Reality is Inaccessible

[Vitruvius]

On the one hand you state:- "next time God pops in for a chat, you'd introduce me - I'd be extraordinarily grateful, but until then I can't accept that your experiences are empirical."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

No. YOU stated that YOU would accept that as empirical evidence, that if I'd introduce you to God for a chat, you'd be extraordinarily grateful at which point you'd accept my experiences as empirical (GET IT!!) - BOTH of us now, would still be unable to prove the existence empirically using science. Hence - your f'ing contradiction or is Engrish your primary language?

If you see something - we only have your word for it. You could be lying or mentally ill. If you and I both see the same thing, my experiences validate yours - and that is empirical validation. Confirmation by an independent observer. Pretty basic concept, it's definitely correct - please take it on board. Your understanding of empiricism is wrong.

If you seriously can't see your own CONTRADICTION then seriously, go back to UNI and learn ENGLISH COMPREHENSION. ..also PLEASE learn how to use the quote function correctly - talking to you is sloppy.

If all you have left is abuse, you've lost! Why not just admit it? I won't mock you half as much for recognising your mistake, as I will for continuing in error!

[attofishpi]

On the one hand you state:- "next time God pops in for a chat, you'd introduce me - I'd be extraordinarily grateful, but until then I can't accept that your experiences are empirical."

So, now you are accepting that EMPIRICAL does NOT need to be scientifically verified!! - do you NOW comprehend your CONTRADICTION
- You total Wally

No, I do not - because there is no contradiction. I assume you believe what you are saying, but that doesn't imply that what you say is true, or what you believe is real. It's not empirical unless and until you can demonstrate to another person what you are saying is true and real - so I don't accept your experiences (lies and/or schizophrenia) are empirically valid. If however, next time God pops in for a chat - you'd introduce me, what you are saying would then be empirically validated.

No. YOU stated that YOU would accept that as empirical evidence, that if I'd introduce you to God for a chat, you'd be extraordinarily grateful at which point you'd accept my experiences as empirical (GET IT!!) - BOTH of us now, would still be unable to prove the existence empirically using science. Hence - your f'ing contradiction or is Engrish your primary language?

If you see something - we only have your word for it. You could be lying or mentally ill. If you and I both see the same thing, my experiences validate yours - and that is empirical validation. Confirmation by an independent observer. Pretty basic concept, it's definitely correct - please take it on board. Your understanding of empiricism is wrong.

If you seriously can't see your own CONTRADICTION then seriously, go back to UNI and learn ENGLISH COMPREHENSION. ..also PLEASE learn how to use the quote function correctly - talking to you is sloppy.

If all you have left is abuse, you've lost! Why not just admit it? I won't mock you half as much for recognising your mistake, as I will for continuing in error!

I have made no mistake. I have been attempting for you all along to understand the difference between someone experiencing something empirically, and the concept of scientific empiricism. Ok?

[Terrapin Station]

No because you only see a bloody bit of flesh

If you see that, you see something in the world as it really is. Or are you saying that it really isn't bloody, flesh, etc.?

Again, re something I wrote above:

"There's no implication that an observation is of the 'totality' of what something is like, assuming that would even be a coherent idea (since it basically ignores spatiotemporal reference point necessity and relativity). The accurate observation is of what some aspects of what is being observed are like at the spatiotemporal point of the observation."

[Vitruvius]

I have made no mistake. I have been attempting for you all along to understand the difference between someone experiencing something empirically, and the concept of scientific empiricism. Ok?

That's not a valid distinction. Use of the word 'empirically' implies 'confirmed by other people.' You are using the term incorrectly, as your professed belief - you are God's favorite shoulder to cry on - is all in your head. You are as nutty as squirrel shit - but that's no excuse for using the term empirically incorrectly!

[attofishpi]

I have made no mistake. I have been attempting for you all along to understand the difference between someone experiencing something empirically, and the concept of scientific empiricism. Ok?

That's not a valid distinction. Use of the word 'empirically' implies 'confirmed by other people.'

No it does not. Empirical as per Cambridge definition is :- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory.

..that does not mean it has to ALSO be experienced or seen by others.

You are using the term incorrectly, as your professed belief - you are God's favorite shoulder to cry on - is all in your head. You are as nutty as squirrel shit - but that's no excuse for using the term empirically incorrectly!

..as per above I haven't.

..as per you insistiing I am a nutjob, then take me on here:- Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God'
viewtopic.php?t=33214

MAN UP, and dissprove what I have been stating there, and that you are correct in stating that I am an irrational squirrels shit.

[Vitruvius]

I have made no mistake. I have been attempting for you all along to understand the difference between someone experiencing something empirically, and the concept of scientific empiricism. Ok?

That's not a valid distinction. Use of the word 'empirically' implies 'confirmed by other people.'

No it does not. Empirical as per Cambridge definition is :- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory.

..that does not mean it has to ALSO be experienced or seen by others.

If that were all there were to say about empiricism, why call it empiricism? Why not just call it observation, or experience? There's more to empiricism than you realise - even after being told repeatedly. Telling you again won't help!

You are using the term incorrectly, as your professed belief - you are God's favorite shoulder to cry on - is all in your head. You are as nutty as squirrel shit - but that's no excuse for using the term empirically incorrectly!

..as per above I haven't.

..as per you insisting I am a nut-job, then take me on here:- Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God'
viewtopic.php?t=33214

MAN UP, and disprove what I have been stating there, and that you are correct in stating that I am an irrational squirrels shit.

No. I said I didn't want to comment on your beliefs. You insisted. Besides which, it's not for me to disprove your extraordinary claims, it's for you to provide extraordinary evidence, and what I see when I look at your thread is the ramblings of a mad man - who doesn't know what empirical means!

You've been told! Bored now!

[attofishpi]

I have made no mistake. I have been attempting for you all along to understand the difference between someone experiencing something empirically, and the concept of scientific empiricism. Ok?

That's not a valid distinction. Use of the word 'empirically' implies 'confirmed by other people.'

No it does not. Empirical as per Cambridge definition is :- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory.

..that does not mean it has to ALSO be experienced or seen by others.

If that were all there were to say about empiricism, why call it empiricism? Why not just call it observation, or experience? There's more to empiricism than you realise - even after being told repeatedly. Telling you again won't help!

You are using the term incorrectly, as your professed belief - you are God's favorite shoulder to cry on - is all in your head. You are as nutty as squirrel shit - but that's no excuse for using the term empirically incorrectly!

..as per above I haven't.

..as per you insisting I am a nut-job, then take me on here:- Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God'
viewtopic.php?t=33214

MAN UP, and disprove what I have been stating there, and that you are correct in stating that I am an irrational squirrels shit.

No. I said I didn't want to comment on your beliefs. You insisted. Besides which, it's not for me to disprove your extraordinary claims, it's for you to provide extraordinary evidence, and what I see when I look at your thread is the ramblings of a mad man - who doesn't know what empirical means!

You've been told! Bored now!

You're just a gutless waste of time.. flinging ad hominems instead of taking me on intellectually. To actually compare what I am stating in the OP on the quoted thread to someone that 'reads' things in tea leaves...LMFAO.

[RCSaunders]

The "real" world is not the same as what we can see.
This is not difficult. It's like saying a cat is not the same as a picture of a cat or the word "cat".

But what you call naive realism does not mean or imply that the real world is the same as what one sees, it means that what one sees and whatever aspects of that real world that can be seen, when seen, are seen accurately. Existence and our consciousness of it are not the same thing. Just as a cat and a picture of a cat are not the same thing.

No one thinks a picture of a cat is actually a cat, only that it is a picture of an actual cat, and whatever aspects of an actual cat are represented by the image are correct. The conscious seeing of a tree is not the tree, what is seen are those attributes of a tree that can be seen, its shape, size, colors and relationships to other entities in the visual field.

[Vitruvius]

You're just a gutless waste of time.. flinging ad hominems instead of taking me on intellectually. To actually compare what I am stating in the OP on the quoted thread to someone that 'reads' things in tea leaves...LMFAO.

Taking you on intellectually would be to presume you have an intellect, and I've seen no evidence of it - from where I stand. I suppose, compared to a chimp, you're quite intelligent, but I bet you can't peel a banana with your feet!


