quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN insofar as we are limited by language to describe anything in existance, then yes, you are right. however all these things exist outside human experience or construction, so as such they are not "human constructs", merely the words to describe them are. why argue about anything if everything can be termed a construct? well, laws concerning gravity or the speed of light etc. again, our understanding of them might be a human construct, but they exist and function whether we understand them or not. but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

Just letting you know that I didn't respond to your post earlier because I basically agree with your response.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Yeah.. I think that certain people who grow up with the wrong setting are more inclined to perform terrible acts. These people have a weakness usually: they fear authority and reprimand. Why? Because they care most about themselves. Else why would they harm others? It's all selfishness, and governments and laws apply that selfishness to keep people in line and attempt to keep people safe.

Character has little to do with how people turn out if they develop in subpar conditions. I have argued this before. Your argument of selfishness and fear of autority apply mostly to people who developed with their basic need met. If you have to think everyday about getting food for yourself you cant really spend much energy on being altruistic and respectful now can you? As far as fearing reprimands go, most people that dont have some sort of social disorder tend to be fearful of reprimands, its the normal human condition. There is always deviations, but then they're not most people, there exactly that deviations, and hence a change in methods is required because they are not "normal" and "normal" methods won't apply.

Edit: Also i bolded that line because it goes with my argument not against it.

quote:

Unfortunately, this may have negative effects on people who are NOT inclined to selfishness. A rational and fair man grows to know that he does to others as he would expect them to do to him. Why does the quickie-mart clerk let you use the employee bathroom even though it's off-limits? Because that same clerk is going to be out eventually and he'll be dying to use the toilet. It's all relative.

I don't get how this realtes to my argument?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Maybe this is true; maybe the problem with a lot of scientists (and pseudo-scientists) is that you're standing behind a bulk of knowledge created by others, with no capacity either spiritually or scientifically to unravel this universe for yourself.

What is this supposed to mean? That because the majority of scientific knowledge is beyond my immediate experience, I have "no capacity" to use this knowledge to further my understanding of the universe? That because this knowledge is second-hand, it is a less valid foundation for for my personal epistemology? That the tireless scrutiny of well-trained scientists is not a valid substitute for my own direct ability to "spiritually or scientifically" unravel the mysteries of the universe?

Stop being so vague: is the bulk of scientific knowledge demonstrably objectively true or is it not? If you are arguing the latter, let's see some justification for it.

quote:

Superior philosophical system? You missed the point. It's a different beast, just as religion and philosophy are different beasts. They go about different ways of connecting to what is going on in the world around you.

Superior in the sense of its ability to define the nature of reality. Like I said, if you disagree then explain yourself.

quote:

It's your own fault that your mind can't wrap around this concept due to your dependence on the stability of a singular concept (in this case science). Is it superior system to others in some or many ways? Yes. Would I ever be so daft and unwise as to say that is it offering justification for itself as a superior system to ALL OTHERS? No, never. Maybe when I was 15, but not now.

You seem eager to pidgeon-hole me as a narrow-minded, scientific demagogue, but it's not going to work. I am well-read in both philosophy (which remains one of my chief interests) and religion and can appreciate the role they play in shaping our understanding of the universe, but that does not change the fact that by any mushy, shifting definition you might like to offer me here, science (which is also a philosophy, not merely a method or a body of knowledge) is the best explanatory tool we have for understanding the nature of the universe. There is nothing absolute in my statement here and the comparison is deliberately measured, but it is true. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

quote:

What constitutes circular logic? Sounds like you have a religious faith in something you should be questioning.

Yeah, good one man. Because I accept something as a "fact" I must necessarily be caught up in an inexorable system of dogma as severe and unbending as that of any of the world's religions, right?

Stop avoiding my questions: tell me what a fact is. Tell me why there are "very few facts". Stop offering me these pithy maxims without making any attempt to justify them.

quote:

You really believe space-time is mostly flat as a whole?! Maybe it's POSSIBLE, but it's more likely that we simply don't have the proper capacity and the proper tools of measurement to see what is actually there.

So spacetime isn't actually flat, it is just observably flat, measurably flat and flat according to virtually every theoretical model we have that is consistent with observations? Of course, how could I be so stupid?

Stop with the special pleading. You think you're being clever and "open-minded", but you're really only making yourself look dense. If the universe is not demonstrably flat, in your opinion, prove it.

quote:

Superstring Theory, if you insist, does itself build the fabric of a matrix of universes balancing around and into each other. You can't possibly bring up superstring theory in the same paragraph where you claim that the universe is flat.

