Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:12 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:13 pm

Evidence can only provide some certainty but that can always be contradicted by subsequent evidence
As it can only ever be partial so therefore can only provide an incomplete picture of what it represents

I asked that question to "timeseeker", with 'tongue in cheek', as some might say.

"Timeseeker" insists that 'absolute certainty is impossible' (just like the exact same you are doing here) but "timeseeker" was expressing there is evidence to back up that what is being insisted as being 'absolute certain'. Expressing that there is evidence to support some thing like, 'absolute certainty is impossible, is to suggest that there IS 'absolute certain' evidence, for that BELIEF.

If some person, any person, is going to insist and claim that 'absolute certainty' is impossible' IS CORRECT, then they also have to accept that ANY and ALL supposed so called "evidence" for this claim is ONLY offered with 'reasonable certainty', which implies that the so called "evidence" may in fact NOT be evidence at all, as it could be WRONG or INCORRECT.

There is evidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Maxwell’s demon

Are they CORRECT, with 'absolute certainty'?

Age wrote:
HOW IS asking a person a straight out simple question for clarity WORSE than asking any other straight out simple question for clarity

When someone on the internet asks someone else a question pertaining to their cognitive ability it is not usually one of clarity
They are actually implying that that person is cognitively impaired so although presented as a question it is actually rhetorical
So unless you wish to imply cognitive impairment it might be a good idea not to ask such questions in future to avoid confusion

Age wrote:
Are they CORRECT with absolute certainty

Nothing in science is correct with absolute certainty other than something which has been disproven
Science does not do proof only evidence and evidence is never absolute only partial so is incomplete

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:50 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:12 pm

I asked that question to "timeseeker", with 'tongue in cheek', as some might say.

"Timeseeker" insists that 'absolute certainty is impossible' (just like the exact same you are doing here) but "timeseeker" was expressing there is evidence to back up that what is being insisted as being 'absolute certain'. Expressing that there is evidence to support some thing like, 'absolute certainty is impossible, is to suggest that there IS 'absolute certain' evidence, for that BELIEF.

If some person, any person, is going to insist and claim that 'absolute certainty' is impossible' IS CORRECT, then they also have to accept that ANY and ALL supposed so called "evidence" for this claim is ONLY offered with 'reasonable certainty', which implies that the so called "evidence" may in fact NOT be evidence at all, as it could be WRONG or INCORRECT.

There is evidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Maxwell’s demon

Are they CORRECT, with 'absolute certainty'?

They are the most accurate model we have. Until falsified.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:43 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:14 pm

Age wrote:
What kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them
You would not by any chance be like an insane person right ?

You asked Time Seeker if he had Alzheimers which is actually worse because that affects cognitive ability
Whereas you can be insane and still function as an intelligent person at least from your own perspective

HOW IS asking a person a straight out simple question for clarity WORSE than asking any other straight out simple question for clarity?

I had already made the provision, you may not remember this but... have you got the onset of alzhiemers? If the answer would have been "No", then I accept that response. And, If the answer would have been "Yes", then I would have accepted that response, equally. If they had responded with a "Yes", then I would, as you have just stated been aware that they have some sort of cognitive disability and SO would respond in different ways. If they responded with a "No", then I may have continued on EXACTLY as I am now, or wondered MORE. But either way they will NOT respond to that question, even though I have asked three times already, so I just carry on.

Do NOT ALL adult human beings function as an intelligent person, at least from their own perspective?

The Truth of what is the actual Real and True case of this, will come to light.

And if the answer is "I don't know"? You made a false provision.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:02 pmOkay, so, you are not absolute certain that there is no absolute footing available for us. Have I got it right now?

Yes, basically. But now you'll probably say some bullshit about absolute certainty again.

You ASSUMED WRONG. As long as you are OPEN, and thus NOT insisting that some thing is absolutely CORRECT, then I am happy, and so will just leave what you say alone.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

I was telling you that I had explained some thing, enough times already.
I then said; 'Do I need to explain HOW again'.
To which you replied; 'What do you mean then?' and then also wrote; 'A full understanding is unreachable,'
To which I replied: 'If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding'.
Meaning; If, as you say, that full understanding is unreachable, then there is NO use me, trying once again, to answer your question; What do you mean then? In other words, there is NO use you even asking me to explain what I mean, to you, if you are NEVER going to EVER fully understand me anyway. If you can NEVER fully understand me, then there is NO use me even trying to get you fully understand.

