Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
"I know because I know!"
    #21877567 - 06/30/15 11:06 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Often, when discussing matters of a religious or metaphysical nature, a debater runs out of ammunition and becomes like a petulant child.

If you are unable to explain how you came to your position and why you hold on to it, then it is most likely programming, wishful thinking and/or imagination, and not factual in the slightest.


Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?

Mystic: I know because I know! :snub:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21877692 - 06/30/15 11:39 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?




A: because Ill still be bere after you go to heaven

:wooawesome:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: [Re: Khancious]
    #21877715 - 06/30/15 11:43 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:fuckthisshit:

:feelingblue:

:whateverman:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesprinkles
otd president
Other User Gallery

Registered: 10/13/12
Posts: 21,527
Loc: washington state Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: [Re: Khancious]
    #21877732 - 06/30/15 11:48 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

LOL you guys are funny


--------------------
welcome to my world http://www.shroomery.org/forums/postlist.php/Board/326


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21877733 - 06/30/15 11:48 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:canthelpbutlaugh:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21877741 - 06/30/15 11:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said::snub:



That's Diploid's gremlin.


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion] * 2
    #21877815 - 06/30/15 12:08 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Often, when discussing matters of a religious or metaphysical nature, a debater runs out of ammunition and becomes like a petulant child.

If you are unable to explain how you came to your position and why you hold on to it, then it is most likely programming, wishful thinking and/or imagination, and not factual in the slightest.


Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?

Mystic: I don't, at least not in any way that can be proved on a factual basis. Nonetheless, i do believe it to be so, whether from programming, wishful thinking or imagination, i could not venture to guess. That being said, being unable to prove something does not necessarily make it any less true.  Here is an example: Prove that consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death.  Can't do it? Ok, now prove that consciousness does not exist outside of the body and continue after death. Can't do that either?
I'm sure you get the idea.





fixed it


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21877929 - 06/30/15 12:39 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.

BTW, anything I hold to be true, I can make a very strong case for.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSun King
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21877942 - 06/30/15 12:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
I can make a very strong case for.




Can you make a case for my gun?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Sun King]
    #21877955 - 06/30/15 12:45 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Walnut, maple or oak? By gun, you mean...?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSun King
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21877978 - 06/30/15 12:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Walnut, maple or oak? By gun, you mean...?




I need an oak case for my shotgun.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Sun King]
    #21878067 - 06/30/15 01:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Paypal me $800 and another $800 upon completion + $65 shipping.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21878120 - 06/30/15 01:24 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

How do you know he won't scam you

:inbred:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21878146 - 06/30/15 01:30 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

He knows because he knows.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21878165 - 06/30/15 01:34 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

God damnit I should've known that

:lookoverthere:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21878187 - 06/30/15 01:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:dubious:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21878212 - 06/30/15 01:43 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Are you looking at my gun?

:notamused:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Edited by Khancious (06/30/15 01:51 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21878372 - 06/30/15 02:28 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What is the "burden of argument" in making killer puns?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21878381 - 06/30/15 02:32 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Ask Rapunzel.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21879584 - 06/30/15 06:55 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Paypal me $800 and another $800 upon completion + $65 shipping.




It's almost like you know what SK will say before he even says it and then respond in an almost glaringly predictably bozoic fashion.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #21879625 - 06/30/15 07:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

60 years of polluted air and about 50 of drug abuse can do that to ya

:herpderp:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21879672 - 06/30/15 07:14 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Khancious said:
60 years of polluted air and about 50 of drug abuse can do that to ya

:herpderp:




OC was bozoic long before this.  It gets worse with time as the narcissism and delusions of grandeur calcify along with the boiler scale pineal gland compliments of fluoride, MSG, and massive doses of GMO.

"He loves those Nacho Cheese Doritos".


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #21879772 - 06/30/15 07:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

And diet pepsi, I heard he lost a pound in brain matter!

:happyclaps:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #21879777 - 06/30/15 07:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

They're organic! :cookiemonster:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21879876 - 06/30/15 07:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

So is hemlock

  :okiapprove:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21879890 - 06/30/15 07:54 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Hemlock this thread!

:lockdance:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21879968 - 06/30/15 08:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)



  :ranchydance:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21881508 - 07/01/15 03:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"Here is an example: Prove that consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death.  Can't do it? Ok, now prove that consciousness does not exist outside of the body and continue after death. Can't do that either?
I'm sure you get the idea."

Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matter

Consciousness without matter is rationally impossible.
A square circle is also rationally impossible.

That which is rationally impossible can be rationally denied as it is not rationally possible.

A square circle does not exist, consciousness without matter does not exist.
It's up to the person who claims the rationally impossible to produce the evidence in support of the claim, otherwise it can be easily denied as it is rationally impossible.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21881517 - 07/01/15 03:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matter
Quote:

sudly said:
"Here is an example: Prove that consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death.  Can't do it? Ok, now prove that consciousness does not exist outside of the body and continue after death. Can't do that either?
I'm sure you get the idea."

Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matter

Consciousness without matter is rationally impossible.





hmmmmm...so there is no matter in the universe outside of the body?  all matter conforms to what you consider rational?  rationalize quantuum entanglement for me please.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21881523 - 07/01/15 03:24 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"so there is no matter in the universe outside of the body?"
That's not what I said, I said something that is rationally impossible like a square circle or consciousness without matter can be denied until evidence proves otherwise.

Quantum entanglement currently isn't rational and won't be until evidence is produced to further the idea.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21881547 - 07/01/15 03:47 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

Quote:

The transcendence of pi implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.

It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. If a rational number is used as an approximation of pi, then squaring the circle becomes possible, depending on the values chosen. However, this is only an approximation and does not meet the constraints of the ancient rules for solving the problem. Several mathematicians have demonstrated workable procedures based on a variety of approximations.

Bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can be in Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space.

Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1914 gave a ruler-and-compass construction which was equivalent to taking the approximate value for pi to be

    \left(9^2 + \frac{19^2}{22}\right)^{1/4} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{2143}{22}} = 3.1415926525826461252\dots

giving a remarkable eight decimal places of pi.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

Quote:

A squircle is a mathematical shape with properties between those of a square and those of a circle. It is a special case of superellipse. The word "squircle" is a portmanteau of the words "square" and "circle".

Equation

In a Cartesian coordinate system, the squircle centered on the point (a, b) with axes parallel to the coordinate axes is described by the equation:

    \left( x - a \right)^4 + \left( y - b \right)^4 = r^4

where r is the minor radius of the squircle (cf. equation of a circle).

The case that is centered on the origin (that is, with a = b = 0) is called Lamé's special quartic.
Generalisation

The squircle is a specific case (found by setting n = 4) of the class of shapes known as "supercircles", which have the equation

    \left| x - a \right|^n + \left| y - b \right|^n = |r|^n.\,

Unfortunately, the taxonomy is not consistent - some authors refer to the class as "supercircles" and the specific case as a squircle, while others adopt the opposite naming convention. Supercircles in turn are a subset of the even more general "superellipses", which have the equation

    \left|\frac{x - a}{r_a}\right|^n\! + \left|\frac{y - b}{r_b}\right|^n\! = 1,\,

where ra and rb are the semi-major and semi-minor axes. Superellipses were extensively studied and popularized by the Danish mathematician Piet Hein.




--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21881577 - 07/01/15 04:07 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It's mathematically possible if you bend the rules, remove the parallel postulate and do the function of the circle in Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space.

So unless you do the equation within a new set of dimensions, a square circle is still impossible. 

This then turns the question as to whether or not there is another 'dimension' were things such as square circles and consciousness without matter can exist.

As far as we know, a square circle and consciousness without matter are both rationally impossible within our dimension. Until there is evidence or reason to believe otherwise, they can both be denied.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21881582 - 07/01/15 04:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

you are still making the assumption that consciousness outside the body requires consciousness without matter.  i don't see why one follows the other necessarily...


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21881600 - 07/01/15 04:27 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Can you define what consciousness outside of the body is then?
If it isn't without matter, what is it?

The only thing left for consciousness to be is energy which would mean you are assuming energy is conscious.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21881656 - 07/01/15 05:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Can you define what consciousness outside of the body is then?
If it isn't without matter, what is it?

The only thing left for consciousness to be is energy which would mean you are assuming energy is conscious.




not really, but since i already mentioned quantuum entanglement, i'll try to construct something with that.
here goes,
what if all of a person's higher brain functions are actually the result of the particles in the brain being entangled with particles elsewhere in the universe.  As long as the brain is alive and able to function, this entanglement allows for what we call consciousness. However, once brain life has ended, though the particles involved may still be entangled, they aren't arranged in a living brain, so nobody can tell.  Meanwhile the particles elswhere in the universe(the hypothetically entangled ones)just go on doin their thing regardless of the state of the body whose particles they were entangled with a bajillion lightyears away.

thats just off the cuff or whatever. the point is to have some imagination man!


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21881696 - 07/01/15 05:35 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

As far any biologist can tell you, consciousness is a result of chemical neurotransmitters traveling through neural synapses to receptors in brain cells that create electric signals that are then processed into thought.

That's quite the assumption to say the brain is in a state of quantum entanglement with another part of the universe. That idea makes neurotransmitters rather redundant seeing as they are what allows for brain function, and so much for free will if consciousness is being controlled from across the universe.

It's fine to have and use your imagination but that doesn't give credibility to an idea.

E.g. The moon is kind of yellowish, using my imagination I could assume it's made of cheese.
I like to limit what I believe based on the evidence I see because sadly imagination isn't evidence.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21882431 - 07/01/15 11:01 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

its a good thing everyone doesn't think like you do, or humans would never have done something so rationally impossible as fly to the moon and find out its not made of stinky cheese. 

anyway, my imaginary example doesn't render neurotransmitters redundant, it simply allows for the production and use of said neurotransmitters to be influenced at a distance, which also does nothing to preclude free will, it simply allows for will to be housed externally from the body.  in any event, i don't actually believe that consciousness is a result of quantuum entanglement, i am just willing to admit that it isn't impossible.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21884553 - 07/01/15 07:20 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.

I'll try to explain it,
It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.

The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.

Flying to the moon is rationally possible.

I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21884979 - 07/01/15 08:45 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The chance of me getting laid tonight is rationally possible or rationally impossible?

:creepylurker:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21884998 - 07/01/15 08:49 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It's rationally possible that you get laid tonight, it's not impossible. :thumbup:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21885024 - 07/01/15 08:55 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)



Cool! Where is the damned sugar?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21885086 - 07/01/15 09:08 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

In your cupboard I presume.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21885425 - 07/01/15 10:23 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.

I'll try to explain it,
It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.

The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.

Flying to the moon is rationally possible.

I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.




No one's necessarily denying that there may be relatively straight forward inductions you are able make. You'll be okay thinking for yourself.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21885515 - 07/01/15 10:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I once had an original thought, but I am all bedder now.



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21886475 - 07/02/15 05:59 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Headphones and a neck message can cure erectile dysfunction

:iamderp:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21886493 - 07/02/15 06:09 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I use this arguement when it comes to DMT...and religion, but its because ive experianced things which provided me with empirical evidence and proof of these things, now, I may not be able to communicate these these to other people, or if I can I'm aware that my simple claims are not sufficient evidence, so what do you say to people?

"I know because my experiance wont allow me to deny it"

Actually, I would say "I'm pretty sure because my experiance wont allow me to deny it" ...because I also know that as a human I really don't know anything for sure, so I'm comfortable with saying "I'm pretty sure this is whats happening, but I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong"

Is this not reasonable?

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21886570 - 07/02/15 06:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The problem is: people often commingle their experience with their conclusion.

Real world example: "I saw a Bigfoot and no one can tell me otherwise." (It was a bear.)

The experience would better be described as "I saw a large furry animal, but because of my preconceived belief in Bigfeets, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be a Squatch."

Same for NDEs, ghost, UFOs, telepathy, miracles and other assorted things of that nature.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21886810 - 07/02/15 08:34 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
The problem is: people often commingle their experience with their conclusion.

Real world example: "I saw a Bigfoot and no one can tell me otherwise." (It was a bear.)

The experience would better be described as "I saw a large furry animal, but because of my preconceived belief in Bigfeets, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be a Squatch."

Same for NDEs, ghost, UFOs, telepathy, miracles and other assorted things of that nature.




I respectufully disargree with the statements about telepathy, NDE, UFOs, etc...

DMT was the convincing agent, I experianced death, my conscious being left my physical body, the only difference between death and a DMT break-through is that you come back from a DMT trip....and with DMT we have repeatable experiance, we cant induce UFO sightings or near death experiance, there's no repeatability of experiance,this is why these things hold such a peripheral place in the human experiance, but it doesn't make them any less real.

Ive experianced things science cant explain, that science cant even touch, though these things ate very real, the impulse to deny personal experiance in favor of what outside influeances say "can and cant happen" is what fuels this debate, people feel that because its never happened to them that it cant happen to anyone....

Here's telepathy in daily life, have you ever looked at a person who didn't know you were watching them? And had the person instantly turn around toward you? His did they know they were being watched? Rupert sheldrake describes experiments in which an isolated individuals would have to guess "am I being watched or not" their backs were facing a window, sometimes a person would look at the individual other times not, more often than not the individuals KNEW when they were being watched....is this not telepathy in its most basic form? This is an everyday occorance, science says telepathy doesn't exist, yet I experiance it on a daily basis....

Science is great for describing the laws of 3 dimentional time and space and the world we live in, however there are very real things on other plains, science itself through quantum physics admits the universe is multidimentional....

It may not be wise to take reality at face value, most things are not whet they appear, most things are counter-intuitive....

Ive been bringing up Samuel Johnson's refutation of bishop Berkeley quite a lot recently, but it applies...
Refutation of Bishop Berkeley After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

I see scientists as Johnson, stubbing their toes on rocks to confirm the  reality of the existance that surrounds them, its actually a very sophmoric and childish way to pfecieve the universe...

(For even science will tell you: all atoms consist of a nucleus with electrons in orbit, te nucleus of any two atoms never touch (except in a neutron star) so all matter is more empty space and electronic matter than anything physical, the nucleus is even speculated to be a vibrating energy string...nothing physical....

The rules are not set either, read a science book that's 10 years out of date, its inaccurate, and in 10 years from now science will believe something different, so everything you believe to be right will eventually be proven wrong by the very force you put faith in to describe the laws of your existance, science.



I'm an objective observer, I think science has lost its objectivity....

E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum] * 1
    #21886906 - 07/02/15 08:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Here we go again.

Quote:

my conscious being left my physical body




That is your perception. Nothing left your body because you are your body. Not one person in recorded history has ever shown evidence of such travel - not in NDEs, astral projection, nor drug-induced altered states.

Quote:

Here's telepathy in daily life, have you ever looked at a person who didn't know you were watching them? And had the person instantly turn around toward you? His did they know they were being watched?




*double sigh*

This common misperception has been repeatedly tested and repeatedly failed. Do this under controlled conditions and win a million dollars from JREF.

Quote:

I think science has lost its objectivity....




Puh-lease. Science is a methodology and as such cannot gain or lose anything.

Back to the drawing board with ye! :whip:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21886975 - 07/02/15 09:14 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

But how can I paint telepathy?



--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
    #21887708 - 07/02/15 12:22 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Ebin Alexander was an interesting non-DMT case.

All I'm trying to say is there are VERY real aspects of existance Which science is unable or unwilling to look into.

....and to think that all that is real is what is immediately precieved by our base senses or explainable by our currant state of science is a mistake, the situations is obviously far more complex.

-E. Borodin






to, or cant look


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21887741 - 07/02/15 12:29 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21887765 - 07/02/15 12:40 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.

I'll try to explain it,
It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.

The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.

Flying to the moon is rationally possible.

I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.




No one's necessarily denying that there may be relatively straight forward inductions you are able make. You'll be okay thinking for yourself.




again: square circles are not rationally impossible, they are an actual thing. there are equations to describe them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle
Quote:


A squircle is a mathematical shape with properties between those of a square and those of a circle. It is a special case of superellipse. The word "squircle" is a portmanteau of the words "square" and "circle".




also, the moon could not be made of stinky cheese.  it is not rationally possible because it has been confirmed already as being made out of rocks.  of course, rocks and stinky cheese are made out of the same shit at a sub-atomic level, so in a way, it could be argued that the moon is in fact made of stinky cheese(or at least the same component parts).
In any event, i will say to you once more sir, that you are not the ultimate arbiter of rationality.  Your knowledge of the workings of the universe is not conclusive.  You know what you know,  but you don't know what you don't know.  Any attempt to claim more than that is intellectually dishonest.
that is all


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21887904 - 07/02/15 01:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

....by the way, Rupert sheldrake did conduct several different types of controlled  studies (he also references several controlled studies conducted by others), most of which seemed to confirm his theorys, some did fail, but it was more do to logistical issues than the reasoning behind it. Im not saying I believe these things, but just like anything else I consider them as a possibility....

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21888006 - 07/02/15 01:46 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bill Withers said:I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
    #21888047 - 07/02/15 01:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Orgoneconclusion said controlled studies proved the opposite. Which is not entirley the case.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21888153 - 07/02/15 02:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

He's the Scully to your Mulder, but without the titillating sexual tension.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
    #21888274 - 07/02/15 02:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Its hard for me to see how psilocin users can think this way, which further leads me to believe that DMT is the true convincer. The problem with psilocin is the users never take it in shamanic doses, ive taken 6 gram trips where ive reached States very similar to a DMT peak, so I know psilocin has potential, however most never take advantage of its full range of effects....

Smoked DMT in the 150-200mg dose range should convince any skeptic. (Though some people are too dense to grasp the implications of the experiance)

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21888280 - 07/02/15 02:55 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I get into these debates in real life and it always ends with me providing the individual with a high dose DMT experiance....ill put it this way its never the same debate after.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21888389 - 07/02/15 03:14 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Smoked DMT in the 150-200mg dose range should convince any skeptic. (Though some people are too dense to grasp the implications of the experiance)



You're a prime example of what OC was pointing out in the OP.


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKhancious
da Crow
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: liquidlounge]
    #21888784 - 07/02/15 04:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
You're a prime example of what OC was pointing out in the OP.




:youshouldtapthat:


--------------------
I am that, which is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21889286 - 07/02/15 06:08 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.

