Fallacy of Formalization.

[Logik]

Gnosticism is a trap for the ego.

Just as well, imagine all those egos without a hamster wheel...

Either you figure out how to get off, or you don't. Great filtering mechanism!

[Eodnhoj7]

Gnosticism is a trap for the ego.

Just as well, imagine all those egos without a hamster wheel...

Sometimes stuff has to be left alone to die...gnosticism is one of them.

[Speakpigeon]

It's not turtles all the way down. When you provide objective criteria then we can stop.

Please provide objective criteria for your notion of objective criteria.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

He has no objective criteria...he is afraid of "unknowing".

Good, let's hear what you mean by "objective criteria".
EB

[Logik]

Please provide objective criteria for your notion of objective criteria.
EB

For a phrase whose meaning you claim to not understand you sure know how to use it in a sentence.

Lets (tentatively) assume that I mean the same thing you mean.

We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?" --Richard Feynman

[Speakpigeon]

Please provide objective criteria for your notion of objective criteria.

For a phrase whose meaning you claim to not understand you sure know how to use it in a sentence.

I didn't claim to not understand the notion of objective criteria.
I asked what yours was since it's you who introduce the expression in our conversation.
You do seem to have a problem with very basis facts such as are the facts of what I say in the very post you pretend to be responding to. So, no possibility of any rational debate on anything at all. Just vacuous look-at-my-arse banter.

Lets (tentatively) assume that I mean the same thing you mean.

Me, I don't assume that at all because I don't have any rational cause to do that. Which is also why I asked you to define your meaning in the first place.

So, as I expected, you won't articulate what you might mean by "objective criteria", in the unlikely scenario that you mean anything cogent.
EB

[Logik]

For a phrase whose meaning you claim to not understand you sure know how to use it in a sentence.
I didn't claim to not understand the notion of objective criteria.
I asked what yours was since it's you who introduce the expression in our conversation.
You do seem to have a problem with very basis facts such as are the facts of what I say in the very post you pretend to be responding to. So, no possibility of any rational debate on anything at all. Just vacuous look-at-my-arse banter.

That depends on your criteria for "rationality". I think I am far more rational than you are, so if you think you can't have a "rational debate" with me then it's probably your fault.

Me, I don't assume that at all because I don't have any rational cause to do that. Which is also why I asked you to define your meaning in the first place.

I don't know what you mean by "meaning". Define it.

[Eodnhoj7]

He has no objective criteria...he is afraid of "unknowing".

Good, let's hear what you mean by "objective criteria".
EB

Group agreement in perception.

[Logik]

Group agreement in perception.

One way to conceptualise "agreement" is the overcoming of Byzantine failures in communication while working towards consensus.

Language being a medium highly prone to such failure modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault

[Eodnhoj7]

Group agreement in perception.

One way to conceptualise "agreement" is the overcoming of Byzantine failures in communication while working towards consensus.

Language being a medium highly prone to such failure modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault

Language is dependent upon symbols. Symbols are images mediating to further images. From a premised where all phenomenon are images all phenomenon are languages in and of themselves....agreement may strictly just be various degrees of "limits" maintaining a constant symmetry with eachother.

[Logik]

Language is dependent upon symbols. Symbols are images mediating to further images. From a premised where all phenomenon are images all phenomenon are languages in and of themselves....agreement may strictly just be various degrees of "limits" maintaining a constant symmetry with eachother.

Yes. Rules maintain symmetry.

If we agree on the rules and the symbols - we (should) reach the same conclusion.

But we are just re-defining determinism.