To which you then replied with the totally twisted, completely missing the mark comment; Well if you are after full understanding, then you probably made some error somewhere.

Just to make it crystal clear, it was YOU who was seeking understanding. YOU were the one who asked me the question; What do you mean then?

I was NOT seeking understanding. YOU were/are.

I have ALREADY gained FULL understanding.

Okay you aren't after it then, you think you already gained it.

Yes.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pmYou are insane. You just think that you gained full understanding, but that's almost certainly not possible. You probably made an error somewhere.

WHERE do you think I probably made an error someWHERE?

Also, just because you BELIEVE some thing is almost certainly NOT possible, does that MEAN that it is NOT possible? (I just ask to confirm how OPEN or NOT you really are.)

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

By what you say here, are you now still TRYING TO say that because thoughts are within the head, then that MEANS 'thoughts are finite'?

I do NOT see any correlation. Maybe you would like to explain how the two relate to each other?

What do you think? And, what would that even entail?

Is that a joke? How could there be an infinite amount of "stuff" in a human's head? (For example it would immediately collapse into a black hole.)

WHY do you think/believe that "it" would immediately collapse into a black hole?

Also, YOU completely misunderstood what I actually WROTE DOWN. I NEVER even suggested that an infinite amount of "stuff" could fit into a human's head. YOU seem to be stuck on this "conclusion" for some reason.

WHAT I said was that 'thinking processes' can be OPEN.

I then went on to explain WHAT thinking process actually are, to me.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

The actual and real difference, that is what. That difference IS one comes AFTER the other. A thinking process comes with a completely closed perspective, with a narrow, field of view, perspective, or with a completely OPEN perspective, and/or, any where in between the two extremities. That is in case you are still unaware IS the 'thinking process'. The 'thinking process' comes BEFORE the other, (just to be absolutely clear here, for you). The other one is 'thought'. You know, those things that come AFTER some kind of thinking process has already happened? A thought comes from and AFTER the 'thinking process'.
One example of A 'thinking process' IS since I already BELIEVE ''absolute certainty IS impossible" I WILL find (any) things that will support and confirm my biases and biased BELIEFS. Although this type of 'thinking process' happens sub and even unconsciously within human beings this still does happen.
One example of A 'thought', based on and arrived from that type of closed thinking process, IS "I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible."

NOW, can you notice and see the difference between a 'thought' and a 'thinking process'? By the way I am not sure if it is BIG enough difference for you to notice, see, and understand. But we will see.

That is your subjective, quite nonsensical definition of thought vs thinking process.

OF COURSE it is my subjective definition. What else could it be? IS there such a thing as an objective definition? If so, then WHERE is it? And/or, WHERE did it come from?

If my subjective definition is quite nonsensical, then WHY?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm And why would thinking process have to be reduced to two extremities.

Did you miss the part WHERE I said, thinking processes comes with ANY perspective any where in between the two extremities of a completely CLOSED and a completely OPEN perspective?

I do NOT see this as reducing at all but rather by expanding to the most instead.

I am NOT sure WHY you would write such a thing? Did you misread what I actually WROTE DOWN? Or, is there some other reason WHY you saw, thought, and/or wrote down what you did here?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

But I do NOT recall you EVER saying previously whether; "The fact that basically, by and large, thoughts are in the head and finite, and that, Openness has nothing to do with that "FACT", was an 'absolute truth' or NOT. Are you sure you did respond to that question directly? Are you sure you would NOT like to NOW provide us with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer?

I said again and again that to my knowledge absolute certainty is not possible, but even this isn't certain.

So, you actually admit 'absolute certain COULD BE possible', right?

Which part of this don't you understand?[/quote]

There is NO part I will NOT understand, when you agree that 'absolute certainty IS possible'.

Do you agree that if you can NOT be CERTAIN that 'absolute certainty is not possible', then that would imply or infer, to you, that 'absolute certainty MAY JUST BE possible'?