-E. Borodin




Science changes as new evidence is discovered.. that is a fundamental part of science. If someone produces evidence contradicting a theory, it is studied and discussed, if it fails to meet scrutiny or is disproven, it is not used.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21889356 - 07/02/15 06:22 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It is technically 'possible' that a moon could be made of cheese, it's astronomically unlikely but it is not impossible and that's my point. Our moon is not made of cheese and we know that because we have evidence of it's material.

"Square circles are rationally impossible unless you do the equation within a new set of dimensions, a square circle is still impossible."

They are plausible in a theoretical dimension but in this universe, they are still impossible.

Square circles and consciousness without matter alike are impossible within our dimensions. Until someone or something comes along that gives evidence for the existence of new unseen dimensions, these things can be denied.

No, it could not be argued that rocks and cheese are the same. Sure you can they they have the same source components being subatomic particles but that by no means indicated they are the same on any level above the subatomic.

I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know, because of that I will make claims on what I do know until evidence is produced for the things I do not know that disprove my claims.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21889433 - 07/02/15 06:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

another "rational impossibility" that turned out to be more rational than people thought:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Quote:

Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities.




--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #21889558 - 07/02/15 07:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sudly - What is rational or not though is based upon something that is not concrete and factual. It is based upon your culture and environment. Flying to the moon was rationally impossible to cave man. But now is rationally possible. To some cultures right now it is rationally possible to have out of body experiences and interact with other/Multics dimensional beings and so on based on knowledge and the open mindedness to accept the idea that at some point science may catch up to prove these cultural/religious beliefs.  Rationality is a very subjective thing. A poor measure of shared reality timeliness of peoples lives. It is useful for allowing a belief to qualify itself in your brain to help explain possibilities and unknowns.

The belief that your private reality is the same as the shared reality which is therefore the same as someone else's private reality, is a little naive. Open your imagination and open your mind up brow.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21889755 - 07/02/15 07:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It was rationally impossible until evidence was produced indicating otherwise.
My entire point is that I don't believe the rationally impossible unless evidence is produced to claim it's existence. In this case there was.

In the case for square circles and consciousnesses existing without matter within our dimensions, there is as of yet no evidence.

If there is any evidence beyond personal experience, please produce it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21889773 - 07/02/15 08:00 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Science may catch up with spiritualism and outer body 'experiences' once evidence is produced to solidify the claims.

I don't choose what reality is, I simply follow the evidence.
I have imagination and I use it often, the difference is that I don't take what I imagine as evidence for what reality is.

I would say to close your mind a bit and stop imagining things that aren't real.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion] * 1
    #21890123 - 07/02/15 09:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Often, when discussing matters of a religious or metaphysical nature, a debater runs out of ammunition and becomes like a petulant child.

If you are unable to explain how you came to your position and why you hold on to it, then it is most likely programming, wishful thinking and/or imagination, and not factual in the slightest.


Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?

Mystic: I know because I know! :snub:





Okay here's a general response. I don't know of any "knowledge of knowledge". It seems to me there is no certainty in any domain of consideration. Yet there is something philosophers call "the understanding of knowledge", or epistemology (Literally, episteme; logos) that may be worth talking about.

Orgone Conclusion; it doesn't seem to me like what "often" strikes you is very well instilling the economy of distinctions that you are (at least ostensibly) appealing to as a closely considered subject of epistemology, anymore than what you represent. 

Is this what the "mystic" says?

I was reading your last thread, something like "abortion causes weather patterns" (or whatever), and was wondering.... I am sure you have been asked for:

Why do you only propose some obviously bunk subjects to consider? Whether it is obvious to  yourself, to me, or to everyone; what is this simulacrum of propositions you are appealing to? (Why do you want everyone to think alike?)

A question that you might consider more direct; how does a manner of theoretically challenging propositions as sentences and arguments, relate to anything ostensibly describable as "empirical", such as what is found in "experiment", "trial and error" or sensory experience; in other words what at all points you are in an gesturing to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not a purely simulated effort?

It seems to me you are generally mistaking the theoretical practice of enframing and analyzing propositions (which might be essential to empiricists in a certain implied context) for consisting in actual empirical practices. I think you are just assuming the conventional overgeneralized notion of an analyticity of propositions, in a manner which is actually a gross misrepresentation of what you appeal to.

What would actually be making a proposition?

I don't know, but maybe it would be worthwhile to propose a genuine subject matter for discussion. You could perhaps imagine something which is a burden to your own insight, something hypothetical, or what you think that is actually supposed to be like, if you could emulate this somewhat crucial facet of empirical research in discussion as well as you emulate simulated gestures.

Generally, I am not saying that any "genuinely" conceived subject of knowledge would be anything other than something that represents the naturalistic assumptions of someone actually making a proposition, but that could stand for a lot more than simulation. In such provisions, "genuinely" posed subject matters are undermined and falsified all the time, and that is what historically results in our standing of empirical models of knowledge.

I don't know, maybe open a book, or look outside or something. Generally I'd propose that the modern epistemologist must him or herself be genuine, or intellectually sincere, and begin with some self confident, if fallible suggestion of a subject of knowledge. Empiricism would have to be found in these provisions, to be considered useful in any conventional sense.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21890788 - 07/02/15 11:48 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Were you here when OC was away for a while? :scream:

I like celebrating and laughing at the absurdity.  Comic philosophical relief from a like-minded poster while I wait for a thread to show up worth responding to.   

Besides, I haven't seen any of your great threads. 

Ask not what your P,S&P forum can do for you, but what you can do for your P,S&P forum.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21890925 - 07/03/15 12:29 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
It was rationally impossible until evidence was produced indicating otherwise.
My entire point is that I don't believe the rationally impossible unless evidence is produced to claim it's existence. In this case there was.

In the case for square circles and consciousnesses existing without matter within our dimensions, there is as of yet no evidence.

If there is any evidence beyond personal experience, please produce it.




I'd say it's clear that our knowledge of the moon as a planetary body didn't come out of nothing, and it didn't come in any ideal way out of rational inference or propositional logic either.

You can pretend to tell a story of science as if it was all found a posteriori, in branching propositions, one to the next. This unity has been sought, more than found.

Modern epistemologists from Kant to the analytic philosophers have discussed an ideal "propositional reflection" (sort of like how you talk about a branching guidance of rational possibilities) that would be seen as riding this cusp of progressive knowledge, and yet the various suggestions which have been made have not achieved basic lucidity.

Like Orgone conclusion, you are in the rational or logical realm of empiricism, that vests in a generalized analysis of propositions, that is not fundamentally founded. You have described a certain kind of proposition, somewhat clearly. I wouldn't deny that what you call a "rational possibility" is useful to scientific research. Basically it describes an induction. Still this is by no means comprehensive in describing either what goes on in the world, or even a methodological approach to understanding of it.

Broader analyses than the various ones which regard in one way or another the implied value of propositions (Rationality or probability, etc) have indicated that methodological progress itself, and what it suggests of the world or cosmology, moves in a way which is much more irrational or plainly erratic than we can ascertain.

For instance in "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn describes that in a history of science, scientific progress is sometimes found in "non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one."

The phenomenologist Heidegger writes in a similar manner:
Quote:

"Scientific research demarcates and first establishes areas of knowledge in a rough fashion...The resulting "fundamental concepts" comprise the guidelines for the first concrete disclosure of the area. Whether or not the importance of the research always lies in such establishment of concepts, its true progress comes about not so much in collecting results and storing them in "textbooks" as in being forced to ask questions about the basic constitution of each area, these questions being chiefly a reaction to increasing knowledge in each area.

The real "movement" of the sciences takes place in the revision of these basic concepts, a revision which is more or less radical and lucid with regard to itself. A science's level of development is determined by the extent to which it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts. In these immanent crises of the sciences the relation of positive questioning to the matter in question becomes unstable."




Edited by Kurt (07/03/15 01:30 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
    #21891110 - 07/03/15 01:36 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Hippocampus said:
Were you here when OC was away for a while? :scream:

I like celebrating and laughing at the absurdity.  Comic philosophical relief from a like-minded poster while I wait for a thread to show up worth responding to.   

Besides, I haven't seen any of your great threads. 

Ask not what your P,S&P forum can do for you, but what you can do for your P,S&P forum.




It was nothing personal... Sheesh.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21891116 - 07/03/15 01:41 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"I'd say it's clear that our knowledge of the moon as a planetary body didn't come out of nothing, and it didn't come in any ideal way out of rational inference or propositional logic either."

It came through science, what's your point?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21891124 - 07/03/15 01:45 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I couldn't understand what you were talking about, so I just went for the bold bits.  :ruggedwink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21891355 - 07/03/15 04:57 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.

-E. Borodin




Science changes as new evidence is discovered.. that is a fundamental part of science. If someone produces evidence contradicting a theory, it is studied and discussed, if it fails to meet scrutiny or is disproven, it is not used.




This is what you would think, and this is the way science should be, but in reality this is not the case. Try to publish anything that disagrees with the accepted theorys, no matter howcmuch evidence you have, they will try to discredit and silence you using every dirty underhanded tactic they can. Try to Publish something that disagrees with the big bang, or the dinosaur extinction, or the age of human civilization, and see how objectively science treats your findings, if you disagree with the sacred accepted theory your a blasphemer who will be dealt with....

Trust me theory is defended as sacred fact in the scientific community, people have built their lives and careers based upon these theorys, so they are not going to let the truth destroy that....

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21891366 - 07/03/15 05:14 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

...because everything that is outside of currant science is immaginary! Yes that makes perfect sense! Everything is exactly what it appears to be and nothing exists outside of my perceptions of human existance! My experiances were just misperceptions! My consciousness never left my body! (Though litterally it did, the eyes go blank, the body goes limp, no response to outside stimuli, the consciousness was not in the body) all of human history that people have been talking about spirituality and conscoiusness they were all just ignorant troglodytes who couldn't tell the difference between reality and obvious misperceptions! Science answers every question! Thank you for closing my mind and showing me the truth!

...seriously though, do you really think I would consider these possibilities without empirical evidence?

And to not even acknowledge that these things are possible is not scientific.

Obviously if something is outside of physical matter existing in 3 dimentional time and space science cant describe it, it doesn't mean that its not real.




-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891403 - 07/03/15 05:57 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Evidence produced must hold up to scrutiny if it is to be accepted otherwise it is not classified as 'evidence'. If it's as stupid a claim as creationism and only comes from the bible, it will not be considered evidence.

Science is not easy, it is not simple. Boo bloody hoo if it doesn't accept stupid ideas, maybe that's because they are stupid ideas.

By all means scientist are open to be proven wrong, if evidence holds up to scrutiny then maybe an idea is changed, if it isn't it is ignored.
If one fossil from the wrong geological era was discovered, evolution could be disproven, to date that has not yet happened because no one has found evidence to the contrary.

Science is open to be disproven by evidence but won't be if no evidence is produced. I'm sorry to inform you but personal experience isn't accepted as proof in science.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891417 - 07/03/15 06:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Wtf no?!
We simply have no reason to believe in that that does not have evidence behind it, unicorns are a nice idea but we don't believe in them because there is no evidence for their existence!

Ever thought that maybe you just went unconscious because you were on drugs?

"all of human history that people have been talking about spirituality and consciousness they were all just ignorant troglodytes who couldn't tell the difference between reality and obvious misperceptions!" - damn straight, you got one thing right.

Science has answered every mystical, magical, spiritual claim so far.
What empirical evidence do you need to show you that our consciences do not leave our body??

"Obviously if something is outside of physical matter existing in 3 dimentional time and space science cant describe it, it doesn't mean that its not real." since when does something not being possible means it exists? Whatever you're smoking please share it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21891448 - 07/03/15 06:25 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Yes, creationism and taking the Bible as literal are stupid, I'm not disargreeing with you there, there are several absurd challengers to the all mighty science, but that doesn't mean every challenger is a jesus-freak or wing-nut.

There is ample evidence for conscious existance outside of the human body, there's actually a good deal of evidence for all the possibilities I consider, I'm not a soft-headed fool who believes what ever he is told, ive spent many sessions contemplating these issues in depth....whats the meaning of life? Is there life conscious existence after death? Are there sentient beings in other dimentions? Science cant answer these questions, it doesn't mean their subject matter isn't "real".

Which is hard to define as it is...is the world bank real?...I mean what is "real?"
Regardless, I KNOW there is more to existance than existing in a human body in 3 dimentional time and space, I KNOW that science is unable to even think about describing these things in its current state....give it time, /n 5,000 years science will be on my side when it comes to spirituality and conscious.

(Organized religion is a scam, its a political hierarchy furled by dogma and exploitation of natural human fears, I don't preach that the Bible is fact or that God created the universe......all though the big bang which States for no reason at all all of existance just burst into being.....I know we can re-wind the CMB to a near finite point, but the reasoning behind it is just as absurd....

I work within the scientific community, so I see all the internal politics that govern this thing, and its made me loose all hope in science, not scientific method, but the established "science" composed of shifty credit hungry professors, manipulation of evidence for funds or to discredit opponents, its not the objective method most think it is....like I said you can come up with all the evidence you want, if it goes against the sacred dogma of established theory your getting discredited and your evidence is getting surpressed....

At the end of the last ice age the ice cap was  aas low as southern Spain, the Solutreans could have followed the ice cap across the Atlantic, we find tools identicle to the Solutreans in the new world, there's evidence that the Solutreans crossed the Atlantic met with those crossing the bearing-strwight land bridge into the new world and formed the Clovis culture....this evidence is supressed and the theory discredited because it foes against the all-mighty dogma in place...

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891455 - 07/03/15 06:30 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"I know because I know!" - GG


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891474 - 07/03/15 06:38 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Look at Ebin Alexander, a neurosurgon, his brain was shut-down by bacteria, no function, yet he came back with these amazings stories of where his consciousness was.

I have evidence that you can seperate your conscious-being from the physical-body, its called dreaming, or dimethyltryptamine, or even being knocked-out, you awareness or consciousness is not always in your body, this should be obvious as well.

Look at Buddhism, they are scientific, they are basically "enlightened nihilists" yet they are able to realize that there is SO much more to existance than what your experiance in your currant human state.

You really think that when you die consciousness ends? ...and you don't see how saying "its not possible is not objective or scieintific? As a scientist you have to consider the possibility until evidence arrives, you cant deny things due to lack of evidence, it just means science has not aquired it.

You placing science in the place of the never wrong all mighty universal force....its bust like the creationists with their God, only your God is science.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891486 - 07/03/15 06:44 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

All I know is that I don't know anything -Jesse michals (I guess it was Socrates, but I'm quouting the operation ivy classic "knowledge" only I fixed the errors in linguistics)

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21891520 - 07/03/15 06:58 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Hahahahaha, ever talked to a neuroscientist? If everything is so well understood where is our ai? And why are we even discussing if hard or emergent ai is the way to go?

All your arguments break down once we assume we live in a simulation.

Or maybe our universe is the event horizon of a 4 dimensional black hole?...
Can higher dimensions interact with other dimension?

We dont know shit and we should stop pretending that consciousness is a solved problem. Even when your standpoint is the most likely based on current knowledge, it is still is prooven by no scientific experiment. And especially you should know better than spouting theories as truth.


Edited by RennHuhn (07/03/15 06:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891530 - 07/03/15 07:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sounds like Ebin was a little brain dead and had a release of DMT from the brain inducing hallucinations for a presumed death, lucky for him he survived.

Ok then, go to a scientific comity, knock yourself out and show the world that consciousness is outside the body.

"You really think that when you die consciousness ends?" - yup.
I consider the possibility but I don't accept it as there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, why would I believe it? I don't rely on faith.

wtf... science can be and has been wrong numerous times because evidence was produced that stood up to scrutiny and changed/created ideas. Sometimes claims of evidence don't stand up to scrutiny and therefore aren't accepted, that doesn't mean science is a never wrong all might universal force.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: RennHuhn]
    #21891544 - 07/03/15 07:09 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Do you have a point to make or are you just going to state your assumptions?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21891610 - 07/03/15 07:42 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Who is really making the assumptions here?

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21891643 - 07/03/15 07:56 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Who is really making the assumptions here?

-E. Borodin




You are.  You are making shit about science without any substantiation or indication that you know anything about what you are talking about.  You are just spewing bullshit that you assume.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21891788 - 07/03/15 08:56 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Who is really making the assumptions here?

-E. Borodin




You are.  You are making shit about science without any substantiation or indication that you know anything about what you are talking about.  You are just spewing bullshit that you assume.




Nonsense.

Complete nonsense.

Every reference I make is not met with educated debate on your part, its met with you saying "I know your wrong because accepted science is unable to confirm or debunk the things you consider as valid possibilities,  all you can say is "you don't know what your talking about" which is obviously out of frustration, if your going to defend something that's absurd its easier to discredit those who oppose you than to make a real arguement based on the facts of the matter.

It is you who are saying "I know because I know" as well as making several assumptions, you DONT know and neither does science, so to claim otherwise is just as hypocritical as your denouncing of those who challenge the assumptions of modern science.

Your assuming that science has some sort of idea of what existance actually is.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21893857 - 07/03/15 06:29 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:Your assuming that science has some sort of idea of what existance actually is.




:yesnod:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21894081 - 07/03/15 07:16 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

So I take it you have never had a mushroom/acid/dmt trip in your life that felt any deeper than cool visual effects and some weird thought processes?  I absolutely believe in scientific method and knowledge, that doesn't mean that its stupid of me to believe that in my version of reality that my life experiences while sober, drunk, high, tripping, mentally unstable, dreaming, etc. Wont change what is plausible and what is tottally sci-fi at least in my version of reality.

According to this way of thinking allows me to believe that my consciousness is simply an energetic hot spot in a web of energy that connects all things real. This web could be called the holy spirit by some cultures and Chi by others and the unified field theory by other cultures depending on their past experiences leading up to what made them who they are and what comprises their set of rules for what reality could be. And to back it up I have first hand observation and experiences just as genuine as the first person to scientifically prove that the sun was the center of the universe was. And people that have the emperical point of view of anything be it science or religion, in which their potential for the unknown and the unthinkable is so narrowed be their cultural blinder that they cannot look brightly into the future and see only every possibility at every moment ahead.

