WJ

Koy!

You're using syllopsism as a scape goat for avoiding the question. It is *you* who cannot use objective reality and/or logic to explain the nature of your own existence/Being.

So, please tell us what it is you're trying to say? What do you believe about the nature of your own existence? And, prove it is logical?

I maintain that either you're full of hot air, or you are simply in denial that your existence is outside the domain of reason. And as far as old 'axes to grind', you have no clue as to how you've justified your beliefs (ie, in the non existence of deity, etc.) as your so-called default position is a whimpy scapegoat and says no thing.

What does it mean to hold a belief?

Otherwise, allow me to pass gas over your floundering sails from a sinking ship.

Walrus

John Page

Koy:

1. What uniquely priveleged viewpoint allows you to say this?

2. FYI I am not arguing that there is no external reality, there demonstrably is an "out there" - here is a quote from me pasted from another thread earlier today: "IMO, the best proof that physical reality does not emanate from the mind is the fact that we cannot control physical effects through the mind. Whether a pedestrian has observed a car bearing down on him or not as he crosses the road, he still gets run over."

3. The argument here is whether one can have a truly objective view of what reality is. I think you can only claim this if you have complete knowledge and understanding of reality. Indeed, if you beleive you have obtained a completely objective view of reality I would be delighted to know how you traveled back in time and to the edge of the universe. One of the things that I have garnered from participating in these fora is the best we can achieve is intersubjectivity - it seems to me one of the limits of being human.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

Reality must lie on the plains of being not-fantasy.

It may seem strange to you people to contort the definition of reality to a position of not being fantasy.

Reality has a grip which when in effect comes close to being strongly typed or highly determined.

A fantasy turning to reality could be something like : I live in a cardboard box in New York, one morning I do not want to get up, so i imagine a fantasy in my mind where i stay. I do not move and gradually fade away, my fantasy becomes real as the last impulse of perceptive energy is used.

* * *

Reality is anything which affects consciousness. The universe has its reality, the police station has its reality, false testimony and crooked judges have their own realities.

Reality is also anything which supports consciousness.

Lastly my fantasy was a reality - relative reality.

The problem with this thread was the pre-supposition to try to influence people to think of reality in terms of society...

Or was it?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Koyaanisqatsi

WJ--

You wouldn't be challenging me to a debate again, like the one you ran away from the last time, would you?

No, I am not.

And it is *you* who haven't a clue what those terms mean or how to properly apply them.

Logic, as has been pointed out to you ad f*cking nauseam is a tool of cognition. It doesn't "explain" anything.

"Objective reality" is that which exists independently of my or your or any human brain's existence.

The evidence for it is what you are reading. You may choose to deny it, but if so, then who cares? All you have done is removed yourself from the discussion.

So, what is this "question" you claim I'm avoiding?

What is the "nature" of my existence? What is the "nature" of my "being?"

Define your goddamned terms and I'll meet it head on like I did before. You remember? The thread you turned tale and whimpered away from after making a big stink about challenging me to a debate?

Do you mean, "please repeat what you've just posted," because I just did tell you precisely what I was "trying" to say.

Still think you can get away with just asking pointless redirectional questions ad nauseam, eh?

What a joy.

I hold no "beliefs." Since you haven't defined the phrase "nature of your own existence" I will breathlessly await you so doing before addressing it.

Who here wants to take bets now that he never will? I'll cover them all.

DO NOT CONTINUE TO USE IMPROPER TERMINOLOGY. "Prove it is logical" is a nonsensical phrase.

What you mean to say is "Demonstrate it is valid through the cognitive process known as 'Logic.'"

That, in turn, means that you are requesting I put my premises (based on your defining the above phrase/terminology) into syllogistic format in order to infer a valid conclusion.

Is this what you are asking me to do?

OR are you asking me to provide compelling evidence for my theory?

Make a decision and choose in what format you wish to address this issue.

<ol type="1">[*] You define the terms and I format my argument into formal, two-value logic syllogism, or[*] You define the terms, I provide my theory and the evidence I feel supports that theory[/list=a]

But whatever happens, STOP MISUSING WORDS!

