is it, or is it not?
you decide.
Printable View
is it, or is it not?
you decide.
Don't you mean "immaterial"?
:confused:
Or are you trying to make a pun?
uhh....
sure.
Reality is in perception, it doesn't matter what something is, only what you believe it to be.
-Prelude
i agree with prelude 98.72%.
your personally reality is dependant upon the environment of the first perception of the object.
But then if reality is perspective, then none of you really exist. Ah far as I am concerned everyone I have met here could be a fancy ASP on the cprog server.
I believe in an incomplete understanding/perception of a constant and absolute reality. At some level, there is truth.
>Ah far as I am concerned everyone I have met here could be a fancy ASP on the cprog server.
All of the regulars are. Salem, quzah (duh), myself, and various others. In reality, the creators of Cprogramming are raking in big bucks for writing these incredible AI programs which can interact in unique and amusing ways while still being able to create convincing answers to various programming questions. You would be facinated by the algorithms which define our behavior.
-Prelude
Uh oh, Skynet has become self-aware.
>.fancy ASP on the cprog server.
Carl Voice: shut up..........
about that... you should [pro]bably know that i was a glitch in the program... and stop agr[eeing] in percentages which don't make much for decimals... don't you know that according to that one post back on the board that something approximately 82 percent of all statistics are made up on the [sphot]? c'mon now...
-mod[erat]or...
-ask aran for a proof of my existance...
Have you guys seen the Matrix? Reality is in perception of reality. What you think is real is real.
napKIN
Philosopher of sorts:p
My ISP ?Quote:
Originally posted by Imperito
Uh oh, Skynet has become self-aware.
Better watch out because hey can be nasty sometimes
>>I believe in an incomplete understanding/perception of a constant and absolute reality. At some level, there is truth.
I agree with this view of reality. I think that there is one reality, while OUR reality varies with our understanding/perception of it.
Whether or not you believe that I have a cup that says "I love my grandma" on my desk, that does not change it's existance... ughh, whatever.
D - Not a philosopher.
i'm a relativist and you are an absolutist.
I think that what someone thinks of something is their personal truth about it, although that personal truth may be changed by a social truth's influence.
"I think that what someone thinks of something is their personal truth about it"
Well quite, but it is not the objective truth.
Is there always a 100% objectiv truth that will always stand? I don't think so
I try to avoid discussing religion, unregged, but yes, there is truth that exists outside of perception.
>I try to avoid discussing religion, unregged, but yes, there is truth that exists outside of perception.<
I agree. For instance, "I exist." is true when you read that statement, is it not? It cannot be disproved, and it is surely proven by itself.
From that, you can say that "I perceive." and "I think." All of these are absolute truths which exist outside of perception. That is, if you agree thinking and the likes is not the same as perception, but that's an argument in itself...
"Is there always a 100% objectiv truth that will always stand? I don't think so"
What? Stand?
Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No.
Is there an objective truth? Yes.
Do we "percieve" the objective truth? No.
Interesting answers, Clyde. Now, how did you come to those conclusions?
>Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No.<
This really depends on your definition of real. I go with the notion that real is everything that we experience, both external and internal.
"Interesting answers, Clyde. Now, how did you come to those conclusions? "
Basic reasoning.
"This really depends on your definition of real. I go with the notion that real is everything that we experience, both external and internal."
By real i was refering to based on some external truth, IE. halucinations are not "real", but non-halucinations are.
Both may seem equally vivid to us, but one is based on reality (hence real), and the other is not.
>Basic reasoning.<
Not fair enough. :p Share your reasoning with us.
>By real i was refering to based on some external truth, IE. halucinations are not "real", but non-halucinations are.<
Well, see, this is where I would argue otherwise. I would say that what I perceived during this hypothetical hallucination was in fact real (to me, the perceiver, anyway - and that's all that really matters), but whether or not it [what was perceived] truly existed is something of a different sort. :)
"Not fair enough. Share your reasoning with us. "
ok....
"Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No. "
- People can halucinate.
"Is there an objective truth? Yes. "
- Since different people in different places can measure a given propertiy and get the exact same result, there must be an objective reality (the idea that there isn't is ludicrous anyway).
"Do we "percieve" the objective truth? No."
- What we percieve with our 5 senses, is not in any-way an accurate description of the universe around us. How i see a table and how the table "is" are two very different things; all i "see" is an image made up by the brain based on how light of 400-700 nm bounces off the table.
"Well, see, this is where I would argue otherwise. I would say that what I perceived during this hypothetical hallucination was in fact real (to me, the perceiver, anyway - and that's all that really matters), but whether or not it [what was perceived] truly existed is something of a different sort."
Fair enough, though we are only differing in our definition of real. That's just semantics, my point was merely that some percieved scenarios are based on an external reality and others are not.
about that... what's interesting to note is that physics is strickly only based on what we can observe... there is no true, only that of what we observe... and some old greek guy said that too, i forget who he was, but that our only reality is what we percieve... so... about that... it's funny you should mention about the wavelengths, since that fact is something we've reached, you guessed it, through observance... :)
you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around.
no one knows what's happening when there's no one there to say what is.
"you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around. "
What drivel. Faith? Faith!? For heavens sake do you people actually THINK before speaking? Eh?
Faith is an irrational belief in the improbable.
Belief that the universe does not suddenly change when i turn my back is BASIC LOGIC; everyone elses observations do not change when i turn 90 degrees.
There is no logical reason to believe that anything magical happens when we are not directly observing a situation, everything we know about the universe points to the opposite.
It would be faith to believe that everything turned to ham, not the other way round.
"about that... what's interesting to note is that physics is strickly only based on what we can observe... "
Our observations are not limited, by our senses, so that does not pose a problem.
"and some old greek guy said that too, i forget who he was, but that our only reality is what we percieve"
We create reality in our heads, based on external stimuli. Those stimuli are based on real phenomenon, objective phonomenon.
" it's funny you should mention about the wavelengths, since that fact is something we've reached, you guessed it, through observance... "
Maybe so but there are plenty of conclusions we have reached by derivation.
Clyde:
Do YOU speak before thinking? you have no idea what is happening behind your back. You have faith that the laws of physics don't change when you aren't watching. it's blind faith, there's no other words that are appropriate for it.
i think the reason why we get nowhere when we talk of reality is because we have drastically different reference frames on the matter. It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere.
"Do YOU speak before thinking? "
No....
"You have faith that the laws of physics don't change when you aren't watching. it's blind faith, there's no other words that are appropriate for it. "
No... I have EVIDENCE, and Theory supported by EVIDENCE. Hence LOGIC. Faith is an irrational belief in the improbable, believing the laws of physics do not change when i turn around is neither irrational nor improbable, it is not faith. Believeing they DO change would be faith (and utterly rediculous).
" think the reason why we get nowhere when we talk of reality is because we have drastically different reference frames on the matter. It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere."
We get nowhere because you are fundamentally ignorant of how and why the universe works, hence you imagine that there is no basis for believeing the laws of physics are consistant when in-fact nothing could be further from the truth.
There are lots of stupid questions, or rather questions that are stupid in-light of what we know today:
What sound does a 1 handed man clapping make? - 1 handed men cannot clap.
Does a tree falling in the forrest make a sound, if no one is around to hear it? - the mechanism by which sound is created has nothing whatsoever to do with the person hearing it, so yes.
>believeing the laws of physics are consistant when in-fact nothing could be further from the truth.
touche... clyde one... aran, still questioning the number system... :)
>It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere.<
Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. Is the idea of "life" logical? No way...
>We get nowhere because you are fundamentally ignorant of how and why the universe works<
I don't see how you know how the universe works. None of us can possibly comprehend how the universe works, or at least I see no way.
