| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
|||||||||||
| Sergey = Joe | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 11:51 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I know of one absolute truth because every time, so far, my efforts to disprove it result in proving it instead. Sergey calls that a notion. I have a different viewpoint on it, it is not a notion to me.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 05:35 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Ah, this again... Alright, let's see how good I was with my homework. I ask you to read it fully before commenting. My personal overarching starting point in building up worldview is this: "Matter (obviously, observantly) exists". Now what the heck is matter? Everything that is not space. Including human beings, our thoughts, the way we perceive things, everything. So for convenience we can draw simple logical yet useful conclusions from said axiom, here's a couple of them: - Life exists - Souls exist - Perception exists - Matter is not bound by our perception of it Now some of those might not seems that obvious, but I'll leave it up to you to try and figure out how this thread connects them. Important part to get here is logic. There is a good example in philosophy about this: Renee Descartes in his philosophical approach discarded everything and started logical thinking from blank. Axiom he cooked up for himself was as following: "I think - therefore I exist". Now, no matter what he did further - it was based on this obvious to him fact. However, Even being a famed mathematician, he made a blindingly easy mistake, which was fished out quite some time after him by philosopher Martin Heidegger. He turned the notion on its head so it began to look like this: "I think BECAUSE I exist". Simple, isn't it? Obvious? Undoubtedly. Yet it took some time to bring this out. No, no matter whether any of these two statement have a degree of truth in them - the example is of logic that connects change between them. Logic is what allows us to connect things, but yet when we are dealing with cornerstone axioms of our understanding of the world, we are the most vulnerable to fail at logic because those axioms are put being irrefutable. So, let's go Descartes's way and discard everything. What would be a logical failsafe for us when we approach creation of our starting point? Obviously, as example showed us - we have to be mindful and not confuse cause and effect. Is that all? Hardly. The only way to prevent something from being a false assumption is to never treat anything as truth. Matter exists. It's hard to wrap mind around the fact that this might be untrue. But let's try it. If matter doesn't exist, the fact that we perceive this - does it automatically disprove it because perception is a material calculation? No, actually. We know now that there is matter to the universe we can't detect by any of our existing senses nor equipment. But we can predict it because there are inconsistencies in our test data which we have no way of explaining otherwise. However, the important part of this is that we can't assume that there is no matter that we are not predicting, nor sensing in any way. Technically for us in our state of mind it doesn't exist. But does this have anything to do with truth? Hardly. Same goes for every conclusion i draw before from my axiom. Perception, for one, by the fact we perceive things, doesn't account for anything we can't predict nor sense. It's easy for us to bind our logic to definitive 'exists' or 'doesn't'. But it's illogical to do so. Same goes with dimensions. Mainstream opinion goes that dimension is a value of full numbers, not fractional. Yet it's absolutely illogical to discard fractional value of dimensions. It's hard to imagine, but it doesn't make things impossible. That is when logic stops being binary. And so is our perception. Yet until we know The truth meaning we know everything there is, we have no logical base for calling anything "Absolute _THE_ Truth". Now I won't lie, I read the '1984' thread couple of days ago and that's where I got enough data to attack you on your notion. Don't get me wrong - I personally find this notion contents to be right. And I find vast majority of your attitude towards it to be correct. It's perfectly possible that it reflects the truth in the most accurate way, after all - it is but a consequence of my own axiom, which I'm yet to disprove and not for lack of trying. However, to call something, anything - absolute truth - is digging one's own grave, cause when you for any length of time create a god for yourself - you compromise any further development. For many this nitpicking of mine towards your notion might seem trivial, but I don't think there can be anything trivial when it comes to things of such importance. Now I hope I've explained how far my hands reach, so to speak. I really tried this to be as comprehensible as possible, despite my GoshDarnCheapSkateAwful English. Your turn.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 02:53 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey wrote:However, to call something, anything - absolute truth - is digging one's own grave, cause when you for any length of time create a god for yourself - you compromise any further development. That is a fence built by you, and it has nothing to do with me, so where is this fence? Perception exists. Those are English words, to perceive those words proves those words to be true. If no one ever can see those words, then perception does not exist. I see those words. What does that prove?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 03:54 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Oh, my... I can't say nothing that I didn't already say. Including things that answer your question. But I'll try to rephrase a little bit. There are things that one knows. there are things that one does not know. To have a grasp at reality one should account for things he has no idea about. Yet, technically, admitting possibility of their existence in already a certain information about those things. Thus one is no longer completely in the dark. You say 'perception' undoubtedly meaning some clear definition that you have in your mind, an image that corresponds to that word for you. Think about how exactly you acquire said image. Perceiving the idea of perception in itself is a process. But however you perform said process, whatever means you use to do that, you have to account for any other possible means. Means that are incredibly difficult to grasp because they don't exist in your perceptional process. Thus they are no longer a part of perception or perceiving. One may say that any processing of data is perceiving, but the loophole still remains the same. Do you understand what I mean? There is a possibility of more than one accounts for. And until that possibility is accounted for and everything is known - no 'absolute' truth is gained in such a status.