"Prove it is logical" is gibberish.

Then I shall take this as your position.

Kindly provide either evidence or argument that could possibly support your claim that I am in "denial" as well as a coherent definition of what it means to exist "outside the domain of reason."

Gee...I certainly hope you'll continue with this kind of piercing argumentation.

Since you are asking me to define these terms, I shall. The context of your terms is clear thus "to hold a belief" means:

Make any addendums or alterations you so desire.

Flatulence humor. What a shock.



Now put up or shut up. Define your terms, choose your format and then address my request that you support your claim that I am in "denial" over the undefined and incoherent concept of existing "outside the domain of reason," whatever the hell that means.

Your go.

Koyaanisqatsi

If you are arguing solipsism, then the discussion is over, since the logical progression of solipsism is that--necessarily--nobody but you exists, rendering both "discussion" and/or "argumentation" ipso facto pointless.

Therefore, the inherent pointlessness of solipsism provides me with the "uniquely priviledged viewpoint" to say such a thing.

Either you accept that we all exist "outside" of your mind, or you do not. If you do not, then the discussion is automatically over, since there is no point in "discussing" anything with somebody who likes to pretend and/or deny that the evidence that exists right in front of his or her face for an "out there" is nothing more than a construct of their own mind.

Either grant what is extant or necessarily bow out of the discussion, if you are going to argue solipsism.

This isn't Philosophy 101.

Good, then issue closed.

Then there is no argument since positing whether or not an individual can have a "truly objective view" is a contradiction in terms. An individual is necessarily a subjective observer, thus their "view" cannot be considered "objective."

Perhaps, like WJ you too should define your terms.

Are you asking whether or not an individual can rely upon their sensory input from various elements that make up "objective" reality in order to do something, like walking or talking?

Then you are incorrect in your thoughts. I do not need complete understanding of mathematics to claim "1 + 1 = 2" or to recognize that my claim is both demonstrable and reliable to conclude that indeed "1 + 1 = 2" for any pragmatic purposes.

<ol type="1">[*] I hold no beliefs[*] Define what you mean by "obtaining a completely objective (redundant, by the way) view" of reality[*] Once defined, explain the necessity for such a preconditional in any pragmatic sense[/list=a]

Anything will do. Just make sure it's pragmatic, otherwise it will be discarded along with the rest as pointless and trivial mental masturbation based on the limitations and loopholes of semantics.

Assuming you are correct, why is it a "limit?" In what pragmatic, non-trivial way would such a construct "limit" us?

Tusitala

Sorry to butt in on your private debate, but time is short......

'Reality' is is just an assortment of letters - 7 in total.

Interestingly enough, one of the definitions of reality is "the quality of being real, resemblance to an original." According to the bible I must really be GOD since (I guess) he was original and I was made in his image.

So how come I'm not rich?

Carry on with your arguments now....

Cheers,
Tusi

WJ

sammi!

Cool! Reality is *any thing* that is a product of conscious existence. (Yet the essence of which- consciousness- is unknown.)

Koy!

"That, in turn, means that you are requesting I put my premises (based on your defining the above phrase/terminology) into syllogistic format in order to infer a valid conclusion."

"Is this what you are asking me to do?"

"OR are you asking me to provide compelling evidence for my theory?" [end quote]

It doesn't matter Koy. You are the epistemic rationalist/objectivist, not me. Choose either method, the *nature* and *meaning* of your existence and subsequent beliefs about such reality, will not provide for absolute truth other than the [your] current universal definition of a "belief". So we're back to stalemate.


Here's my take on your definition of philosophic realism:

"The doctrine in philosophy that universals have a real existence, over and above the individual entities that they subsume. Plato's theory of forms or 'ideas' is characteristic..."

In this light, I would have to ask a similar question(s) from those which John had asked regarding your priviliged vantage point:

What is the essence of conscious existence? Or, an easier question for you is, what is the essence and existence of *your* reality?

(AKA, what does it mean to hold a belief about such reality or some thing?)

To answer your other question, you expect objectivism to provide the only pathway for justification of a belief. Yet, when asked about something as personal as [the essence of] your own existence (or in this thread, reality), you play the Polka dance.