>Does a tree falling in the forrest make a sound, if no one is around to hear it? - the mechanism by which sound is created has nothing whatsoever to do with the person hearing it, so yes.<
I understand completely where you're coming from, but understand that you're not the one to say that because you aren't there to hear it. Sure, your reasoning is logical, but it cannot be proved if you are not there to hear it. Forget that, it cannot be proved anyway as it has been established it's impossible to prove anything, unless you are the person to whom you are trying to prove something to.
"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"
Wrong.
"I don't see how you know how the universe works"
The wonders of science.
"Sure, your reasoning is logical, but it cannot be proved if you are not there to hear it"
Irrelevant, the mechanism can be proved. My presence does not alter it.
"Forget that, it cannot be proved anyway as it has been established it's impossible to prove anything"
It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.
Given that choice everything I have said holds true.
clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith
regarding other things:
this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans. You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws.
probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!? that's ridiculous! tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?
um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"
Wrong.
"clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith "
I have seen it defined in the way I stated it. Either way the key point is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
"this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans."
Yes....
"You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws"
No i'm not missing it, there is no basis for the claim you make. The laws of physics are a property of space, there is absolutely no basis for claiming they would suddenly change if human beings were not around, human beings do not in anyway influence the laws of physics.
The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.
"probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!?"
No, not in anyway manufactured by a machine, manufactured by COMMON SENSE, something you seem to be lacking in.
"tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?"
If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.
"um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two."
See above.
>It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.<
Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us. What's your point? It doesn't matter what most people think.
>um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.<
Echo that. Why is it wrong?
Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end).
>The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.<
Why? You're not showing us anything solid here.
>If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.<
Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments. (I'm reminded of circular logic here.) What we are trying to say is that that 1 over infinity has the possibility to change (or lose it's "constant" value) "when we turn our back on it" (just as the "absurd" ham world) so that it can equal 1 over 8.
Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say.
IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality.
It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion.
"Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us."
Yes... thats called halucination.
"Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end)."
I will attempt to refrain from head-biting. :)
Ok.
"Echo that. Why is it wrong? "
The reason this is wrong:
"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"
Is because of the way we work out reality. As i said before the universe has an infinite number of different possible characteristics, hence choosing to believe in any single characteristic without evidence or supporting theory is rediculous, because you will be wrong (we are talking an infinitely small probability, the human brain cannot concieve of such a value so people are tempted to say "well maybe" or some such, but we talking about a probabililty that puts winning the lottery every day of your 900 year life to shame!).
There is no evidence nor theory to support the "universe turns to ham" scenario, hence it is irrational to believe in it.
Now I know whats coming, you're going to say: "But there is no evidence that universe doesn't turn to ham!"
True, but we work out reality based on evidence FOR a phenomenon NOT lack of evidence disproving a phenomenon. My dragon is a perfect example of this, we have neither evidence for not against a floating fluffy dragon hovering 3.whatever metres above Aron's head, hence we do not believe in it, likewise we have neither evidence for nor against the "universe turns to ham" scenario hence we do not believe in it. In each case the probability of the dragon/ham scenario being correct is 1/infinity, thats a pretty small number, in fact an infitely small number, which can be considered to be zero.
"Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments"
I don't think I am...
"Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say. "
Well indeed there is that possiblity but its an infinitely small one. As likely as santa claus, or my fluffy dragon.
"IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality. "
We can over-come our perceptional inaccuracies with experimentation, the only thing we assume is that our senses are not being "faked", which giving the probability is a pretty safe bet.
"It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion."
It is indeed an opinion, but one founded on logic.
Fair enough.
You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments, so I'll give you that.
*returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not* :D
>>*returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not*
Everyone knows 1.9999999 is the same a 2 :D :p
"You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments"
Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?
