Koyaanisqatsi

Please demonstrate that this is true. What "beliefs" do I hold?

I hold no such belief.

No, I must not.

Since I do not have any "beliefs" your observation--like 99% of your ramblings--does not apply.

WJ

Koy!

We agree! You said:

Yes, it demonstrates yet again that you post for no reason and offer nothing cogent.

Congratulations. As with your belief, you have demonstrated that you are trivial and pointless.

Now please either define your terms and choose the method of argumentation you challenged me with or bow out of the discussion, since it has been demonstrated repeatedly that you serve no purpose and provide no relevant information.
[end quote]


I repeat, please tell us exactly what it is you are trying to say? What are you asserting?


<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Solipsism is a philosophical construct, so if you were arguing it, then your question was relevant.

You are not arguing it, so your question "does not remain."

Nor do I have to as my example demonstrates. There is no such requirement nor any justification for such a requirement.

I do not have to have "complete knowledge and understanding of" mathematics in order for me to be able to claim, demonstrate and conclude that, for example, "1 + 1 = 2."

There is no requirement or justification for me to have "complete knowledge and understanding of reality" to be able to function in and comprehend to the best of my ability that reality.

In other words, you have made an unjustifiable claim.

You'd best be able to back that up, don't you think?

<ol type="1">[*] a "form of temporary belief" is not the same as a "belief"[*] accepting a premise as true for the sake of argument is not the same as holding a belief[/list=a]

I hold no beliefs.

Either something is "objective" or it is not. It is an absolute.

Then you should use the proper qualifier, "subjective."

Non sequitur. The meaning of "objective" as you are applying it here is ambiguous.

<ol type="1">[*] The word "pragmatic" is not and cannot be redundant on its own[*] The phrase "complete objectivity" is redundant, since the word "objectivity" is itself an absolute.[*] You are misusing it colloquially[/list=a]

I'll finish the rest later. Time for home.

AdamWho

John Page:

I liked your response (except for the last paragraph)to my last post, I am relieved that you are not a "universal skeptic".

Admittedly, human beings are fallible and science is a human endeavor, this cannot be denied, however, this hardly counts as an incitement against science. It is also completely reasonable to suspect that we may never know everything but this doesn’t mean that trying to gain knowledge is useless.

This is a straw man erected every time religion meets science. But do they realize that by denying the scientific method as a means to gain knowledge they have made an assertion of knowledge via revelation or faith?!?)

ANY valid theory of knowledge must have error correction mechanisms, the scientific method provides these, faith, solipsism, and revelations do not.
It is not good enough to say:
We are fallible, we can't understand, we never will.

John Page

Pax, and I only refered to faith as a process - not a specific faith in god, pixies or whatever.

Cheers, John

John Page

Koy, you seem to enjoy quibbling over semantics to define things the way you want them while on the other hand your own statements contain some serious inconsistencies.

Here is your own definition of BELIEF:

And then you maintain:

which is, referencing your definition, a state of mind. However saying "I hold no beliefs" is a statement of belief in of itself - for it to be otherwise according to your own definition you would have to show sufficient evidence that it was not. I somehow doubt you have the detailed understanding of the inner workings of your mind to produce such evidence and until such time your statement of non-belief remains a contradiction.

You still haven't explained why you believe this.

Honest, your honor, I never really believed that destroying Enron papers was appropriate, it was just a working assumption for part of the assignment. I was just testing a hypothesis.

This is your belief, not an absolute! It is not an absolute, for example, because it can be shown that some scientific experiments on ESP are more objective than talk-show demonstrations by mediums, but subsequent discoveries have shown them to have had loopholes....

To summarize pragmatically, if you cannot be objective about your own beliefs there seems little point in debating the scientific nature of reality with you, or, in fact, having any debate at all.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

WJ, and others, The question was about reality not consciousness. If reality is anything percievable then that is what it is.

I believe REALITY to be ANYTHING which REPEATS ITSELF or CAN BE REPEATED.

No consciousness in this definition. IS it satisfactory? Will it stand up to your test?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Koyaanisqatsi

So, we're not agreed. Let me explain something to you. You are the one who challenged me with incoherent, unsupportable nonsense about my "denial" of my existence "outside the domain of reason" and asked me what is the "essence" of my reality and to "prove that it is logical," a nonsensical statement.

I then asked you to define these nebulous terms so that your questions are coherent and then choose the format of argumentation you preferred that would make sense out of "prove it is logical."

You have not done any of this. Do it now.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

And you seem to enjoy exchanging unwarranted, rhetorical hyperbole for counter-argumentation.

As I quite clearly stated, since WJ did not provide any definitions of his incoherent abuse of language as repeatedly requested, I would answer his question with my own definition.

I then instructed him to add or detract from the definition as he saw fit. It's a common practice among people who know what the hell they're talking about; it's called "defining the terms."

Do they now...

Please tell me you're not that dense. The definition of "belief" I provided does not stop at "a state of mind."

No, it is not. It is a statement of fact.

Non sequitur. Re-read the definition and don't stop at "a state of mind."

Non sequitur.

It is not a "belief."

There is no requirement or justification for me to have "complete knowledge and understanding of reality" to be able to function in and comprehend--to the best of my ability--that reality.

HOLDING A BELIEF.

HOLDING. MAINTAINING. PRESUPPOSING AS A FUNDAMENTAL WORLDVIEW.

You know what the context is that we're talking about.

It is abundantly clear that you are the one "quibbling" with semantics so please stop and use the proper goddamned terminology!



Do you understand the purpose of language? Even though my comment regarding your redundant, colloquial use of the term "completely objective" was entirely ancillary, let's clear this whole pointlessness up right now. Humans make up words in order to describe certain things and then define those words so that the word carries with it communication of ideas.

The qualifier "objective" is an absolute. Something is either "objective" or it is "subjective," which is the entire purpose of concocting both of those words.

It is therefore redundant to say that something is "completely objective" since, by definition, if anything were said to be less than "objective," then, again by definition, one would say it is "subjective."

THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DELINEATION BETWEEN THE WORDS "OBJECTIVE" AND "SUBJECTIVE."

No, it cannot (other than in a colloquial sense), primarily because you are using the term in a different context.

Considering the fact that you have addressed none of my points and offered no counter-argumentation beyond transparent straw men, no debate has begun.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Sammi/John!

Yes, I realize the thread got hijacked (by Koy). Imagine that.

However, one aspect of 'reality' or philosphic realism is epistemic belief which of course comes from conscious existence. Just like your definition of reality repeating itself.

I think the central question has to be what does reality really mean? If reality is say (from another thread)anthropocentric, then your theory could be extended into a metaphor for an absolute or at least universal truth-Being. But the question remains, how do we verify the truth of one's reality (one's thoughts or theories about it)? What shall we use as the closest analogy to measure our thoughts? What is the best method to test our theories about what we think reality comprises?

(That is why I posed the question to jenn from the getgo.) It was a start to a very broad and general question...of course I think jenn is getting more than she asked for... .

perhaps it is *jenn* who needs to define and qualify his/her problem/question with reality(?)

Walrus