I do feel some sorrow that your view of the world ia probably much bleaker than mine because there is a part of me that believes what you would call fantastical probably. I am sorry you did not hold onto your inner childhood imagination where dragon stories blended into seeing a dinosaur skeleton for the first time. I never saw the point of wanting everything in life so defined. It seems boring and slightly depressing and that just isn't what I see on the the sights of the path of my life so far.

Good vibes sudly and diecommie I send em in the hope you allow some potential silliness into your lives.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21894249 - 07/03/15 07:54 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
So I take it you have never had a mushroom/acid/dmt trip in your life that felt any deeper than cool visual effects and some weird thought processes?  I absolutely believe in scientific method and knowledge, that doesn't mean that its stupid of me to believe that in my version of reality that my life experiences while sober, drunk, high, tripping, mentally unstable, dreaming, etc. Wont change what is plausible and what is tottally sci-fi at least in my version of reality.

According to this way of thinking allows me to believe that my consciousness is simply an energetic hot spot in a web of energy that connects all things real. This web could be called the holy spirit by some cultures and Chi by others and the unified field theory by other cultures depending on their past experiences leading up to what made them who they are and what comprises their set of rules for what reality could be. And to back it up I have first hand observation and experiences just as genuine as the first person to scientifically prove that the sun was the center of the universe was. And people that have the emperical point of view of anything be it science or religion, in which their potential for the unknown and the unthinkable is so narrowed be their cultural blinder that they cannot look brightly into the future and see only every possibility at every moment ahead.

I do feel some sorrow that your view of the world ia probably much bleaker than mine because there is a part of me that believes what you would call fantastical probably. I am sorry you did not hold onto your inner childhood imagination where dragon stories blended into seeing a dinosaur skeleton for the first time. I never saw the point of wanting everything in life so defined. It seems boring and slightly depressing and that just isn't what I see on the the sights of the path of my life so far.

Good vibes sudly and diecommie I send em in the hope you allow some potential silliness into your lives.




Not sure if your post was directdd towards my :yesnod:...

If it was, let me clarify. I was agreeing with coincidenceappositorium , that science knows nothing...

I AM the fool on the hill. And have clashed with reliance-on-science, horseblinder rhetoric views of existence on here.

The mystical experience holds more weight in my heart and soul than any amount of scientific knowledge could ever.

:peace:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21894817 - 07/03/15 10:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Nah it was directed towards sudly and diecommie man. I getcha


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21895484 - 07/04/15 03:16 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.

BTW, anything I hold to be true, I can make a very strong case for.




Can you make a very strong case for the fact that you can make a very strong case for anything you hold to be true? Because I highly doubt it, or maybe you can make a very strong case in your mind just like folks with whom you disagree think in their minds they are making a strong case but its not convincing to you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Deviate]
    #21895856 - 07/04/15 08:00 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Nuentoter, I absolutley argree with your statements.

I do practice and value scientific method, but I am also aware of its parameters and limits....

Somethings are not able to be described by scientific method, does this mean we should dismiss them as "not real"?

-E. Borodin


Edited by Coincidentiaoppositorum (07/04/15 08:01 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21895862 - 07/04/15 08:04 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Reality is a practically useless concept that serves as a crutch for the weak.  Science is about modeling and predicting observations.  "Reality" is not needed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21898451 - 07/04/15 08:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

So with no reality what are you modeling and predicting the obsservations of?


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21898758 - 07/04/15 09:56 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:

Every reference I make is not met with educated debate on your part, its met with you saying "I know your wrong because accepted science is unable to confirm or debunk the things you consider as valid possibilities,  all you can say is "you don't know what your talking about" which is obviously out of frustration, if your going to defend something that's absurd its easier to discredit those who oppose you than to make a real arguement based on the facts of the matter.

It is you who are saying "I know because I know" as well as making several assumptions, you DONT know and neither does science, so to claim otherwise is just as hypocritical as your denouncing of those who challenge the assumptions of modern science.

Your assuming that science has some sort of idea of what existance actually is.

-E. Borodin




I believe you are wrong because science does not agree with you claims. Just because you consider something to be a possibility does not mean it is true. Again, personal opinion/experience is not evidence for the supernatural. 

There have been plenty of arguments made against your claims but your dogmatic belief system has ignored them.

We know what we know because of testable, observable, repeatable experiments and data that are the evidence for scientific claims.
Science doesn't make assumptions which is why your 'challenges' are disregarded as they have no evidence to back them up beyond personal experience and assumption.

Science has a better idea of reality than purely imaginative thought does.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21898768 - 07/04/15 09:58 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"I absolutely believe in scientific method and knowledge, that doesn't mean that its stupid of me to believe that in my version of reality that my life experiences while sober, drunk, high, tripping, mentally unstable, dreaming, etc. Wont change what is plausible and what is tottally sci-fi at least in my version of reality."

Yes, that is stupid.
You cannot make up 'your version' of reality and expect others to accept it simply because you believe it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21899711 - 07/05/15 04:58 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The thing about "reality" is that it's as highly subjective as a favorite ice cream flavor. Everyone's got one, and tomorrow it might change for you.

Sure, we corroborate each other's "realistic experience" with coinciding supernatural forces such as bills, Internet, work, science, etc.  :lol: but "reality" isn't set in any stone.

So when you have the infinite to work with, stopping at science and a speck of reality is laughable IMO.

:heart:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21899870 - 07/05/15 06:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
So with no reality what are you modeling and predicting the obsservations of?




Anything and everything that can be modeled.  From the observation of a falling ball to the interaction between light and matter.  The relation between these observations and reality (if any) is forever unknown and not relevant to anything but the dreams and desires of mystics and philosophers.  The concept of reality is superfluous to science and indeed to the human experience.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21899877 - 07/05/15 06:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Universaleyeni said:
The thing about "reality" is that it's as highly subjective as a favorite ice cream flavor. Everyone's got one, and tomorrow it might change for you.





That is not what reality is.  That is called perception and perspective.  Perception is not reality no matter how much people want it to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21899882 - 07/05/15 06:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sudly I wish could go back in time to tell people like Einstein, Copernicus, Magellan, Da Vinci,Socrates, and the list goes on...........  that they are stupid people for contemplating outside of known science and for dreaming and imagining things and then pursuing those dreams and imaginings to help prove their fantasy. Because some of these amazing scientists and thinkers were regarded as insane and intangible people because of their unrealistic view points.

You my friend are amusing though because I feel like you just are oblivious to the idea that science is not much of a different dogma than any religion. Also ignorant to the idea that personal reality (your life and how you percieve the world) is different from the shared reality (which is the overlap of at least seemingly similar aspects of percieved personal realities) which is also totally different than my or anyone else's personal reality, are not truth they are not concrete evidence of anything they are perceptions, some are shared some aren't and there is obligation for any of it to ne true to everyone.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: [Re: DieCommie]
    #21900007 - 07/05/15 08:08 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Universaleyeni said:
The thing about "reality" is that it's as highly subjective as a favorite ice cream flavor. Everyone's got one, and tomorrow it might change for you.





That is not what reality is.  That is called perception and perspective.  Perception is not reality no matter how much people want it to be.




:gooby:


Edited by Universaleyeni (07/05/15 12:14 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21900012 - 07/05/15 08:10 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
Sudly I wish could go back in time to tell people like Einstein, Copernicus, Magellan, Da Vinci,Socrates, and the list goes on...........  that they are stupid people for contemplating outside of known science and for dreaming and imagining things and then pursuing those dreams and imaginings to help prove their fantasy. Because some of these amazing scientists and thinkers were regarded as insane and intangible people because of their unrealistic view points.

You my friend are amusing though because I feel like you just are oblivious to the idea that science is not much of a different dogma than any religion. Also ignorant to the idea that personal reality (your life and how you percieve the world) is different from the shared reality (which is the overlap of at least seemingly similar aspects of percieved personal realities) which is also totally different than my or anyone else's personal reality, are not truth they are not concrete evidence of anything they are perceptions, some are shared some aren't and there is obligation for any of it to ne true to everyone.




Awesome points bro :thumbup:

I think you replied to me by mistake again :smilingpuppy:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21900013 - 07/05/15 08:10 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The thing about people like Einstein is that he had evidence behind his claims.
They were thought of as insane until they proved their claims.

We're not going to start believing peoples claims before evidence is produced.

Perception doesn't change reality.
Just because a colour blind person perceives a red apple as blue doesn't mean the apple is blue.

A red apple is red because of the laws of nature of our reality.
Perceiving it as blue does not change the laws of nature.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21900024 - 07/05/15 08:19 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Perception doesn't change reality.
Just because a colour blind person perceives a red apple as blue doesn't mean the apple is blue.

A red apple is perceived as red because of the laws of nature of our reality.
Perceiving it as blue does not change the laws of nature.




But it alters the color blind persons's reality.

The color blind guy sees what he sees. Without the availabilty of the definition of "red", the diagnosis of colorblindness, or a non color blind guy to tell him hes wrong, he sees what he sees.

So our reality (personal or collective) is largely based on reference points for comparison. It isnt limited to those points. Impossible. In my humble unprovable opinion. :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21900031 - 07/05/15 08:22 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

No, it alters the colourblind persons perception of reality.

A non colour blind person can tell him he's wrong because he is, it is a red apple because it reflects the red light and therefore appears red to us.
I'd recommend doing a little research on why things are the colour they are.

I could perceive the moon as being made of cheese because it's kinda yellow, that doesn't mean it is.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21900048 - 07/05/15 08:31 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:lol: youre right suds. But until you personally observe, or rely on available proven evidence, that moon could be filled with bavarian cream for all you know.

What is reality without perception?

Until you or someone observes and defines, what is there? Everything and nothing.

Predictability doesnt quite sum up nature/the universe.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21900075 - 07/05/15 08:40 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Luckily I do rely on available, proven evidence that the moon is not made of cheese. Same goes for a red apple being red.

Reality is reality with or without perception.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21900194 - 07/05/15 09:22 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Imagine what other fun facts about the moon you'd be missing out on, if observers through the ages had drawn the line at the discovery that it wasnt made of cheese!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21902165 - 07/05/15 06:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The moon not being made of cheese is just one of many interesting facts about the moon.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902273 - 07/05/15 06:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Luckily I do rely on available, proven evidence that the moon is not made of cheese. Same goes for a red apple being red.

Reality is reality with or without perception.




That is an assumption, without an observer it can not be verified, oy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon] * 1
    #21902304 - 07/05/15 06:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Whether we do or do not know what is in reality, it will not change simply because we perceive it.

What I'm saying is that is doesn't matter how we perceive reality because it is what it is and it isn't going to change because of a humans perspective.

Only the individuals perspective of reality can change.

The laws of nature do not change based on perspective.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902345 - 07/05/15 07:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Whether we do or do not know what is in reality, it will not change simply because we perceive it.

What I'm saying is that is doesn't matter how we perceive reality because it is what it is and it isn't going to change because of a humans perspective.

Only the individuals perspective of reality can change.

The laws of nature do not change based on perspective.





I have no comment on this ongoing debate in general, but this^^ is completely correct.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 2
    #21902384 - 07/05/15 07:12 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Ah but something has to observe, without an observer there is no knowledge. Without an observer, the unchanging nature of a material world is an assumption that can not be considered knowledge.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902475 - 07/05/15 07:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Without an observer there is no knowledge for the observer.
The laws of nature and the material world haven't changed yet, to think they have is the real assumption.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902508 - 07/05/15 07:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I don't assume that and I don't assume that they are constant without one.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Q [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902511 - 07/05/15 07:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Wow, is that your love/hate relationship with cartesianism getting a little randy DQ?

Never thought I'd see you shoot for an "excluding all context" ontological argument of reality...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902518 - 07/05/15 07:49 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

While it is true that observer and observed are one fundamentally interdependent unit -- what's so special about an observer, anyway?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Q [Re: Kurt]
    #21902534 - 07/05/15 07:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Wow, is that your love/hate relationship with cartesianism getting a little randy DQ?

Never thought I'd see you shoot for an "excluding all context" ontological argument of reality...




No Kurt, I just think he's basically on the mark and I'm trying to quell any suggestion that we create reality by observing it.  It's a subtle subject, and I do not dismiss the notion entirely -- as there is some truth to it, under certain circumstances -- but it is most often a misunderstanding.  Nature doesn't care about any of this.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Q [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902556 - 07/05/15 07:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I just think he's basically on the mark and I'm trying to quell any suggestion that we create reality by observing it. 





That's exactly what I mean by your love hate relationship with Descartes...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902558 - 07/05/15 07:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

There is no evidence without an observer. It can be assumed that the material world exists without it, it can't be shown. It moves understanding out of the empirical into imagination if there is no observer.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: Q [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902562 - 07/05/15 07:59 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"Nature doesn't care about any of this."
:thumbup:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Q [Re: Kurt]
    #21902579 - 07/05/15 08:01 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Last I checked there wasn't really anything about Descartes' philosophy that I sympathize with, and the majority of his impact on our species, as far as I can deduce what it was, has been quite loathsome.  Not sure about the "love" in the love-hate.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902584 - 07/05/15 08:02 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902590 - 07/05/15 08:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

falcon said:
There is no evidence without an observer. It can be assumed that the material world exists without it, it can't be shown. It moves understanding out of the empirical into imagination if there is no observer.




Your comments make no sense to me.  Are you assuming that things happen outside of consciousness?  Or are you saying it is impossible?  Forget about the observer.  What do you think is the basis of this reality?  Nothingness, or consciousness?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902628 - 07/05/15 08:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Are you assuming that things happen outside of consciousness?

I don't know.

What do you think is the basis of this reality?  Nothingness, or consciousness?

I don't know.

but you can't forget the observer, there is no way to.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902637 - 07/05/15 08:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well I guess the point I am trying to make is that if you didn't exist, everyone and everything else still would.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902655 - 07/05/15 08:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What does an observer have to do with reality?

Things exist whether observed or not.
New species of deep sea fish do not pop into existence only once we've observed them.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902677 - 07/05/15 08:24 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

hmmm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902694 - 07/05/15 08:27 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.




Can I use this as my argument for gods existence?


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21902710 - 07/05/15 08:31 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
What does an observer have to do with reality?

Things exist whether observed or not.
New species of deep sea fish do not pop into existence only once we've observed them.




I don't know that things exist without an observer. It's a possibility and an assumption. And we are not necessarily the only observer.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21902795 - 07/05/15 08:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What a predictable response..

There either is or isn't evidence for claims in the universe.
If you can find the evidence for god, you can use that in your argument, so far the only physical, observable, testable evidence of a claim for god is the bible which is outdated and disproven beyond a doubt.

If there is evidence for god, we are yet to observe it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902804 - 07/05/15 08:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Correct, YOU do not know that something exists until you have observed the evidence for it. That doesn't mean it only exists once you have observed it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21902870 - 07/05/15 09:09 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Correct, YOU do not know that something exists until you have observed the evidence for it. That doesn't mean it only exists once you have observed it.




I am an observer, there are others, if there are none what then.


Edited by falcon (07/05/15 09:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902932 - 07/05/15 09:24 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If none then there are simply no observers. That doesn't change what exists.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902975 - 07/05/15 09:37 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
That which is rationally impossible can be rationally denied as it is not rationally possible.





you didn't want to listen to my arguments, so maybe you will listen to one of your own

Quote:

sudly said:
It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.





:mindblown:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902981 - 07/05/15 09:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

There is aveil that can not be lifted.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21903033 - 07/05/15 09:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The rationally impossible remains rationally impossible until there is evidence produced to suggest otherwise.

Evidence exists whether we believe it or not, the challenge is finding it.
If we cannot find the evidence, we have no basis to claim.

I'm amazed this is mind blowing to you.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903073 - 07/05/15 09:59 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The absence of any observers is a change that can not be tested. Your assuptions are built on observation of a world with observation, a world without can not be known.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21903092 - 07/05/15 10:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Respectively, I would say I know practically nothing about the delicate issues of Quantum mechanics, so suffice to say I'll take your word that this idea that we create our reality which you are speaking of is probably found in the provisions of that subject. But does clearing away an assumption that we create reality, lead to any general certainty about whatever is in front of you? If I am generally following you, I would then be able to ask; on what basis do you positively claim meaning from the provisions which you are speaking?

Or are you speaking of "existence" somewhat less meaningfully, like the rest of us, as what we ritually bang our heads against each morning?

I know that sometimes people base their philosophical positions on QM, and I can guess they do so more or less idealistically, from what I have heard. You seem to be expressing some skepticism. I know they make certain connections with points of expression which philosophers have perennially made in any case. Descartes, as you surely know was the one who said "I think therefore I am", and thus ascribed essential point of context dependency for any "objective" knowledge, which we refer to as "subjectivity", and pretty much consolidated most superficial claims of existence of any kinds of entities since.

I'll attest that if you have any regard for the Greeks or pre-modern knowledge, Descartes is a pain in the ass. Actually, in my opinion, you really can't recognize how much of a pain in the ass Descartes was, and is, until you recognize how partial you have to be to his thinking, how enforced it is, whether you want to or not, or whether you or anyone are conscious of it or not, because his presence is so embedded, it is practically a cultural fact. It's in the way people think and speak, and it is his mechanical understanding of the world that is institutionalized, and what we all do kind of project onto reality. I have often laughed at your pathos for this also, although I can see you come from it from a much different perspective than my own.

I'd say maybe by relation it's pretty confusing understanding and relating to certain parameters of any "subject" of knowledge, such as QM thanks to Descartes' comments on subjects. I mean, as you know, in a sense QM is a subject, a book you might open, or the subject of predication in a sentence about something in its terms. By certain naturalistic assumptions and basic conceptions we assume, every subject is in some sense a "subject matter". That is partly because before Descartes' time, a subject was considered to be categorically substantial by Aristotle, and everything was dependent on it as point of reference, in a certain way. That tradition continues, as we still seem to have genuine subjects of knowledge. But in any case, clearly it is an entirely different provision we don't think much about so much (why are there seemingly two kinds of subjects?) but the greek conception remains equivocal in the same concept of subjectivity which Descartes "revolutionized" through doubt.

This is an interesting short bit article on that concept of knowledge and how in short Descartes fundamentally turned it into something basically ambiguious, thanks to his notion of general puzzlement about what we perceive.

Descartes suggested methodological doubt as essential, and laying to bare all modern sciences. The first thing he doubted were given provisions of knowledge. Then he doubted his senses, and anything else, until long story short there was one thing he couldn't doubt, and that was the "thinking thing" the "substance" of the mind. Based on that he "worked back" in rationally conceiving the extended (res extensa) formal world of the senses, which implied its material substance, and so on.

