100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On belief... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
But that was my point exactly, The fact is that we know terrible things happen everyday, and that these things are not hallucinations.
And the thought that we actually live in a shared hallucination is absurd. Put it like this I am 5'2" and 190 give or take a lb. I can beleive I am a supermodel til the cows come home but that don't make it so.... There is a gift we all have called imagination; the ability to believe in things that are made up in our minds. Belief is a thing that can not be taken away from someone but it has to be measured with common sense or it becomes dangerous. Why do you think some of the early Philosophers were seen as heritics. Because the Ideas they had were in fact dangerous to themselves and others...Now days we call mis guided philosophers CULT LEADERS. Because we are lost as a society and mankind does have major abandonment issues about just being here and having no Idea of where we really came from we are alot like Lambs to the slaughter...we follow Ideas that we feel give us a place to belong and those of us with IQ's over 150 should take better care when we speak of things so we do not lose our humanity to a over grown God Complex. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But that was my point exactly, The fact is that we know terrible things happen everyday, and that these things are not hallucinations. And the thought that we actually live in a shared hallucination is absurd. Put it like this I am 5'2" and 190 give or take a lb. I can beleive I am a supermodel til the cows come home but that don't make it so.... There is a gift we all have called imagination; the ability to believe in things that are made up in our minds. Belief is a thing that can not be taken away from someone but it has to be measured with common sense or it becomes dangerous. Why do you think some of the early Philosophers were seen as heritics. Because the Ideas they had were in fact dangerous to themselves and others...Now days we call mis guided philosophers CULT LEADERS. Because we are lost as a society and mankind does have major abandonment issues about just being here and having no Idea of where we really came from we are alot like Lambs to the slaughter...we follow Ideas that we feel give us a place to belong and those of us with IQ's over 150 should take better care when we speak of things so we do not lose our humanity to a over grown God Complex. you have an iq over 150? yeow. what's genius? 140 i think? not to argue, just curious. how many iq's over 140? 136 for me. not that it matters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My oldest children who are 16 and 12 have IQ's over 140. And yes I have been in gifted programs my entire life. But, most of the things I have learned about common sense were learned because I spend a lot of my down time when I am not working, with the eldery...retired teachers,soilders,doctors,nurses. You really can't judge a book by it's cover. I'd choose to watch a documentary before I would be caught dead in a club. I've always valued knowledge over fruitless ventures. In other words yes I'm a Nerd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would just like to make a small point that if this line of thought were anywhere near being accurate, it would lead to the logical conclusion that for example; a human being walking the face of this earth with no prior knowledge of hand guns and bullets would not ever run the risk of being shot... as we all know that that is not true, babies get hit by stray bullets all the time, ( and not because someone showed the newborn a gun so they could know what it was) therefore the entire aruguement does nothing but create a paradox. CCM, you make an excellent point. There are many people who claim to not believe in reality, or who deny that facts exist. And yet they use locks, and they stop at crosswalks and wait for the walk sign, and most of them never leave a 10 story building by jumping out the window. Facts are real. It is a fact that infants, or anyone, can die from injuries whether they believe it or not. hmmmm. is it a fact that infants can die from injuries or a fact that have died from injuries? can a fact be an even that may happen in the future? not debating, just that i see little agreement among folks regarding what is fact and what is not even in past occurances much less what may happen. any democrat will tell you it's a fact that increased taxes will save the economy and claim it has worked in the past. most republicans would say it's a fact that the oposite is true on either count. so just what is fact? what is reality? JR, many ignorant people overreach for 'that which can be called a fact'. The fact that they do so, does not take anything away from the fact that facts exist, or that more cautious people can be reasonably certain of their facts. Notice that I use the word 'can', and you mentioned people who use the word 'will'. This is important. Its not even a fact that injuries will cause an infants death. When we bring in political affiliation and political views, we bring in dogmatism that is often unrelated to facts. Death, while slippery to define in edge cases, is sufficiently well defined in the normal course of events for my claim to be meaningfully discussed. "Saving the economy" requires refinement - what metric is used? Yes, republican and democrats make all kinds of claims which they assert are 'facts'. They are often wrong. It doesn't mean that facts don't exist, it means that some people imagine some non-facts to be facts. mankind does have major abandonment issues about just being here and having no Idea of where we really came from Interesting observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: According to your own posts in the "Justification..." thread, you cannot justify anything on your own... It is impossible for justification to be satisfied by personal value alone, and I'll tell you why that is the case. Justification is contingent upon personal value assessments which are contingent upon social constructs. Therefore, justification is necessarily contingent upon social constructs(public). It is impossible for justification to exist without public affairs. To claim that it is not public is to contradict known fact and common sense combined. So what Pan? I stand beside those claims. I see you're still carrying around your hammer and everything still looks like a nail.  -- The question was can I justify that claim. The answer was yes, I can. The act of justification is social and depends upon social constructs. That still stands, so I have no idea what you're objecting to. So, would you care to ask the general public who may or may not be active on this forum if you were justified in mis-quoting and taking said mis-quote out of context and calling it bollocks? That which is false is not measured in increments of precision, no matter the context. That is why it was bollocks. X is either true, false, or neither. There is no degree of being false. There are degrees of accuracy/precision. Just let it go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cinnamoncookiemeat