The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empir ... ition.html

[attofishpi]

You're just a gutless waste of time.. flinging ad hominems instead of taking me on intellectually. To actually compare what I am stating in the OP on the quoted thread to someone that 'reads' things in tea leaves...LMFAO.

Taking you on intellectually would be to presume you have an intellect, and I've seen no evidence of it - from where I stand. I suppose, compared to a chimp, you're quite intelligent, but I bet you can't peel a banana with your feet!

Dude, any moron - YOU (which thus far you should take as a compliment) can make that claim about anyone. You have asserted that I have NO evidence of there being a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality - so prove that within the thread, prove how INTELLECTUALLY superior you are over me!!

What are you chicken?? The EVIDENCE i have provided is irrefutable, prove other_wise

[Terrapin Station]

But what you call naive realism does not mean or imply that the real world is the same as what one sees, it means that what one sees and whatever aspects of that real world that can be seen, when seen, are seen accurately. Existence and our consciousness of it are not the same thing. Just as a cat and a picture of a cat are not the same thing.

Yeah, it seems like some people are misreading naive realists as saying either that observations are literally identical with what's observed and/or that they're saying that what's observed is the totality of the external states of affairs (again assuming that's not simply a nonsensical idea). But naive realists are saying nothing like either of those. I'm not sure how the misunderstanding is arising.

[Vitruvius]

You're just a gutless waste of time.. flinging ad hominems instead of taking me on intellectually. To actually compare what I am stating in the OP on the quoted thread to someone that 'reads' things in tea leaves...LMFAO.

Taking you on intellectually would be to presume you have an intellect, and I've seen no evidence of it - from where I stand. I suppose, compared to a chimp, you're quite intelligent, but I bet you can't peel a banana with your feet!

Dude, any moron - YOU (which thus far you should take as a compliment) can make that claim about anyone. You have asserted that I have NO evidence of there being a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality - so prove that within the thread, prove how INTELLECTUALLY superior you are over me!! What are you chicken?? The EVIDENCE i have provided is irrefutable, prove other_wise

As evidence of insanity, it is irrefutable. That's why I didn't want to comment on it. If you believe that, there's no rational argument that will convince you otherwise. You can believe whatever you like. What you cannot do is claim that you have empirical evidence, because that implies your "evidence" is at least capable of being observed by another, when - your observations are of things that exist only in your head. If you don't understand this, and won't accept it when told - then your epistemic standards do not allow for disproof. There's no point debating it with you.

[attofishpi]

You're just a gutless waste of time.. flinging ad hominems instead of taking me on intellectually. To actually compare what I am stating in the OP on the quoted thread to someone that 'reads' things in tea leaves...LMFAO.

Taking you on intellectually would be to presume you have an intellect, and I've seen no evidence of it - from where I stand. I suppose, compared to a chimp, you're quite intelligent, but I bet you can't peel a banana with your feet!

Dude, any moron - YOU (which thus far you should take as a compliment) can make that claim about anyone. You have asserted that I have NO evidence of there being a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality - so prove that within the thread, prove how INTELLECTUALLY superior you are over me!! What are you chicken?? The EVIDENCE i have provided is irrefutable, prove other_wise

As evidence of insanity, it is irrefutable. That's why I didn't want to comment on it. If you believe that, there's no rational argument that will convince you otherwise. You can believe whatever you like. What you cannot do is claim that you have empirical evidence, because that implies your "evidence" is at least capable of being observed by another, when - your observations are of things that exist only in your head. If you don't understand this, and won't accept it when told - then your epistemic standards do not allow for disproof. There's no point debating it with you.

Oh...I highlighted your point above regarding:- that empirical evidence needs to be capable of being observed by others...well perhaps I'll just shove the BELOW empirical evidence up you arse, but I'd rather you OBSERVE IT:-


=========================================================================================
SIMULATION or DIVINE REALITY?

viewtopic.php?t=33214


It is the anomalies within our REAL_IT_Y - that I point out as evidence, that there is this 3rd party intelligence -most refer to as God or 'God', must have construed certain KEY words within the English language, since they are so unlikely to have arisen via natural etymology - AND - locations upon the globe itself as shown below, images I have painted...please pay close attention to the TITLES of each piece also:


The Tree of Knowledge.
Know that there is a Ledge when you eat from the Tree. KNOW_LEDGE.
BARK up the TREE of KNOW_LEDGE SAP - LEAVE.

