Belz...
Fiend God
No, it's not. That's not what objective means. Again, you ignore a clear dictionary definition that was even PROVIDED to you.
You are quite simply aggressively ignorant.
No, it's not. That's not what objective means. Again, you ignore a clear dictionary definition that was even PROVIDED to you.
You are quite simply aggressively ignorant.
It's even simpler than that, just draw a circle. By the way, this is what a philosophy major looks like on a higher dimensional plane:
Last edited:
Well...you have come astonishingly close to saying something worthwhile here. Add to this your link about a holographic universe, and you may be changing your stripes! Well...ok, the article you linked has some internal flaws to it which are worth uncovering, and as for the above statement...
If in our imperfect observation, we know that there are particular tendencies or biases to out process of observing, then we know at least enough to guard against these biases and come closer to making an objective observation. The problem, of course, is that we only are able to see these biases through systematic observation and agreement with other observers, and not at all through introspection.
The type of "knowing" that you espouse involves examining oneself through one's own flawed lens. For those of us who ever needed glasses, the experience is like our view of the world before our vision was corrected. We did not know that trees had individual leaves that could be discerned at a distance; did not know that handwriting could be read on a chalkboard from further back than the second row; did not know there were that many stars in the night sky. Correcting our flawed vision opens up entire new worlds for us; correcting our perceptual and cognitive biases does the same. Once you see that your numerology examples are significant only because you can't see the perceptual bias underlying them, you can abandon them and look for something real. And let me tell you, the real world is much more interesting--leaves, and words, and so many stars...
Belz...
Fiend God
Wow, man. I think you've just given us the best definition of "objectivity" that Iacchus could ask for.
Very moving. But, alas, not comforting enough for the believer, I fear.
No, in fact it's very much like you folks saying God isn't necessary because it doesn't add anything to your world view.
Actually, Iacchus, I gotta say that once again you are quite simply wrong. You are ignoring the videos because you have made the a priori judgment that, no matter what they contain, you will be unwilling to adjust your worldview. That is quite different from "us folks", who are willing to look at any evidence for god at all, but who have not yet found any that does add anything to our worldview. Of course we are willing to look at the evidence; one would have to be actively and aggressively ignorant to refuse to!
Yes, everything is a series of circles. In which case it's just a matter of deciding which is most exterior or, outermost.
While I believe most refer to this outermost circle in terms of monism.So, do you pretty much feel settled in your world view? Indeed, the only criteria that I use, is the same criteria that you folks use ... "It doesn't mean anything." And, since it doesn't add anything to what I already know, it's not number one (nowheres near it in fact) on my to-do list.
Oh, and I understand your folks world view quite well. I just don't happen to agree with it.
Last edited:
Settled in my world view? That's rather an odd concept, actually, given that a scientific world view is necessarily subject to the occasional update. Those two articles on holograph universe, for instance, are being critically examined--and not for agreement with my view, but for evidence and logic. If the evidence is there, that is what counts. I would not refuse to read the article just because you claim it supports your world view. (I am fairly confident that it does not, actually--if you understand the paper well enough to discuss it, I would be happy to; but if you just posted it because it happened to contain the word "holograph", I won't waste my time.)
And I repeat, you cannot know before seeing the videos that they do not add anything to what you already know. I was at that conference; it was on an area that I am fairly familiar with (several grad seminars, for a starter); I still learned things I had not known before. For you to assert that you know, without watching, that you already know everything they would present, is the worst sort of hubris. Indeed, you have the testimony of several people here, who know your interests, that the videos would be worth your watching. To continue to refuse to look at them would be expected...in a three-year-old. You?
You have yet to demonstrate that you understand it. You claim to, but your posts show shocking misunderstandings of basic concepts. I have no doubt that you disagree with your understanding of our world view, but you have a ways to go before you can legitimately claim to disagree with our actual world view.
Yes, one needs to adopt a policy such as this in order to evalute onself. It begins with saying, "I don't know," and knowing at least this much.
And what you don't seem to understand, is that I'm always looking at myself, in context with the way I interact with the world. So there are a whole wealth of things to look at in that respect. One of the main problems, however, is that I don't find myself agreeing with a whole lot of people, and I rarely find the opportunity to share my views with others ... outside of someplace like this forum anyway.
It helps immensely if somebody provides you with a road map. But, ultimately, it's up to you to take that journey.
God, at least the notion of God with respect to an after life, is real. There is no other point in bringing it up, in my opinion.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, everything is a series of circles. In which case it's just a matter of deciding which is most exterior or, outermost.
You've got a way to pick any one word and finding ways to make anything seem like it's related to it. Unfortunately it doesn't mean squat.
Iacchus said:
At least we have an alternative.
Wow! You speak as if you expect some kind of miraculous to change to come over me. LOL!
Belz...
Fiend God
Iacchus said:
Nope. New evidence can change everything. However, I doubt I'll see that kind of evidence from you.
What Mercutio said.
You should take your own advice, then. Instead of saying you "know" these things, say you see them as the most likely possiblity, and then provide the evidence that convinced you. If you can't, you can bet the evidence is subjective, and therefore of little use, even to you.
is that I don't find myself agreeing with a whole lot of people, and I rarely find the opportunity to share my views with others ... outside of someplace like this forum anyway.
Iacchus, I appreciate that you share your view with us. I would simply like it if you world view were more open to OTHER possibilities. LOOKING at the presented evidence and presenting your own would be a good start.
No... that's the kind of thing you can say about gravity... or the sun. God is in no way, shape or form "real". He isn't proven, shown or indicated. There is no proof, evidence, indication or even HINT that he exists. There is only a claim, and that, of course, is insufficient.
No. I speak to the people reading this whose minds are not already closed.Wow! You speak as if you expect some kind of miraculous to change to come over me. LOL!
I believe he was referring to the notion of circularity in his post. While I was merely reiterating that we cannot escape circular reasoning in context with any monistic view. That's a fact.
Yes, but is this something you choose to believe or, something somebody else chooses for you to believe? Ultimately it's up to you to choose what you believe, don't you think?
I believe this is what they refer to as a two-way street. And, do you realize that the fundamentalists will pretty much say the same thing about the folks who don't listen to them?
Last edited:
Oh, that's rich.
I have read, and am willing to debate (when you demonstrate that you have also read and understood it) your holograph link. You have refused to watch the videos, claiming you already know what they will say.
Where is the roadblock here, mister two-way street?
Within the context of either monism, we may escape circular reasoning. You simply do not. There are logical arguments that are independent of monism, which can avoid circularity. Yours do not.
Also facts.
And I have said that my monistic view is based upon consciousness. Deal with it.
Dealt.
That is not where the circularity in your arguments rests. We may assume consciousness as a monism, and your arguments are still logically bankrupt. You have been shown why countless times.
Deal with it.