[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

I hope you aware that what you see as impossible, what you cannot imagine... that this is not a validation of truth... not a sign of "knowledge".

That isn't even including the option of fakery, not the option of self-delusion... it is just pointing at the inevitable fact that, at some point, you have to accept something as true without being able to get "proof without imagination".

Just claiming "this cannot be wrong" is not enough. It shouldn't be enough by "common sense"... and it is definitly not enough when using logic.

You can claim that I "simply don't understand", that I "have nothing to base it on". Quite the contrary: I understand logic very well, and understand that it is a working system to base knowledge on. And you don't.

You accuse me of reason which is logic. I accuse you of logic which is reason. The difference is, I have that something more to compare it with...and you don't. I have the reason of logic of two world...and you don't.

Even if you don't believe me, I have reasoned with you in your world...but you have not reasoned with me in mine.

In any contest, your response would be considered a forfeiture...regardless of any consideration to evidence.

It's not logical.

 

[Freodin]

You accuse me of reason which is logic. I accuse you of logic which is reason. The difference is, I have that something more to compare it with...and you don't. I have the reason of logic of two world...and you don't.

So you claim. So you assert.

I counter that assertion.

Even if you don't believe me, I have reasoned with you in your world...but you have not reasoned with me in mine.

Well, neither were you reasoning with me in my world. In my world, you need to back up assertions with something more than the reference to "another reality".

But let me apply the reasoning of "your world" to my side:
Even if you don't believe me, even if you don't think that I am serious now: I know more than you think, and I know that "your world" is imaginary. This knowledge is part of my very existence.

In any contest, your response would be considered a forfeiture...regardless of any consideration to evidence.

It's not logical.

I don't think that you, as a "contestant" are the authority to define what is or isn't considered a "forfeiture". That would be for the jury to decide.

 

[ScottA]

So you claim. So you assert.

I counter that assertion.

Well, neither were you reasoning with me in my world. In my world, you need to back up assertions with something more than the reference to "another reality".

You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?

But let me apply the reasoning of "your world" to my side:
Even if you don't believe me, even if you don't think that I am serious now: I know more than you think, and I know that "your world" is imaginary. This knowledge is part of my very existence.

You hypothetically turning things around, without actually having any knowledge of my world, means nothing. You have never been, and you don't know. I, on the other hand, intimately know from experience in both worlds, and cannot be fooled by your conjecture. You bring nothing to the table that I don't already know. But you cannot say the same (even if you try and turn it around).

I don't think that you, as a "contestant" are the authority to define what is or isn't considered a "forfeiture". That would be for the jury to decide.

These are the rules from your side of the discussion, your world, your rules. I have lived up to them...you have not. Nothing a jury could say would change that. And if you are honest, you will admit it.

 

[Davian]

1. Let me get this straight: You think that reality is based on fixed laws in an ever changing world whirling through an undefined space within an uncertain time frame? Right!

Wrong. You are not very good at that mind-treading trick, are you?

So, how do you resolve the Noah story with observations of reality?

 

[ScottA]

So, how do you resolve the Noah story with observations of reality?

Which reality? I have to assume you mean the only reality you know about and will let into your consciousness. So...in that reality, it is the history of the world, the demonstration that you all seem to require. And then, there is the testimony of those who are not limited in mind, to one reality: Perhaps you've heard. There is a kingdom that oversees this world.

 

[Davian]

Which reality? <snip>

Let us pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and work with the definition of "reality" that we can agree upon.

I have it as a noun, meaning "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

Does this work for you?

 

[ScottA]

Let us pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and work with the definition of "reality" that we can agree upon.

I have it as a noun, meaning "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

Does this work for you?

No, and it's not a true representation of the world. The point here, is that the definition of reality, is debatable.

I would say the world is not real from my perspective of an overriding reality wherein the world is just a creation, a make-believe realm whose purpose has nothing to do with it's resident self-perspective.

You, I presume, only believing what you see, and cannot perceive anything but the created world in which you find yourself, and have not or will not entertain anything further. Or...will you?

 

[Freodin]

You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?

Your world, your rules... not mine. That would mean that it is you who doesn't live up to his standards.

You hypothetically turning things around...

Hypothetically? I never said that.

