a non-physical thing

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by swarm, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Metaphorically. Reality works as it does and is as it is. If I think something blatently not so, it will not work in reality.

    So?

    I am in no way seperate from reality.

    Correspondence with what is actual in matters of reality and consistency and coherence if we are dealing with a formal system.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    You can check them as many times as you like. Whatever you consider to be fact at that point will be to you. Facts however, are items stored in minds. Therefore, the fact will be that you think you have facts and your facts won't won't exist to someone else. IMO, this means you can only claim facts as your own - though they may well apply well enough if you relate them to someone else. Strictly speaking, IMO no one can rationally claim to know more than how things seem to them. I think it ethically wrong to claim otherwise as it's a fundamental truth in the relationship of a perspective to its environment.


    It's implicit, but ignored in general (which is okay for almost every conversation, ever). Saying it is stupid or annoying has no bearing on its validity. I don't mind it being implicit, in fact I much prefer it because in practice it's generally a useless revelation. I think however in modelling the universe, it's imperative not to forget it - lest the uber-smug douchebaggery set in.


    The words you use imply absoluteness. Reasonably certain is entirely the point. It's exactly sufficient because it has to be.

    That I think you attacked me is enough. That's reasonably certain. Whether or not it's "really real" can't really be addressed, but again it's irrelevant. That I'm reasonably certain (or utterly convinced) is all that one base their shit on.


    ? fail -> evidence of problem, initiates re-evaluation or abortion.

    Lol, do you really think you're talking to a child? I smell smug, and you're not really trying to understand what's being said.

    Yet I do, and reasonably... perhaps based upon what I've said you could derive a means by which rationality is maintained. Perhaps you don't care to try.

    Lol, and yet people drink that nasty piss. Obviously they can make it better with their minds.

    Of course you did.

    Agreed. It's nice that we often share opinions. Perhaps we should go bicker with the crazy bum who says plants are god or something. We can gang-outsmart him. Maybe we should just completely discount his perspective instead.

    Very knowledgeable, but wholly lacking in imagination. Do you have kids? Have you considered their perspective? They know milk comes from a cow once you tell them. While it came from the same place before that, how would it have been to them? Would you argue with them about it, especially when they don't understand what you're saying yet? Would it be better to not let them have any milk until you can take them to a farm and show them how it's made?



    Didn't say they were necessarily erroneous. They're just not absolute. More than one finding the same thing gives you popularity, not necessarily objectivity. Ether.

    What other kind of opinion is there, really?

    Of course you are, but I'm arguing that just because it annoys you only renders it superfluous in your understanding of reality. It doesn't mean it actually is, eh? Or does it? It seem you argue the latter. Your razor doesn't slice away the doubt you readily admit, and that doubt has philosophical consequences as I see it - leading to broader realizations. It annoys you though so you slice it. Much like your bashing fantasies, hmm.

    Brilliant.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Notice the contradiction from sentence 1 to sentence 2.

    If it is not a contradiction, there will be an infinite regress defending the second sentence.

    This problem would also hold for sentences like....
    if they were sentence 2.

    To some degree the shift in absolutes is one level of abstraction outward. Or to put it another way, the absolutes are epistemological rather than fact-related. But he is still 'dealing in absolutes.'

    Not only facts fall under skepticism around certainty but epistemological positions do as well.

    The gnarly addition with epistemological assertions is that once you leave them uncertain, which one must to be consistant, then you get regresses, because your meta-epistemological processes, assertions, methods of checking are also uncertain. How does one add up all those decimal points? I would say, people do it intuitively.

    You cannot avoid certainty and dealing in absolutes.

    Even plants indicate absolute choices.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    You are trying to pretend you are wholly distinct and disconnected from anything else.

    I use the words which appropriately convey the meaning. Endless equivocation to try and cover the most remote uncertainty is your thing.

    I can hardly be expected to care about your subjective musings. Of course an actual slight would be another story and if it seemed unwarranted perhaps due an apology.

    You should bath then. I'm understanding just fine. I find your doubt wholly unconvincing.

    Actually milk comes from mammals, not just cows. The two older ones have seen milk come from mom to feed the youngest and the oldest has pulled milk from a cow's tit. They've seen other animals nursing and lactating including a platypus.

    Their perspective is just the opposite of yours. Ice cream in your hand is as real as it gets and very knowable.
     
  8. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Nope. You should be more explicit.

    You seem to be missing the word "sufficient." There is no infinite regress because of this.

    No, you are interpreting in terms of absolutes.

    Actually none of that is an issue. I've no need to endlessly consider if the cat is really, really, really, really dead. The prima facie evidence is sufficient in a single pass. Ah, the joy of an actual reality.

    On more tricky issues where the uncertainty is greater, then one invokes error correction as needed. For example there is no need to be absolutely right about the directions to a particular place ahead of time. One can re-evaluate and correct as needed.

    Sure I can, and do. It just will make you uncomfortable.
     
  9. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    The sentence makes a universal claim. Unless you meant, it is suffienct for you. Which is of course radically subjective, but very hard to argue with. You are probably right about yourself on such an issue. But it came across as being an epistemological assertion, and one without qualification.

    And so it was with the other quotes.


    A psychic claim? Are you certain about this? If not, why say it in unqualified terms?
     
  10. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Hey, let's tie this in with non-physical objects.
     
  11. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Only in as much as you are trying to make it a universal claim.

    I mean sufficient for its use.

    An observation on your reactions so far.
     
  12. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Well, I offered a way it might not be a universal claim. But you did not comment on that. If you meant it was sufficient for you, I cannot but accept the claim, though I may find ways you move from what is suffient for you to universal claims. For example the following sentence...

    sounds universal, again.

    And again you are only partially responding. Are you certain about this? I think there are universal claims which you have used to deduce my (non-existent) uncomfortableness, which, of course, you cannot observe - unless you are a hacker and are now surveilling me. There is a reason ad homs are generally disapproved of in philosophical discourse. It is not so that everyone plays nice - since you can even have positive ad homs - but because they are distracting and epistemologically dubious.
     
  13. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    This reminds me of...

    What is brown and sounds like a bell?
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    my poop hitting the side of the commode?.....lol..sorry..
     
  15. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Dung.

    OK. I went with the tangent.
     
  16. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Point to Doreen! :thumbsup:

    Everything sounds universal if that is what you want to hear, but that doesn't mean it is.
     

Share This Page