How is saying that the universe has a curviture of ~0 inconsistent with superstring theory?

quote:

Question everything, and maybe one day you'll come up with a unique idea.

Take your head out of your arse and maybe one day you'll come up with a coherent idea.

quote:

Oh, okay! We don't understand it and yet it's *causing* the accelerating expansion of the universe, eh? LOL We don't understand something, that's for sure. But I think you don't understand something, and that's the nature of energy. You think you know shit about anything? Ask any, ANY, physicist what "ENERGY" even is, and you'll get a surprise that will turn your little scientific bubble upside down! LOL

Oh god, the hubris!

How did you come to the conlcusion that I am completely ignorant about the nature of energy, Shibby? What is it exactly that you think I don't understand? Instead of telling me to ask a physicist, why don't you tell me what energy is and why you believe that what little I have said on the subject is incorrect? What great font of knowledge are you tapped into that the rest of us mere mortals are seemingly unaware of?

quote:

That's cute... you picked up on the identifier word "possible" instead of picking up on the idea that I was trying to convey to you. I hope you can fix that error in your mind and then re-ask this question in a way that fits the idea I was presenting to you. If you need me to elaborate for you, then just ask.

Stop shirking the issue. I know exactly what idea you were trying to convey and I asked you on what grounds you would accept it as "true" rather than merely "possible".

You're basically exploiting the impossibility of absolute knowledge, throughout this topic, to try to squeeze your incoherent theories through without feeling to need to justify them. You say it is "possible" that we were created for a specific purpose, I say it is "possible" that grass is red. What's the difference? Is either idea worth shit unless some attempt is made to justify them?

Stop offering vague axioms without logical or empirical support, because you know what that method is called? Religion.

quote:

Ah... you should try your hand at chemistry then! You'll absolutely LOVE how your precious elements love to follow rules! /sarcasm

Yeah, because elements certainly don't appear to abide by measurable and predictable parameters of behaviour, do they? /sarcasm

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What is this supposed to mean? That because the majority of scientific knowledge is beyond my immediate experience, I have "no capacity" to use this knowledge to further my understanding of the universe? That because this knowledge is second-hand, it is a less valid foundation for for my personal epistemology? That the tireless scrutiny of well-trained scientists is not a valid substitute for my own direct ability to "spiritually or scientifically" unravel the mysteries of the universe?

Correct.

You may actually not have the capacity at the current time to further your knowledge of anything.

Notice the keyword: maybe.

quote:

Superior in the sense of its ability to define the nature of reality. Like I said, if you disagree then explain yourself.

The nature of reality is only what you yourself are willing to see it as. Don't forget that. Your television and your computer screen are brought to you by a line of rebels who decided that reality was NOT what it was cut out to be by the current trends in knowledge. And here you are, in the same situation, just another number standing in line, while a few other people rebel against you and your delusions to make the next great invention and give reality another layer of "what if".

quote:

You seem eager to pidgeon-hole me as a narrow-minded, scientific demagogue, but it's not going to work. I am well-read in both philosophy (which remains one of my chief interests) and religion and can appreciate the role they play in shaping our understanding of the universe, but that does not change the fact that by any mushy, shifting definition you might like to offer me here, science (which is also a philosophy, not merely a method or a body of knowledge) is the best explanatory tool we have for understanding the nature of the universe. There is nothing absolute in my statement here and the comparison is deliberately measured, but it is true. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

LOL

I love how you asked me not to pigeon-hole you, and then you continued on to demonstrate the same barriers that your focus of reality is willing to entertain. Repeat it enough times and it must be true, eh?

quote:

Stop avoiding my questions: tell me what a fact is. Tell me why there are "very few facts". Stop offering me these pithy maxims without making any attempt to justify them.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of science's "philosophical" integrity to provide (as close as possible) facts in a universe of unknowns.

So you tell me... where is the maximum constant speed of light in a vaccuum when you need it?

Where is the chandrasakeur limit now?

Fact itself is a great word; it's like a programming language. You want to write a program without any bugs whatsoever, but the more complex the algorithms become, the more open your logic pattern become to dysfunction.

Except our simple friend, "Hello World".

quote:

So spacetime isn't actually flat, it is just observably flat, measurably flat and flat according to virtually every theoretical model we have that is consistent with observations? Of course, how could I be so stupid? Stop with the special pleading. You think you're being clever and "open-minded", but you're really only making yourself look dense. If the universe is not demonstrably flat, in your opinion, prove it.