If you can NOT agree to that, then that means that you have a very strong BELIEF that 'absolute certainty is not possible' which you just can NOT shake even with the FACT that even you, your self, is NOT certain that that BELIEF is True. All rather interesting from the way I see things.

If this is the case, then this is even MORE proof, then even i imagined existed, of just how strong human beings BELIEFS are/were in that year they called 2018.

We will wait to look at and see the response they give before I say any more.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

But YOU do NOT have a form of insanity RIGHT?

ONLY "other" people have, am I CORRECT?

I don't think I have THIS kind of insanity, at least.

Fair enough. You are no different than just about every other adult human being I have seen.

I have yet to find one who says/BELIEVES that they have THIS kind of insanity. They ALL say/BELIEVE that their own "type" of insanity is NOT as "bad" as the other "types". This is a bit like ALL adult human beings when they say/BELIEVE, "I am NOT greedy" but "Other's are", which is like when I question adult human beings about the abuse they do to children. Just about ALL will say and BELIEVE, "I do NOT abuse children" and/or "I am NOT a child abuser".

You, human beings, can BELIEVE and say any thing you like. BUT, that will NEVER distract from what the Real and Actual Truth IS.

From just about nearly of ALL I say, and write down here (clearly to be observed and seen) in this forum, to some here when this is written, I would be seen as the most insane one of ALL. Which by the way, that ONE word can be seen with and from two completely different perspectives, thus giving and provide two, as you might say, BIG different answers.

By the way, is asking a person if they are like an insane person a very sane thing to do?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pmWhat kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them; You would not, by any chance, be like an insane person, right?

So the cat is out of the bag then.
You are just another sick fucktard who believes to have some kind of access to universal thoughts, some kind of absolutely certain thoughts of the universe, or whatever.

If you are going to now jump up and down at least get the terminology RIGHT. It is 'Universe KNOWLEDGE or KNOWING', and NOT 'universe thoughts'. 'Universal' and 'thought' are two words that together contradict each other out. 'Thought' is a just a personal subjective view of things. Whereas, 'Universal' is obviously NOT any thing in relation to just a personal view of things.

Also, you must of missed the part WHERE I have said; I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, to say or even suggest that I believe some thing, IS a False, Wrong, AND Incorrect statement in and of itself.

By the way WHERE do you THINK you get YOUR KNOWLEDGE and KNOWING from? Did you just make it up, all by your lone some? Or, did it ALL come from some WHERE else?

If it is the latter, then WHERE do you think it came AND comes from?

Or, do you really think/BELIEVE that you are so above every one else that ALL the KNOWLEDGE that you KNOW you discovered it and came up with it all by your self?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pmYou are insane.

Did I or did I NOT just agree with you, and also say that?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pmSeeing how you very seriously hyped up your own infallibility, this is pretty disappointing (but very entertaining).

WHERE exactly did I hype up my own infallibility, to YOU?

WHAT words that I wrote down here, lead YOU to have/come up with that conclusion?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:35 pm Is that the same type of 'incomplete evidence' that is lacking here too?

Same type, different QUANTITY of evidence. Some claims require less evidence than others. Some require more.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:35 pm Is that the same evidence also, which you again talk about, but will NOT show examples of being actual evidence for your claim here?

Once again, WHERE is the actual evidence that I am, supposedly, trying to impose My language on others?

In other words WHAT language, and, WHERE did I supposedly try to do this? Show with examples, not just with the thoughts within that head.

Your insistence that absolute certainty is possible, despite it violating the laws of physics.

And so you keep nitpicking other people's arguments so that you don't have to look in the mirror.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:54 pm

Age wrote:
HOW IS asking a person a straight out simple question for clarity WORSE than asking any other straight out simple question for clarity

When someone on the internet asks someone else a question pertaining to their cognitive ability it is not usually one of clarity

WHAT human beings USUALLY DO does NOT mean that I do it for the same "USUAL" reason. Understood?

WHEN I question you about your use of making ASSUMPTIONS 'will you' see that as pertaining to your cognitive inability also? Or, do you just look at and see from the so called "USUAL" perspective of things?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:54 pmThey are actually implying that that person is cognitively impaired so although presented as a question it is actually rhetorical

WHAT "they" do does NOT necessarily have any thing to do with WHAT I DO. Okay?