This in some convoluted manner, is how the domains of epistemological provisions are usually given as "subjects of knowledge". The best I can understand this, is that to us moderners, at the same time that a "subject" remains substantive and point of reference, this is now covertly switched to the locus of the subject we "are". As any idealist will freely and correctly figure, everything is contextually dependent upon this subject, albeit clearly in a different way.

But of course, according to Descartes, the subject, equivocally, becomes a point of non reference. For instance "subjectivity" is what things that were referred to as subjects now "aren't", (when people say something is subjective, they mean it is not a subject of knowledge) and so the object becomes referent instead at the same time as the subject. People have different preferences on how this works out apparently. But this object, I think, is what people are talking about as provision of "reality" due to its easy binary reference in respect to a cartesian subject. I don't think of this point of reference switch point of cartesianism as naturalistic at all.

Hypokeimenon or the subject of knowledge was substantive in a different sense, as a subject of knowledge and yet it is mainly being referred to within the certainty of objectivity as point of reference in many cases today. I think the problem with this is that there is nothing fundamentally certain about a subject of knowledge in point of reference, either as Aristotle told it or indeed as any subject of knowledge stands today, realistically considered. What certainties do we have of nature? We have our assumptions and concepts. Hypokeimenon, or the subject of knowledge meant in its own way, "underlying thing", or kernal of meaning.


In any case I'd say that the solid point of reference that is appealed to in Cartesian provisions is pretty different from Aristotle's. In Cartesianism as provision of the world, or "reality" people have all sorts of positions on it as if they figured the right way to spin it and solved Cartesian problems. Usually, just like with Descartes there is some rationalized conception of "existence", either of something subjective or objective, excluding the "problem" of the other, like this was some big aha! But I think you just end up in different provisions of consideration.

What is behind or "underlying" cartesianism's dualism rather than flipping its position in ontology seems to be Aristotle's hypokeimenon. As an underlying thing referred to it is significantly  dualistic, but nothing like Descartes.

Aristotle was responding in his time to the presocratic naturalist philosophers, the ones who conceived nature as elements of fire wind, water, and air. I think these other provisions of thinking about the world can be interesting, at the least, aside from self evidence. What is Hypokeimenon? And more, what is it to think like Thales of Miletus who thought that being was water, or Heraclitus of Ephesus, who thought the world was fire?

I think the only way to understand Descartes "beyond" his conceptions is to either find what provisions were thought before, or perhaps what I less know of, after. They seem to be giant steps.

I am not sure what help it is to the discussion but what I would note is that when people talk about "observers", it seems like sometimes they are generally talking about certain epistemelogical provisions of what can and can't be known, which is inherently dualistic, and at the same time they are talking about apertures of sensory experience, which although they can carry these notions of dualism, they may not necessarily.

It is not necessary for instance, in talking about visual perception, that we should be reduced to talking about some place slightly behind the eye, and how that is an internal or subjective in respect to an external world. If you think you can step out of Cartesianism, or other philosophers concepts just try to lose that "inner" eye...
 
Anyway, I can't find any sense of closure to this post I've started, and I am not too pleased with it. The question is basically just at the top on the first paragraph, and the rest is nonsense. Here's Martin Heidegger, from a book that is sitting in front of me. This is on what he calls the question of being:

Quote:


This question has today been forgotten - although our time considers itself progressive in again affirming "metaphysics". All the same we believe we are spared the exertion of rekindling a gigantomachia peri res ousias. But the question touched upon here is hardly an arbitrary one. It sustained the avid research of Plato and Aristotle but from then on ceased to be heard as a thematic question of actual investigation. What these two thinkers achieved has been preserved in various distorted and camoflauged forms down to Hegel's logic. And what then was wrested from phenomena by the highest exertion of thought, albeit in fragments and first beginnings, has long since been trivialized.

Not only that. On the foundation of the Greek point of departure for the interpretation of being a dogma has taken shape which not only declares that the question of the meaning of being is superfluous but sanctions its neglect. It is said that "being" is the most universal and emptiest concept. As such it resists every attempt at definition. Nor does this most universal and thus indefinable concept need any definition. Everybody uses it constantly and also already understands what is meant by it. Thus what troubled ancient philosophizing and kept is so by virtue of its obscurity has become obvious, clear as day, such that whoever persists in asking about it is accused of an error of method.




Edited by Kurt (07/06/15 04:19 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21903104 - 07/05/15 10:08 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Look man, a stars going to be a star whether you watch it or not.

A few centuries ago no one had ever observed a black hole. Just because humans had not yet observed a black hole does not mean that the black hole didn't exist until it was first observed. It means the black whole was not known about to humans until it was observed.

It was still existing as a black hole well before it was observed by any human.
The observation of a black hole has NO effect on the black hole.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21903124 - 07/05/15 10:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)



--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21903164 - 07/05/15 10:26 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

That's sure is an idea.
It's also an idea that unicorns exist.

If one day evidence arises for them I'd be inclined to believe them, until that day I won't.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21903186 - 07/05/15 10:34 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If true any of that is true, it doesn't negate the universes existence it just says something about it's existence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903203 - 07/05/15 10:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Every example you have given is from a world with observers. I don't know what the relationship of a world and the observers is, but I do know you can't reference an experience of one without observers.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21903240 - 07/05/15 10:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The experience of observing is only experienced by the observer.
If Earth and everything on it was gone, nothing would change about reality.

What don't you understand about this?!


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903311 - 07/05/15 11:05 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Your supposition is not testable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21903414 - 07/05/15 11:25 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Applying the laws of nature, there is no reason to believe they would change if earth did not exist. The laws of nature pre exist the earth, they are not dependent on earth or the people on it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisible404
error
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
Re: Q [Re: sudly]
    #21903462 - 07/05/15 11:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

falcon said:
Ah but something has to observe, without an observer there is no knowledge. Without an observer, the unchanging nature of a material world is an assumption that can not be considered knowledge.



Quote:

sudly said:
Without an observer there is no knowledge for the observer.
The laws of nature and the material world haven't changed yet, to think they have is the real assumption.





Quote:

sudly said:
Whether we do or do not know what is in reality, it will not change simply because we perceive it.

What I'm saying is that is doesn't matter how we perceive reality because it is what it is and it isn't going to change because of a humans perspective.

Only the individuals perspective of reality can change.

The laws of nature do not change based on perspective.




hmm... but aren't some of these statements flawed given the nature of what you are observing can change based on the simple fact that you are observing it, with regards to physics? and given that physics is the measurement of the nature of reality...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903469 - 07/05/15 11:37 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Your example assumes eliminating earth eliminates observers.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: Q [Re: 404]
    #21903488 - 07/05/15 11:40 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The double slit experiment isn't definitive.
It may have something to do with quantum probability waves but again it isn't definitive that observation is what changed the state of an electron.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21903498 - 07/05/15 11:42 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It eliminates humans and humans are observers.
Are you assuming there is an 'observer' outside of earth?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisible404
error
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
Re: Q [Re: sudly]
    #21903535 - 07/05/15 11:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
The double slit experiment isn't definitive.
It may have something to do with quantum probability waves but again it isn't definitive that observation is what changed the state of an electron.




that's only one aspect of the observer effect

Quote:

In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behaviour of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.




Quote:

In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb or give up some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.




and in regards to quantum physics, what about quantum zeno effect in which observing a quantum state 'preserves' it in that state?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: Q [Re: 404]
    #21903609 - 07/06/15 12:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behaviour of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.




Electrons move through circuits, current clamps measure magnetic fields.
What is the relevance of this?

Quote:

In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb or give up some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.




The thermometer is endothermic. What's the point of stating that?

Quote:

and in regards to quantum physics, what about quantum zeno effect in which observing a quantum state 'preserves' it in that state?




While observing a decaying element does seem to stop decay it is contestable to suggest that the interruption of energy levels is caused by the act of measuring itself.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: Q [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903819 - 07/06/15 01:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

hmm lets see people are giving you evidence that states that the act of observing an object inevitably creates a 2 way action. 

You stated something to the effect of you believe it because it can be proven by science. science cannot prove that an item exists if it is not being observed.

it is rationally possibly and very probable that it does but we do not actually know. Remember too though that rational is too flimsy of a belief to use as a measuring stick for science. If I can't state altered states of mind through meditation, prayer, drugs and so on as a record of evidence experienced as a scientific report on observation then your personal rational cannot either.

Sudly I honestly agree with most of what you say but I believe you are also being very closed minded my friend. You must accept the possibility that rationale is too subjective to use. therefore rationally possible or impossible does not exist. Only what is possible and what is impossible. What science has learned is that we know what has happened and what is possible from our experience. science also teaches us that what we experience is a minuscule fraction of the whole of reality. Wavelengths and particles and possible dimensions that we do not and may never have the tools to observe. some of these may never even have any influence or bearing on anything we consider real because they simply have nothing to do with us. These things are all possible. If you want to tally what we know has, can, and will probably happen you could theoretically create a list because knowledge is finite, limited by experience. the potential for possible things to happen cannot be listed because it is an infinite number.
somewhere in the infinity of possibilities there may just be an energetic being, creature, alien, god, whatever the cultural/social name may be. imagine if that being has no place holder in the 4th dimension of time. that could make that being exist in all possibilities all at once. the "now" for that being may be total in regards to time. timeless.

shit sorry using my imagination again, no room for that :wink:


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: Q [Re: nuentoter]
    #21903896 - 07/06/15 02:53 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If were going to start talking about subatomic probability waves, they can appear to change relative to the disturbances caused by observing them. That is evidence that subatomic particle behavior may be indeterminate. It is not evidence that observing matter will cause it to either cease or begin to exist.

I've stated that I conform my beliefs to the evidence of reality presented through the laws of nature. If there is no evidence for a claim, I have no reason to believe it.
If there is no evidence, science will not claim something to exist. It doesn't mean the evidence definitively does not exist, it means the evidence has not yet been observed and there is no reason to believe in whatever claim is being made.

Evidence and the laws of nature are the measuring sticks of science. Experiencing an altered state of consciousness is not evidence of the supernatural. Personal experience cannot be measured via scientific methods or observed by anyone other than the individual who experienced it.

An experience can not be used as a scientific report because it isn't acceptable as evidence to say something is true because you feel it is. Feelings are not evidence.
Observable, testable, repeatable and predictable data is what's used as evidence, not feelings.

Rational is based on the laws of nature, what's irrational and close minded is to think that personal experience is acceptable as evidence for material observations. 

"What science has learned is that we know what has happened and what is possible from our [evidence]" - change experience for evidence and you've got it right.
Science is deterministic on what evidence it can produce.
If we do not find the evidence for something and cannot observe it, it is nothing more than an opinion/idea.

Our knowledge is limited by the evidence we have, not our experience.
Yes there are a lot of possibilities, there may well be a flying spaghetti monster circling Jupiter but we don't believe it because there is NO EVIDENCE for the claim. 

Use your imagination as much as you want but don't claim it to be true unless you can produce evidence for your claims.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21904688 - 07/06/15 09:36 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Coincidentiaoppositorum said:

Every reference I make is not met with educated debate on your part, its met with you saying "I know your wrong because accepted science is unable to confirm or debunk the things you consider as valid possibilities,  all you can say is "you don't know what your talking about" which is obviously out of frustration, if your going to defend something that's absurd its easier to discredit those who oppose you than to make a real arguement based on the facts of the matter.

It is you who are saying "I know because I know" as well as making several assumptions, you DONT know and neither does science, so to claim otherwise is just as hypocritical as your denouncing of those who challenge the assumptions of modern science.

Your assuming that science has some sort of idea of what existance actually is.

-E. Borodin




I believe you are wrong because science does not agree with you claims. Just because you consider something to be a possibility does not mean it is true. Again, personal opinion/experience is not evidence for the supernatural. 

There have been plenty of arguments made against your claims but your dogmatic belief system has ignored them.

We know what we know because of testable, observable, repeatable experiments and data that are the evidence for scientific claims.
Science doesn't make assumptions which is why your 'challenges' are disregarded as they have no evidence to back them up beyond personal experience and assumption.

Science has a better idea of reality than purely imaginative thought does.




Your saying "science has a better grasp on what existstance is than your first hand experiance of it"

Science can not confirm or deny my claims. (I'm not sure I made any claims, I only said there's a strong possibility that there's far more to.existance than science can describe)

you admit yourselves that the parameters of science are limited to observations made in 3 dimentional time and space, and it only covers the observations that are consistent from one experiment to the next.....like it or not that limits science to a very small slice of existance, and the way you describe it it must discredit every first hand experiance you have ever had as they occored on a subjective level and are not able to be observed by the world as a whole.

Science is great for what it does, but there are things that fall outside of science, does this mean these things should be dismissed?


To not be able to admit that its even possible that things out-side of science exist is just as stubborn and ignorant as the church folks who say they refuse to believe anything outside of the bible...

Of coarse there's more to consciousness and existance than currant science can describe! This should be obvious.

-E. Borodin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #21904714 - 07/06/15 09:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Respectively, I would say I know practically nothing about the delicate issues of Quantum mechanics, so suffice to say I'll take your word that this idea that we create our reality which you are speaking of is probably found in the provisions of that subject. But does clearing away an assumption that we create reality, lead to any general certainty about whatever is in front of you? If I am generally following you, I would then be able to ask; on what basis do you positively claim meaning from the provisions which you are speaking?

Or are you speaking of "existence" somewhat less meaningfully, like the rest of us, as what we ritually bang our heads against each morning?





Well I don't think I'm trying to make any statement so sweeping.  I tire of these notions that the universe couldn't get on without human perception, which strikes me as nonsense.  As for ontology and the meaning of being, I don't have much to say, except that at this point it appears to me that some sort of conscious field permeates nature, indeed constitutes it, and that nothing exists outside of this as to say so makes no sense.  Or in other words, everything is accounted for, or has meaningful being-ness in some objective sense, because of this fundamental reality.  Quantum mechanics is interesting because (very briefly) the formalism and experimental meaning show us this inherent consciousness peering through into our tidy little macroscopic setup and merging with our own and throwing us for loops philosophically, for those who can see it, anyway.  I have no doubt if someone reads this who has a mind to they'll call it garbage.  No worries.

Clearing away the assumption that we create reality is an important step in removing what is incorrect, but is not an important step in ascertaining what is correct -- except that we have removed some error.

I am speaking about existence non-rigorously, but I think I can point out some things that it isn't, and maybe one or two that it is.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21905105 - 07/06/15 12:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I tire of these notions that the universe couldn't get on without human perception, which strikes me as nonsense...




:lol: I vividly pictured a cartoony royal Cosmic Ambassador debating with an opposing royal Cosmic Ambassador as I read this!  :laugh2: thanks man I need that

You sound really sure about what you're saying. Most scientists do, and *might* be closing some doors in the quest for knowledge. I assure you that just about as many books and scientific journals have been written arguing an opposite stance.

Although I can't argue too much in either direction, I can say that cosmic arrogance is an offense punishable by up to 100 light years in Schroedingers box! We all know what happens when you don't think outside the box :cool:

I hope you took no offense to my playfulness...I mean no harm at all my friend and slightly sleepless I went off on a vivid tangent.

But really, an observer can't Make or break the universe. Or do WE?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSun King
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21905274 - 07/06/15 01:29 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Universaleyeni said:
I can say that cosmic arrogance is an offense punishable by up to 100 light years in Schroedingers box!




That's a long distance to spend in the box. :wow:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Sun King]
    #21905305 - 07/06/15 01:39 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

She made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21905356 - 07/06/15 01:54 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I agree that many people today argue for a point of reference in superficial ways, although I am not for an "overthrowing" this. 

All I can say is this epic battle which persists, as subjectivism and objectivism took place once in grammar. The broom and dustpan might begin there in a pretty humbling way.

People whistle a revolutionary tune, for changes in thinking. But what did other people whistle, I wonder?

Subjacere

Objacere


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblessed


Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 1,085
Loc: ation: Tasmania Flag
Last seen: 14 days, 7 hours
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21905595 - 07/06/15 02:55 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
What a predictable response..

"so far the only physical, observable, testable evidence of a claim for god is the bible which is outdated and disproven beyond a doubt.

If there is evidence for god, we are yet to observe it."




Hello Sudly

As for what you say about the Bible. That's your opinion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21905851 - 07/06/15 03:59 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
It eliminates humans and humans are observers.
Are you assuming there is an 'observer' outside of earth?




No, your example does not rule that out.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21906744 - 07/06/15 07:30 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If earth an all the people on it were removed.. there would be no humans to observe.
It'd be nice if you made a point like why that doesn't rule out observers instead of just saying no.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: blessed]
    #21906756 - 07/06/15 07:32 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If you've ever bothered to read the bible or any other holy book you'd see how contradictory and false they are. They contain claims such as flat earths, talking snakes, unicorns, the sun revolving around earth, light before stars etc.

If you look at it from a factual perspective it has been disproven beyond a doubt. That doesn't mean you can't cherry pick a few lines you like from it though, if it makes you happy you have the right to think it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Coincidentiaoppositorum]
    #21906824 - 07/06/15 07:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Science has an accumulated grasp on how the world works thanks to generations of evidence provided, that's far better than a single individuals opinion.

Science can refute claims based on the evidence provided, if there is none, it's easy to refute.

Sadly the human race evolved the propensity to make snap decisions assuming a correlation between A and B. Our habit of false positive thinking or superstitious thinking is the basis of finding false patterns like god.

An example would be an early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass, it could be either A- the wind or B- a predator. Survival instincts push to make a decision quickly, often creating a false positive such as there being a predator when it was only the wind.

Yes, my subjective experiences are not evidence. Neither are yours.
That's why objective scientifically viable evidence is the basis for my arguments.

Things outside of science such as morals are up to society as a whole to decide based on the evidence for what is beneficial to society. Non killing and stealing is beneficial to society so laws are made to ensure it.

Again, somethings are rationally possible, it doesn't automatically mean they are true which is why evidence is required in order to make the claims. My beliefs are conformed to the evidence provided. If none is provided, it is just an idea and has not been confirmed yet.

There may well be more to consciousnesses and existence than we know of, until evidence arises that indicates it is so, there is no reason to believe it beyond faith.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21907771 - 07/06/15 11:21 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.

