Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
See I don't get it. If it is conceivable I would think it as possibly real.
|
But in what form, imaginary?
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
No, what I am saying is that it was always possible for the moon to shield you during the eclipse and always impossible for the moon to not shield you during an eclipse(by definition). Thus no event in question is possible sometime and impossible other times, you are simply describing different events and appealing to contradictions in terms.
|
Untrue
. Please read the example again, we cabn resort to logic if you will, clearly sometimes it is possible for the moon to shield you from the sun and at other times impossible. You asked for something that was sometimes possible and sometimes impossible - here you have it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
By pure memory I mean one composed purely of inductive data collected by experience. With no a priori reasoning added.
|
A memory is a priori by definition. Memory collected by experience implies some form of mind activity therefore a priori reasoning. Pure memory of this kind is thus impossible.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
Perhaps, but it is still a priori. Which undercuts empiricism.
|
I would agree that since our minds already exist, there is a difficulty achieving a brain state with no a priori. However, empiricism can
externalize data in formal manner giving more strength to deductions made using that data.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
Well with your mirror example I would just look and count how many reflections are shown. Lets say "4" are shown, I just count up to four and settle the matter.
|
Not a very thorough investigation, would a bigger mirror help?
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
No just present what you found relevant in that thread.
|
All of it, and its not very long. Here's the link
Contradictions and Dialetheism
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
But how can my perceptions actively organize sense data by themselves? If that is the case are they really percieving or imposing the data?
|
Straw man. Heres what I posted "That is your perception - this to illustrate that perception is more than just passive reception of sense data."
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
But within your system you are actively ruling out the prescriptive, making your anti-prescriptive standard prescriptive.
|
LOL! That's what you think, I'm not forcing you to take any prescription at all. In fact that's exactly what I prescribe, don't take any prescriptions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
Well I presented absolute truths and you simply rejected them a priori. So technically anything I presented to you as an absolute truth would be considered unacceptable no matter what.
|
You presented
prescriptive truths that only maintained a semblance of coherence within your system. I did not reject them as a priori, I refuted them by showing them to be
relative to a system ultimately depending on an a priori.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
Likewise you have not provided examples of how reality is consistent with relativism, you have only claimed so much.
|
I don't need to - you have proven so yourself! See below.
Quote:
Originally posted by Primal
My statement is also not the pot calling the kettle black as I believe my axioms are self-evident. Thus not matters of faith but matters of evidence.
|
Your axioms are
self-evident to
you. They are
relative to
you.
Cheers, John