on
Wed 10/12/11 11:01 AM
|
|
I would just like to make a small point that if this line of thought were anywhere near being accurate, it would lead to the logical conclusion that for example; a human being walking the face of this earth with no prior knowledge of hand guns and bullets would not ever run the risk of being shot... as we all know that that is not true, babies get hit by stray bullets all the time, ( and not because someone showed the newborn a gun so they could know what it was) therefore the entire aruguement does nothing but create a paradox. CCM, you make an excellent point. There are many people who claim to not believe in reality, or who deny that facts exist. And yet they use locks, and they stop at crosswalks and wait for the walk sign, and most of them never leave a 10 story building by jumping out the window. Facts are real. It is a fact that infants, or anyone, can die from injuries whether they believe it or not. hmmmm. is it a fact that infants can die from injuries or a fact that have died from injuries? can a fact be an even that may happen in the future? not debating, just that i see little agreement among folks regarding what is fact and what is not even in past occurances much less what may happen. any democrat will tell you it's a fact that increased taxes will save the economy and claim it has worked in the past. most republicans would say it's a fact that the oposite is true on either count. so just what is fact? what is reality? JR, many ignorant people overreach for 'that which can be called a fact'. The fact that they do so, does not take anything away from the fact that facts exist, or that more cautious people can be reasonably certain of their facts. Notice that I use the word 'can', and you mentioned people who use the word 'will'. This is important. Its not even a fact that injuries will cause an infants death. When we bring in political affiliation and political views, we bring in dogmatism that is often unrelated to facts. Death, while slippery to define in edge cases, is sufficiently well defined in the normal course of events for my claim to be meaningfully discussed. "Saving the economy" requires refinement - what metric is used? Yes, republican and democrats make all kinds of claims which they assert are 'facts'. They are often wrong. It doesn't mean that facts don't exist, it means that some people imagine some non-facts to be facts. mankind does have major abandonment issues about just being here and having no Idea of where we really came from Interesting observation. It would probably make many people more comfortable to stay in denial and not face facts but there is a fundamental difference between Fact and LAW or Fact and Politics. It is called morality. Even If I thought the idea that we may possibly live in a mass hallucination or that the only reason we call a tree a tree is because someone told us too, or that we only use doors because someone else suggested it(which by the way someone did invent doors).....I still have a moral obligation to use Reason when I decide to put thoughts like that into the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best of luck with your father Jb.  Thank you, he is doing well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: According to your own posts in the "Justification..." thread, you cannot justify anything on your own... It is impossible for justification to be satisfied by personal value alone, and I'll tell you why that is the case. Justification is contingent upon personal value assessments which are contingent upon social constructs. Therefore, justification is necessarily contingent upon social constructs(public). It is impossible for justification to exist without public affairs. To claim that it is not public is to contradict known fact and common sense combined. So what Pan? I stand beside those claims. I see you're still carrying around your hammer and everything still looks like a nail. -- The question was can I justify that claim. The answer was yes, I can. The act of justification is social and depends upon social constructs. That still stands, so I have no idea what you're objecting to. So, would you care to ask the general public who may or may not be active on this forum if you were justified in mis-quoting and taking said mis-quote out of context and calling it bollocks? That which is false is not measured in increments of precision, no matter the context. That is why it was bollocks. X is either true, false, or neither. There is no degree of being false. There are degrees of accuracy/precision. Just let it go. Ahhh, so that's why you had to change his words then, you knew the way it was written was a true statement. Here's the original quote from massagetrade: With the word 'false' and with the word 'accurate' we are dealing with shades of degree here,... Here's what creativesoul implied massagetrade wrote: With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree here... And here's what someone taking responsibility for their post would look like: With the word 'false' <snip(ped) important words to twist the poster's meaning so that I may attempt to ridicule their statement></snip> [we are] dealing with shades of degree here... Joan was quizzical; studied pataphysical Science in the home... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're an idiot. I thought I was brilliant?!?!? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 10/12/11 06:05 PM
|
|
Peter_Pan69
Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about the word 'false.' "With the word 'false' (and with the word 'accurate') we are dealing with shades of degree here,..." "With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree.." here... Your remark that the removal of the words in parenthesis changes the meaning of the statement about the word 'false." is purposely misleading. (IT IS WRONG.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan69 Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about the word 'false.' "With the word 'false' (and with the word 'accurate') we are dealing with shades of degree here,..." "With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree.." here... Your remark that the removal of the words in parenthesis changes the meaning of the statement about the word 'false." is purposely misleading. (IT IS WRONG.) I beg to differ... Taken out of context it may appear that way. He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. To be sure, massagetrade would have to comment on the alleged infraction(s).... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 10/12/11 06:34 PM
|
|
