Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This probably won't help but I will try to clarify this once again. Technically, I'm not say that there is "no feeling entity." I have said there is no substantial self, and no conscious theistic God, but that's not quite the same as saying "no feeling entity." I see all experience as grounded in what I have been calling the "World Itsefl" or sometimes just the "Self." Each and every moment of experience, no matter how trivial, is an experience of the Self. This relates to the concept of the unity of all Being, or the ultimate monistic nature of Being. It is also the ontologial ground for the interdependence of all things. All moments of being are interconnected because all moments of being are experiential moments of the one-and-same "World Itself" or "One Self."
Ah Gaylenwoof . . . your euphemism sickness is worse than I thought. But the academy demands it . . . so you cannot be blamed until you pass their scrutiny and achieve the PhD. Your bold:
" I have said there is no substantial self, and no conscious theistic God, but that's not quite the same as saying "no feeling entity."
All moments of being are interconnected because all moments of being are experiential moments of the one-and-same "World Itself" or "One Self."
This probably won't help but I will try to clarify this once again. Your concept might poorly cover the unconscious "feelings" of all life . . . but that requires your euphemistic "emergence" to explain our conscious feelings . . . and you know my thoughts about that disingenuous nonsense. To say that your "World Itself" or "One Self" are more euphemisms for God or the "Source or Essence of everything "would probably still fail to penetrate the "no God" academic bias and defensive shields you need to get past any PhD committee. I will have more to say about the rest of your post . . . but the pleasures of the season demand my attention elsewhere.
The reason why we have discovered such a thing as pi is because we have relied upon our senses. Relying upon our senses is an instinct. Therefore the discovery of pi has come about as a result of our instinct.
First, how do you "know" that we discovered pi based on a reliance on our senses? According to your definition of "know", you don't know that at all.
Here is my original statement:
Quote:
I mean there is no reason to stack the deck to get a conclusion that either plays to or against your survival instinct. Instead, "play it fair", and come to the most accurate conclusion you are able to, despite what instincts evolution may have provided you with.
I'm not sure why my statement is hard to understand, or how your statement is even a relevant rebuttal.
Communication is the art of understanding intent, not the art of finding a denotation that will conflict with the connotation.
First, how do you "know" that we discovered pi based on a reliance on our senses? According to your definition of "know", you don't know that at all.
I don't know. I am open to the possibility of something else causing our discovery of pi.
Here is my whole argument in a nutshell.
We are finite. We are finite because "we" is only defined in relation to not-we and therefore creating a boundary of finiteness. Because we are finite, we cannot have absolute truth in relation to any of our beliefs or opinions. Therefore we should reform our action management skills to suit this.
What do I mean by action management skills?
I mean an atheist shouldn't make fun of a religious person because there is a chance that the religious person is right.
A religious person shouldn't suicide bomb other people because there is a chance that the atheist is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Here is my original statement:
Quote:
I mean there is no reason to stack the deck to get a conclusion that either plays to or against your survival instinct. Instead, "play it fair", and come to the most accurate conclusion you are able to, despite what instincts evolution may have provided you with.
I'm not sure why my statement is hard to understand, or how your statement is even a relevant rebuttal.
Communication is the art of understanding intent, not the art of finding a denotation that will conflict with the connotation.
Perhaps there is no reason for you, but apparently there is a reason for me.
Everyone lives with their own interests in mind. No matter what you do, in the moment that you chose to do it, you thought it was a good idea.
I don't know. I am open to the possibility of something else causing our discovery of pi.
Here is my whole argument in a nutshell.
We are finite. We are finite because "we" is only defined in relation to not-we and therefore creating a boundary of finiteness. Because we are finite, we cannot have absolute truth in relation to any of our beliefs or opinions. Therefore we should reform our action management skills to suit this.
What do I mean by action management skills?
I mean an atheist shouldn't make fun of a religious person because there is a chance that the religious person is right.
A religious person shouldn't suicide bomb other people because there is a chance that the atheist is right.
The argument against making fun of religious people is that its rude, not that they might not be right. (All though there is a line of thought that says illogical ideas should not be spared ridicule simply because they call themselves religious.)
