respective case (cut scenes). I did this with your chess scenario before as well. I knight knows that when something moves it, it always ends up in an L shape, it knows that if it crashes into an enemy piece that the piece it touches goes of the board and same if the knight gets touched. The knight will know that for some reason I never knows a piece of the same color off the board. Etc. etc. So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false.
Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it. There's just people around who are too stubborn to accept the proof. Identity law is a proof. Non contradiction is a proof. Math is a proof. Even if you don't trust science, there's countless truths that one can ascertain without any science. Even solipsists don't actually believe their own claims. That should tell you something.
Yes Human is defined a certain way that doesn't imply existence. You're right about that. However, Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist.
If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word. I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity. If I did meet humans and they described what god meant and they were right, then I would know I was god. I don't know where you get this idea that truths have to be this giant tower of babel where each idea is stacked on another. That's not how it works. It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim. You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base. If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception. But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree.
You know... That's actually a pretty good question. I would divide that into two scenarios.
A) The force is random and has not mind. In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever.
B) If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first. So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time. If this being had a good spot picked out, it could mostly avoid this but would have to move spots if it ever got spotted. In this extremely wild scenario, I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc. But this requires piles and piles of assumptions.
A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect. We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it.
B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible. So score one for you I guess.
Okay, so we might never know absolutely everything about gravity. That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth. It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested. Not one time ever has it failed. That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise.
Your reality wouldn't be different. Just your experience of it.
I'm Just going to send you a link about tautologies, because you're not going to believe me if I don't show you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm going to answer these and then jump off for a bit. I had to put groceries away , lol.
What other realities? Can I get an example? Because I only experience one reality so that would be news to me.
Okay, so first your senses are already outside of you so you can see them externally. I think you're confusing your senses with your consciousness. They're two different things. Even if this were true, how does that stop something from being self evident? If you want evidence of an apple existing and the apple presents itself to you in reality, is that not the apple proving it's own existence to you?
Okay, we're using them to prove themselves. Why is that not logical? I know people say that all the time. But can you actually tell me why it's wrong? How do you test to see if a weed scale is correct? You test it right? You put it into action using a weight and calibrate it accordingly. Is that not the scale using itself to check itself?
No. I said it wasn't problematic and you asked me why. You automatically implied that it was problematic by posing it as a potential problem to my claim.
Yes, but if the brain is doing that it would have to being doing it consistently which means that we're still getting a congruent picture of reality. If that wasn't the case then we wouldn't perceive the way we do. Even if you doubt our reality, the viewing of it can still give us information even if it is false. It' just like If I'm playing a video game and I do something wrong and die, I now know that was wrong and I can use that information to find the truth in the game.
It doesn't go against what I said because I never said that we could know all things metaphysically. I'll elaborate. We can know some things. Out of those things. We can know some of them metaphysically and some of them physically. Not knowing one thing doesn't disprove what we do know.
Well, it doesn't matter if I call it absurd. that's just a guideline to help recognize something that might be self evident. Like if I say:
I am a bachelor because I'm an unmarried man. Assuming that I'm not lying, I would have just proved that I'm a bachelor, it was absurdly easy and the contrary is impossible so it's self evident.
I could say I am God because I made the universe and that was absurdly easy to prove if I'm not lying, but then we look at the contrary and find out that it's not impossible so It's not self evident. You following me here?
It could be the case that something is affecting us and we don't know it. However, since it is affecting us, it is possible to know it if we have the right means of observation. The reason for this is that if it is affecting reality, then when we try to account for everything, there will be a gap that can't be explained and that will tell us that something is there. This is exactly how antimatter and other similar things in physics were discovered.
Well an opinion is us. But it's not all of us. That's the difference. We may have an opinion of gravity and that is part of us. but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity. Your reality is no different than mine because you don't experience different rules of gravity. IF you do, then you should fly to the store for me on weekends, lol.
Okay. So A = A Just means A which is the "Bachelor = Unmarried man" Since they're both A, they function as the same thing.
Then we have A or Not A "Either Bachelor or Not Bachelor" This covers all possibilities in the universe for this proposition. Due to the law of non contradiction, since these are the same premise, Only one can be true at any given time and place. That means that if you disprove one, the other is automatically the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@MrMaestro
I'm jumping off for a bit. I'll be back on later if you guys want to keep this going. Good discussion so far.
Created: