Empiricism is a Non-Empirical Distinction

[Atla]

Without a circle there is no "outside of a circle" for "outside of a circle is an observation of a relationship with a circle thus necessitating a circle.

Again, you can't observe the outside of a circle. But that doesn't mean that there can't be an outside. Just because you can't observe something doesn't mean it can't exist. But this is incomprehensible to the Kantian-Buddhist mind. Who knows why, maybe it's a cognitive defect.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no proof for what cannot be observed for the only thing proven would be a limit to observation by its absence. To say things exist outside of observation is to make the observable distinction of "outside observation", thus making it a distinction of observation thus within observation as the limits which form it.

[Atla]

There is no absolute proof for or against things outside observation (or for anything for that matter). So antirealism isn't a fact, it's a philosophy which can be wrong.

This is very simple, yet for some reason these guys (Johndoe Michael, VA, many Kantians) can't understand it. I really don't get why.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no absolute proof within observation outside of context. Absolute proof is subject to context given context is what contains and puts the limit to a set of relations between things, "within context x the phenomena of why y occurs" may mean "y" is absolute only within "x".


The distinction of "outside of observation" is an observation.

Given empiricism requires the context of the test as a means of observing phenomena, and empirical truths require testing if they are to be scientific, there is no strict empirical truth outside of observation.

[Atla]

See, he literally can't do it.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no empirical proof that reality exists outside observation, the mind, for all empirical proof is within observation by nature of the test, the test being a conceptualization.

The distinction of "outside observation" is a paradox as "outside observation" is a distinction within observation, thus leaving only observation.

Proof is an interpretation by context, contextualization is the manifestation of distinction through conceptualization....there is no proof outside the mind.

[Atla]

Strawman after strawman. He can't address what I actually said because he can't process it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Antirealism was never a fact, it is an interpretation. Just as realism was never a fact, it is an interpretation.

Facts are mere contexts by which specific relationships are observed, and they change over time. Antirealism not being a fact has no lasting effect as facts have no lasting effect...as contexts change, facts change. There is no fixed empirical fact.

A pure mental reality cannot be conflated with antirealism for if concepts are real, and empiricism is a concept, then empiricism is real.

The reality of a concept is derived by the change it induces, thus a mind oriented reality is the highest proof of all things for it contains its own proof by the nature of the mind constituting proof.

Empiricism is a conceptualization of pure sensory data, thus with the conceptualization of sensory data sensory data ceases to be sensory data by transformation into concept.

[Atla]

They think that the mind-oriented reality is the highest proof of all things, they can't admit or realize that the alternative philosophy is (at least) on equal footing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Any alternative philosophy to a mind oriented reality is a mind oriented reality as philosophy is a mind oriented reality by nature of its assertions as concepts.

[Atla]

And you use your hands to pick up stuff and do stuff, therefore the universe is hand-oriented. Deep.

[Eodnhoj7]

The body is directed by the mind.