BTW, anything I hold to be true, I can make a very strong case for.




Can you make a very strong case for the fact that you can make a very strong case for anything you hold to be true? Because I highly doubt it, or maybe you can make a very strong case in your mind just like folks with whom you disagree think in their minds they are making a strong case but its not convincing to you.




This is a pretty good question Deviate. The questioning of simulation or imagination speaks to the OP's sense of dialogue quite well.

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Often, when discussing matters of a religious or metaphysical nature, a debater runs out of ammunition and becomes like a petulant child.

If you are unable to explain how you came to your position and why you hold on to it, then it is most likely programming, wishful thinking and/or imagination, and not factual in the slightest.


Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?

Mystic: I know because I know! :snub:





The OP seems to suggest a constructive process in which knowledge is gathered, and I think it is possible to look to that in a positive sense.

To stress it in these given terms; turning our heads from these very red herrings of our own possible suggestibility, there is the proposed notion that propositions may be found to be true, or “factual” in some implied way.

It is somewhat difficult to distinguish a proposition in what here seems to be either an insinuation, or in an oblique "suggestion" for being constructive and contributing to humanity’s pursuit of knowledge, but I think that with some insistance a manner of assertion can be ascertained here, and carefully considered on its own terms.


So to begin; I would suggest it would be possible to consider the OP to be a positive assertion, as clearly in some way it is an assertion. I think if this assertion was held to the ground of being an explicit proposition to consider, it would also be possible to consider and critique this.

Hopefully it would not be too excessive to insist on this. All in all I would say thiz is not just a mannerism, but a position informed by certain more or less conscious assumptions. The OP is outlining the provisions of what has sometimes been called "logical positivism" or "logical empiricism", a way of thinking peculiar to American philosophers.

The critical question put to the OP's particular manner of suggestion would plainly be whether the suggested or implied general analysese and evaluation of propositions is itself a verifiable epistemological proposition, or if on the other hand, it is more along the lines of a puppet show or the projected figurative imagination of the OP.

I think a constructive critique could begin there. In sincere, and all around, wouldn’t it be fair minded to consider moving from what is “often” suggested as “false”, to the contingence and domain of ideally evaluated propositions in some provision? Why does the OP dwell on "falsity" rather than making a positive or explicit proposition of its own? What is this occupation with a principle of contradiction?

Well the generally posited idea of a “contingency” of possible propositions, is not here being demonstrated in any explicit proposition. The meaning appealed to is implicit.


This is not asking for the possibility of a post hoc consideration, but simply laying bear the logic as it is suggested.  Logical positivism is not the suggestion of logic in any particular domain of consideration.

So what exactly is the general assertion? The appeal is to empirical researches, but this begs the question. Are there certain burdens, and contradictions to suggesting an implied or general analysis of propositions, as being empirical?

Kant indicated that knowledge which was implicit to things, or "analytical" could indeed be found relayed in certain ways in extention with empirical research. This can be carefully considered though, because not all of these analyses which may seem to have this face value are really connected with actual empirical engagements with the world.

For example, Kant defined analysis as “what is implicitly contained in a subject”.

Analytic thinking, and its ideation of what is “contained in a subject” could seem to be generally worthwhile or even ideal to someone scientific minded because “what is contained in a subject”, could (with some naivety), seem to be a gesture to the textbook subject neatly binded, then opened and read, ripe with empirical truths about the world.

This notion of “what is contained in a subject” is certainly possible to critique. For instance it is clear that whoever contributed to the book may have gathered much from experience and written it down as knowledge about the world in an empirical manner, but reading from it is clearly different than going out into the world and actually and practically experiencing it.

Hence what is appealed to as ideally "contained in a subject", or what is in a manner of disposition appealed to as analytic mindedness may seem to have the face value of empirical research, and yet anyone can see it's not necessarily that in generality.

In such a questionable way, the OP suggests a way of being generally given to consider possible examples of what is ideally "contained in a subject" in the general idea of analysis of various propositions in general. In one sense we could perhaps ideally challenge, and interrogate, and otherwise consider these propositions in the given suggestion, but we might also heed the possibility that in a similar way, what is appealed to as empirical engagement is just a formality, like someone reading from a textbook, which does not indicate any actual empirical engagement.

For instance, in general, appealing to a logical empiricism could seem to suggest more in the way sciences have been gathered and stand as evidence posteriorly, according namely to their logic that has been gathered, rather than how they have been founded in progressive experimentation and experience, in actual or practical empiricism.

We can come to the frank question of that. What does "analysis of propositions" or challenging forth propositional analysis, as something implied, necessarily have to do with actual empiricism?


All analytic correspondences are based on containment. This may be considered suggestive.

Kant’s example for analytic thinking, was in a formally contained statement, “all bachelors are unmarried”. Being "unmarried" is found contained in the conceptual analysis of the subject “bachelor”. Of course, this example is not meant to indicate all the possible forms of analysis which can be gathered are just semantic formalities. But this example does demonstrate in principle that what is "certain" as analysis is something that in its virtue of certainty doesn’t rely on appeals to the factual or world, but is contained to its concept or subject.


Kant basically indicates that an analytic statement demonstrates at the same time that the containment of analytic thinking can indicate a strong sense of certainty, yet at the same time, containment relegates any content to a formality, or custom, or what might just be found up in someone’s head. Conceptual containment, in short, is problematic.

This doesn't mean logical analysis can't be "useful". It just indicates that in certain epistemelogical considerations absolute necessity of determination, can't be appealed to in a general way as meaningful and this is why significant propositions are considerably found to be "contingent" or open to possibility.

For example, a collection of propositions, “men are mortal”, “socrates is a man”, can demonstrate that “socrates is mortal”, by logical analysis (syllogism). The given contents of the two premises (socrates is a man; men are mortal) are not analytical. In both premises, there is an appeal to facts which have been gathered in the world, or generally an openness of possibility in what is being thereby found. Yet observing them together, the conclusion socrates is mortal, is itself possibly an inference that is logical.

Gotlobb Frege, abbreviated conceptual analysis to the symbolic “A=A”, perhaps in a way that removed all illusions that analytic propositions appeal to outside sources beyond conceptual content, and also indicating its ideal certainty at the same time. Frege, however, was partial to an idea that analysis can be taken much more broadly than in isolated instances. For example, a much expanded use of logical, and mathematical analyses can indeed describe certain isomorphic structures of the world.

More to that, Frege had a certain inkling up in his head about philosophy par excellence. He was wary of Kant's "intuitions" or what he called the "psychologism" which phenomenally minded philosophers either appealed to or were burdened to consider, when they spoke about the phenomenal world. (That has been mentioned in this thread) He thought this phenomenological "intuition" could be avoided, and substituted a "logical" concept of sense for it.

Frege insinuated that all of epistemelogical considerations could be contained to the symbolism, he was in a sense already working with. Along with symbolizing analyticity as A=A he found that an example of A=B could symbolize propositions which reach out to the world, and find something new about it (going from A to B this can be cognitively significant). This was in a sense, an open contingency. Unlike Kant, in his work Frege contained an ideal synthesis to a relation between symbols at the same time that he indicated its openness. (This is covered in On Sense and Reference by the way).

Therefore analyses were in his, and many other considerations, not “limited” or contained to symbolism. Frege said that for a proposition to "make sense" logically, was a demonstration that the logic of language use reflects the world in the same way that sensory faculties do. Hence the Fregean “sense" (sinn) which we "make" in a proposition, could be considered an analytical provision, and at the same time, assuming the "reasonable" assumption that logic of our language mirrored the world (That was Wittgenstein’s credited contribution actually) this indicated that analytical provisions could be considered empirical.

This became the challenge of being constructive, and intellectually honest, from empirical statements down to grammar. Granted logicism doesn't really work as something that can be demanded, but hence, logical positivism, or logical empiricism was proposed in that manner.

Although as a culture, analyticity remains in more or less spirited assumptions of many Anglo Americans, it was pointed out again by pragmatists that analyticity falters at its own conception of ideal containment. The idea of an overarching, universal idea of “analyticity of propositions”, is what philosophers like W.O. Quine have critiqued as the dogma of empiricism.

The main problem with the appeals to a logical or analytical basis of empiricism, is it ultimately isolates, rather than opens conjectures it appeals to.

Objecting to the projected general idea of analysis of propositions, as a so called "state of affairs", is not to necessarily object to “realism”, or having a view that generally “has facts”, or propositional contingencies to it, but it is possibly an objection to naively leveling discussion to those criteria in a simplistic way. Generally, it is possible to object not only to isolated ideas, but to certain strictures which enforce the "logical" or instituted place of empiricism in social dialogue.

It is ultimately possible to question whether generalized suggestions of propositional analysis really have anything to do with empirical engagements, or if, for instance they are contained in some way, such as in the imagination.

The general question to put could be this: Is verificationism a verifiable proposition?

More pragmatism later.


Edited by Kurt (07/07/15 01:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21908051 - 07/07/15 01:01 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

That looks like 1400 words of gibble de goop

To the point:
"Is verificationism a verifiable proposition?"
Objective assessments of reality have factual a base.
Subjective assessments like feelings and experience do not.

Each to his own opinion but what is more likely?

A- Collective objective evidence points towards what is true
B- Individual subjective beliefs point towards what is true


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUniversaleyeni
Friend
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 2
    #21909138 - 07/07/15 10:35 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What I am hearing from the other side of the science wall, is that anything is possible in our universe, and boxing up the human experience with a lab tested fact sheet only keeps man further from a deeper understanding of the universe.

There's just some things about the depths of Existence that no fact sheet could ever account for. Also, many things that can't be physically proven in a court of scientific law. Silly, they are beyond scientific testability and man's cosmic arrogance.

I can't grab a Soul-o-meter and measure the frequencies of your mystical nature and display them on a graph with lots of calculations. But our human minds are gifted with perception of this. These "senses" within our beings are not calculable or physically apparent, and rely on a separation from the material world. Remember forever though, we access the depths of the universe with the same tool we access this physical world...our minds. Our minds are our only (human) limit. And we know how far out we can get :wink:

Don't hold your breath waiting for science to prove any mystical notions. But do ponder, that thousands (?) of humans with no physical relation or connection to each other, experience similar crucial details in their subjective travels of the mind. Most of the times, the knowledge received by travelers is almost impossible to describe with words, and when it is, it is limited by our language and cognitive descriptions. I'm not talking about the cool geometric patterns and morphing walls either. Just gnosis.

The rules and guidelines of the material physical world command existence? That's caca. I can't prove it tho. Take the trip. Trust your tools.

:heart:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21910151 - 07/07/15 03:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sudly I am glad you recognized a question in what may not be entirely intelligible to you.

However indeed in the point of a rather simple question you responded to, I was asking for a yes or no answer. Is verificationism a verifiable proposition? Your own comment seems oblique to me. I'd say your post appeals to your own idiosyncrasies, not mine.

Personally I don't know if objectivism or subjectivism are very coherent as bases for over arching claims in philosophy. I was mentioning this earlier in the thread...do you know you are talking about the derivative concepts of grammar? It sounds pretty hive minded to me. (Not that I don't think "subject" and "object" useful to recognize; I just don't think the conceptual equivalent of a blunt tool is appropriate to fundamentally characterize life and experience.)

Anyway, the critique I posted which you are pretending to respond to basically states that "analyticity" or intellectual containment, is not a solid foundation for empirical sciences, or anything else of redeemable value. I wasn't talking to you as much as the forum as a whole, but I would say that in what I have observed, as many others have, although you may be correct on some few points about how the sciences stand in the present, your general attitude of correctness is stiff, and mostly contained to your head. I would say at least you could recognize some openness to epistemological discussion, because in a way that is what you appeal to, but on the other hand epistemology as an "understanding of knowledge" is not just a slate on which you place certain claims.

If you would like a response from me, it would be the same response I already gave you twice:  Nobody is doubting that there are reasonable possible inductions you are able to make. Your conservative basis of thinking surely will get you through the day. Congratulations and welcome to existence. This may not be the kind of validation you may be looking for though.

The way you insinuate that everybody should think as you do, is what most people here are critical of. You seem to appeal to scientific evidence without much sense of its general intelligibility. Evidence stands not just for the world in any one dimensional sense, but ideally what is progressing, and what can be seen as developing, and being critiqued through history. Its content is complex. When people have mentioned these viscissitudes, let alone a broader idea of naturalism (including what may be a non-epistemological philosophical query) you respond pretty much in typical fashion.

Apparently you predicate "science", literally down to the sentence as some simple "subject" that enacts and accomplishes this or that. Clearly any notion about evaluation of empirical senses or the way an intelligible conjecture of the universe may be based, seems to just be a post hoc provision for your slew of arguments about a general authority.

I was responding to another poster and the OP in a certain way. I don't think the OP, yourself, or anyone else is representing 20th century analytic philosophy in any conscious way here, but I do think there are certain consolidated holdings of the same intellectual discourse that may be appealed to, "dogmatically" or culturally, even if generally things have loosened up over the last century.

The question I asked at the end of my post about verificationism was mostly rhetorical, because the answer is actually no, verificationism, or logical empiricism, or whatever you want to call it..."Analyticity" failed to fundamentally ground itself. I am just generally pointing this out, whether you get it or not.

Clearly this state of affairs that is appealed to as a "rule" as a one dimensional way of enframing and challenging propositions, is not only anachronistic, but a backwards way of reasoning about the world. "What the world has to be" to represent propositions or the logic of our language, is the highest rung of analyticity, and it is by its own standards, a pseudo-proposition. It is not verifiable, that we have any reason to assume this.

So likewise, so as far as I see there is no ideal tabula rasa for sensory experiences, that our lives are conducted by, and there is not some singular "book" or "subject" of science where data is gathered in any so naive, one dimensional way. Science is purely methodological and to that, paradigmatic, not some book of knowledge to quote from like the bible.

The idea of an overarching consolidation of analyses of the world, or the certain place of idealized "propositions" was something insinuated in a historical and cultural contingency in the early 20th century, when intellectual environments were tensely oppositional. Mainly Anglo American analytic thinkers were opposed to the largely and German influenced philosophical culture of phenomenological or intuitional thinking, and started this consolidation.

The dictates of a "state of affairs", and the supposed virtue of analyticity of thought is a larger cultural, or economical and social issue today, and appeal to this residual intellectual culture is not what I am suggesting is a wholly conscious intellectual position; for instance, for either yourself, or the OP. Verificationism is usually latched on to out of personal prejudice and yet at the same time analyticity is not a "position", because there is no proposition for it. It is only an institution or abstract authority being appealed to.

I hope what I wrote is useful, if not for you, for the forum, as pointing the way to interrogate consolidation and containment of "analyticity" in whatever way it may present itself. This could hopefully serve as a guide in how that line of questioning is done, and point to more pragmatic bases of thinking, if that would seem to be worth anything. That is what I was ideally speaking to in whatever idiosyncracy it might appear as to you, but I know there are a few people here who can understand and appreciate this. I was not questioning the OP, or yourself personally, unless you insist that I was. The question was rhetorical.

My own proposal to the forum is this and it presumes some free thinking: "Analysis" or Analuein, in its greek etymology means "to unloosen". It is perhaps amazing to think so, I know, when today analytic mindedness tends to mean a stiffness, or uptightness. However I think it is possible to run that gauntlet, and to occasionally "be analytical", without allowing the turn toward concept and "language" to take over one's lively spark. I'll attest from experience that it is possible. Other than that...People can only "loosen" up themselves for the most part.


Edited by Kurt (07/07/15 07:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21911127 - 07/07/15 06:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Universaleyeni, science is able to give us some sort of verifiable consensus, which helps us to refine our communication and ask new questions.  Yes, it has limits and no, it isn't everything.  But I think everyone is sort of talking (yelling?) past each other here when it might behoove us to meet somewhere in the middle.

And frankly, I think science will, in the coming decades, treat many subjects which are now mystical only and not acknowledged by science.  Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Universaleyeni]
    #21911163 - 07/07/15 06:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Pure imagination hasn't gotten us far. Read up on the dark ages.

Subjectivity doesn't prove an objective reality.

Thousands of humans think they're jesus, a wizard, an alien, a robot, a mind reader etc.
Similarities in delusions don't prove those delusions.

I trust the tools of science, not imagination.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (07/07/15 07:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21911287 - 07/07/15 07:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I doubt my answers will surprise you.

My answer was giving options for the question. My choice is A.
Whether or not you wanted it to be answered I tried to.

Some ideas are easy to refute, I'm just trying to tell people what my reasons are for refuting their ideas.

Science has a lot of disciplines and a lot of books containing data supported by mathematical and physical evidence.

"The way you insinuate that everybody should think as you do, is what most people here are critical of."

I'm just explaining why I refute their claims, I state my views, I state why I hold my views. It's every individuals choice to believe whatever they want.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
    #21911677 - 07/07/15 08:28 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Hippocampus said:
She made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.




http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15358717


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippocampus
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21911887 - 07/07/15 09:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Star Wars nerds have long since accounted for it though.  It just uses a little special relativity and the help of a few singularities that happened to be nearby this Kessel run.  Although by using special relativity to explain it, it also makes Hans Olo necessarily much older through time dilation.  He would have been 29, but born before Obi-Wan.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21912287 - 07/07/15 10:23 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I doubt my answers will surprise you.

My answer was giving options for the question. My choice is A.
Whether or not you wanted it to be answered I tried to.

Some ideas are easy to refute, I'm just trying to tell people what my reasons are for refuting their ideas.

Science has a lot of disciplines and a lot of books containing data supported by mathematical and physical evidence.

"The way you insinuate that everybody should think as you do, is what most people here are critical of."

I'm just explaining why I refute their claims, I state my views, I state why I hold my views. It's every individuals choice to believe whatever they want.




Sudly, the question I generally asked was "is verificationism verifiable?" Do you know what "verificationism" means in this context?

Quote:


Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable).




You are giving "options" to the question? Where do options fall into consideration, when you are verifying whether something is necessarily either true or false?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21912531 - 07/07/15 11:18 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I believe that objective verification is viable.
For subjective empirical verification I do not.

Things are either true or false. We can have a guess but it doesn't change the outcome.

Experience only renders the probable, objectivity renders the possible.

Verificationism is a sticky situation because it is a mixture of both subjective and objective reasoning.

