sorry CS,i guess the "facts as we know them" is where i have a problem. truths/facts/knowledge/ are not [to me] things that one can count on for any length of time - i think history itself prove that much. So for anyone to tell me that their TFK's are something that is the end all and be all of what we know - i say in response - well wait a few years and see whats the new TFK's then - it keeps changing CS, and always will. therefore to me it's not logical to put my faith or beliefs in them - so i will just have to stay open to the new info as it comes about, and re-think my positions at that/those times.

It's just like my question to you about other dimensions and parallel universes which you did not reply to - and how if this becomes the new scientific theory that outways [as it supposed to] E=mc2 - then what - back to square one? i'm not saying it will by no means just what if it does? i had thoughts of parallel universes as a teen ager and reading science fiction and pondering these things - now science is saying it's possible - one thing i think i know for sure - TFK does not stand still, the river keeps flowing the old is left behind and the new comes afresh.

think of it like this, you were a Greek scientist one day and you went to sleep and woke up in the 17th century only to be utterly amazed t what had come about, things beyond your wildest dreams, then you slept again and woke up in the early 20th century and again marvelled at all that had transpired, and again as to now and again ad nauseum - that is why i say i cant put faith in now science or even tomorrow science.

That is only a scientific fact because science chooses to define “life” as a chemical reaction. There are others of us who define life as a non-physical thing that has no dependence upon anything physical.

So sure, it’s a scientific fact.

But by the same reasoning, it is also a spiritual fact that life is independent of anything physical, because that’s the way we define it. And there is ample evidence to support that definition, which science flatly refuses to accept, claiming it is not "scientific". But that's exactly the point. It's not scientific. It is spiritual.

So you use your “scientific” facts, and we’ll use our “spiritual facts” and apparently never the twin shall meet.

But insisting that your “scientific facts” are any more valuable or valid or “good for the overall welfare” than “spiritual” facts, inot only an outright falsehood, but smacks of outrageous self-righteousness.


How is it that you should be the judge as to what is important and true and good for human welfare? Why should your opinions be any more valid or valuable or important or good for human welfare than mine or anyone else's?

Skyhook...



A spiritual fact?

That statement alone is a contradiction in terms.



Science does not belong to anyone, and neither does any fact.



There are elements which constitute and distinguish fact from opinion.



Do you have a logical refutation to that which I have proposed, or are you just in a pissing contest?

Think about it.

I gave what you, JB, and a few others asked for. If you do not like it, do not ask for it.

It is nothing personal...







TRIBO...

Indeed, I will completely agree that human knowledge is dynamic. It is built upon itself and that which has been proven to be correct or not throughout history. It is consistent. New information is always weighed against existing knowledge in order to assess it's validity.

Which illustrates my point exactly. You can define the terms any way you want. By your definition, the are contradictory. By mine, they are not.

I agree. And this is, I believe, an example of your misunderstanding of my viewpoint. You seem to assume I am referring to posession or ownership when I use the term "our" and "your". But that is not the case.

And what are those elements? Please enumerate them.

You implied that my expression of my viewpoint is somehow bad for "human welfare" as you put it. But other than that one unfounded claim you haven't provided anything about human welfare to refute.

I have been thinking about it, and although there may have been incidental questions that were answered, you never gave any answer for the main question I (and others) had, and which I (and otheres) asked multiple times.

You said that there exists a reality that is independent of any notion of observation.

I asked you to provide an example.

I have yet to see any example of anything "real" that is indpendent of any notion of observation.

It appears that Creative is someone who might like to outlaw the freedom of expression or freedom of speech concerning any notion or idea that deviates from the current agreed upon scientific knowledge base.

If that sort of suppression of idea and theory were possible we would still be living in the dark ages.

To state this about a simple expression is extremely paranoid.
He said about my statment:

"This comment and it's implications are extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things."

I would like to see him back that up with some examples of how he believes the implications of my statement are damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things.

And if he can prove this is a true statement, what might he propose in order to silence people who express a belief in God or spirit or creating your own reality or determining truth or any other thing that disagrees with his beliefs.


To refresh the subject, my statement was:

The bottom line is that we decide what is real and what is not.

I did not realize that a mere thought like this was so threatening or extremely damaging to society. Do you suppose one day they will come to collect me in a black helicopter never to be seen again as I am such a threat to the status quo?

i think they should have hauled you off to the funny farm decades ago -

The scientifically proven argument has been made... twice... without a logical refutation.



"I have yet to see"... That is interesting Sky. Let us take this example and apply it in a non scientific way.



1.) Individuals "see" things according to their individual perceptual faculty.

2.) Different individuals can observe the exact same event and come away with different conclusions resulting from differences within their perceptual faculties.


These two above statements are irrefutable.


They are not proven in terms of objective proof, although they are accurate. Never-the-less, I believe that one who reasonably understands human nature would agree with them both.