I'm glad you think you're being clever with your sarcasm instead of focusing on your weaknesses.

You belong in the 16th century, vying for earth's dominance as the center of the universe. LOL

They just didn't have the tools to prove it otherwise until years of scientific method and developments in technology came along.

It's cute that you think we can really map out the universe though in 2006... good for you, delusion is fun!

quote:

Take your head out of your arse and maybe one day you'll come up with a coherent idea.

Ah, nice, we've progressed from sarcasm to simple infantile insults! Very nice indeed!

quote:

Oh god, the hubris!

and some more!

You're like those people who tell you, "If you don't like America, just move!!" LOL

I'm trying to tell you that we don't know, and you're trying to tell me to explain to you the answers to what we don't know.

Why don't you come up with some ideas about the structure of reality, and perform some experiments therein? Or further our instrumentation so that one day we can arrive at the answers?

Instead of begging like a dog for scraps.

quote:

Stop shirking the issue. I know exactly what idea you were trying to convey and I asked you on what grounds you would accept it as "true" rather than merely "possible". You're basically exploiting the impossibility of absolute knowledge, throughout this topic, to try to squeeze your incoherent theories through without feeling to need to justify them. You say it is "possible" that we were created for a specific purpose, I say it is "possible" that grass is red. What's the difference? Is either idea worth shit unless some attempt is made to justify them? Stop offering vague axioms without logical or empirical support, because you know what that method is called? Religion.

That's the difference between you and I.

You seem to have some fantasy make-believe structural reality built for yourself, as you wish, to make yourself content with your views on life.

That's fine.. you're entitled.

And I'm entitled to tell you that I don't think you're any better than a fundamentalist nutcase Christian.

As for me? I said it's possible, because it is. Do I know one way or another? Nope!

quote:

Yeah, because elements certainly don't appear to abide by measurable and predictable parameters of behaviour, do they? /sarcasm

Why don't you buy a chemistry kit and find out?

Don't blow your face off though.......... the real world works differently than wikipedia entries!

Last edited by DJ Shibby on Oct-26-2006 at 03:02

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Character has little to do with how people turn out if they develop in subpar conditions. I have argued this before. Your argument of selfishness and fear of autority apply mostly to people who developed with their basic need met. If you have to think everyday about getting food for yourself you cant really spend much energy on being altruistic and respectful now can you? As far as fearing reprimands go, most people that dont have some sort of social disorder tend to be fearful of reprimands, its the normal human condition. There is always deviations, but then they're not most people, there exactly that deviations, and hence a change in methods is required because they are not "normal" and "normal" methods won't apply. Edit: Also i bolded that line because it goes with my argument not against it.

hm.... agreed

I actually didn't think about the nature of necessity when I wrote that post, and you're right about its dominance over all other factors.

quote:

I don't get how this realtes to my argument?

I don't know either...

I wasn't just responding to your argument, but stating information in general... it wasn't necessarily catered towards you, hence the confusion.

shibby, answer renegade's questions or piss off

quote:

The nature of reality is only what you yourself are willing to see it as. Don't forget that. Your television and your computer screen are brought to you by a line of rebels who decided that reality was NOT what it was cut out to be by the current trends in knowledge. And here you are, in the same situation, just another number standing in line, while a few other people rebel against you and your delusions to make the next great invention and give reality another layer of "what if".

^^ this kind of stuff is exactly why i dropped philosophy in favour of political science. empty, pointless rhetoric that doesn't do anybody any favours or further anyone's understanding of anything.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN shibby, answer renegade's questions or piss off

Agreed. Very tedious and asinine nonresponses to direct answers posed to you, Shibby. If you cannot answer such questions with supporting evidence, I see no reason why you even bother to try. I've kept up with Renegade's posts to which he has continued answering questions and posts quite directly, yet you continue to dodge similar questions and refutations posted to you. It's cute and was entertaining about 2 pages ago, but it's worn thin now.

It's pretty simple. You contend A, B, C, and so on. Support your contention A with evidence, then support contention B, contention C, and so on. If you cannot support your contentions, then you have made no argument at all. Give it a shot or else take a graceful bow and exit stage left. Otherwise your remarks continue to be quite vacuous.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

It's okay...