Knowledge is defined as a belief that we justify to be true.
The question you're asking is, is it viable to justify our beliefs with subjective and objective thoughts. I would say no.

It is only viable to justify a belief with objectivity because it is falsifiable. Subjective justification is not.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21913193 - 07/08/15 01:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sudly, I am not sure what you mean in a lot of those statements, but for you to answer my question, you'd have to know what I mean, so I feel that in a practical way I should turn the discussion back to clarifying what I mean by the question I raised, if you don't mind.

Here is a wikipedia article on verificationism, which is the concept I was speaking to:

Quote:


Verificationism was a movement in Western philosophy—in particular, analytic philosophy—that emerged in the 1920s by the efforts of a group of philosophers known as the logical positivists, who aimed to formulate criteria to ensure philosophical statements' meaningfulness and to objectively assess their falsity or truth. Initially, logical positivists sought a universal language whereby both ordinary language and physics—thereby all of the empirical sciences—could be represented formally via symbolic logic's axioms, whereupon the empirical sciences' basis in observation or experience could be clearly discerned and mimicked by philosophy.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.[4]





The question I asked was "is verificationism a verifiable proposition":

You seem to think conjecture is open on this, and in a sense it is.

Maybe I could clarify. I would say people implicitly appeal to the basis of verificationism, but not as far as I see, upon any epistemological criteria. The principle may be an ethical one that is appealed to. It's something like the idea that everyone is supposed to share an "intellectual honesty" or "constructive" regard for things, or not be "nihilistic" or some other kind of intellectual degenerate.

It is kind of that red faced Richard Dawkins thing, sometimes as a cultural movement, sometimes an ethic. In general it is something pretty embedded in Anglo-American culture.

My question is relatively simple and straight forward: I am generally asking if there is a simple proposition, which determines (yes or no) if verificationism is a verifiable proposition, in its own terms. Ostensibly this would be a logical consideration, if you consider the simple definition I posed previously:

Quote:

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable).




Is there a verifiable proposition of verificationism (that holds to be true)? If there is such a proposition, then you are walking Spanish down the hall.

If verificationism is not a verifiable proposition, on the other hand, it would perhaps seem that the formality or conventionality of its appeal is mostly just a dogmatic way of marginalizing discourses, for what seems to be less good of a reason.

That is to say; the main distinction about verificationists is they talk in a certain terms mostly about "nonsense" or a "pseudo-propositions". They are interested in keeping things in certain bounds, and this supposedly (according to the ideal anyway) their intellectual contribution. If this is merely a convention, one could certainly wonder about this ideal, if these cultural blinders are necessarily a good thing, or if this approach to things is even a pursuit of truth. Such a question would have to be left open, probably.

What can be strictly observed, is that the said cultural (ie. conventionally founded) verificationist would have a tendency to talk about the way sciences stand as they are, or in other words the way they stand according to the logic that has already been gathered, or in a state of affairs of research, rather than finding contingence of propositions in an avenue of actual empirical possibilities, through a more pragmatic orientation. It could also be clearly seen that what has been gathered in textbooks as empirical logic, is not necessarily the same as an experimental or trial based attitude.

Anyway according to the article, logical positivism is said to be irretrievable as an intellectual position. Not that I think you should take a wiki page's word for it, but on the other hand, I don't know what it is worth to study this kind of thing, ultimately. Personally I think one can investigate these things, but still, as Heraclitus says on matters of logos, "One must follow what is common"

This also reminds me of something another non-analytic philosopher wrote of, in a certain impressionistic way..."Gods too decompose." Perhaps this could be refreshing to the present discussion? Do you ever read any of the literary philosophers? Nietzsche is a good one.

Quote:

The Parable of the Madman

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"




If I could interpret Nietzsche, or what his madman is suggesting, I would say he is referring to the absurdity of a culture that still moves intellectually in circles about a dead matter. Personally I think verificationism is dead, but here I am talking about it. I am asking you a question, which I think I know the answer to. To me it's dead, and anachronistic even though a culture goes on around and about it. I'll leave the rest to you.

The question I asked, is "Is verificationism a verifiable proposition on its own terms"?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21913233 - 07/08/15 02:08 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

All I am saying is that I use objective reasoning to justify my knowledge, just as the scientific method does. 

Verificationism is a mixture of subjective/objective reasoning which I do not agree with. So to answer your question, no.

Again I state that empirical subjective reasoning it not viable in justifying knowledge as though it has a factual basis.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21913278 - 07/08/15 02:31 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Okay, can you somehow elaborate how you mean that verificationism is a "mixture of subjective and objective reasoning"? I don't know what this means.

Also what is objective reasoning as your own position? Is that logic?
And what, as opposed to this is empirical subjective reasoning?

Sorry, but I don't understand how you are using these terms.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21913807 - 07/08/15 07:54 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?




Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago.  All communication was wireless back then.

Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound.  Something was crazy back then, and it became true...  Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true!  Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21914174 - 07/08/15 09:41 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.




If I can find and reference a lamer argument, what do I win?

:goose:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSun King
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21914335 - 07/08/15 10:19 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

One-way ticket to Iran.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] * 1
    #21914365 - 07/08/15 10:27 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?




Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago.  All communication was wireless back then.

Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound.  Something was crazy back then, and it became true...  Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true!  Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.





That's not at all what I meant.  My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible.  Is this really such an irrational suggestion?  Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time.  One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers.  They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries.  Same phenomenon.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21914727 - 07/08/15 12:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible.  Is this really such an irrational suggestion?





I don't know about irrational.  I think its wrong.  I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum.  New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time.  One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers.  They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries.  Same phenomenon.




Which sci-fi writer was considered a nut?  And more importantly, by whom was he considered a nut?  Both Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were well regarded in their time.  Arthur C. Clarke predicted satellite communication, but that is a no brainier.  William Gibson's work was seen as seminal as well as both predicting and inspiring the future.  This is what these famous sci-fi writers did, they both predicted and inspired the future.  There is a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in there.

I don't think the phenomenon you are claiming is common place and readily apparent exists or is relevant.

This is indeed exactly what I thought you meant, you are arguing for the "they laughed at Galileo" argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21916133 - 07/08/15 05:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?




Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago.  All communication was wireless back then.

Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound.  Something was crazy back then, and it became true...  Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true!  Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.




Who has suggested this logic? I am not wondering so much because I think you guys won't  hash it out, but more in general.

Just as it could be hoped that we could move away from enframing straw man arguments, critique could be made of the burden of a positive suggestion that there is a general table of logic to the universe, where this suggestion is seemingly so immanently possible to make.

To what has actually been said, why extrapolate so much from what people "often" say? This is clearly the suggestion of imagination, and actually not what anyone has actually said in an instance. Indeed one could point out there is no principium contradictionis from the beginning of this thread that begins on the same note. Rather, imagined dialogues seem to be projected and enframed to impress the same thing; that as opposed to "nonsense" as if by principle, there was some overall consistency in what anyone else is saying.

It's the pariah, right? Suppose that the faith projected here is actually in opposite values, if not plainly resentment.

Being able to make empirical inductions according to some conservative logic is something of potential value of course, but it just doesn't seem to happen in such a generalized way. For instance, while there is some semblance of a logic to empirical research, or our understanding of the universe - namely as the sciences stand - over all, the vicissitudes of a history of science seem to indicate that the universe or our understanding of it has not moved according to any overall, or general logic, but more significantly in undermining fundamental conceptuality. This is clear as day, and it is what people are talking about being "constructive" about.

What I would suggest, is that instead of making issue of things being relative, or being angry about this, it could be possible to recognize that there is some burden to suggesting logical reasoning in a positive sense, rather than just as a happenstance convenience. Is it so much to say logic suggested should be found in actual arguments, for instance? Ask Orgone conclusion. If insinuating a universal table of logic, where puppets dance upon does not clearly betray a dogmatic conception of the universe, then perhaps the dogma of logical analysis could be described as something like mistaking the finger that is pointed at the moon. Maybe nothing can indicate this, but surely, symbolic significance has its boundary and cusp.

We can follow the way data has been gathered as the logic that trails behind science, and aligning to this could be useful, yet overlapping this (not merely relativism) is another tendency that can be observed under the same face value distinction that could be considered weighted. Logic may not necessarily be suggested in the way of "textbook" reasoning in order to consider actual propositions (such as practical foregoing empirical propositions) or in other words, according to truth or falsity, but as a hypothetical or imagined consideration of what it is "reasonable" or "sensible" to think and what is "nonsense" or a "pseudo-propositions" as opposed to this. The suggestion of logic is not necessarily practical in that sense, but just a manner of indicating what is inside and outside a "universe" of thought.

At this point, it may be worth asking, can this be fundamentally justified? Is the mystic who is said to project from imagination, necessarily as banal as he or she must be to justify making these distinctions? Or is a mystic, or anyone with improbable thoughts possibly just someone who has an impression of things, who may go beyond the cusp of reasonable thoughts?

In any case, a relativist's or mystic's point aside, this discussion of sense and nonsense, or proposition and pseudo-proposition as the generality of logic, is clearly a different kind of discussion than the consideration of truth and falsity per se, of actual propositions, as the value of logic. Clearly in some sense the value of logic (truth value) must be appealed to sometimes to justify the notion of getting everything contained in to analytical conception of things. In other words, by containing thought, the idea is to have everyone thinking about truth and falsity, and thinking sensibly, or according to sense. But does this really happen, and is it worth the candle?

It is significant to follow these economies of distinctions, because frankly, some skepticism of human nature could be found going "both ways". Logicians would clearly be burdened quite a bit by dogma for instance, if by tendency,  or "often" they suggested looking away from actual or potential value of truth, in order to look to these dialogical consistencies of enframing a universal logos according to science. Granted, this is probably not something one can point to, (as say a psychological issue) but it's definitely a possibility. But clearly in some cases, if not all, logical boundaries are really just some prejudices in the mind being projected.

Quote:


DividedQuantum said:

My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible.  Is this really such an irrational suggestion?





Quote:

DieCommie said:
I don't know about irrational.  I think its wrong.  I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum. New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.





The dichotomies and oppositional dialogue between rationalism (idealism) and empiricism could be seen as a convenient and banal vestige of American culture, to void the distinction between rationalism and irrationality, and namely the actual void or formlessness groundlessness, and boundarylessness, we may find in life.

Sure, the american conception of scientific truth above all seems to suggest there is some natural or ideal reason for empirical truth to be leveled as an imperative shared correspondence, as logic or rationality (consolidating the opposition). Is this necessarily, or as the categorical imperative suggests, because this correspondence of truth is a reflection of nature? And does it take a conspiracy thinker to point out the obvious? The intelligibility is in banality itself.

As a matter of pure engineering, it is necessary that everyone should be thinking exactly the same. This could be "logically" or "rationally" (and indeed according to many physical parameters at the same time) for some ideal like launching a rocket into the stratosphere, rather than speculating about any other possibilities. In fact, if someone were thinking about possibilities beyond statistic probability, they would likely cause something to go wrong. Oh, no. That's just "wrong". Just the same, an assembly line technological production for consumer society, puts any notion of creative thought soundly in the hands of some technophilic engineer like Steve Jobs, and subordinates itself. This is the value of analytic thinking, that is supposed as some kind of general virtue or universal phenomenon, and laughingly, as something individualistic, or having to do with natural philosophy.

In the end, it is unconscious what people appeal to by the insinuations of a "general" logic of the universe. These blinders could be critiqued as  enframing, not only for the narrowness of the attempt at marginalizing discourses, or propping up some petty personal motivation, but as pointed out, because banality never fails to level to the same thing as common denomination.

Still, this does not suggest that conservative leveling to logical thinking in its actual instances is necessarily banal, it is just what "often" or "typically" happens, when precisely those economies of what often or typically should be found in opposition, are appealed to.


Edited by Kurt (07/10/15 07:38 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21916220 - 07/08/15 06:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Objective truth is something that is really true, it corresponds with reality, and can in principle be verified by others. Subjective truth, on the other hand, may be true for you but not for me, and cannot be verified by another. “Dogs have four legs” is an objective truth, but “I like dogs” is subjective.

Verificationism is simply another theory of linguistic meaning.
Verificationism claims to only use the 5 senses that humans have, in doing so this creates subjective reasoning because we would only use our 5 human senses. Using technology we can see the light spectrum radio waves and various other senses not detectable to human senses. We are able to expand our senses greatly in order to make objective claims.

Vertificationism was constructed in a time when we did not have the technology to expand our senses, we do now.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (07/08/15 10:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21916389 - 07/08/15 06:58 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

First of all your comment:

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?




Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago.  All communication was wireless back then.




is ridiculous, considering it was obvious that I mean wireless electronic communication.  And if you took a time machine back two hundred years it would be indistinguishable from magic.




Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible.  Is this really such an irrational suggestion?





I don't know about irrational.  I think its wrong.  I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum.  New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time.  One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers.  They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries.  Same phenomenon.




Which sci-fi writer was considered a nut?  And more importantly, by whom was he considered a nut?  Both Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were well regarded in their time.  Arthur C. Clarke predicted satellite communication, but that is a no brainier.  William Gibson's work was seen as seminal as well as both predicting and inspiring the future.  This is what these famous sci-fi writers did, they both predicted and inspired the future.  There is a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in there.

I don't think the phenomenon you are claiming is common place and readily apparent exists or is relevant.

This is indeed exactly what I thought you meant, you are arguing for the "they laughed at Galileo" argument.




You mention Arthur C. Clarke.  I like his three laws:

They are:

    1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (italics mine)


How about Philip K. Dick?  What about alchemy?  Parallel universes?  I could go on.  Our ideas about thermonuclear fusion seem respectable.  So do the various hypotheses about the multiverse.

These were explicitly mystical notions.

(I would bet at this point that you might say the multiverse is still unproven and implausible, but to that I would say that it is legitimately in the scientific conversation, as it has been converged upon by several different approaches.  It can no longer be seen as wild, baseless speculation).

The fact is that there are historical instances of mystical or quasi-mystical notions becoming objective and theoretical-technological later on.


"Intelligence evolves when the occult and magical become the objective-scientific." --Timothy Leary


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21916499 - 07/08/15 07:20 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

.


Edited by DieCommie (11/12/16 11:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] * 1
    #21916550 - 07/08/15 07:29 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If someone from 200 years ago came to the present they would certainly think wireless communication was magic and mystical as they would have no prior understanding of its mechanisms.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21916566 - 07/08/15 07:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well, they would be wrong (as the mystic usually is).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] * 1
    #21916579 - 07/08/15 07:35 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well, all right, you have your perspective and I have mine.  All I can do at this point is leave it for other readers to decide who has made better points than whom.  Your posts have been typical.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21916582 - 07/08/15 07:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, they would be wrong (as the mystic usually is).




The whole point Sudly was making is that what is considered mystical isn't necessarily.  As I have been making.  I think you missed it...


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21916599 - 07/08/15 07:40 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Well, all right, you have your perspective and I have mine.




And never the twain shall meet, aye?

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Your posts have been typical.




Funny, I was thinking the same thing...  Its nice to throw a little dig in there at the end.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21916605 - 07/08/15 07:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Put 'er there, old chap.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
    #21916724 - 07/08/15 08:09 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well yeah.. they would be wrong. They would not know how it works and would presume it was god/magic/miracle etc.

The point here as has been made by DividedQuantum is that science can explain and has explained what so many mystics throughout history and the present claim to be miracles/magic.

People used to think that thunder was created by a god, that rain was created by a god and sadly still believe that we were created by a god.

There may be things that we do not completely understand yet but that doesn't mean mysticism is the reasoning behind the unknown. In time, as has been done numerous times before, science will understand what we do not.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21917241 - 07/08/15 10:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Sudly I think that is pretty reasonable.

Who rings out the idols, and with what intent? Perhaps I could do some invoking myself of the quintessential empiricist David Hume.

Quote:

We fancy, that were we brought on a sudden into this world, we could at first have inferred that one billiard ball would communicate motion to another upon impulse, and that we needed not to have waited for the event, in order to pronounce with certainty concerning it. Such is the influence of custom, that, where it is strongest, it not only covers our natural ignorance but even conceals itself, and seems not to take place, merely because it is found in the highest degree.
- Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding





Hume seems to suggest that the a priori, or otherwise convenient prescription or prediction is questionable.

What people have been suggesting in this thread, as I take it, is the question if it is within a certain context, discretely "possible" predict reality on empirical basis. My question in response, would be if this could be suggested in any manner of empirical principle.

Keeping in mind that the question of empirically principled research does not seem to be safely found in what has been ideally gathered and recorded a posteriori, but (pretty essentially) in raising a question pertaining to what is progressively gathered as data about the world through history, it seems like there is still wiggle room in general.

Indeed looking to Hume's forewarning; it is of the insinuation of custom: Is Hume's own description an analogy for ontological conception of "atoms in a void"? Is it perhaps a conditional, pragmatic distinction being made? In any case the fist part of the statement says it is generally important to recognize this inherent conditionality of empirical correspondence. I think the forewarning indicates an empiricist would need to not only be able to question, but to question openly, and so a somewhat locked in, and contrived manner of pointing fingers isn't going to help things.

The manner in which this thread was predicated was by the whim of imagination and the projection of a dialogue with a mystic. There is no proposition, or instance of an instantiated logic in that sense, and what we talk about is only enframed this way. We'd might as well say Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly.

Now if Hume's pale and stiff white man analogy speaks to anything, (it is an analogy, by the way, not a description of fundamental causes, or reality and that should pretty much be enough said) maybe it's that pool is a game, and its not just because it has rules that it is going to be played more or less fairly.

If that seems reasonable, maybe it would be possible to look this, to people's dreamed dialogue, and play it out. What could be said? Here is what I think:

There are clean shots in pool, but anyone's also got to admit, however effective a player; in a game of pool, a break is a break, the result of which is found "in trial" as empeiros. No matter how much strategy and logic you put around the break, you can't really change the meaning of what it is, and if you have changed the meaning from that, well then what you are doing can't practically speaking be described as a "trial" at that point, and there is no game.

I'd say you've gotta expect that little bedbug of chaos pans out in empeiros, especially over a wide period of time, like in history of its research. It's what makes the game a game. The mystic, as much as he or she is invoked, even in the "twilight of the idols" sits there with a big buddha smile.