... without actually having any knowledge of my world, means nothing. You have never been, and you don't know. I, on the other hand, intimately know from experience in both worlds, and cannot be fooled by your conjecture. You bring nothing to the table that I don't already know. But you cannot say the same (even if you try and turn it around).

How quaint!
See, here you are, talking about "both worlds" as if you... well, know, that there are exactly these "both worlds" and anything else is wrong. Again, an unbacked assertion - that you base all of your argument on.

You are correct, I have never "been" in "your world".
But when you claim that you have "intimate[...] know[legdge] from experience in both world, and cannot be fooled", you ignore the possibility that there might be another "world"... one that you don't know anything about, one different from "this world" and "your world". One that you don't know anything about, one that I intimately know by existential necessity.

And this knowlegde tells me that you are wrong... must be wrong. In the same way that your "knowledge" tells you that all the conflicting worldviews and religions are wrong... cannot be right because they contradict your worldview.

I might not know "your world"... but neither do you know mine. And my world proves to me that your world is wrong. I know that!

So what now?

These are the rules from your side of the discussion, your world, your rules. I have lived up to them...you have not. Nothing a jury could say would change that. And if you are honest, you will admit it.

Well, you can keep claiming that you "have lived up to" my rules until you are blue in the face... you havn't.
And this is not an assertion - I can show that.

Remember: I presented you with the logical reasoning why your assertion does not work, why it is logcially impossible. These are the rules of "my side".
You countered it by excusing yourself from these rules by claiming to adhere to a different set of rules... those of "your world", which "overshadows" mine.

Sorry, but that is not playing by the rules. You cannot claim you have won by touchdowns when playing tennis.

So let me get back to the beginning of the post once more:

You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?

See, here I am, playing by your rules. I present assertions, claim that I have a means to know, to prove... and hide these means from your view.
Here you seem to see it: it is hearsay, defining evidence your way, proves nothing... and you do the same!. Cudos to you for admitting that.

But on the other hand, I try to play by the standards of ... not "my world", not "your world" - our world, our shared reality.

Am I hypothetical when I assert inherent knowledge? Am I sincere? You don't know... and you will never know. Because I usually refrain from using such an argument. Because it doesn't lead anywhere.

Don't you think then it would be better to go back to talking about our "beliefs" - the things that we are totally convinced are true, but cannot share - instead of claiming "knowledge"?

 

[ScottA]

Your world, your rules... not mine. That would mean that it is you who doesn't live up to his standards.


Hypothetically? I never said that.

How quaint!
See, here you are, talking about "both worlds" as if you... well, know, that there are exactly these "both worlds" and anything else is wrong. Again, an unbacked assertion - that you base all of your argument on.

You are correct, I have never "been" in "your world".
But when you claim that you have "intimate[...] know[legdge] from experience in both world, and cannot be fooled", you ignore the possibility that there might be another "world"... one that you don't know anything about, one different from "this world" and "your world". One that you don't know anything about, one that I intimately know by existential necessity.

And this knowlegde tells me that you are wrong... must be wrong. In the same way that your "knowledge" tells you that all the conflicting worldviews and religions are wrong... cannot be right because they contradict your worldview.

I might not know "your world"... but neither do you know mine. And my world proves to me that your world is wrong. I know that!

So what now?

Well, you can keep claiming that you "have lived up to" my rules until you are blue in the face... you havn't.
And this is not an assertion - I can show that.

Remember: I presented you with the logical reasoning why your assertion does not work, why it is logcially impossible. These are the rules of "my side".
You countered it by excusing yourself from these rules by claiming to adhere to a different set of rules... those of "your world", which "overshadows" mine.

Sorry, but that is not playing by the rules. You cannot claim you have won by touchdowns when playing tennis.

So let me get back to the beginning of the post once more:


See, here I am, playing by your rules. I present assertions, claim that I have a means to know, to prove... and hide these means from your view.
Here you seem to see it: it is hearsay, defining evidence your way, proves nothing... and you do the same!. Cudos to you for admitting that.

But on the other hand, I try to play by the standards of ... not "my world", not "your world" - our world, our shared reality.

Am I hypothetical when I assert inherent knowledge? Am I sincere? You don't know... and you will never know. Because I usually keep using such an argument. Because it doesn't lead anywhere.

