Imagination.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Beaconator, Oct 11, 2021.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    "More important" is meaningless. Are the wheels on a car "more important" than the engine?

    We need to imagine possible explanations for what we see - but it's equally important to test our imaginings against reality
    And many that didn't work. Imagination kills.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,271
    I agree but not if done properly

    and I know how to imagine properly
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    It's pretty clear from your posts that you don't.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,271
    How so?
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    Imagination without knowledge is fantasy.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Imagination without knowledge is also freedom of thought . Upon anything .
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,652
    Sure, without knowledge you are free to think whatever you like, completely unbounded by reality. What emerges from such thoughts, though, are fantasies. They may be useful if you are a Hollywood screenwriter - not so useful when you want to make things that work in the real world.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    As I already said in message #21, "We need to imagine possible explanations for what we see - but it's equally important to test our imaginings against reality."

    You don't test your imaginings. You don't even seem to be able to imagine how to test them.
     
  12. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,073
    I think having faith is wise, on the superstition of hope and the wish to be. The Bible can’t be scientific or it would be overly dangerous to human beings. I see Adam as the fallen God of LOVE, who saw both an eternal war and ever after at once, the self and the it can be separate through non-self and Hindu descent.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    This statement is not even wrong.

    Are you claiming that Adam was capable of abstract thought and expectation?
    Is that how the earliest cave dwellers expressed their deep philosophical thoughts? Pictures of animals?

    The self and the "it" or "id"?

    Adam was of Hindu descent?

    You have a lot of splaining to do.................
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    kx000:

    Since you haven't bothered to actually address any of the questions I put to you, I have no further interest in engaging with you. Having a conversation means listening to what the other person has to say and engaging with them. If you just want to get on your soap box, I'm out.

    I might also add that it's very rude to just ignore what somebody is saying to you in a conversation. Didn't anybody teach you that?
     
  15. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,271
    How would God treat man? Give him something he can’t test.
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,373
    What does God need Man for?

    Wouldn't creating Him be a sign of weakness?
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    There's nothing we can't test.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    The test of time?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    The test of time IS a test.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Yes, but that always tests something else. You cannot test time itself. It is impossible to measure time with time.

    What is the duration of duration?
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    But you can measure time with a clock.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    So you're measuring the duration of the tick tock, not time itself. You cannot measure something that does not exist yet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2021
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,877
    That's like saying you're not measuring a two-by-four with a tape measure. But you are. You're comparing a known length (tape measure) with an unknown length (two-by-four).

    With a clock, you're comparing a known interval of time (tick tock) with an unknown interval.

    You're not. You're counting the number of ticks and tocks after they happen.
     

Share This Page