Perhaps questioning rational authorities, will one day be questioning the finger pointed at the moon even? If the thread can begin in an imagined idea of a mystic, maybe resolution could be in that...

Quote:

Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the full of its bent, and not knowing it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly I awoke, and came to myself, the veritable Chuang Chou. Now I do not know whether it was then I dreamt I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man. Between me and the butterfly there must be a difference. This is an instance of transformation.




Edited by Kurt (07/09/15 11:41 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #21917532 - 07/08/15 11:42 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Kurt, I have been enjoying your refreshingly well thought out intelligent posts. Not sure if I'm. 100% onboard with everything you've posted but I understand and relate to your concepts, I simply question everything that I know nothing of. As you put it to truly analyze you must something is to unloosen it. To do this without constructs of preconception or determined language is a truly rough path to find through the jungle of culture. Hume's analogy of the billiard game begs to see things as a toddler would. With an inquisitive mind and and no preconception of what it is. The billiard game then looses the preconcieved notion that people will play by the rules or even acknowledge that rules exist or need to exist. The balls, table, pockets and stick simply are. We can then take this loose idea of the physical constructs and analyze it to determine that a stick can collide with a ball and a ball can collide with another ball and so on. This determines the physical limitation of the items and objectifies them. But the question of what are these objects for? What is their purpose? Is there a purpose? The balls fit in the pockets but is that a coincidence or inference? These are the subjective points that science can infer but not consistently answer alone because the physical description alone does not make up the all of reality.

At least my stab at understanding.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewangel
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/15
Posts: 63
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21922522 - 07/09/15 11:05 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: wangel]
    #21922576 - 07/09/15 11:26 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

wangel said:
No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.




what about this?

Johnny:I can accurately predict the outcome of U.S. Presidential Elections
Jimmy:no you can't

There is really no way for johnny to prove his claim.  Even if he accurately predicted 10 elections in a row, its such a small sample, that it could just be dumb luck. and yet, if johnny did predict 10 elections in a row, how could jimmy possibly claim to disprove his statement? it could even be a true statement, just without a a method to prove or disprove it


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Edited by ballsalsa (07/09/15 11:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21923109 - 07/10/15 04:54 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)



--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Asante]
    #21925808 - 07/10/15 07:21 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well i guess i never really answered the OP. I believe that someone can claim they know through experience that has nothing to do with scientific backup. For them to be not full of shit is another thing, but if someone experiences something first hand, they are not mentally or chemically skewed, and are being as objective as possible about the experience then they can claim they know something because they do. Now the person making such a claim must also realize that their experience probably wont be the epitome of knowledge on the subject. Also to say they know it because they know it in my scenario would be incorrect wording, they should state "i know because i was there" or "i know because i experienced it" or something along those lines. To state that you know simply because you do infers that you had existing knowledge about something with no external experience. This I call bullshit on, at best they know because of deduction, induction, or guessing.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21925856 - 07/10/15 07:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I'm curious to find out what the difference between someone experiencing something religious is and someone experiencing something like an alien abduction.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21925860 - 07/10/15 07:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your post, but on the other hand, I feel I have to point out that the argument against it would be that first-person, subjective accounts of something that happens to said person are more often than not totally unreliable.  It's very hard for anybody to objectively judge what is happening to them, and much more often than not one is wrong.  I.e., what one thinks happened is often not what happened at all.

So that would be a very legitimate rebuttal to your post.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21925885 - 07/10/15 07:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Are you aware that all 20,000 viewers of the Fatima viewers who claimed they saw the sun move were in error?

Are you aware that all 50,000 viewers of the Phoenix Lights who claimed they saw an alien craft were in error?

Are you aware that all 250,000 viewers of the polarized bank window in Florida claimed they saw the Virgin Mary were in error?

Almost all people are unable to distance their expectation/bias from an event and thus commingle their observation with their conclusion as if they were the same thing.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21925888 - 07/10/15 07:51 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I see you got there ahead of me.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #21925894 - 07/10/15 07:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I was just warming up the crowd for your arrival.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21926789 - 07/11/15 12:18 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

How about some phenomenological primer?

Quote:

“Husserl goes beyond the world given to the natural attitude and he goes beyond psychology, but he also goes beyond what we could call the “apophatic” domain the realm of meaning and propositions, which Frege calls the realm of sense (sinn). In doing so. Hussars moves beyond logic as an apophatic science, which studies the structures of this domain…He distinguishes the apophatic domain and its formal logic from the transcendental subject and its transcendental logic… His science presupposes and examines the kind of truth we achieve in our experience of things, in the truth of correctness, and in the questions raised by formal logic. I believe it is important to distinguish phenomenology from the kind of science that reflects simply on the apophatic domain. We have access to the apophatic realm through what I would call propositional reflection, which is radically different from transcendental, philosophical reflection. The philosophical examination of truth is different from the logical analysis of meaning.”


 

Divided Quantum; the position I saw in Nuentoter's post seems reasonable to me. It is generally suggestive of acknowledging the practical beginning point where all post-cartesian thinkers "lovingly" begin.

To any contrary suggestion, the question you would eventually have to come up to is this: Where else are you going to find sensory experience, but in a subjective faculty, which bears the world as phenomenological intuition? Where better than in open contingency of an independent minded, practical correspondence with the world?

It doesn't seem to me that nuentoter was saying the possibility of these intuitions is in any way a certain, and yet that could generally provide a thoroughgoing, general basis, for what could be considered a practical empirical correspondence with the world. Empeiros, as what is found "in trial", would be possible to find in the risk of intuition. On the other hand, in principle it is not possible to find empirical research as anything fundamentally "certain" or instituted in the world even if that would seem to be a convenience to empiricists.

I am not sure where nuentoter stands, but I'd say a position of phenomenological intuitionalism seems reasonable to hold as possible contingence of argument, spoken of in one way, which for instance, compared to the OP, is at least not vested in any illusion of a simulacrum of arguments managing everything that is empirical. To put the possibility of phenomenology in certain terms, would perhaps be to admit as Kant did, of the necessity of a priori intuition.

This could be one way to suggest that the general contingency of arguments, must be found utterly in context, as opposed as something to generally theorize about. Often enough, the general idea of empiricism as ideal analysis of arguments gets removed from any trial basis in the idea of analysis. For instance, someone talking about data already gathered in textbooks, or generally the way understanding trails along empirical research, as empirical research, definitely begs the question. Is such an appeal to empiricism actually a trial basis?

It is possible to critique the dogma and institutionalism of the projected general circle of conjecture, or the "analysis of propositions" that is suggested as the meaning of empirical research so often. There is a neat essay by W.O. Quite on that here. A possible summary argument is that the dogma of analyticity is in how generally logical analysis which as an idea is projected outward in a certain sense as universal, or "objective" (ie. the logos) may be confused or convoluted with an empirical correspondence with the world.

Here is the classic argument: if you would deny cartesian subjective intuitions in general, you would probably be ascribing meaning to the "incident" or "situation", or "occurence" (etc) of a sensory experience, according to some surrounding structure. Is that idea of "sense" empirical necessarily? Perhaps it could be in a way. There would be utility in having this implied, shared frame of reference to senses, and yet how does that come about?

The general ideal anyway, is that from different points of view, relative aspects of a point of reference that we take for granted can be constructively gathered and determined. If a frame of reference is given in that way, it could even seem to include the "appropriate" meaning of phenomenological bearing in respect to the referent, as a general "gathering of data". This is suggested in the initial passage I quoted as the Fregean "sense" of propositions, or the sense we "make" ("propositional reflection").

This general theoretically implied frame of reference can't be grounded in epistemological terms though. That is what I have noticed. A proposition of a state of affairs, for instance, (Wittgenstein's attempt to ground the Fregean sense of propositions in a general way) is literally a backwards idea, insinuating "the way the world has to be, in order for propositions to be true". Aside from what it was intended to dictate as realism and an objectivity, it was itself a high Platonic idealism, and untenable in the terms which a state of affairs is useful for demanding. When this situation fell apart, the conclusion is that empiricism can't be asserted in any sense of logical "necessity".

It seems to me that usually this shared frame of reference, is something that is culturally leveled, for instance, by ethical value claims of "intellectual honesty" or scientific "integrity", which is fine, but it is not an epistemological proposition. I'd point out that those ideas only exist today, largely because there was a rigorous epistemological project that was attempted, and that failed to ground itself, and it is now appealed to in platitudes and insinuations, instead.

It is not only " intellectual" but a much larger and significant cultural and historical contingency. The implied, consolidated frame of reference was suggested specifically to void the uncertainties of phenomenological bearings ("pseudo problems") in the 20th century, namely when a continental and largely german phenomenologically based philosophical culture was perceived as threatening, for obviously non-philosophical reasons. An anglo american philosophical culture (in line with british empiricists) stood for radicalizing and consolidating its own "analytical" position, and in all that intellectual work, you can see gestures which are specifically contrived attempts to void or marginalize the "superficiality" of phenomenology, as an erroneous, troublesome, and patently useless element of subjectivity.

A rift remains both culturally and intellectually today, as the division between continental and analytic philosophy, or as said, between analysis of arguments and phenomenology.

The American pragmatists from another point of view came to be critical of its own analytic tradition. The essay Quine wrote was probably the first attack, in the 1950's. Richard Rorty writes about analyticity not from one side of the cultural rift or the other, but still with an insistent critique of analytic philosophy in mind:

Quote:


American philosophers were, for better or worse, bored with Dewey, and thus with pragmatism. They were sick of being told that pragmatism was the philosophy of American democracy, that Dewey was the great American intellectual figure of their century, and the like. They wanted something new, something they could get their philosophical teeth into. What showed up, thanks to Hitler and various other historical contingencies, was logical empiricism, an early version of what we now call ‘analytic philosophy’ ([2], p. 70).





Our "Anglo American" idea of empirical methodology is fundamentally guided by this idea of "analysis of propositions", for instance, specifically in Karl Popper's falisficationism. Theories stand in a contingency "to be falsified" (or as falsifiable), and much discussion is to expediently guide them to that contingency. It could be said even that the main suggestion of scientific research is ostensibly in distinguishing propositions from pseudo-propositions according to an implied frame of reference of what is sensible, more than considering truth or falsity. This leveling of propositions to being found with a "sense" (within the margins of implicit acceptible reference) is suggested for the purpose of supplying an implied assembly line economy of technical scientific research with its provisions for determining "actual" truth values, as a "technical" matter.

I think when you look to the conjecture of analysis in a context of discussion that goes beyond actual scientific practices, into epistemology, (which Quine suggests) it makes sense to look critically at these projected analyses of propositions as the face value appeals of "empirical" research. What does it essntially mean to actually find a correspondence with the world "in trial"? I don't know, but I can observe that theoretical or purely imagined discussions of propositions can seem to have little empirical utility in their own right.

What is projected or pointed to as "the logos", can be considered just as dogmatic as intuition, though it is projected in a different way. At least intuition is a risk, of possibly being either true or false, and could follow on that. Talking about the management of pseudo propositions and propositions; what is that? What sense is there in talking about propositions outside their actual contingency?

A friend of mine from Austria once told me it is interesting the way that as an american, I used the word science so generally, or namely with such a broad authority. After all aren’t there many different provisions and scopes of science to speak of, and not a singular logos, or methodology, each even grinding into the other like tectonic plates? I personally thought I was pretty aware of this, but I didn't realize it came down to a way of speaking, that I should stumble. The closest word my friend was using for "science" had much different implications. (I had questioned her "blunt" way of using the English word science to describe anything generally academic.) The word she was glossing was Wissenschaft. Later I found that French and German languages can aside from any institutional or doctrinal terms distinguish between knowledge that results from recognition (“connaitre” and “kennen”), and knowledge that results from understanding (savoir and wissen). English speakers don’t have ready linguistic equivalents for these distinctions, as a manner of speaking. We just have "knowledge" or the 19th century coinage sciencia.

So as for "science" then, maybe there are extraneous reasons it seems incomprehensible that phenomenologists like Kant or Husserl (and heck Descartes himself) could have suggested phenomenology as the driving basis of sciences?

Is it all one flat dimensionless "analysis" for us? What about pragmatism? I think the best that  could be suggested in this thread is that. My proposition would be to move a description of empirical research away from this American institutionalism of thinking, and find the basis of our sciences in individuality, utility, and acceptance of some relative pluralism.

To be practically empirical could in a positive way possibly mean to assure that the projected analyticity of arguments, or demand for empirical arguement is met and considered in terms of some contingence of an actually proposed hypotheses. If you want to suggest empiricism, there is no abstraction. If one would suggest empirical research, make an argument, a progressive hypothesis, or allow other people to.

Can we in any way assure that an appeal to face value empiricism is actually found in empiricism? The idea of empiricism as a theoretical argument seems to be leveling the idea of empiricism either to what has already been gathered by better or more active minds than our own, or to what stands as what is "worse" than that. Is it unreasonable to say that an appeal to empirical proposition, actually be found in its terms as an empirical proposition, in other words, in its contingency? Where derives the intuition, and progressiveness of trial based philosophy? I'd say it is the very risk or "trial" that is taken, and it is that, which is truly empirical, and utterly contingent, and less theoretically simulated.

In terms of the projection of "analyticity" pragmatism is expressed as "a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality." Instead, "pragmatists consider thought an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action."

That would be a good general basis for knowledge I'd say. And knowledge could be more analytical or more phenomenological. Personally, I would suggest constructively to this discussion that we could at least look to way the logos is projected, in fair measure with something that goes beyond that limitation.

Maybe it's time to end this theoretical simulacrum of "analysis of empirical propositions"? Maybe it's time to allow empirical propositions to be made in a more open way, or less
strictly enframed way.


Edited by Kurt (07/11/15 02:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepwnzer
Stranger
Registered: 07/11/15
Posts: 39
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21927568 - 07/11/15 06:11 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: pwnzer]
    #21928903 - 07/11/15 01:34 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Your post seems to me to be a non sequitur, I don't see the relevance as a reply to Kurt's post. What were you conveying when you posted those links?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21929170 - 07/11/15 02:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Divided Quantum; the position I saw in Nuentoter's post seems reasonable to me. It is generally suggestive of acknowledging the practical beginning point where all post-cartesian thinkers "lovingly" begin.




I sympathize with nuentoter's position as well, in some respects, and I said as much in my post.  But the simple fact remains that what I said is true.  The worst judge of any personal experience is the first-person.  Which is not to say that such an assessment is always without merit, which it isn't.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepwnzer
Stranger
Registered: 07/11/15
Posts: 39
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21929490 - 07/11/15 04:06 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

idk man


Edited by pwnzer (07/11/15 04:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21929835 - 07/11/15 05:23 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

Kurt said:
Divided Quantum; the position I saw in Nuentoter's post seems reasonable to me. It is generally suggestive of acknowledging the practical beginning point where all post-cartesian thinkers "lovingly" begin.




I sympathize with nuentoter's position as well, in some respects, and I said as much in my post.  But the simple fact remains that what I said is true.  The worst judge of any personal experience is the first-person.  Which is not to say that such an assessment is always without merit, which it isn't.




Well, I know it is a physical and biological fact that sensory experience will occur to a single living person. I'd call that a simple fact in one sense, although it definitely isn't based on solipsism, so I don't think it is simple or factual in any manner in which we are speaking.

How much can anyone lean on "this", would suggest my response though, as a "phenomenologist" for the purpose of argument. Respectively, I'd say the judgements you are speaking of are potentially helpful or practically useful, I just doubt that they are necessarily imperative in any certain sense. I'd say what you are talking about is assuming pragmatics, which are not "true" in any case, but depend on the specific domain, and context of experience.

I'd say there will be many cases where it is plainly best to rely on first person intuition, either in life itself, or scientific research. However much conjecture will be implicitly dictated, phenomenological intuition will always be popping its head up as much into the universe, as to our conjectures of it. It is not a fact, but it is the basis of epistemology, which will inform all facts we find.

Adopting phenomenology or first person approaches in principle can lead to reliable value judgements, if on the "eccentric" side of life. I'll attest to that. For instance, there are some things that I know, that I would never attempt to claim, and I would see no point to attempting to. I'm just saying, and if anyone is (I dunno) uptight about independently embodying knowledge, I'll just say that  "knowledge is pragmatic", it is the basis of way of reliable action, and I'll call this my personal intuition. It's what tells me to look before I leap, and that's a first person thing.

I would certainly be willing to admit that this intuition is not always the best or most appropriate to rely on in ANY case, but in these cases, I would like to avoid falling into a complete "implied" leveling of the value of 1st person experience to 3rd person evaluation of experience. In that sense I'd say I am a pragmatist.

I think what I would say to the prospect of practical judgement, as a conjecture, is that the background that dictates contingency of arguments can't be generally theorized or insinuated in a one dimensional way. It isn't this table of analysis where isolated arguments are "made examples of". The appeal in propositional reflection has to be directly found in the actual contingency of arguments. That relation also seems to me to imply epistemological holism.

I not saying this is more practical than anything else, but it would be my attempt to be constructive as per your suggestion which seems to me loose enough. It could be a useful consideration for paradigmatic fields of science. I'm not sure if it's a perfect philosophical approach, but it doesn't seem like there are many of those anyway. I find it interesting...

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Confirmation_holism


Edited by Kurt (07/11/15 05:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21929881 - 07/11/15 05:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent points. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21929981 - 07/11/15 06:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:cheers:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: pwnzer]
    #21930292 - 07/11/15 06:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

:cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21932466 - 07/12/15 08:19 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Trust me I am not saying first person experience is in any way infallible. Quite the opposite actually, but it is the basis for all knowledge we have. If 2 people, one a devout Christian and one a person of science experience something like a golden colored ring of light on the sky, there will be two very different accounts of what happened. Two experiences of the same happening. The scientific mind will analyze based upon his knowledge and produce a scientific theory of what could have possibly caused the phenomenon. The religious mind will analyze the same data but produce a theory based on their knowledge of religion. This is obvious.  People are often wrong in the long run about experiences that cannot be readily explained by common knowledge. But my point was to push the idea that until the experience is quantified by research empirical testing and so forth, the experience must stand on its own. It is reality until someone proves otherwise. With enough proof it becomes "true". More or less..

My question then I guess is if someone were of scientific mind with no tendency towards fantastical notion, such as Sudly States his view is, and they experience something like... hmmm a bodiless voice. What would you folks think?