You can assign the same level of certainty to the existence of leprechauns or unicorns as you can an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God. That is to say, even if you can't have absolute certainty that they don't exist, you can have near absolute certainty that they don't exist.
Just because one doesn't have a metaphysical level of certainty in a proposition, that doesn't mean every possibility is equally likely. For example, we don't have a metaphysical level of certitude that sun will not explode tomorrow. But that doesn't mean we should accept that it is equally likely that the the sun WILL exploding tomorrow. Accordingly, we shouldn't max out our credit cards because we don't "know" that the sun will shine on another day.
My point is that lack of absolute knowledge doesn't mean we should behave as if all possibilities are equally likely. We shouldn't just throw our hands up in the air, and say we don't know, so anything could be true.
Do I know that we have no conscious thought after we die? Maybe not absolute knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's equally probable that we do as we don't. In fact, there is a very high degree of likelihood that conscious thought can not survive without a brain, and therefore for all practical purposes, we know that you will not be sentient or sapient after your death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kaufman
Perhaps there is no reason for you, but apparently there is a reason for me.
Everyone lives with their own interests in mind. No matter what you do, in the moment that you chose to do it, you thought it was a good idea.
That's fine, but it's an admission that you aren't making your arguments because you think they are true, you are making them because you find them cathartic. For you its not so much a search for truth as it is a therapy session.
The argument against making fun of religious people is that its rude, not that they might not be right. (All though there is a line of thought that says illogical ideas should not be spared ridicule simply because they call themselves religious.) You can assign the same level of certainty to the existence of leprechauns or unicorns as you can an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God. That is to say, even if you can't have absolute certainty that they don't exist, you can have near absolute certainty that they don't exist. Just because one doesn't have a metaphysical level of certainty in a proposition, that doesn't mean every possibility is equally likely. For example, we don't have a metaphysical level of certitude that sun will not explode tomorrow. But that doesn't mean we should accept that it is equally likely that the the sun WILL exploding tomorrow. Accordingly, we shouldn't max out our credit cards because we don't "know" that the sun will shine on another day.
My point is that lack of absolute knowledge doesn't mean we should behave as if all possibilities are equally likely. We shouldn't just throw our hands up in the air, and say we don't know, so anything could be true.
Do I know that we have no conscious thought after we die? Maybe not absolute knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's equally probable that we do as we don't. In fact, there is a very high degree of likelihood that conscious thought can not survive without a brain, and therefore for all practical purposes, we know that you will not be sentient or sapient after your death.
Making fun of religious people is not okay. Bullying of any kind should not be allowed. Telling people to not mock others for what they believe because it’s rude is not a good enough answer for people to stop. In order for us to have mutual respect we must see that we are all exactly the same in that we are all finite! You do not know with certainty any more than I do. When the cartoonist from Amsterdam drew those comics making fun of Muhammad the Muslim people were outraged. What I’m saying is that the cartoonist should not have drawn those comics making fun of Muhammad and the Muslim people should not have been outraged at their drawing. Mutual repsect and understanding.
What makes something likely or unlikely? It is the tool with which you choose to measure. If you trust your senses for measuring then you will get certain results such as, "The sun isn't going to expand for billions of years" or "Consciousness ceases after the brain has died." If you decide to measure with a different tool say paganism then the sun god is controlling the sun and you will end up in an underground prison for the rest of eternity. (According to ancient Sumerian religion)
Quote:
That is to say, even if you can't have absolute certainty that they don't exist, you can have near absolute certainty that they don't exist.
Near absolute certainty? How can one person be any closer to an infinite certitude than another? Is one million closer to the last number than one hundred? No of course not, because there is no last number that can be known. The last number is entirely unknown and can never be known.
Quote:
That's fine, but it's an admission that you aren't making your arguments because you think they are true, you are making them because you find them cathartic. For you its not so much a search for truth as it is a therapy session.
Why are you searching for truth? One day you will die and there will be no more. One day all life will die and there will be no more for the rest of time. What is the point of finding truth?
This will be my one question btw. I have been answering my own questions as you have asked.