A man's best friend is a Dog - reversed - God - BARK protects the tree. SAP feeds nutrients to the tree. LEAVES - leave the tree...do you twig?

...how many times does the coin need to side to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the LOGIC embedded in not only the above statement to be considered mere COINCIDENCES, but the below and much much more I have yet to reveal?


Note that the alpha_bet used in English has PERFECT symmetry between the vowels and consonants.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

Vowels of the Sage




REALITY - breaks down to REAL_IT_Y?. Did we evolve into binary simulation?
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

REALITY





Note that the IRELAND can perfectly be represented as a child, indeed, Scotland as a mother's head - locks and all are to scale..I_RE_LAND - as a child of the UK to spread our LAN_GAUGE. Also, note the I'M - the Isle of MAN - the Aisle of Man - about send the child off to the corners of the planet and spread this interesting language.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

ANCASTA (United Kingdom to scale)





Chile is a long thin backbone to South America - CHILL UP YOUR SPINE? - BRA_zil - on the NIPPLE has a town called NATAL - which means:- Of or relating to childbirth.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

NATAL (South America to scale)





Mount SINAI is where Moses received the conditions for which wo/man should abide - The Commandments. We now know with technology that is is PLAUSIBLE for an entity to be ALL knowing of OUR lives. SINAI breaks down to SIN_AI. - Is God DIVINE or AI or BOTH? It just happens that Mount Sinai is place between what i have painted as two fingers as a peace sign - from the Red Sea.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

MOUNT SINAI (Red Sea to scale)





The Gulf of Oman - looks like the face of some old man - interesting he appears to be staring directly at Mecca - the Red Sea to the left, now no longer a peace sign. This has yet to be painted - will get there eventually.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

GULF of OMAN (Owe Man?)





When we see what wo/man are capable of doing to each other - is there JUSTICE inflicted by man? - not really. Man's "JUSTICE" pales in comparison to the 666 for eternity. - JUSTICE - JUST_ICE where wo/man - no longer have the right to reincarnate as such. God truly loves us (LMFAO) It isn't quite the buy_bull hell, indeed ENTROPY is a bit of a = well Y_PORT_NE (souls) :=====----
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

JUSTICE?





I hope you notice the BLUE shift and the RED shift..! Time is a man-made concept that we use to measure events within the physical universe. In a true single moment, there is not a EVENT occurring, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting, not until for example, an event such as a photon emitting from an ELECTRON, THEN, we have TIME. Interesting, TIMe reverses to eMIT. Interesting MASS is where people attend (actual) churches.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

DOES MASS MATTER





Christ stated "I am the light" - interesting the light enters our consciousness via qualia through our PUPILS
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

WISE PUPILS OF THE LIGHT




Again, Christ stated "I am the light" - our life sustenance, the SUN just happens to be a homophone.
ANOTHER RANDOM COIN_CIDENCE?

SUN OF GOD

[Vitruvius]

What you cannot do is claim that you have empirical evidence, because that implies your "evidence" is at least capable of being observed by another...

Oh...I highlighted your point above regarding:- that empirical evidence needs to be capable of being observed by others...well perhaps I'll just shove the BELOW empirical evidence up you arse, but I'd rather you OBSERVE IT:-

HIGH_LIGHTED your point!

BE_LOW empirical evidence!

[Sculptor]

No because you only see a bloody bit of flesh

If you see that, you see something in the world as it really is. Or are you saying that it really isn't bloody, flesh, etc.?

It's pointless if you are just going to throw strawmen at me.

Again, re something I wrote above:

"There's no implication that an observation is of the 'totality' of what something is like, assuming that would even be a coherent idea (since it basically ignores spatiotemporal reference point necessity and relativity).
[/quotw]
What exactly are you trying to say?

The accurate observation is of what some aspects of what is being observed are like at the spatiotemporal point of the observation."

This does not parse well.