This is the "political discussion" forum, and you all are trained by your nature to think that you need to have specific absolutes that make up the way you consider any given subject.

It's how you feel secure with your information and your lives.

I was just trying to point out that life is a blur of a lot of different things:

spirituality (whatever that may be to you), science (the scientific method and its effects on human knowledge), psychology (how you react to different stimuli, ie: the way you all bashed me just now), environment and location, history, etc.

I guess I look at life as a matrix of all of these interactions actions, and it's obvious by our history that what we know is often doctored by a number of factors that are often erroneous.

You all want answers to the fact that I (scientifically) deny the absolute truth in our theories.

For example, our current world-view regarding science is based upon Galileo, Newton and Einstein. They built upon each other, thus furthering a groundwork that gave rise to our current knowledge of gravity and magnetism.

Are gravity and magnetism real?

They're real because they're actions in nature that we have labeled and studied and built upon. They are very *viable*.

What science does is it eliminates all variables in a system, focusing on a constant. Once you've done this hundreds of thousands of times, you can perhaps generate an understanding of how various bits of a system works.

Does it mean that the theories we apply to a system are the definitive way it will work?

No, never.

I think you guys are so used to being told that you need to choose exactly how you think about things (or maybe it is simply in our natures) that you naturally become insulted when something is suggested that isn't in your understanding.

blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

It doesn't even matter I guess, since my opinion of looking at things with a grain of salt is apparently against the general consensus.

Am I really so bad at getting this idea across that you would all jump on me like this?

Or do you actually believe that things are exactly the way they seem?

It's not important, I guess... none of it is really important. We will all believe whatever it is we want to believe, and that's the only truth here.

I guess it's fine that it is that way... it enables us to create a mixture of different responses to different events and situations in life and the universe.

peace & love,
jay

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby This is the "political discussion" forum, and you all are trained by your nature to think that you need to have specific absolutes that make up the way you consider any given subject.

See, this is the problem. You're erroneously presuming that because I accept the existence of "facts" that I'm clinging to an absolute standard of truth that obviously doesn't exist. I've read Descartes, I'm familiar with Plato's "Cave" allegory and I've seen the Matrix movies: I know that there are no absolutes and I know that my world-view is ultimately shaped by my inherently fallible senses, but I do not - on this basis - preclude the possibility of "truth" and "facts" altogether. You seem to be arguing for the impossibility of knowing the "real world" (that is to say, the world of "noumena" - the world as it is independent of human experience) and that therefore any inferences we make on the nature of the real world cannot be genuinely "factual". Am I getting close here?

If so, your failure is in feeling the need to distinguish between the "real world" (which is an unsupported metaphysical claim to begin with) and the "apparent world" (the world as we experience it). To quote Neitzsche (because I know you like it when I quote existentialists):

quote:

6. We have abolished the real world: what world is left? The apparent world perhaps? ... But no! With the real world we have also abolished the apparent world! - Twighlight of the Idols

It is futile to suggest that the "real world" is unattainable and that the "apparent world" is fallible by virtue of its inexorable subjectivity: if the "real world" is indecipherable and the "apparent world" necessarily erroneous, what is there that is left? On what foundation do we construct our epistemology? On what basis can we decide what is true? On what basis can we exist?

All we have is the apparent world. It isn't "absolute", but there are still incontrovertable facts there. Objects obey laws of motion, elements obey laws of chemistry. They may change, they may not be absolute, but they are incontrovertible within our frame of reference. Maybe at some point in the future it is "possible" (there's that word again!) that we will discover that these laws are incorrect, but for the time being we have no reason to suspect that this might be the case. There are no anomolies within our "apparent world" (the only world we have) and that is good enough for me. What can be observed, demonstrated and repeated within the apparent world may not be "abolute", but it is "true" all the same.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

i think therefore i am. poor old shibby doesn't even know he doesnt exist

truth is a pre-requisite for existence. without truth, nothing could ever exist. and i find esoteric debates about standards of truth to represent more philosophical wankery and pointlessness (fun though it may be). after this debate, are any of us any closer at knowing anything else? renegade will continue to provide someone with more rationality and effort than they deserve, and shibby will continue to deny absolutes, even though these absolutes are responsible for anything and everything he does each day. philosophy is most useful when it has real world application (as opposed to intellectual mindfucking in my opinion).

quote:

the philosophers have merely interpreted the world. the point is to change it -karl marx.

___________________

PDD war . Sit back and enjoy fellas .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller