100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On Knowing... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It was the beheading of David by the inquisition.
 Something he said??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
three cheers to the rolling head it be, kill the rolling head but painless and quickly be the sad sad plea...
 "stabbed it with out steely knives, but could not kill the beast, haven't had that spirit here since 1969", but it rocked and rolled, rolled and rocked, as infinity rocked and rocked earth the spinning top, the tilted and jilted never again as wilted, lol...... Abra is the villian of the village, who brought the dying head unto the shrine, and laid it forth before the alter, creating the great divide and rif, first pasted the pasting gif, lol!!! ditto's ditto'd be ditto's ditto'd ditto |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The heart KNOWS more, than the head allows."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The heart KNOWS more, than the head allows." wise words indeed!!! the mind be but self preservation fear acted out, when the heart be of infinity love created into realtiy??? expectation's expected create but limited expectations of the minds expected created into reality, when the heart hold the power to trust itself in each jot and tittle, and allow the universe to unwind from behind the sublime, a reality that no expectation could prepare for, the love of the entire universe as one pulsing love placed in the heart and hands??? the mind become silent when the heart trust itself in each jot and tittle, and allow the heart to reveal the mysteries of the universe???? peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To doubt everything is impossible. One must hold some things to be true.
To ask the following is to submit to our own ignorance... How does one see the full picture from within a box with a few holes poked in it? Now this sounds nice and all, but what does it really mean? Does the 'full picture' represent actuality? Does the 'box' represent the perceptual faculty? Do the 'few holes' represent knowledge? I could answer by following suit and saying that one must do two things... The first would be to cut a clean and accurate hole. The second would be to get close to the hole with the eye so the box itself does not get in the way. Meaningless you say? I agree, but the answer fits the question as posed. The foundation of knowledge is belief. If what is believed holds true in light of all verified information, then we should depend on it's accuracy until something warrants different. If it does not, it is time to un-learn things, traveling backwards until the contradiction is no longer an issue. The arguments given by JB have been senseless... Two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time. So what? The argument given does not contradict this, as a matter of fact it supports it... so what difference does that statement make? None. We are not contemplating whether or not the coconut killed the man, or why. We are arguing that there is no influence which caused both events to happen simultaneously. Where is the cause? The example has clearly shown that there is no known single cause which influenced both objects so that they were in the same place at the same time. Neither one of the closed systems had any influence whatsoever on the other. They are two separate sets of events with only the time of occurance as a commonality. Find a single cause for the simultaneity and you will have refuted the argument given. The cause must affect both sets prior to the interaction in order to be a cause of both happening at the same time, if not, then nothing is shown nor proven to refute the claim of... Pure random chance. Try again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To doubt everything is impossible. One must hold some things to be true. To ask the following is to submit to our own ignorance... How does one see the full picture from within a box with a few holes poked in it? Now this sounds nice and all, but what does it really mean? Does the 'full picture' represent actuality? Does the 'box' represent the perceptual faculty? Do the 'few holes' represent knowledge? I could answer by following suit and saying that one must do two things... The first would be to cut a clean and accurate hole. The second would be to get close to the hole with the eye so the box itself does not get in the way. Meaningless you say? I agree, but the answer fits the question as posed. Still a limited and incomplete view. There could be causative factors, parallels and correlations visible from another vantage point. Maybe there aren't ... but maybe there are. That is the point - it is unknowable and moot. The whole argument seems meaningless ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it wise to base what one believes to be true upon unknown variables or is it foolish?