It follows then, One witnessed event has more than one personal conclusion, and that because of this fact, any perception of that event is not the same as the event itself.

If not the same,then different.

Differences are not the same.

In order for differences of perception to exist, there must exist something by which the differences have been inferred. There must exist a source which all observers are perceiving which is independently existing, regardless of whether it is being perceived.

Independent of the observer.

Is that logically separate enough?


That is also irrefutable.



JB...

Your right... I lose... Boo Hoo...

The only thing that is irrefutable, indisputable, or incontravertible, ------ is man's stupidity.

"there must exist something...." sounds like a guess or an assumption, therefore it is not irrefutable.

"there must exist a source which all observers are perceiving which is independently existing... " also sounds like a guess or an assumption.

That source is vibrations. What you are seeing is a reflection of light.

The difference of perceptions only mean that the observers each have a different perspective or point of view and each actually do see it differently.

One example:

My right eye will see a different picture than my left eye when I close one eye and look at a basket of fruit with the other eye. Each view will show a slightly different arrangement in the relationships of the objects to each other. I know this from the experience in painting a picture from life. Each eye perceives a slightly different picture of the objects.

But the assumption that something is there is an accurate one. However the perception of what it is will vary with every observer because each observer has a different point of view.

The above example is using a human observer.

I concur that "something is there" but I may not concur on what that something is. It is all vibration.

Human observers, equipped with similar sensory abilities will have similar descriptions and agreements on what that something is, but other observers who may not have the same sensory abilities or may have completely different sensory abilities may see something completely different.

Well … yes they are. But for the purposes of this discussion, it is not necessary to do so at this time.


The assumption that every observer reaches a different conclusion for every event observed is fallacious. The simple fact that we can communicate shows that there exists identical conclusions. You and I can both reach the same conclusion that this post is under the “Truth.vs.Bull***” thread. That is an identical, personal conclusion we have both reached.

My whole argument has been that there must be identical conclusions in order for the event to be considered “real”.

And from there on, there is no point in arguing because the rest of your argument depends on the assumption I have just refuted.

But just for fun, I’ll tackle another one.



Again, the logic is fallacious.

First, you stipulate that there are differences. (Different perceptions.) Then you stipulate they are the same. (Same event.) So which is it?

By your own stipulation, the two accounts are different. Yet you then proceed to argue based on them being the same event.

If I am to follow your logic as presented, I have no choice but to assume that you are insisting that they both viewed the same event, in spite of the fact that the only evidence available (the stipulated eyewitness accounts) is to the contrary.

Doesn’t sound very “scientific” to me.

JB wrote about creative






And you are very clearly a woman who has on many occasions ...this one included ...made statements about people that come from no basis in fact.

You have done it repeatedly with creative...and he has been remarkably patient over the last 8 months or so considering...

You are right, artgurl, it is all based on my opinion, which is derived from reading his posts.

...and irrelevant to the discussion.

The above is indeed a logical fallacy, it is called a straw man argument, because it belongs to your claim, not mine. That fallacy describes this situation at hand... when one side distorts the meaning and/or words of the other, subsequently building a straw man of false evidence which is easier to refute than the actual argument. I did not write that, you did.



No.

The simple fact that we can communicate shows that we have a reasonable understanding of the meaning behind the words being used within our language. Although identical conclusions concerning the same event are indeed possible, they do not support your claim.In fact the notion of different perspective proves the fact that actuality exists independently of any observer, for if it did not only one could observe.

So then, what is your point?




You are playing a bull****ter's game, Sky. People "see things differently", remember. You said so as well.




Based on the same event...

Yeah...so what is your point?



Of course "they" did!

How many MLB World Series were watched this year? How many people watched? How many different accounts of the ninth inning's pitching duel in game 2 do you think that there are?

All it takes is more than one account of that one event, Sky...

Millions(probably) of different accounts for one set of events.

Your entire argument has failed in refuting anything here as well as the more scientific argument given by me earlier.

Does the argument you give contain any evidence, scientific or otherwise(logical)?

Let me ask you this...


How can life(observer) decide what constitutes it's ability to think rationally?

With evidence to support it's claim.

Got any?

Irrelevant? You can't be serious. The whole conversation is basically a debate about the existence of a creator. (God)

He has never, that I have seen, indicated that he has any belief in anything but what science and observation has decided is fact or real. So as far as I am concerned I intend to leave it at that. There is nothing further to discuss.

Interesting...I thought it was about truth and knowledge

i thought it was about truth and bull****???

There must be a distinction made between correct information(knowledge) which is based on and supported by fact(evidence), and that which is not...opinion.

When one makes an assertion it is aimed at being correct.

Beliefs are as well.

Why else make a claim?

Bull**** is when one has no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support their claim or their refutation of an argument which is supported by such.