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 05:55 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Rather than continue to read whatever you have to say about my understanding of a provable fact, an absolute fact, I will stop at the point where you appear to be having a conversation with someone other than me. You wrote: But I'll try to rephrase a little bit.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 05:58 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I wrote:Perception exists. If you want to talk to me then you may want to answer the question asked. If you want to preach to me, about your perceptions, then I don't think that your preaching to me about your findings has anything to do with my question being asked of you. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 06:40 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I have already answered your question. For some reason you either didn't understand it, or didn't see it, or ignored it, or pretended to do either. So I rephrased what I said before. It seems to me that example presented wasn't taken into account. I don't think I can come up with more general one. I'm used to explain things in examples - that's how I do it. Maybe I'm just asking (expecting?) too much out of you. I didn't come here to talk to myself or convince myself in anything all by myself - all of that I can do on my own without taking the time to write it down. All I say in this thread is directed to you and only you. Please don't "perceive" my English as your own, including your own talking habits. I thought we have already established that we are not on the same page in terms of language. So I suppose I should stop my "preaching", since I get the impression that you're not getting what I mean at all. Does that makes sense? In any case, I've explained my point and answered your question to the best of my ability. Whatever it is that is lacking in one or both of us to interpolate what I write and what you perceive, changes nothing about the nature of perception - process that doesn't account for everything, therefore can never be absolute until everything is known and taken into account. On a side note - let's have a test of imagination. Try and make a verbal description of how would you imagine a place with fractional value of number of dimensions. Let's say, instead of mainstream 3 dimensions let it be 3.14 dimensions. I'm only asking this to asses if that is where the problem of our mutual misunderstanding lies. Should be easy enough of an obstacle to overcome for you. At the very least that would be some interesting data for me to learn about your thought-process. If you don't want to do this - I don't mind, but don't expect me to continue this game about your notion when you seem to just pretend that I didn't make any moves. Last edited on Sat Apr 13th, 2013 07:04 pm by |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 14th, 2013 10:30 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
So I suppose I should stop my "preaching", since I get the impression that you're not getting what I mean at all. Does that makes sense? Above is as far as I read, again. I perceive. I do that, and it is irrefutable, so far. I perceive those symbols above, and I perceive that those symbols above do not answer the question asked, so I stopped reading at that point. I perceived that my question was not answered. That is what I perceived. Rather than argue over what I perceive, if my perception is true, or false, or confused by me, I will repeat the question again, and ask for an answer. If I do not get an answer, as in, in fact, as in as far as my capacity to perceive an answer goes, then I will ask for it again, and I will ask for you to please answer the question instead of arguing over my incapacity to perceive the answer you offer. This is not an answer: So I suppose I should stop my "preaching", since I get the impression that you're not getting what I mean at all. Does that makes sense? This is the question being asked, and this is the question that I have yet to perceive the answer you offer to me: Perception exists. Those are English words, to perceive those words proves those words to be true. If no one ever can see those words, then perception does not exist. I see those words. What does that prove? I will now attempt to convey the question in a way that may inspire an answer from you whereby the answer from you is communicated to me and I can perceive the answer you offer to me, as an answer to the question I ask of you, doing so politely. Perception exists. Those words above are written by me on a device called a computer. These words: Perception exists. I see those words. What does it prove? What does it prove that I see those words? I see these words too, and I see this period at the end of this sentence. What does it prove? I'm not asking what does it not prove, and I am not asking for your explanation of how you arrive at your measures of logic, or anything else, just one thing being asked by me of you. What does it prove that I can perceive? I perceive. What does that prove - please?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 14th, 2013 11:57 am |
|
9th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Alright, then. You challenge me for a debate yet I'm the one to go out of the way to explain anything. So let's try suggestive thinking. Third time's a charm? >>> What does it prove? Nothing. If that is not straightforward enough then we are at a deadlock. Even though from where I stand - I've won. You refuse to test imagination, I refuse to repeat myself over and over. P.S. I just thought of something. Can it be that my answer is outside of your perception exactly because you've set yourself on that kind of imaginary self-proving perception for a long time? So in a sense it doesn't exist for you in it's actual form therefore you don't perceive it? That would be a funny one. Works both ways though. Last edited on Sun Apr 14th, 2013 12:13 pm by |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 14th, 2013 01:06 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Nothing. We find the fence. If you wish to move onto other topics then we can, but at this topic there in your words is the fence that you create. I have no place at this fence because I can easily demonstrate that fact that perception exists - it is a self-evident poof that it exists. You can go on and on with whatever you wish and each sentence you write, so long as I can perceive it, proves that perception exists. I see no point in continuing any further than that answer to my question. Your answer is false.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 14th, 2013 01:54 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
So you just give up? Alright, though not unexpected, this turn of events is unfortunate. Perceive it or not, I was actually expecting you prove your point instead of just saying that it's self-evident, which it isn't. But anyway, let's consider the matter closed.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:46 am | |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > Sergey = Joe | Top |