"They" ARE NOT ME. I hope that is very, very, very CRYSTAL CLEAR to you NOW.

Do NOT put ME in with "THEM", okay?

'I' am NOT they, and, 'they' are NOT Me. I hope this is FULLY understood NOW?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:54 pmSo unless you wish to imply cognitive impairment it might be a good idea not to ask such questions in future to avoid confusion

Please do NOT tell me what IS a "good" idea or NOT.

If I WANT to KNOW if a human being has the onset of alzhiemers or NOT is up to ME to make that decision or NOT. NOT YOU.

Unless of course you WANT ME ALSO to make up ASSUMPTIONS about WHAT you are doing, like you are doing to me just now, and then allowing ME to tell you what or what NOT to do based on that ASSUMPTIONS that I just personally made up, exactly like you did and are doing now with your WRONG assumption, then that is fine. Continue making up WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and basing them on HOW you then respond to others BUT also expect the same in return.

Otherwise, just STOP assuming ridiculous things like WHAT I AM IMPLYING, just by the use of a single simple OPEN question asked for clarity.

Just maybe if you asked Me a single simple OPEN question for clarity, then you would NOT have made up that absolutely WRONG ASSUMPTION that you just came up with.

Just maybe if you also STOP writing things in a way that implies the "other" has a cognitive impairment, then you will STOP imaginary seeing the same in "other's" writings. If you do NOT write like that, then WHY did you SEE some thing that was NOT THERE? WHY did you come up with such an ASSUMPTION that was so totally WRONG?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:59 pm

Age wrote:
Are they CORRECT with absolute certainty

Nothing in science is correct with absolute certainty other than something which has been disproven

So, actually there IS 'absolute certainty' when some thing is disproved, is this what you are saying now?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:59 pmScience does not do proof only evidence and evidence is never absolute only partial so is incomplete

So, are you saying science is complete or incomplete?

Also, you seem to speak with an air of 'absolute certainty' to it.

Are you 'absolute certain' of some things or NOT?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:50 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:22 pm

There is evidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Maxwell’s demon

Are they CORRECT, with 'absolute certainty'?

They are the most accurate model we have. Until falsified.

Which WILL happen as the falsehoods in them are already obvious.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:43 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:14 pm

You asked Time Seeker if he had Alzheimers which is actually worse because that affects cognitive ability
Whereas you can be insane and still function as an intelligent person at least from your own perspective

HOW IS asking a person a straight out simple question for clarity WORSE than asking any other straight out simple question for clarity?

I had already made the provision, you may not remember this but... have you got the onset of alzhiemers? If the answer would have been "No", then I accept that response. And, If the answer would have been "Yes", then I would have accepted that response, equally. If they had responded with a "Yes", then I would, as you have just stated been aware that they have some sort of cognitive disability and SO would respond in different ways. If they responded with a "No", then I may have continued on EXACTLY as I am now, or wondered MORE. But either way they will NOT respond to that question, even though I have asked three times already, so I just carry on.

Do NOT ALL adult human beings function as an intelligent person, at least from their own perspective?

The Truth of what is the actual Real and True case of this, will come to light.

And if the answer is "I don't know"? You made a false provision.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

AND, if the answer is "I do not recall", Do you still propose I made a false provision?

For your information it was NOT intended as a loaded question at all.

I asked it because you seemingly kept forgetting what I have kept saying.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:09 pm Which WILL happen as the falsehoods in them are already obvious.

I am not really into fortune-telling. Either you have the evidence to falsify them today, or you don't.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:14 pm I asked it because you seemingly kept forgetting what I have kept saying.