So the bottom line for you it seems, is that reality is anything you want it to be, or choose to believe. As for me, I'm not asserting anything about reality. Personally, if you were to ask me those same questions I ask of you, I would then reply that I believe I am a spiritual Being/creature living a temporal human existence.

So, in 'reality' (pardon this most interesting pun), who's belief is absolute, true or otherwise? And how can your methodology (as derived from your consciousness) disprove my belief?

Does that help?

Walrus

WJ

Koy!

We crossed. You are in denial because you hold beliefs. Beliefs that [your] pragmatism is truth.
so you must have beliefs. What are they based on and what do they mean? I suspect, no thing.

(?)

walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Beg pardon?

No, I am not.

It is your choice to make, not mine, because of your incompetent misuse of terms.

I will take it once again that you are cowaring from debating with me.

What a shock. At least it only took you one post this time.

Again, what is it that you mean by the "nature" and "meaning" of my existence and why have you thrown in "provide for absolute truth" when it has nothing to do with anything at all?

And, as before, I have no "beliefs," subsequent or other.

So, once again, you have presented no argument.

No, we are not. You would have to present an argument to get to stalemate.

I have made no such definition nor used any such phrase.

Are you addressing this to someone else? It is not clear from the evasive pointlessness you posted that was addressed to me.

Do you mean, "where does consciousness come from," because the "essence" of conscious existence is a nebulous question that has no meaning.

For example, I can answer "the essence of conscious existence is poetry." Would that clarify anything? Of course not.

You have no clue what you are saying, which is why you ultimately say nothing. Odd that you remain here.

Ok. Let me separate these two questions and answer them for you:

<ol type="1">[*] The "essence" of my reality is a three dimensional spatial grid[*] The "existence" of my reality is a three dimensional spatial grid[/list=a]

You're right. That was easy, especially since you continue to childishly avoid defining your terms.

No, that would not [i]also be known as[/b] this other question, but let me answer it as well:

How's that? Just as pointless as your posts, yes?

No, I do not. I don't give a rat's ass about what somone does or does not believe, so please stop trying to redirect anything toward it. Believe mystical fairy god kings flew out of your ass and magically blinked everything into existence, just don't preach it or tell another living person about it or expect to have that belief shown for the childish tripe that it demonstrably is.

Clear?

Now, if it's possible, kindly explain how this comment of yours has any relevance to what we've been discussing.

No, I asked you to define what it is you mean by "the essence of" my own existence.

Please stop the childish attempts at humor as yet another evasion tactic. You aren't properly equipped and it just grates.

Now tell me what it is you mean by "the essence" of my existence.

Non sequitur.

Then what is your purpose here, other than to continue to demonstrate your pointlessness...literally?

Bully for you.

A belief cannot be "true," just accepted as true, nor can it be considered "absolute," which is why I hold no such beliefs.

"It" cannot and does not have to since your belief is trivial and pointless.

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.

John Page

Apparently, its Science 101. I wasn't arguing for solipsism so your response is irrelevant and the question remains.

You have not demonstrated a complete knowledge and understanding of reality, you give an example of an objective truth about the rules of the discipline of math. Why is my assertion incorrect?

I think this is a lie of sorts. For example, how else do you hypothesize than by making an assumption, which is a form of temporary belief?

No, "completely objective" is not redundant. One can be only objective within the domain of your knowledge - so for example an atomic physicist can be objective about the effect of electrons hitting steel plates, but not about the effect of gene splicing on fruit flies.

The necessity (pragmatic is redundant, BTW) for complete objectivity arises from pratical experience that if you do not know or have analyzed all the facts about something, any statements you may make regarding that something are unreliable. Now replace the word "something" with "all things". This is scientific necessity, no?

We are all different. The bandwidth for communicating those differences is very small and our language for doing so imperfect. That we can communicate somewhat allows us to share views and become less subjective.

IMO to transcend these limits of being human we need to understand how our minds work, only then can we objectively understand and compensate for idiosyncrasies in our perceptive and cognitive systems. This is a non-trivial task.

Cheers, John