Clyde, the laws of physics exist because people say that the laws of physics exist. The laws of physics are just a general average that the universe is percieved to flow around, there is not where in the laws of physics that it says that the laws can't be broken. When there aren't any humans around the universe will still be there and exist, but it won't follow any laws of physics.
>Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?<
Well, I can try. :)
See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true. For me, that isn't good enough. I see it as black and white. If it's not proven, then it's simply an opinion. To me, it doesn't really matter that your opinion has more probability - it's still just an opinion to me.
For me, it doesn't matter how much you back up your opinion concerning things like the ham world or the floating dragons. Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.
I'd agree that you cannot have absolute proof, so anything could be possible, but by the same token you cannot prove anything beyond our human senses so the universe is me and it's all I'll ever know (which means relying on lack of disproof to support proof pointless).
"See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true."
You accet that my opinion is infintely more likely to be true than your own...... yet you stick to your own.
That my friend is irrational.
""Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. ""
:D :D :D :D :D :D
speaking of ham, we have a saying in England that you can't educate pork....why do you bother trying Clyde ???? actually i suppose it is amusing.........
""Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.""
get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....
>I'd agree that you cannot have absolute proof, so anything could be possible, but by the same token you cannot prove anything beyond our human senses so the universe is me and it's all I'll ever know (which means relying on lack of disproof to support proof pointless).<
Okay. :)
>You accet that my opinion is infintely more likely to be true than your own...... yet you stick to your own.<
I never said I think your opinion is infinitely mroe likely to be true, just that I think it is more probable. By how much, means nothing (to me).
>That my friend is irrational.<
I suppose it is.
>speaking of ham, we have a saying in England that you can't educate pork....why do you bother trying Clyde ???? actually i suppose it is amusing.........<
I take offense to that. (Just so you know. I'm sure you don't care, but at least you know.)
[removed previous comment because some people can actually show respect on this thread]
It is absurd to make a judgment about physical reality (not dealing with alephs, etc) based on this argument, I think. To my knowledge, probabilities are not defined over the infinite set (see restrictions above), and thus your statement is completely invalid. And disregarding that, if treated in your fashion, every theory/statement/hypothesis has the 'same' probability of being true, considering 10^10^10/infinity is 'equivalent' to 1/infinity ( they are both nonsense, as is pretty much everything 'real' when infinity is treated as a number, instead of a limit)Quote:
If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number
Just my two cents worth.
i'm more than capable of debating things as rationally and as carefully in sheer logic terms like Clyde does, but when there are complete idiots stating crap like this ->
""Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. Is the idea of "life" logical? No way... ""
and this
""you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around.
no one knows what's happening when there's no one there to say what is. ""
and the rest of the baloney.....
i see no point in wasting my fingers typing. if you can't see that you are a complete dicks then its far easier to just be rude. you deserve it. you are being complete jerks and you can't even see it. its unavoidable not to be amused by your idiotic debates about ham !!! any sensible person would be :D :D
its completely risible....
Show a little maturity, stevey. Your most recent post appears to be the one that looks like it was written by a "complete dick" and a "complete idiot" and a "complete jerk." I'd have to say it is the most rude post in this thread so far, as a matter of fact.
it was meant to be.....i see no other responce to idiocy...
maturity?? whats that got to do with it???
yeah i must be the one who is a complete jerk, how silly of me to not realise the ham thing is perfectly plausible...
if you think its worthwhile trying to be reasonable about lumps of ham materialising behind you then i suppose we live in different worlds
ok i'll just go away and turn unto a piece of ham.....
aren't there ANY sane people on here ???????
>>aren't there ANY sane people on here ???????
Yeah, I'm sane as I dont reply to such threads. Ohh wait a minute i just did.
Nobody's sane here now. but wait, we could search the member name list for sane
LOL
So you act like a jerk in response to what you deem idiocy (regardless of whether it is or not)? Why don't you just stop responding to their arguments? So there are a lot of idiots in the world. Is that news to you?Quote:
it was meant to be.....i see no other responce to idiocy...
