My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

Implying that you are a genius?

Or insane.

 

[dafydd]

Or insane.

Still not answering questions then?

 

[dafydd]

The question may be unknowable and we may not have the intelligence to determine if we can know it or not.

All I can do is ask the questions which satisfy my requirement for an answer.

These are;

What is existence?
How is it in existence?
Why is it in existence?
Who and what am I?

1 Life
2 Don't understand the question. DNA may be the answer.
3 No idea
4 punshhh,a human being.

 

[laca]

I know, I was pleased that someone had considered that I was not a crank.

Yes, most sensible people considered you weren't a crank. Then you started posting. I personally think you're not just any crank, but an uber-crank.

Because it puts some perspective on our view of what existence is.

How exactly?

The set of unknown unknowns includes everything except the things we know and we know we don't know*

That's the empty set. If we know what we know then by definition for everything else we know that we don't know. So unless we don't know what we know, your super useful category is empty, you know?

It is usefull for having an open mind about things and for people who ask questions about existence.

Are you trying to say that we must acknowledge we don't know everything? Of course we don't. Luckily we have science to help us find out more.

 

[dafydd]

That's the empty set. If we know what we know then by definition for everything else we know that we don't know. So unless we don't know what we know, your super useful category is empty, you know?



.

I would be surprised if punshhh has heard of set theory.

 

[Belz...]

What is existence?

Wrong question. But then you knew this already.

How is it in existence?

That's too complicated for you, I'm affraid.

Why is it in existence?

Irrelevant.

Who and what am I?

Only you can answer this, specifically because you need to make up the answer.

 

[SusanB-M1]

More gibberish.

I'm beginning to wonder whether Donald Runsfeld should be asked to join this discussion.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, most sensible people considered you weren't a crank. Then you started posting. I personally think you're not just any crank, but an uber-crank.

Oh I am a real crank, well they are only labels anyway. The ideas can speak for themselves.

How exactly?

If we accept that any or all of our notions about existence may be incomplete, short sighted, kidding ourselves and not exclusive. We can remain open and aware that the truth might be staring us in the face and we just can't see it.
I suggest that this is a constructive attitude when considering these ideas.

That's the empty set. If we know what we know then by definition for everything else we know that we don't know. So unless we don't know what we know, your super useful category is empty, you know?

Correction, you left out the set of what we don't know that we don't know. This is the crucial set because it is infinite.

Are you trying to say that we must acknowledge we don't know everything? Of course we don't. Luckily we have science to help us find out more.

Yes, some on this forum have stated otherwise.

 

[punshhh]

Wrong question. But then you knew this already.



That's too complicated for you, I'm affraid.



Irrelevant.



Only you can answer this, specifically because you need to make up the answer.

I know you cant supply the answers.

 

[PixyMisa]

If we accept that any or all of our notions about existence may be incomplete, short sighted, kidding ourselves and not exclusive. We can remain open and aware that the truth might be staring us in the face and we just can't see it.

Why would we do that? Science actually works.

I suggest that this is a constructive attitude when considering these ideas.

No. It's just an excuse to pretend that the idea that fairies are real isn't entirely idiotic.

Correction, you left out the set of what we don't know that we don't know. This is the crucial set because it is infinite.

How do you know?

Yes, some on this forum have stated otherwise.

No. No-one has said anything remotely resembling that.

 

[laca]

Oh I am a real crank, well they are only labels anyway. The ideas can speak for themselves.

Oh, they do. Trust me.

If we accept that any or all of our notions about existence may be incomplete, short sighted, kidding ourselves and not exclusive. We can remain open and aware that the truth might be staring us in the face and we just can't see it.
I suggest that this is a constructive attitude when considering these ideas.

What ideas? The unknown unknowns? You sound lost.

Correction, you left out the set of what we don't know that we don't know. This is the crucial set because it is infinite.

If you know what you know (which incidentally sounds quite tautological), you can by definition know that everything else you don't know. You really need to learn some basic thinking skills.

Yes, some on this forum have stated otherwise.

Please, point out exactly where and who, or retract. Thanks.

 

[laca]

How do you know?

Exactly.

 

[Belz...]

I know you cant supply the answers.

Your questions HAVE no answers, but you keep demanding that we provide them like a petulant child asking "why?" over and over.

 

[Robin]

The question may be unknowable and we may not have the intelligence to determine if we can know it or not.

All I can do is ask the questions which satisfy my requirement for an answer.

These are;

What is existence?

It is the fact of there being something rather than there not being anything.

The answer would be true whether Materialism, Idealism, Theism or anything else was the case.

Or did you mean "of what is existence constituted?"

In which case the only possible answer is "it is what it is".

How is it in existence?

No possible answer.

If you had an answer "it exists by agency X" then you only have another question "how does X exist?

Why is it in existence?

Two possible answers.

1. absolute non-existence is impossible or
2. ultimately things exist for no reason at all.

Who and what am I?

You are punshhh - you are a human being.

 

[punshhh]

Why would we do that? Science actually works.

I take an open minded approach.

No. It's just an excuse to pretend that the idea that fairies are real isn't entirely idiotic.

An open minded approach does not rule out fairies, or what fairies might be. For example you and I might be fairies under the illusion of being humans.

How do you know?

We're back at this old chestnut again, how big do you think the set of unknown unknowns is?

I don't know, but assuming it is less than infinite is quite restrictive, especially if thoughts were included. I would include thoughts because it is through thought that we can be aware that there are unknowns.

No. No-one has said anything remotely resembling that.

 

[dafydd]

Correction, you left out the set of what we don't know that we don't know. This is the crucial set because it is infinite.

How do you know that? Can you prove it mathematically?

 

[dafydd]

An open minded approach does not rule out fairies, or what fairies might be. For example you and I might be fairies under the illusion of being humans.

Earth calling punshhh,Earth calling punshhh..... No,he's gone.

 

[dafydd]

We're back at this old chestnut again, how big do you think the set of unknown unknowns is?

.

There is no such set,it is another of your patented meaningless phrases.

 

[PixyMisa]

I take an open minded approach.

Being open minded is one thing. Believing in things that aren't true just because you want them to be true is another.

An open minded approach does not rule out fairies, or what fairies might be. For example you and I might be fairies under the illusion of being humans.

That's very, very stupid. Sorry, but it is.

We're back at this old chestnut again, how big do you think the set of unknown unknowns is?

You claimed it was infinite. Show the maths.

I don't know, but assuming it is less than infinite is quite restrictive, especially if thoughts were included.

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[laca]

An open minded approach does not rule out fairies, or what fairies might be. For example you and I might be fairies under the illusion of being humans.

We're back at this old chestnut again, how big do you think the set of unknown unknowns is?

Using your own definition, I'd say its empty. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't know, but assuming it is less than infinite is quite restrictive, especially if thoughts were included. I would include thoughts because it is through thought that we can be aware that there are unknowns.

Right... Remember, it is your definition. Show us why the set of unknown unknowns contains at least one element.