What makes something likely or unlikely? It is the tool with which you choose to measure. If you trust your senses for measuring then you will get certain results such as, "The sun isn't going to expand for billions of years" or "Consciousness ceases after the brain has died." If you decide to measure with a different tool say paganism then the sun god is controlling the sun and you will end up in an underground prison for the rest of eternity. (According to ancient Sumerian religion)
But only one set of tools gets us to the moon.
If you have a sick child, you can either take him toa conventional doctor using medicine as discovered through science, or a witchdoctor using non-traditional medicine as revealed though his chicken bones.
I bet when that happens, you will decide that it does make a difference which tools you use. I bet you'll decided to use the tools that got us to the moon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kaufman
Near absolute certainty? How can one person be any closer to an infinite certitude than another? Is one million closer to the last number than one hundred? No of course not, because there is no last number that can be known. The last number is entirely unknown and can never be known.
First, infinite is not a synonym for absolute.
Second, there is no such thing as "the last number", but if there were you would be wrong. 1M would be closer then 1H, because all three of those numbers could be rank ordered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kaufman
Why are you searching for truth? One day you will die and there will be no more. One day all life will die and there will be no more for the rest of time. What is the point of finding truth?
This will be my one question btw. I have been answering my own questions as you have asked.
But only one set of tools gets us to the moon. If you have a sick child, you can either take him to a conventional doctor using medicine as discovered through science, or a witchdoctor using non-traditional medicine as revealed though his chicken bones.
I bet when that happens, you will decide that it does make a difference which tools you use. I bet you'll decide to use the tools that got us to the moon.
Using physical tools can get us physically to the moon. Using abstract tools can get us abstractly to the moon.
Using physical remedies can make us physically well. Using mental remedies can make us mentally well. Using spiritual remedies can make us spiritually well.
You must select the correct tool for the correct task.
Quote:
First, infinite is not a synonym for absolute.
Second, there is no such thing as "the last number", but if there were you would be wrong. 1M would be closer then 1H, because all three of those numbers could be rank ordered.
What is the difference between an infinite truth and an absolute truth?
How can one know if there truly is a last number? No one can truly claim they know that there is no last number because no one has seen all the numbers to know that there is indeed no last number.
Quote:
Because this is how I enjoy my free time.
It seemed as though you were elevating yourself above me because you wanted to know what truth was, whereas I have no such desire and thus your claim of my apparent desire for therapy.
What is the difference between an infinite truth and an absolute truth?
I don't believe either of those phrases are a correct usage of the English language, and I don't recall ever having added those modifiers before the word "truth".
Absolute certainty, however is 100% logical certainty. For example, if 1 plus 2 = 3, then we know with absolute certainty that 3 minus 2 equals 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kaufman
How can one know if there truly is a last number? No one can truly claim they know that there is no last number because no one has seen all the numbers to know that there is indeed no last number.
Because it's always possible to add 1 to any number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kaufman
It seemed as though you were elevating yourself above me because you wanted to know what truth was, whereas I have no such desire and thus your claim of my apparent desire for therapy.
That depends entirely upon whether you value seeking truth over seeking therapy.
I do think you owe a debt of honesty with whomever you are debating with to tell them from the very beginning that you are not that interested in a resolution that is closest to the truth, you're purpose for debate is purely therapeutic, even if it's at truths expense. Therefore, you will be argueing for the position that is most satisfying to your psychy rather than the one your best objective estimate rates as true.
And before you say, "I never said I was using debate as therapy," let me respond that you never stated exactly what your opinion was, you only asked questions. You therefore left me to draw whatever inferences I could from the totality of your post. If I'm wrong, then it's your fault for only asking questions rather than stating a defensible position. This is exactly one of the reasons it's poor form to only ask questions, rather than stating your position in the affirmative.
I don't believe either of those phrases are a correct usage of the English language, and I don't recall ever having added those modifiers before the word "truth".
Absolute certainty, however is 100% logical certainty. For example, if 1 plus 2 = 3, then we know with absolute certainty that 3 minus 2 equals 1.
Very well, I do not wish to put words into your mouth.