People normally attribute a certain degree of tolerance to mature adults. An ability to keep one's temper...You sound like an arrogant boy-I should know; I am one sometimes:)Quote:
maturity?? whats that got to do with it???
Maybe you're just in a really bad mood or something. God knows it happens to all of us.
i'm in a really good mood actually !!!!!
we do just live in different worlds, i find the ideas presented so completely idiotic i just can't resist laughing at it and being rude...
anyone i know in real life would too.....
the sheer preposterousness, coupled with people having rational debates about lumps of ham 'lookout behind you' ..its so risible.....
oh i just can't believe it...its far better to just leave em to it..i shouldn't bother posting, i won't bother in future.....
that ->
""get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....""
was a reasonable point tho'(without the swearing etc of course)
>we do just live in different worlds, i find the ideas presented so completely idiotic i just can't resist laughing at it and being rude...<
I really feel sorry for you. I'd hate to be compelled to try to make everyone else around you feel like ****.
>i shouldn't bother posting, i won't bother in future.....<
The best thing I've heard from you during this whole thread...
>that ->
""get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....""
was a reasonable point tho'(without the swearing etc of course)<
:rolleyes: This debate was over stuff that isn't really logical. That's why everyone started to sound illogical. But you, you're just being illogical. Show a little maturity and stop acting like a 4th grader calling the other kids names...
>So you act like a jerk in response to what you deem idiocy (regardless of whether it is or not)?<
Exactly. It's like stevey has to call other people names and tell them that they are irrational to make himself feel better.
I said it before, I really feel sorry for you, stevey.
"Clyde, the laws of physics exist because people say that the laws of physics exist"
Utterly wrong, straight from the mouth of someone who knows nothing of physics.
"I never said I think your opinion is infinitely mroe likely to be true, just that I think it is more probable. By how much, means nothing (to me). "
It is simply ridiculous to believe in something that has a 0.00000 recurring 1 chance of occuring.
It is not ridiculous to believe in soemthing that has a 0.999999 recurring chance of occuring.
"It is absurd to make a judgment about physical reality (not dealing with alephs, etc) based on this argument, I think"
Then why do you make judgements based on this reasoning every moment of your life?
Why for example are you not cowering for fear that the five foot, six armed dragon, standing to your left, is about to eat you?
"To my knowledge, probabilities are not defined over the infinite set (see restrictions above)"
Your knowledge is wrong, studied calculus?
"Show a little maturity, stevey. Your most recent post appears to be the one that looks like it was written by a "complete dick" and a "complete idiot" and a "complete jerk." "
I'd have to disagree, he is voicing common sense. And he's venting frustration that I feel all too well.
"People normally attribute a certain degree of tolerance to mature adults"
Hah, when someone tells you they believe that elves talk to them, you think their nutters, but when someone tells you they think the world turns to ham you should be tolerant!?
"This debate was over stuff that isn't really logical. That's why everyone started to sound illogical"
I'm being perfectly logical, the very fact that you can admit that your being illogical implies your opinion is invalid.
"aren't there ANY sane people on here ???????"
*Raises hand*
People talking to elves tends to be absurd because the theory behind them is that they're people, they exist.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
Hah, when someone tells you they believe that elves talk to them, you think their nutters, but when someone tells you they think the world turns to ham you should be tolerant!?
The whole world turning into hams thing could be true, you don't know, do you?
you're trying to pigeon hole something in the wrong hole, in order to win this whole insane argument thing!
Ok time to bring technical philisophic terms into the argument. This thread seems to be arguing between "Primacy of Existance" and "Primacy of Consciousness." The simple version of these two:
Existance: It still exists even though Im not looking at it.
Consciousness: If I dont see it (not conscious of it) it doesnt exist, if my conscious wants it to be a toster it is a toaster.