Are you certain or is that an assumption

Age wrote:
Otherwise just STOP assuming ridiculous things like WHAT I AM IMPLYING just by the use of a single simple OPEN question asked for clarity

You should have made it ABSOLUTELY clear what your question or statement was implying but you did not hence the confusion
Had you done so I would have had no trouble in understanding you and we would not be having this discussion as a consequence

You yourself have stated MANY times that you are only here in order to learn how to communicate better so that you can be understood
The question or statement that you made pertaining to Time Seeker having Alzheimers is an example of this for it was rather ambiguous

Now hopefully you are not going to ignore what I have said here both in this post and my previous one also even though it is your choice
Because If you are why should I even bother explaining it to you if you are not actually willing to learn from your mistakes as you claim

If you are willing to learn then why are you asking me to stop assuming things because you have not communicated your thoughts very well
It does not matter if you think differently to every one else because I am not a mind reader so all I can go on are the words that you write

Therefore the next time you wish to post a question or statement about someones cognitive ability can you be as precise as possible please
As then I will not end up making false assumptions about what I think you might be implying and will not have to write more posts like this

Because this is a derail and has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread I will leave it there
As I am more interested in discussing that than correcting your mistakes ken and so this is my final word

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:35 pm Is that the same type of 'incomplete evidence' that is lacking here too?

Same type, different QUANTITY of evidence. Some claims require less evidence than others. Some require more.

But without showing ANY evidence at all, WHAT you are claiming is just hear say. In other words, you are just saying it exists.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:35 pm Is that the same evidence also, which you again talk about, but will NOT show examples of being actual evidence for your claim here?

Once again, WHERE is the actual evidence that I am, supposedly, trying to impose My language on others?

In other words WHAT language, and, WHERE did I supposedly try to do this? Show with examples, not just with the thoughts within that head.

Your insistence that absolute certainty is possible, despite it violating the laws of physics.[/quote]

I do NOT recall WHERE and WHEN I have insisted 'absolute certainty is possible'?

Can you, will you, provide the evidence for your claim here, now?

By the way how can 'absolute certainty being possible' VIOLATE the law of physics?

Are the law of physics, themselves, 'absolute certainty'?

Fairly hard ask to expect that a tiny minuscule thing as ALL of human kind evolution that that tiny little animal has and KNOWS the 'absolute AND certain' laws of physics for the WHOLE of the Universe, Itself. That same tiny little speck, which does NOT even KNOW its own self, let alone the real and True Self yet, in the wholeness of the Universe, which has yet to take off from its own tiny little speck of a planet and place their feet onto just one other planet actually BELIEFS that it KNOWS so much about the rest of the Universe is laughable. Their self-centeredness and their superiority BELIEFS over others is astonishing. Human beings are so small and minuscule that the greatest majority of the Universe is still unobservant to them. They have NOT even observed, let alone imagined, most of the Universe, yet. Yet they BELIEVE they KNOW how it ALL works.

(Each generation is the exact same as the last. They each BELIEVE that they KNOW what IS RIGHT, which in a way makes the most evolved ones, the ones of this year they call 2018 rather more stupid, than intelligent, then any other generation. I know the observers are laughing and wondering how these past generations could have been so stupid as to NOT have yet learned and realized, by now, that it would be extremely obvious how what they THINK they KNOW now will be laughed at by and from 'you', "future generations". Exactly WHAT they continually do with and to past generations, that is; laugh at them, they have NOT yet comprehending that the next one will be doing the exact same thing. That is; until one generation finally wakes up to itself and seriously WANTS to CHANGE, for the better.)

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:40 pmAnd so you keep nitpicking other people's arguments so that you don't have to look in the mirror.

I keep, what you call, "nitpicking", so called, "arguments" because they are only attempts at arguments, based solely on one's own BELIEFS alone, without any actual existing evidence for them.

That is all I am pointing out here. That is; when human beings look at and see things from their already gained thoughts and BELIEFS then this is what will happen.

I do NOT care if 'absolute certainty is possible or NOT possible", I literally do NOT care at all. I just care about when people TRY TO argue for some thing, which is obviously based on a strongly held BELIEF. I would have thought you learned this from your last insistence that 'absolute perfection is impossible'? You are aware RIGHT that the EXACT SAME THING is taking place here in this thread as was in the other one? That is; I was NOT trying to argue for or against any thing. I was just showing OBSERVERS how the human beings behaved in this year they call 2018.

AGAIN, I will say, I am NOT here, in this forum, to fight for or against any thing at all NOR to prove or disprove any thing at all to you, the ones, I am having discussions with. I am HERE to learn how to communicate better, and in the process also showing, with evidence, of HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work, which was not what i set out to do in the beginning when i came here, but is now unintentionally happening.