This experience has been shared by some scientists such as Descartes, Carl Jung, Julian Jaynes,  Socrates, Newton, Freud, and others. But according to physics and all known science it cannot unless these people were having hallucinations which should discredit the account.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 16 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21933771 - 07/12/15 02:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Auditory hallucinations, something in the environment that sounds like a word or words or audilization. Audilization isn't a word, but I don't think it's unlikely, given that visualization is so common that some don't do what it would describe.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,867
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21934391 - 07/12/15 05:14 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Colter

Quote:

Colter arrived back at Fort Raymond and few believed his reports of geysers, bubbling mudpots and steaming pools of water. His reports of these features were often ridiculed at first, and the region was somewhat jokingly referred to as "Colter's Hell".




--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21934400 - 07/12/15 05:17 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I've heard random noises and thought it was words before. It's just like when we talk to people, sometimes we don't clearly understand a word they say and think they have said something else.
Other sounds like door slams, wind whirls, animal sounds, bushes etc can sometimes sound like words too.

A 'bodiless voice' is just a misinterpreted sound. Humans don't have perfect hearing, especially as we get older.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21934412 - 07/12/15 05:20 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I wouldn't call it an auditory hallucination or audilization, instead a simple auditory misinterpretation.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21934841 - 07/12/15 07:40 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Some of the analytical people I mentioned previously had complete stories told to them. In the case of Carl Jung he may have been schizophrenic I read a little deeper on his life and accounts.


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21935235 - 07/12/15 09:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What kind of stories did they have told to them? Weren't they the ones telling the stories?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21935936 - 07/13/15 02:25 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

nuentoter said:
Trust me I am not saying first person experience is in any way infallible. Quite the opposite actually, but it is the basis for all knowledge we have. If 2 people, one a devout Christian and one a person of science experience something like a golden colored ring of light on the sky, there will be two very different accounts of what happened. Two experiences of the same happening. The scientific mind will analyze based upon his knowledge and produce a scientific theory of what could have possibly caused the phenomenon. The religious mind will analyze the same data but produce a theory based on their knowledge of religion. This is obvious.  People are often wrong in the long run about experiences that cannot be readily explained by common knowledge. But my point was to push the idea that until the experience is quantified by research empirical testing and so forth, the experience must stand on its own. It is reality until someone proves otherwise. With enough proof it becomes "true". More or less..

My question then I guess is if someone were of scientific mind with no tendency towards fantastical notion, such as Sudly States his view is, and they experience something like... hmmm a bodiless voice. What would you folks think?

This experience has been shared by some scientists such as Descartes, Carl Jung, Julian Jaynes,  Socrates, Newton, Freud, and others. But according to physics and all known science it cannot unless these people were having hallucinations which should discredit the account.




Hey Nuentoter I wanted to take a shot at this.

The idea of "inner" voices somehow escaping from the confines of "influential" thinkers is interesting to consider. I remember reading that Newton was both incredibly repressed (never had sex in his life), and had some far out alchemical ideas at the same time. As an aside, he was a historical genius.

Quote:


Some of the analytical people I mentioned previously had complete stories told to them. In the case of Carl Jung he may have been schizophrenic I read a little deeper on his life and accounts.




The etymology of analysis as "unloosening" is crucial, I think. But that is difficult to see, too, because we follow the modern concept which is a consolidation of that analyses.

The modern idea of an analysis has actually in that changed to be defined as what is "contained" somehow to the intellect.

Between that notion of contained intelligibility, and "intelligibility ex nihilio, the voice coming out of nowhere, what a handful! What a contrast, and tension! But it is too tempting to not try to get at. Should we think of ideas as ideally contained, or as coming out of nowhere? Where is our excluded middle? Where is the unspoken eruption of an analytically defined world?


To "modern" analysis, I'll note the same thing I have been up to this point.

As Hume and Kant have expressed, ideas are variously constrained. Analysis is a consistency or domain of truth in virtue of being an implicitly projected statement (a logos) that while projected, does not appeal to anything beyond its conceptual content. It's projectional value is entirely assumed to be in that. For instance the statement "All bachelor's are unmarried" is analytical, because the meaning or "truth value" of the statement is found in analysis of the concept (bachelors). It is contained. On the other hand, of course it is questionable pragmatic value to have this knowledge of bachelors in mind, if it was indeed contained in the concept. This is maybe an analogy of how we think of an intellect, in a certain paradox.

Of This is not the limited scope of possible value found in logic or intellect of course, but it demonstrates the idea - and problem - of containment. 

In the empiricist Hume's case, all ideas are either analyses or ideally contained ideas, or "matters of fact", and anything aside from this double pronged approach is senseless and should not be expressed. Actually... to be specific, he said they are ideations that should be "committed to the flames". It would be worth quoting:

Quote:


"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding




This has been called Hume's Fork, because it is two pronged (or three pronged depending on how seriously you take the project of marginalizing ideas)

My suggestion is not to save anybody "the trouble" of burning books in their own libraries. I would only ask how an idea being "contained" can become an idea we project on to the world, as of value? Yes, analytic philosophers have indeed made a bit more of analysis than the idea of bachelors being married, but it is questionable each step of the way. Today, we dwell in projected analyses - that is where our heads are. We can simply note it. Yet we can inquire at each step, how does an analytic proposition have value, how does analytic mindedness have value, and how does analysis of the world ostensibly have value?

Quote:


This grass is very dark to be from the white heads of old mothers,
  Darker than the colorless beards of old men,
  Dark to come from under the faint red roofs of mouths.
Walt Whitman





Anyway, to your question: I think you are not asking for a poet's imagination, any more than you are asking for an empiricist to describe how ideas are contained...

I would note that two of the names you mentioned are such quintessential "philosophers". That is, they are the kind of rationalist philosophers which stand for something aside from what Hume has spoken of in his two pronged approach. Socrates and Descartes are even exemplary of the voice out of nowhere. While noting the obliqueness and eccentricity of a term which means "love of wisdom", or "beyond or after" physis at the same time I would say these iterations can be acknowledged as distinct. I don't quite think these works should be burned, and would say this is maybe even very wrong headed, but I do think we can question the ideal notion of the intelligibility of the world, which seems to come out of nothing.

I would say my approach is the Nietzschean. I believe one does not step from form into "reality", but to formlessness, and irrationality. Or to maybe take a less insane sounding approach, Nagarjuna's "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

As for these "rationalists", what I can see is that both men valued the ideal of truth being represented in a certain way. As philosophers "par excellence" they valued "ideas". The Platonic "forms" in Socrates', and in Descartes' the case of the "thinking thing" (I think therefore I am) are incomprehensibly influential.

These philosophers seem to appeal to the ideal "intelligibility" of things in the universe (an intelligible world rather than one "with accidents") or at least something that could be approached as dialectical intelligibility. That is something that I think is often suggested as the more reasonable mouthpiece of rational philosophers in an elusive way. In Socrates' case dialectics are the dogma itself, and in Descartes case, the value of dialectics are given over to something else, the embedded technical thinking of Hume, Kant, and the rest of modernity that considers the opposition a technical matter (there are acceptable kinds of ideas, and facts.)

I would define dialectics as something that itself quite unaccountably has to do with both conversation and how it spontaneously, and rather unaccountably is said to move towards truth. I would argue that in situating the "unreasonable" disembodied voices coming from the universe in these Dialectics - in this fundamental faith in oppositions and syntheses all ages believe in, as reason, this is something just as unaccountable as what these thinkers appropriate as voice existing out of itself, or out of ostensibly nothing.

If anyone would say we do not value representation of a "voice" in such an obscure way, I would say look and consider how in any historically "enlightened" epochs in the West (Say specifically ancient Greek and modern enlightenments), the singularly "rational" basis of discourse, always relies on a philosophical pursuit or science coming to bear, but hand in hand with democratic or political movement. Why is this? Is it just a coincidence enlightenment is both about political representation and the general representation of truth? Hardly, I would say!

These overlapping conditions both suggest the meaning of representation at the same time, and have never been close to disentangled, and that is rarely what anyone has thought to do. What does truth have to do with "representation"? Is it egalitarian, or is egalitarianism anything which considers merit of a representable notion held?

What does representation of "what is true", have to do with "what is"? Is that a necessary social construct? Where is the philosopher King? Was he or she not that buzzing philosophical gadfly displaced and swatted, due to an ostensible opposition to the polis of dialogue? Yet then again, was that not the ideal forum for kingly philosophical gadflies? What is a voice of reason, or rationality, and in what virtue is it really expressed? If we cannot say for certain aside from platitudes, I wonder if we can say we understand where this voice really comes from.

In any case, I'd say it makes a lot of sense, if only in terms of allegories to their doctrines, that these two quintessential philosophical dialecticion or rationalists have "heard voices". And while I would say there is something very naive about rationalism, at least as far as my human ears have heard it, at the same time I don't think that the implications of rationalist doctrines are just gotten out of, as easily as some simple turn of dialogue, towards "objectification", or the idea of setting up some way to just isolate ideas to their appropriate vestiges as the empiricist says would be appropriate.

In one way it makes perfect sense to hypothetically think of a psychological explanation for the minds behind these projected formalistic worlds. Of course.... In another way, namely to the extent that we rely and dwell in these worlds of forms, such silliness, it is extremely unsatisfactory.

The philosopher Nietzsche (whose words I previously borrowed) said that the fundamental faith of philosophical reflection is in the belief of opposite values. I believe it is in the convenient oppositional dialectic between rationalists (or "idealists") and empiricists, that we find faith in today, and namely it is embedded in the ideas we tend to consider as reasonable  closure or cleavage between ideal realms of idea, and of fact.

For instance, it is very reasonable to imagine that physical reality is a determinable phenomenon, by the idea of mathematical calculation, and a formal structure. I think that is a socio-cultural to some extent. Undoubtedly it is reality too - we live in an engineer driven, brave new world. Call it a cultural fact.

My first hint that this modern notion was wrong, was that upon consideration, analytic mindedness could not be consistently or ideally projected as the world as a "state of affairs" or situation. Then I found the concept of analysis itself, in context, was not intended as a consolidation, but was situated as unloosening, or dispersion of some concatenation in its original context, and generally it was an entirely different involvement (not with language obviously, but material analysis), than what we consider it to be today.

Aristotle used analysis to arrive in a much different way at hypokeimenon the subject of knowledge, and this has been first confused and convoluted, and then forgotten. I would like to be able to explain this more in passing but this is already a digression. In short, hypokeimenon, the subject of knowledge as an essential or substantive underlying "thing", is being simultaneously appealed to (as material truth) and displaced by an idea arrived at in a different but emulated way, as "what is contained in a subject", analysis itself. 

This is what is appropriate to our theoretical and linguistic "meaning" bound universe, so far as we are assuming it in that, anyhow. We dwell in a world of theories which are projected ad infinitum, indeed progressively outward into the great unknown or the minute, but also in ad infinitum regress at the same time, when we wonder how to ground any notion. This is a "crisis" (as Husserl put it) that anyone in a postmodern world is touchy about. Pragmatism is something that helps in these considerations, and yet we may look at our values starkly. This theoretical world is more or less practical, and yet do we imagine we live in a world that has overturned the idea of theoretical, or intelligible realms? Do we imagine we have turned back the metaphysicians inversions? It was thought to be in such an anti-metaphysic gesture, that the puritan Wittgenstein said, "the world consists in facts...not things.".

But to return to the question, before I lose it... if my response would have to be whether or not the great "idea" should be escaping these containments of modern analysis, I would not know what to say. Would it be better to say ideas come of the wind's piping of the hollows of the earth? Maybe. Maybe taking a few steps back would be helpful. But I think what I believe, is in the Nietzschean turn, to recognize the critique of rationalism is not in the usual turn to empiricism, but irrationality.

I have no solution in the usual oppositions other than to say that the question could be largely considered context, in which the ideas of voices were spoken of, and considered that way, where they most approximately came from. I guess am suggesting that these rationalists, heralds of intelligibility and sense of the universe, can be considered on their own terms. That is what in such an overwinded way, I have intended to comment on.

I think we can see how different ideas of a rational or sensible world are, just between Socrates and Descartes. There influence is difficult to doubt because that is what they each taught.

In Socrates' case, the inner voice or "daemon", was not evil, in the sense we may think of demons. Specifically, as the wikipedia page quotes, it was a voice that "warned him of things, but did not tell him what to do exactly." He told of this in the Apologia.

Another context to consider (aside from imagining a situation) is that this story is told by Socrates due to the pressure of the polis of Athens, to account for himself, in his trial. That pressure is important to consider I think.

We could also note that Socrates' oft repeated notion "I know at least that I do not know", is another hesitant, skeptical iteration - and yet one which is actually derived by appeal to authority of the divine oracle of Delphi! The gnomic pronouncement was made by the Oracle, and Socrates ever ironic, went about searching for someone who would falsify this.

So these two hesitant, even skeptical iterations, it would seem, have questionable bases in Socrates. Though we may doubt "in principle" most of all today what principle? It is interesting to think about where such inquisitiveness and puzzlement would be situated, beyond myth and voices from nothing. I think Socrates is begging the question.

Surely one principle of doubt we appeal to is Descartes. In Descartes, it will always be observed that there is a fundamental turn and inversion in nearly every conception. In the case of daemons the A daemon is now said to be evil.

Through the Evil Demon, in a much different way, Descartes himself (like Socrates) was "oppressed" by the idea that anything could be doubted. He was able to doubt traditional substantive "subject" of knowledge, all his academic learning from mathematics to physics, and through that evil demon, he extrapolated another point of reference, the subject we are. He fundamentally changed everything, in that, and this is "why" a new idea of a subject was thought of as something circumscribed in analyticity (or technical conceptuality) rather than something accessible.

This is how Descartes, somewhat accountably, and yet questionably sought a "foundational certainty for the basis of science". He doubted everything until he came to "what could not be doubted" - that he was thinking. Of course today we do not tend to think a  thinking thing exists, but we do take the notion of solipsistic eccentricity, as the value of reasoning.

How do we respond to Descartes' voice? I think there is only one way to.

Just as we may doubt the allegory of a demon's voice, and accept the conclusion in one sense, when we come to it, we doubt the conclusion (the existence of the thinking thing as "analogy") and turn to accept the eccentric path towards what cannot be called anything but solipsistic doubt.

It seems like modern people accept the questionable, questioning intonation of this evil demon, as a voice coming from nowhere. The " thinking thing". Maybe Look closely to Descartes' Discourse on Method?

In any case this was my effort to consider the question of these questionable voices. Thanks for reading, looking forward to the continued dialogue and critique, my good friends!


Edited by Kurt (07/13/15 03:55 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMush-Room
Stranger

Registered: 07/14/15
Posts: 20
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
    #21955579 - 07/17/15 10:48 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Consciousness is like Schrodinger cat, it exists yet it doesn't. We had 1 in infinite chances that we have consciousness and against all odds we do.

All that matters is that we have consciousness and that we are aware of it. Some are more aware than others. Its hard to explain how we arrived at such a conclusion  after countless hours and sessions of contemplation. As long as you don't throw out something bat-shit crazy like penguins have no vertebrae i think youre okay. all that is need is patience and understanding. Don't immediately disregard something someones says just because you dont believe it, maybe they are more consciousness aware than you are and if you actually give them the time of day instead of condemning they you may actually see things from their point of view. Humans used to think the earth was flat, we now know that is not true.

There is no right or wrong answer, only that which seems logical at the time. Maybe you don't have all the evidence to make a logical conclusion that someone already has. If i start speaking another language and you had no idea that other languages existed you would simply think I am being illogical and need to speak in our native tongue.

It may not be that someone is unable to explain how they came to the conclusion, it may be that you have condemned them and they now feel too ashamed to even further their ideas. Many dreams are killed this way. But in this same way legends are born when all things that seem logical are not taken for granted.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Mush-Room]
    #21956324 - 07/17/15 02:02 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Schrodinger's cat (?)

I generally agree that consciousness seems somehow be this minute or improbable thing. Somehow, it seems to be the kernal of things, and yet (to my mind) that is not any face value "mental-physical" aggregation, like some tunnel through dimensions of a pituitary gland, or a ghost in the machine, (etc) but mainly something constructed by relative discussion.

That would probably not be a huge leap. To say this minute hidden "kernal" is found in the prospect of epistemic discussion in general is basically the same. For instance there are more logically based examples that seem to offer closure. To take a typical example, are we obliged always to talk about our experience of "the color red" (or any such quale) to talk about a whole impression of the world, or experience through consciousness, on a rational basis?

It seems to me that neither logic nor consciousness are "facts", or domains of facts even, but they still seem to be something like epistemelogical ground zeroes. I think Kant's transcendental subject is the best we have from this side of the world to work with, and then there is "open" conjecture which levels to some form of common sense.

Appealing to logic or particular standing facts at every turn may not be paying much attention to consciousness, or even a very intimate correspondence with physical world (maybe to say the same thing).

But then, in a positive way, paying attention to consciousness, either is not paying much attention to a world logic and facts, or perhaps going through very many routines of epistemelogical discussion which can miss the physical world that way. It seems to be a traditional western thing. Oh you found that speck of red! Now what were you saying about your experience of the color red in the world? :-)


Edited by Kurt (07/17/15 03:29 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* LSD, Sex, Cosmic Consciousness and Evolution
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,958 39 11/26/07 05:47 PM
by redgreenvines
* The phenomenology of death.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
deCypher 4,043 63 11/25/08 03:30 PM
by deranger
* Why is Phenomenology so esoteric and difficult? spud 1,342 5 04/28/07 11:52 PM
by spud
* Maurice Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology Malachi 847 4 12/17/03 10:24 AM
by fireworks_god
* discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs
( 1 2 all )
akira_akuma 1,212 22 08/11/15 03:13 PM
by akira_akuma
* Nietzscheian Propositions on "Reality"
( 1 2 all )
psycroptic 2,101 23 09/03/08 11:30 AM
by Lakefingers
* The Hard Problem of Consciousness
( 1 2 all )
deCypher 2,303 34 05/26/10 12:36 PM
by deCypher
* Review of the last century's phenomenology
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 4,723 68 11/21/02 11:42 PM
by Jellric

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,878 topic views. 1 members, 13 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.101 seconds spending 0.015 seconds on 14 queries.