Iaman


Yes, indeed. Do you know what “common sense” is? Here is a fun test about common sense. See how well you do – to what extent your “common sense” serves you.

http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/psychology/Commonsense2.htm

Awe, come on, it’s fun for everyone, only takes a minute and you might learn something.

That would actually be a great start to answer, what is knowledge, and how do we gain it?

100%

I took the test Di.

I aced it!

I swear to God Di. I aced it!

I answered every question as sincerely and honestly as I possibly could and I aced it.

i didn't ace it - i got 9 out of 12 correct. but it was very interesting.

I missed 6-8 i still think there true at least for me in my expierience.

11 out of 12

I must confess that one of the reasons I got them all right was indeed because of what I have learned over the years, and not because these things were 'common sense' to me.

I don't mean to be giving away the test answers, but consider the following question:



I used believe this at one time, as I'm quite sure that many people do! I know for a fact that many people believe this because one of the reason I used to believe it is because I've heard so many people say that this is true.

However since that time I've watched documentaries on child behavior. Human beings aren't even capable of thinking like that until they are way older, like 4 or 5 years old.

Prior to that time young children and babies simply aren't capable of thinking methodically about how to 'use' other people.

Yes, it's true that a baby cries because it wants attention, but it's definitely not true that it would methodically make a connection between crying and receiving attention. Babies just aren't capable of that kind of complex deviousness.

Here's the real TRUTH of this situation for anyone who's interested in TRUTH.

Primate babies are totally helpless creatures. In the while they are with their mothers almost 100% of the time. Chimpanzee mothers for example, carry their babies around with them 100% of the time. They don't sit them down in a crib to go off and watch soap operas like human ape mothers do!

It's truly quite unnatual for primate mothers to leave their babies unattended. This is something that humans have evolved to do simply because they can. They can build cribs and place their babies in them and know that they are safe. But I'm sure our very own early ancestors didn't even do that. Early human mothers probably cared for their babies as well as the apes care for theres.

The fact that modern mothers put their babies in crib cages is truly a rotten deal for the babies.

The babies don't deserve that, they DESERVE constant attention. And then to treat the baby like as if it is trying to manipulate the mother by crying is to just add insult to injury to the poor baby.

Yet it's quite unfortunate that probably a lot of people will believe that #11 is true.

That is a shame and it should be made more common knowledge that this can't possibly be true because babies just aren't capable of that kind of devious controlling thinking.

Yes, they want attention, but only because that's what they SHOULD be getting! They weren't meant to be left alone in cribs!

I feel for all the poor babies around the world now.

Abra....what you wrote, brought back some sweet memories of when I was 10....


I would be already asleep, and then would suddenly hear my new born baby sister's crying in the middle of the night....

and my ma and pa, after both getting up to burp her or change her diaper or feed her,
sometimes just couldn't quieten my baby sister down...no matter what they did....
so they would both just go back to bed , in hopes that my baby sister would eventually soon cry herself to sleeep....

but that was when I would slip out of my comfy bed ..and sneak over quietly to her little crib, and sing softly to her , while letting her hold one of my own little fingers...til she fell asleep...then back off to bed I went....

And I have no idea why I am sharing this...

some sweet sweet memories ....

RainbowTrout asked:

Why would you want to avoid the rabbit chases? Just curious.


Creative wrote:



So Creative,
How would you determine said "actual reality" as apposed to said "individual illusion."



So Creative, if said "actual reality" is completely independent of the notions of an observer, how then can you use an observer in your example above? (underlined)



If said "actual reality" is "completely independent" of the notions of an observer, then there can be no observer to register this actuality or to acknowledge that this "actual reality" even exists.

So does this actual reality exist? If it does exist independently of the notion of an observer, can you prove that without an observer?



Everyone else as apposed to you?



Is this your belief or opinion?

Or are you asserting that this is a fact or the indisputable truth?

If you are claiming this to be a fact, then can you prove it without an observer?

JB

Well that was a beautiful thing to share MorningSong.

And a beautiful thing to do.

All your baby sister needed was to know she wasn't alone.

Cool MS. Here is a picture for the occasion....

Asking you to define truth is a common tactic of those who have unsubstantiated arguments? (Now there is some Bullsh*t!)

If you are going to talk indepth about truth I hardly think you can do that without defining your premise.

Here is your stated premise:



Agreed.



Huh? I'm not sure what that means. Truth is a "characteristic of a proposition?"

Does this proposition have to be agreed upon? If so, by whom and by how many?