Now, lets look at "Primacy of Consciousness" a little more. When you break it down it says that, A (any object in the universe) is or does what your Consciousness ordains. It says that A does not have to equal A if consciousness doesnt want it to. The problem with this belief is that it rejects the fundamental axiom of Identity, that A=A.
To back up my claim about the Axiom of Identity here is a small discussion and defense of it. The Axiom of Identity says that whatever object you have be it an apple or a stone, it can not also be a leaf. A is A, you cant have your cake and eat it, too. If you except this than only one side is right.
However if you dont except this, then A no longer has to equal A, and therefore two concepts about one point can both be right. Or contradictions exist in reality and any concept is correct thus, my belief is correct whether you except my argument or not. hehe ;)
[note: most philosophic definitions and examples taken from my fav. philosopher Ayn Rand]
"People talking to elves tends to be absurd because the theory behind them is that they're people, they exist.
The whole world turning into hams thing could be true, you don't know, do you? "
What? WHAT!?
People talking to elves could be true too!, you don't know, do you?
Its EXACTLY the same, both are utterly rediculous, because both are utterly improbable.
the guy who thinks the world turns to ham when you're not looking thinks i'm immature and illogical, feels sorry for me?? :D:p
well i guess i can happily live with that!!
you spout complete idiocy and then feel **** when somebody rational insults you ?? ..you'll have to develope a thicker skin if you go around talking gibberish...
if you want to be rational, why don't you answer this -
""get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....""
[i must be bored today]
>I'd have to disagree, he is voicing common sense. And he's venting frustration that I feel all too well.<
Wrong. He's being offensive and immature. Remember when I said I didn't want any head biting, this is exactly what I was referring to. There's always someone that marches in and starts throwing pans at people who s/he disagrees with. I should've known it was inevitable. You've been "tolerating" us throughout this debate, and haven't shown any offense, but he was never in it and couldn't control himself. He was out of line. Simple as that.
>I'm being perfectly logical, the very fact that you can admit that your being illogical implies your opinion is invalid.<
:rolleyes: Opinions, opinions...
Anyway, I think I should leave this debate. It's growing ever-so close to the headbiting party I tend to stray from. :)
Thankyou, good men, for bringing a few insights and amusing me at the same time. :)
And, Dalren, you make some very fine points.
>[note: most philosophic definitions and examples taken from my fav. philosopher Ayn Rand]<
Hmm, I'll have to check out some of his work...
>[i must be bored today]<
Hehe, you must be. :p
HeHe this is a funny thread..
>>the guy who thinks the world turns to ham when you're not looking ...
... is high on pot.
:D
Hehe...
And, for the record, I'm NOT the guy that brought up the ham world theory. That was Aran. I was simply using it as an example in one of my posts.
aaaaahhhh don't remind me of pot !!!:)
ive kicked my pot habit, with tremendous willpower !! actually sod it, i think i'm gonna indulge later..everthing in moderation i guess...
then i'm gonna go talk to the fairies at the bottom of my garden.....if those little bleeders try to turn into ham when i'm not looking i'm gonna throw a pan at them....or my diaper contents, jeez i'm so immature.......:D
heh, so you know Hillbille Ayn Rand happens to be a female, not a guy, and most of her work is in the form of quite long, but very good novels. She basicly advocates pure capitalism and small government
stevey seems to get frustrated when talking to people who seem to have no basis in reality, they just go on and on talking rubbish and will not listen to reason and logic.
of course its irritating, and youve only said what rational people were thinking.
but remember that if you are abusive and use profanity then you lose your argument. now the thread seems to have ended and they leave feeling smug as if they have won the argument, the argument has descended into 'stevey is immature' and deflected attention away from loony 'ham theories'.
in future leave it to Clyde to debate with irrational people, he is far more tolerant and will win the argument with logic. not that they will ever conceed he has won, because they are irrational, but to outsiders reading the thread it is obvious.