Peter_Pan69 Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about the word 'false.' "With the word 'false' (and with the word 'accurate') we are dealing with shades of degree here,..." "With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree.." here... Your remark that the removal of the words in parenthesis changes the meaning of the statement about the word 'false." is purposely misleading. (IT IS WRONG.) I beg to differ... Taken out of context it may appear that way. He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. To be sure, massagetrade would have to comment on the alleged infraction(s).... Peter, I am referring ONLY to the particular sentence in question and it has nothing to do with any hallucinations being false. I am not giving an opinion one way or another about the subject of hallucinations or the meaning thereof.. I am talking only about the sentence/statement. Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about one word or the other. That is a fact. You can beg all you want, it won't change that fact. The sentence must stand alone and "context" should not effect its meaning in any way. It is a statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan69 Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about the word 'false.' "With the word 'false' (and with the word 'accurate') we are dealing with shades of degree here,..." "With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree.." here... Your remark that the removal of the words in parenthesis changes the meaning of the statement about the word 'false." is purposely misleading. (IT IS WRONG.) I beg to differ... Taken out of context it may appear that way. He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. To be sure, massagetrade would have to comment on the alleged infraction(s).... Peter, I am referring ONLY to the particular sentence in question and it has nothing to do with any hallucinations being false. I am not giving an opinion one way or another about the subject of hallucinations or the meaning thereof.. I am talking only about the sentence/statement. Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about one word or the other. That is a fact. You can beg all you want, it won't change that fact. The sentence must stand alone and "context" should not effect its meaning in any way. It is a statement. "Context" does make the statement, that is a fact... In context with bushido's example of eye perception, I would not call my visions hallucinations (or false) because of 1 small "pixel" of data is rendered utilizing false(or non-existent) data. If the rock I'm staring at is affected by this flaw, does that make the tree I see false too? If it is black and white like you say, then we're all hallucinating... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan69 Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about the word 'false.' "With the word 'false' (and with the word 'accurate') we are dealing with shades of degree here,..." "With the word 'false' [we are] dealing with shades of degree.." here... Your remark that the removal of the words in parenthesis changes the meaning of the statement about the word 'false." is purposely misleading. (IT IS WRONG.) I beg to differ... Taken out of context it may appear that way. He was talking about hallucinations being false, which is a given fact by definition and usage. To be sure, massagetrade would have to comment on the alleged infraction(s).... Peter, I am referring ONLY to the particular sentence in question and it has nothing to do with any hallucinations being false. I am not giving an opinion one way or another about the subject of hallucinations or the meaning thereof.. I am talking only about the sentence/statement. Removing part of that sentence does not change the meaning of the statement that the poster made about one word or the other. That is a fact. You can beg all you want, it won't change that fact. The sentence must stand alone and "context" should not effect its meaning in any way. It is a statement. "Context" does make the statement, that is a fact... In context with bushido's example of eye perception, I would not call my visions hallucinations (or false) because of 1 small "pixel" of data is rendered utilizing false(or non-existent) data. If the rock I'm staring at is affected by this flaw, does that make the tree I see false too? If it is black and white like you say, then we're all hallucinating... My statement was not about that. It was about actual sentence structure and meaning. It is apparent that you are clueless about what I am talking about. So just forget it.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QED
-- There are no shades or degrees of being false. As I've already explained. It has nothing to do with me attempting to ridicule massagetrade. It has to do with the Law of Non-contradiction. -- Glad to hear that your father is good Jb, and it seems that you understand what is going on here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QED -- There are no shades or degrees of being false. As I've already explained. It has nothing to do with me attempting to ridicule massagetrade. It has to do with the Law of Non-contradiction. -- Glad to hear that your father is good Jb, and it seems that you understand what is going on here. Then can you explain how a statement is true, false or neither? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QED -- There are no shades or degrees of being false. As I've already explained. It has nothing to do with me attempting to ridicule massagetrade. It has to do with the Law of Non-contradiction. -- Glad to hear that your father is good Jb, and it seems that you understand what is going on here. Yes, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then can you explain how a statement is true, false or neither? Yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On hallucination and how talk regarding degrees of false creates unnecessary confusion...
-- It is important to note here, that it is rarely - if ever - the case that one's entire field of vision constitutes being a hallucination. I mean, the oasis that is being imagined to exist in the middle of the desert is not there. Rather, that image exists only in the imagination and therefore constitutes being a hallucination; breach between thought/belief about fact/reality and fact/reality. The desert is not a hallucination. The point being that if, and only if, we wrongfully/incorrectly speak by calling everything within the entire field of vision a hallucination do we find the need to talk about degrees of falsity. The part(s) of the field/image that correspond(s) to the way things are is not part of the hallucination itself, even if they are a part of the experience of hallucinating. If one holds that the desert is a part of the hallucination, then one is calling that which corresponds to fact/reality a hallucination as well as that which does not. By doing this the term is rendered meaningless through losing it's distinction. |
|
|
|
|