-------------
After writing the paragraph below, I saw how it would probably be very unnecessary to read all of those jumbled up words so here’s a shorter version:
Finite people cannot have absolute certainty unless they use infinite logic in a finite way as you have demonstrated with mathematics.
The reason why I have posted the rest of this crap is just in case you were curious of my initial thoughts to your statements.
-------------
Yes, if one plus two equals three then these same values would transfer to other calculations without question. Thus this certainty becomes possible in all worlds, thus it becomes infinite in nature. Therefore absolute certainty is an infinite certainty. It should be pointed out that absolute certainty is different than certainty in that one can be certain about something because there is no apparent reason for them to be uncertain, however in instances like this, one can conceive of a possible scenario that would bring a sliver of doubt and therefore transforming the once certain into an uncertain. An absolute certainty requires a level of infiniteness in order for one to be absolutely certain. Without this infinite requirement one is left with the possibility of being wrong and therefore not entirely certain.
It is delusional for one to say that they are certain of one thing and not have their reasoning be infinite in nature because a possible world where they would be wrong has eluded their grasp and therefore caused a delusion in their reasoning.
Quote:
Because it's always possible to add 1 to any number.
Once again, I have thought and thus initially written way too many words. Therefore here is another short version:
There is no such thing as 1 because 1 is the sum of an infinite series of numbers, and there cannot be a last number to an infinite series of numbers.
-------------
And here is the unnecessary version:
This number one is far too arbitrary for me to designate it with any absolute certainty. What is one thing to you may be two things to me. What is two things to me may be three things to another. If I have one of something, there is an infinite number of numbers comprising this one thing. Therefore, one, in itself, is of an infinite value. Therefore, it is impossible to truly add one to another number because no one can add an infinite thing to another. Thus mathematics is fundamentally delusional unless one understands that one is itself an infinite value and therefore is completely arbitrarily designated as such and therefore simply an appearance of the moment and has no more quality of existence than Santa Claus.
Quote:
That depends entirely upon whether you value seeking truth over seeking therapy.
I do think you owe a debt of honesty with whomever you are debating with to tell them from the very beginning that you are not that interested in a resolution that is closest to the truth, you're purpose for debate is purely therapeutic, even if it's at truths expense. Therefore, you will be argueing for the position that is most satisfying to your psychy rather than the one your best objective estimate rates as true.
And before you say, "I never said I was using debate as therapy," let me respond that you never stated exactly what your opinion was, you only asked questions. You therefore left me to draw whatever inferences I could from the totality of your post. If I'm wrong, then it's your fault for only asking questions rather than stating a defensible position. This is exactly one of the reasons it's poor form to only ask questions, rather than stating your position in the affirmative.
Therapy cannot happen unless one has a disorder. I have not exactly ascertained the disorder for my supposed therapy to act upon from any of your prior dialogues.
I have said that I have no desire to know the truth, but this is only because I already know the truth and therefore have no desire to seek a knowledge of something I already have.
Its like if I lose my keys, I will create a desire to find my keys. Once my keys are found, my desire to find my keys disappears.
If you look in the right place you will realize that you know the truth as well, its just that this whole time you have gone without realizing it.
Its kind of like having sunglasses on the top of your head and then looking everywhere for your sunglasses except on top of your head.
If you are wondering why I am here then, I am here because I wish to firstly promote honesty, secondly promote world peace which is a consequence of world wide honesty, and thirdly refine my ability to do the first two things.
So I suppose that one could see this as theraputic in that my disorder is not being able to communicate with efficiency and therefore using these internet forums to refine my ability to communicate and spread my first two ideas, they once again being honesty and world peace.
Wow, I have just noticed that it has gotten kind of late. I should get to bed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your concept might poorly cover the unconscious "feelings" of all life . . . but that requires your euphemistic "emergence" to explain our conscious feelings . . . and you know my thoughts about that disingenuous nonsense. To say that your "World Itself" or "One Self" are more euphemisms for God or the "Source or Essence of everything "would probably still fail to penetrate the "no God" academic bias and defensive shields you need to get past any PhD committee. I will have more to say about the rest of your post . . . but the pleasures of the season demand my attention elsewhere. 