Don't you think then it would be better to go back to talking about our "beliefs" - the things that we are totally convinced are true, but cannot share - instead of claiming "knowledge"?

I hear you, man, I feel you. But when you come to know a truth, you know, and it would be dishonest to appease. History is full of new discoveries that demonstrate this to be so. And the new horizons are not getting smaller, they're getting bigger.

As far as your side of this goes, yes, we have little more than the ability to "talk" about all this. My facts, I can't show you. Your facts...well, I live here too, and it's all a house of cards put together with conjecture.

So, sure, we can "talk."

 

[Freodin]

I hear you, man, I feel you. But when you come to know a truth, you know, and it would be dishonest to appease.

It is... well, not dishonest, but... unreasonable, when you insist on a "truth" that you have no way to verify or share.

What would we come to, if we all adhere to this "standard"?

History is full of new discoveries that demonstrate this to be so. And the new horizons are not getting smaller, they're getting bigger.

History is also full of people imagining things that are not real.

As far as your side of this goes, yes, we have little more than the ability to "talk" about all this. My facts, I can't show you. Your facts...well, I live here too, and it's all a house of cards put together with conjecture.

My facts... conjecture, well, basically yes. A little more than that: we humans have worked hard to find ways to make it more that pure guessing.
Your facts... be aware that they are conjecture as well, and because you "can't show" me, they are a lot weaker than others.

So, sure, we can "talk."

So let's talk. I would really like to know just what kind of people you think are these "few hundred wackos" that you mentioned earlier.

 

[KCfromNC]

If there is any hope that all of these testimonies are more than meets the eye, calling them "guesses" is probably a bad idea. The term is incorrect. When you are an eyewitness, you don't "guess" what you saw, nor do you step up if you are not absolutely sure.

You'll have to be more specific as to what people are seeing what exactly here. As it stands it sounds like hearsay about someone who might or might not have seen something or another which may mean this or that. Obviously there's no much to take seriously in that kind of a hypothetical.

True, the world is full of counterfeits. The pea is not under every nut.

And with no way to tell which is real and which isn't, the most reasonable choice is to treat them all the same. That is, until someone can give good reasons that their claims are true it is best to treat them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

No, sorry, but when one has greater knowledge that supersedes other testimony, the only fair and considerate position to take, is to be honest. The testimony of science is not all wrong...it is just missing the Source and examining the products, and that mountain is a mole hill in comparison.

And you know this how?

It is only valid if you connect the dots of all history, of all life...which can only be part, if one is not equipped with the gift of spiritual knowledge. By which I do not mean, one must "be" gifted, but must have "received" the gift...which is free for the asking, by the way.

I've asked and learned (through connecting all the dots) that claims like yours are unreliable. Call it a gift if you want.

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong. You are not very good at that mind-treading trick, are you?

So, how do you resolve the Noah story with observations of reality?

It was just, like, Noah's opinion, man. Don't harsh on the dude's vibes.

 

[dlamberth]

I have it as a noun, meaning "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

Yes, that would work for me. But only because the "world" and "state of things as they actually exist" are in what you gave, not defined. That leaves reality wide open to ones life experiences, just as reality actually operates.

For instance, I'm quite sure that for folks like the Shaman's who would "experience" the world AND state of things as they actually exist "to them" is quite different than for you. They live in a different reality. That's just one example.
.

 

[Davian]

No, and it's not a true representation of the world.

Reality is not how things actually are? What word would you use then for how things actually are?

The point here, is that the definition of reality, is debatable. <snip resulting word salad>

Not really. Definitions are descriptive of how we use words, not prescriptive. You can debate with me the use of the word "gay", and convince me that its proper use would be as an equivalent to 'happy', but should you announce to the next group of strangers how gay you are, I suspect that their interpretation will be otherwise.

You, I presume, only believing what you see, <snip>

No, wrong again. I think you have some wires crossed on that fancy hat of yours.

 

[Davian]

...
My facts, I can't show you.
...

Then they are not 'facts', in the common vernacular.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

 

[Davian]

It was just, like, Noah's opinion, man. Don't harsh on the dude's vibes.

Need an Arc?

• Davian
• Jul 26, 2015

 

[Davian]

Yes, that would work for me. But only because the "world" and "state of things as they actually exist" are in what you gave, not defined. That leaves reality wide open to ones life experiences, just as reality actually operates.

For instance, I'm quite sure that for folks like the Shaman's who would "experience" the world AND state of things as they actually exist "to them" is quite different than for you. They live in a different reality. That's just one example.
.

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot live in a different reality if you agree that there is only one.

 

[ScottA]

It is... well, not dishonest, but... unreasonable, when you insist on a "truth" that you have no way to verify or share.

What would we come to, if we all adhere to this "standard"?

History is also full of people imagining things that are not real.


My facts... conjecture, well, basically yes. A little more than that: we humans have worked hard to find ways to make it more that pure guessing.
Your facts... be aware that they are conjecture as well, and because you "can't show" me, they are a lot weaker than others.



So let's talk. I would really like to know just what kind of people you think are these "few hundred wackos" that you mentioned earlier.

1. Sharing is indeed possible, just not verifiable...which is simply a limitation of where we are. The challenge, is to find enough of a reception that we can poke our heads out of this place enough to consider the other side...without just getting shut down by closed-circuit thinking.
2. This standard, would/could go two ways: 1) to less trust, or 2) more trust. And because we can't seem to go there and get hung up with No, as opposed to Yes, or Maybe...I should think we are currently at #1. Which I do understand is justified. We don't have the best track record. But I would suggest that we not let our humanity be the very thing that stands in the way of our advancement. History is full of examples of skeptics killing new ideas and even the people who have a dream. It is also full of examples of how we have put that all aside, and touched the stars.
3. Conjecture, I believe, is indeed something that we can agree exists in both camps. But lest we leave room for exceptional truth...we should not expect to find it. In my case, I make no claim to have found such an exception...but it is my witness, that it found me. So whether I deserve credit for being Lewis & Clark, or a bumbling idiot who stumbled over the horizon and discovered that something more that can only be talked about...doesn't really matter. Discovery and advancement, regardless of opposition...is good for everybody...even if they don't think so at the time.
4. Not knowing just which "few hundred wackos" I might have been referring to, whether they be scientific or spiritual, I will go first and explain what I know of the spiritual (and if you actually wanted me to give an opinion of the other side...I would be happy to, just let me know).

The spiritual wackos, of which I am one, for lack of a better term, are those who have genuinely been struck by Lightening (by God). It is rare, and for everyone of them, there are ten million who only believe what they have heard. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it absolutely has resulted in innumerable false claims, which gives the whole matter a bad name. Speaking out of term is simply a human reality. So is gullibility.

I liken the whole matter as being like this: like being born into a big room with a bunch of other people who have only each other and the things they are surrounded by to determine just where they landed. Our humanity then results in leaders and followers, in mechanics and maniacs, people who turn over the rocks to see whats underneath and what they are made of, etc., and those who just sit on the rocks or build something with them. But if no one had ever been outside the big room or seen outside, the best that could come from their inside efforts would be their inside findings...and ANYTHING about what was beyond the big room...could only be conjecture. The best of experts (and now I am addressing the other wackos ) within the realm of the big room, would be the scientists, whose findings would be invaluable to life within the room. On the other hand, if ANYTHING truly factual were to be known about what was beyond the big room...it would have to come IN FROM THE OUTSIDE to the people in the big room. And it has. These are the spiritual wackos...who after their encounter with a higher life form from beyond the room, say, "No, really, you gotta believe me, I really did hear from the outside! I was minding my own business when...bla, bla, bla, happened...and the best I can do is tell you, because he's gone now, and I don't see him either. But he told me bla, bla, bla, and showed me bla, bla, bla, and I have got to tell you: This room? This is nothing!" And it has been happening just like that all throughout history (believe it or not).

 

[ScottA]

And with no way to tell which is real and which isn't, the most reasonable choice is to treat them all the same. That is, until someone can give good reasons that their claims are true it is best to treat them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

History has already given good reasons, miracles, fire brought down from heaven, etc....and many believed. They ARE recorded with all the specifics, if you care to go through the data.

Please refer to my post #638 for the rest.

 

[dlamberth]

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot live in a different reality if you agree that there is only one.

I made no such agreement.