"Wrong. He's being offensive and immature. Remember when I said I didn't want any head biting, this is exactly what I was referring to."
Fair enough, I can see why you're ........ed off. But i can also see exactly why he said what he said.
I wish you well, but i offer this piece advice; do not overestimate your own ability to form conclusions without specific training.
Reading a few pop philosophy books, doesn't really give you much of heads up because chances are you don't know how to evaluate philosophy.
Most people don't, that is why you get people quoting philosophers from thousands of years ago whose conclusions have been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be utterly utterly wrong (like just about everything ever said on the topic of "love").
>But i can also see exactly why he said what he said.<
As can I, although it still doesn't make it right...
>I wish you well<
Likewise.
>Reading a few pop philosophy books, doesn't really give you much of heads up because chances are you don't know how to evaluate philosophy.<
The only stuff I've read that I consider philosophy was Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Great essays in my opinon. Anyhow, I know I'm no philosopher. ;)
Just to let you all in on a secret, I wasn't ever really trying to win this debate. :D I do not feel very strongly toward any of the arguments made (including my own). I guess you could say I was just "looking" for a fight. :D Kinda' trying to make you guys' heads sweat. :)
I guess it worked... :p
well its either...
a) you never believed a word you were saying and yet you still go on and on and on with the gibberish hoping somebody who thinks you're an idiot will bluntly say so, then you can brand him immature and offensive even tho' you know he's right. take delight in having caused a fight , and take delight in wasting clydes time in trying to debate logically, enjoying any frustration so caused, indeed endevouring to maximise the frustration...
or
b) you actually believed the gibberish but then think oohhh ive lost my argument, people reading this post will think i'm daft, ive made a very decent attempt to deflect the argument into a stevey is offensive tangent thereby avoiding answering the sensible questions part of stevey's post, but i have been daft i realise it now, i'd better wink a fair bit and make out it was all a joke. with a few winks and smileys, i will be able to leave looking all superior.......
well looking at it i vear towards b), since if i posted something about fairies as a bit of fun, kept arguing that there were fairies
on and on, and some common sense blunt guy said 'stevey you're a ****ing wanker', i wouldn't take offense cos he'd be right. you wouldn't be so ........ed off (and u obviously were, continually banging this immature thing that fyodur kindly gave you) if you realised you were talking nonsense.
plus you almost left without 'admitting you were joking', a couple of times.
yep, definately b)
[btw being offensive and not tolerating fools gladly is nothing to do with maturity]
i know nothing about physics?
you know less about me than i know about physics. I talk of physics because i know what i am talking about, not just to sound educated.
I think that the Axiom of Identity post was the best post in this thread and the rest was useless argueing over something that neither side can ever prove or disprove.
Good point. I suppose it is because my mind is equipped rather poorly to handle the concept of infinity, and it is far easier to make decisions based on past knowledge than on evaluating infinite probabilities. It's not that belief A has a greater or lesser probability (in the strict sense) than belief B, just that all my experience confirms belief A and not B. If, as I think you said earlier, there an infinite number of possibilities, then there is no difference between a 1/infinity prob and a (really big #)/infinity prob. It just does not make sense to take the probabilities over the infinite set.Quote:
Then why do you make judgements based on this reasoning every moment of your life?
Why for example are you not cowering for fear that the five foot, six armed dragon, standing to your left, is about to eat you?
Yes. I'm not sure I get your point?Quote:
Your knowledge is wrong, studied calculus?
stevey:
Not losing your temper over some rather insignificant thing is considered to be an aspect of maturity, I think.