Is it even possible? I just acknowledge that they may indeed exist, but I do not believe it unless it is time to. I have confidence in what I believe to be true, and can express it clearly.  Meaningless to some, no doubt... others comprehend and it spells out the difference and distinction required to realize that some commonly held beliefs lie upon unbelievable grounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it wise to base what one believes to be true upon unknown variables or is it foolish? Is it even possible? I just acknowledge that they may indeed exist, but I do not believe it unless it is time to. I have confidence in what I believe to be true, and can express it clearly. Meaningless to some, no doubt... others comprehend and it spells out the difference and distinction required to realize that some commonly held beliefs lie upon unbelievable grounds. OK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 04/25/09 09:55 PM
|
|
Where is the cause? The example has clearly shown that there is no known single cause which influenced both objects so that they were in the same place at the same time. Neither one of the closed systems had any influence whatsoever on the other. They are two separate sets of events with only the time of occurance as a commonality. Find a single cause for the simultaneity and you will have refuted the argument given. The cause must affect both sets prior to the interaction in order to be a cause of both happening at the same time, if not, then nothing is shown nor proven to refute the claim of... Pure random chance. Try again? The problem is in the insistence that I am talking about a single cause. I am talking about CAUSE itself. (Not about a SINGLE CAUSE, least of all "a known single cause.") (No event happens by way of a single cause.) There are always an unknown number of causes at work in any event. I will agree then, that no known "single cause" caused the event in your example; simply because no event is ever the result of a "single" cause. As for pure random chance, you can have it if you like. It doesn't really matter to me because the design (program) is such that the appearance of random chance is as good as pure random chance. There is no way to tell the difference because we are dealing with infinity and with an infinite system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A coconut falls from a tree. This is a closed causal system, meaning that it is a completely independent cause and effect relationship which is in no way affected by the following closed system, until the events independently unfold in the same place at the same time. A man walks under the tree. This is also a closed causal system, meaning that it is also a completely independent cause and effect relationship which is in no way affected by the previous closed system, until the events independently unfold in the same place at the same time. The coconut kills the man. This is the product of two closed systems interacting without purpose, reason, nor intent for the fact that they did. There is no independent cause for both sets happening simultaneously. In order to explain this one must invoke purpose, reason, or intent, or acknowledge the existence of... Pure random chance. Where is this example located Lala land? We live in a reality where there is no such possibility. The idea that there can be a closed system is non sense, but in Lala land you argument holds water. Now back to the real world. All events are related at least indirectly. Any given event will have one or more causes. Randomness does not exist. Every event is caused by and the cause of another event. I struggle to understand the path of a single electron from the wall outlet to a pixel on my screen, but I don't chalk it up to randomness. A lack of understanding of something is not proof of randomness. It may never be within the grasp of the human mind to understand the many connections between two seemingly unrelated events, but that doesn't make the interaction of these two events a random encounter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The events are the ones you posted.
Are you suggesting that the example is somehow incomplete? Perhaps you should re-read the argument, because you have offered nothing to substantiate your attempted refutation. Where is the single cause which affected both sets of events in such a way that those two independent sets happened simultaneously? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is in the insistence that I am talking about a single cause. No, the problem is there is no cause or number of them from either set which affects the other prior to the interaction... The interaction itself is an effect of the two sets happening in the same place at the same time. That I will not argue. I argue that there is no cause for the simultaneity of both sets of events... Therefore, the fact that the man walked under the tree at the time that the coconut fell is pure random chance. Random events happening at the same time and the same place which have no influence upon each other prior to the interaction. The coconut falls for reasons... The man walks for others... The two sets combine through unrelated causes... Randomly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The events are the ones you posted.  Are you suggesting that the example is somehow incomplete? Yes. The idea of a closed system does not exist in reality and offers nothing for argument that takes place in the real world. Perhaps you should re-read the argument, because you have offered nothing to substantiate your attempted refutation. Your argument offers no substantiation. Where is the single cause which affected both sets of events in such a way that those two independent sets happened simultaneously? I never stated that there was a single cause for that event. It is most likely the interaction of several events caused that single event to occur. If one of those causes had been different the man may not have died under that tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is in the insistence that I am talking about a single cause. No, the problem is there is no cause or number of them from either set which affects the other prior to the interaction... The interaction itself is an effect of the two sets happening in the same place at the same time. That I will not argue. I argue that there is no cause for the simultaneity of both sets of events... Therefore, the fact that the man walked under the tree at the time that the coconut fell is pure random chance. Random events happening at the same time and the same place which have no influence upon each other prior to the interaction. The coconut falls for reasons... The man walks for others... The two sets combine through unrelated causes... Randomly. How can you eliminate the possibility for that single event cause? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you eliminate the possibility for that single event cause? I do not understand exactly what it is that you are asking me to eliminate. If you remove either set of events, the other will unfold without difference. This proves that neither set has an inherent cause which affects the other prior to the interaction. The only commonality in both sets of events are time and place.There are no shared causes(causes that affect one another) prior to the event. While there are causes which led up to both sets happening at that place and at that time there are none that connect the two sets prior to the interaction of them. That is why it is random chance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm personally a firm believer in randomness.
I don't see how Free Will can exist without randomness. If nothing is random then there would be no way to chose because everything would be predetermined by prior causes. So I embrace randomness with open arms. Without randomness Free Will would be impossible. God tosses dice to give us Free Will. That's precisely how she accomplished that magick trick for us.  A universe without a random element would be a dead universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probability is chance.
The two sets being unrelated is random. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sat 04/25/09 11:34 PM
|
 I know that I am doing all the talking for Jeanniebean in these threads. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/220250 http://mingle2.com/topic/show/220277 http://mingle2.com/topic/show/220188  Paging Dr.Bean.You are needed in these threads Dr.Bean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pastafarian man...
The idea that there can be a closed system is non sense... Can this be supported, because I know of nothing which would warrant a belief in such a statement? My entire argument relies on that foundation, as was explained within the example provided. |
|
|
|
|