By that do you mean to say that "seeing, touching, hearing, tasting, feeling something then makes it truth?

What if you are the only person doing the seeing, touching, hearing, feeling etc.?

What if no one agrees?

How many observations (or observers) does it take to declare that something is true? Is it the quantity of observers or the quality of them?

Example:

If ten thousand people see an alien and a UFO over their city and all of them agree that it is real, is that declared a truth?

Or, do they need six to ten scientists to verify it? Or do they need the President to verify it? Or do they need CNN to verify that indeed, there was an alien space ship over the city? Or will it require a Military announcement for people to be "forced" to accept this observation as truth.

OR do we have to have an alien space ship over every major city in the United States before people will accept and declare this to be true?

What does it take to officially arrive at and declare the truth of something?

How much agreement and agreement by whom?

Abra, Invisible and Tribo,

Abra - I expected you'd get them all right.

Common sense is not what people think it is. Common sense is that hand me down saying that we believe long before we ever consider it's meaning. We are told these thing by the authorities in our lives and it never occurs to some, to test the idea, to deny it.

Are all red heads hot tempered - DON'T YOU BELEIVE IT. But, then, there's also the idea that a read might believe it and therefore it becomes a good excuse to loose control.

You see, common sense is traditions, superstition, old wifes tales. THEY are not truth unless they are unsubstantiated subjective truths,and they are definately not knowledge.

Would jesus deni someone worthy... Yet they have become worthy on their own... with out his name but by his message...

Would you lord deni that person...

I don't think so.

Creative said:



The subject of the above sentence is "truth" and therefore phrase "since it's inception" must be referring to "truth" (and not to "religious circles.")

Therefore, the statement above implies that "truth" has a beginning or an origin. (inception) My question in regards to this statement is:

"What is the origin of truth?"



epistemological: (thefreedictionary.com)
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

E*pis`te*mol"o*gy
The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge.

I'm still confused about what rules and guidelines you are setting in regards to the use of the term "truth."



Hummmm.... are we back to if you can't see it or touch it or feel it or hear it, or observe it in a laboratory with friends, then it ain't real?



All I am getting is that in order to use the term "truth" in a discussion with Creative on this thread one has to accept his premise and definition of the word or of the nature and meaning of truth, and I'm not quite certain what he is claiming that to be.

My Creative One, is this the notion of 'your version', 'my version', and somewhere inbetween is the truth?

Like the examples of people witnessing crime. Several eyewitnesses will give varying accounts ... some more closely match the video surveillance footage than others ... and some are downright nonsense when compared to actual footage...

Ah, as usual Di, you knew where I was going...

Agreed. Knowledge and personal truth. The term truth has been slain in language to the point of no value.



JB...

Actuality is not determined by the observer, neither has it ever been. The universe existed long before humans.

Pick up a book on effective reasoning skills, because within them one can learn the difference(s) between a good and bad argument, the factors of relevance, the difference between fact and opinion, how to construct a valid argument, the differences between good and psuedo-reasoning, the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, etc...

FABULOUS statment. If we say that truth is purely subjective, then for at least one person there remains value in the word.

Creative,

Making the above statement does not prove anything. It is just a statement. You claim this is a fact. Where is your proof?

I ask for "proof" because you declare loudly and boldly that your assertions are FACTS. If they are facts, then you should easily be able to prove them.

The universe may have existed long before humans but do you actually think that humans are the only observers in the universe?

A fish in the sea is an observer. A lion in the bush is an observer. A roach is an observer.

Anything that receives and interprets vibrations is an observer.

Why would you limit your narrow definition of an "OBSERVER" to only a human?

Now, if you really want a discussion, please answer the questions I have posted.

If not, I will have to assume you can't answer my questions because you don't know and you don't have proof for what you assert is "fact and truth" and "actual reality."

JB

(Reposted in eager anticipation of real answers)

RainbowTrout asked:

Why would you want to avoid the rabbit chases? Just curious.


Creative wrote:



So Creative,
How would you determine said "actual reality" as apposed to said "individual illusion."



So Creative, if said "actual reality" is completely independent of the notions of an observer, how then can you use an observer in your example above? (underlined)



If said "actual reality" is "completely independent" of the notions of an observer, then there can be no observer to register this actuality or to acknowledge that this "actual reality" even exists.

So does this actual reality exist? If it does exist independently of the notion of an observer, can you prove that without an observer?



Everyone else as apposed to you?



Is this your belief or opinion?

Or are you asserting that this is a fact or the indisputable truth?

If you are claiming this to be a fact, then can you prove it without an observer?

JB