>>stevey:
Not losing your temper over some rather insignificant thing is considered to be an aspect of maturity, I think.
by your reasoning, am i any more immature than hillbillie then ???
anyway...
why do you keep banging on with this immaturity thing ????
i can quite easliy be 'mature' if i wanted, not offensive, very careful ,considered, careful not to offend, painfuully tolerant, painfully reasonable, well i don't want to, its boring and well overrated. you get past 30 and you have to behave impeccably or you are 'immature', sod that.
i have to be 'mature' in real life, can't i have some fun on here ???
and i never said anything that other people weren't thinking in any case.....
and why do you keep saying i lose my temper?? or is it the somewhat offensive style of posting ??
do have to put a smile after everthing i say ????
>why do you keep banging on with this immaturity thing ????<
Because you're acting....immature?
am i ????? and you aren't ??? least i just like to act...i'm a bit sensible in real life...
why don't you answer the a or b thing ???? stop enjoying deflecting the attention.....
Okay.
I think the answer is quiet simple...
Whenever I turn my back the entire world does turn to ham. Or turkey sometimes. But the catch is that when I look back, it changes back into the world I know. Therefore why do I care that the world turns into ham? Does it really matter at all?
" I talk of physics because i know what i am talking about, not just to sound educated. "
High school physics does not mean you know what you are talking about....... you clearly don't. I know you don't understand physics because of what you say; anyone who understood physics would not say the nonsense that you have done.
"Yes. I'm not sure I get your point?"
You have studied calculus yet you don't know how probability can be applied to an infinite set?
Inifinity is not a problem at all, you can apply probabilities to infinite sets mathematicians do it all the time.
"It's not that belief A has a greater or lesser probability (in the strict sense) than belief B, just that all my experience confirms belief A and not B."
Those two statements are exactly the same, your experience confirms belief in A and not B making A the more probable occurance.
"as I think you said earlier, there an infinite number of possibilities, then there is no difference between a 1/infinity prob and a (really big #)/infinity prob. It just does not make sense to take the probabilities over the infinite set. "
Yes, it does, and like I said mathematicians do it ALL the time, just as you can integrate over an infinite set, you can apply probability over an infinite set. Your problem is you don't understand infinity; there IS a difference between 1/ infinity and 200 / infinity, they both give an infinitely small number, BUT those two numbers are different. Yes, you can have two infinite numbers and one can be larger than the other. This scenario arises quite often: consider integrating between 0 and infinity a y = x line, the area will be infinite, now consider integrating between 0 and infinity a y = 2x line, the area will also be infinite but a "larger" infinity than the first one.
Infinities can cancel out, infinitely large numbers multiplied by infinitely small numbers yield constants. (In some senses that is why light has a mass)
if light has a mass, why do we explain the gravitational lensing effect by using the distortion of space-time, not just simple Newtonian effects ?????
"if light has a mass, why do we explain the gravitational lensing effect by using the distortion of space-time, not just simple Newtonian effects ?????"
You are asking I think, why we explain gravitation lensing in terms of space-time distortion rather than gravity?
Well they are the same thing, light gets bent around a mass because the mass distorts space, that distortion IS gravity, (atleast according to relativity it is).
Light does not have what's known as a "rest mass" that is to say if light stopped moving it would not have a mass, the only mass it has is associated with it's energy.
We can observe light's mass experimentally by using an extremely sensitive mirror and firing photons at it, the mirror can be deflected.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing for me...sorry
actually i was just confused about something...looking into it....
from 'the grip of gravity' book i have...
it seems that the path of light is deflected according simply to Newtonian mechanics, but the deflection is approx. doubled when you also account for the effect of the curvature of space-time ie einstein relativity.
the differences in measurement are due to measuring lights mass simply by gravitational mass compared to measuring by the 'equivalence principle' - relatavistic deflection of light....
ie the mass of light is not just subject to gravitation in the same way as ordinary matter, but is deflected in accordance with einstiens relativity theory....
does that make any sense ????
anyway, forget it, i will know what i'm talking about when i finish this book(if ever)....or mebe not, in any case the fact is that nobody actually knows what gravity is when you get a bit deeper than just saying its warping of space time...gravitational radiation waves, string theories....oh my poor little head !!!!:(