Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lennartack wrote:but SOB is in red
If I understood correctly, your definitions are as follows:
Belief: things regarded by men as true that have been found by finding solutions that suit their agendas or limitations
Absolute truth: things that are certain to happen in nature
No I did not make such a broad general statement, as to what is certain to happen. I specifically mentioned something that is certain to happen given a certain set of conditions.

You have not proved an absolute truth exist, but suppose it exists.
Would you agree with me that we cannot be certain of anything, and therefore we cannot know if something is an absolute truth?
Yes I have, stop your breath. While you may not see it, those around you, that are paying attention, surely will, and that's absolutely true, and you shall absolutely truthfully be dead.

I agree that a great many things are not certain, but I see that some are. Did you not pay attention, you, like Lance, are speaking of knowing of a particular instance of an absolute truth, but as I said, an absolute truth exists whether someone is aware or not. An absolute truth is not conditional upon knowledge, just your awareness of it.

lennartack wrote:but SOB is blue

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lennartack wrote:but SOB is in red
If I understood correctly, your definitions are as follows:
Belief: things regarded by men as true that have been found by finding solutions that suit their agendas or limitations
Absolute truth: things that are certain to happen in nature
No I did not make such a broad general statement, as to what is certain to happen. I specifically mentioned something that is certain to happen given a certain set of conditions.

You have not proved an absolute truth exist, but suppose it exists.
Would you agree with me that we cannot be certain of anything, and therefore we cannot know if something is an absolute truth?
Yes I have, stop your breath. While you may not see it, those around you, that are paying attention, surely will, and that's absolutely true, and you shall absolutely truthfully be dead.

I agree that a great many things are not certain, but I see that some are. Did you not pay attention, you, like Lance, are speaking of knowing of a particular instance of an absolute truth, but as I said, an absolute truth exists whether someone is aware or not. An absolute truth is not conditional upon knowledge, just your awareness of it.

How can you be certain that I'm going to die?
Because this is one of the absolute truths that mankind has uncovered that he has now placed in his books of knowledge so as not to be forgotten, it is factual, it is absolutely true under the conditions I supplied.

The fact that most people die does not mean that I will die.
This is incorrect, 'all' people 'shall' die when deprived of O2. Your words then are an example of a mans belief, due to his agenda and or limitation.

Nor does the fact that a lot of people die when there is no oxygen in the air mean that the absence of oxygen causes all people to die.
This is another example of a man's belief due to his agenda or limitation, because your assertion is false, as man has come to understand this absolute truth, and thus it is finally factual knowledge, as to this dependency on O2, of current human life.

The next uncertain thing you assert is that an absolute truth can exist without anyone being aware of it. By saying this you assume that our intuitive ideas about logic, truth and untruth apply to nature, but how can you be sure of that?
Because above you have used words in an attempt to blur the absolute truth of the matter, as you have an agenda or are limited. You assume that any particular word or idea of man is absolutely true, over that which has allowed him to invent these meaningless words and ideas, in the first place. Your view is as if to say that man is detached from his mother, this is impossible, as he is born of his mother, which has been the culmination of billions of years. Man is nature and nature is man, it matters not that you or anyone else refuses to see, and invents words and concepts in an attempt to cloud the issue, due to your agendas or limitations. The primary agenda and/or limitation is mans arrogance, but the absolute truth is, nature shall end man if he continually fails to take notice of the absolute truths that nature provides.

Why cannot something be both true and false, or neither of them?
Their meaning, as attributed by man, can, as you are the evidence, but this is exactly the heart of the matter, the difference between absolute truth and the falsehood of merely belief. Those that wish to believe, as you propose, are those that have brought about global warming and shall be mans undoing. It is mans arrogance that he is above the absolute truths of nature, that is his problem.

We (nature) are bound by the absolute truths as presented by earths biosphere (nature) which was in the making since the beginning of time, the birth of the universe (nature).

lancek4 wrote:I still want to know of sob: how do You You You You differentiate between what you believe is absolutely true and what is not your belief. ??
You're such a cheeky little bastard, as if the "You" key got stuck on your keyboard. This is not about Me Me Me Me. It just blows my mind that some people use words in such a way that they actually believe it disproves something in nature. I'm just smart enough to realize that when something like that occurs, it's mans words, and not nature that is mistaken, as mans words are merely labels that represent those things found in nature. Mans relative words can never be as potent as the absolute truth of the nature that has allowed man to create such relative words.


One of you vacillating moves is that you speak of the absolute truth that man has uncovered and then speak of how what you know may be merely belief. You have even spoken about how what man has uncovered may also be not absolutely true.
What is this ?
Do I vacillate? Or is that merely your perception, as with your not understanding the context, in which I speak of these modes of mans truth, that you see as contradictory.

I see that you often ask how I can know these truths, as if the knowledge is instantaneous, of that moment, that I am somehow responsible for them. But I assure you, I have nothing to do with it in that moment, and that actually they come from mans history, and are the culmination of much work. My small part is only in their verification, as is everyone's.

Ginkgo wrote:Just one question.


How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Just one question.


How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

Well, that fell on deaf ears.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I still want to know of sob: how do You You You You differentiate between what you believe is absolutely true and what is not your belief. ??
You're such a cheeky little bastard, as if the "You" key got stuck on your keyboard. This is not about Me Me Me Me. It just blows my mind that some people use words in such a way that they actually believe it disproves something in nature. I'm just smart enough to realize that when something like that occurs, it's mans words, and not nature that is mistaken, as mans words are merely labels that represent those things found in nature. Mans relative words can never be as potent as the absolute truth of the nature that has allowed man to create such relative words.


One of you vacillating moves is that you speak of the absolute truth that man has uncovered and then speak of how what you know may be merely belief. You have even spoken about how what man has uncovered may also be not absolutely true.
What is this ?
Do I vacillate? Or is that merely your perception, as with your not understanding the context, in which I speak of these modes of mans truth, that you see as contradictory.

I see that you often ask how I can know these truths, as if the knowledge is instantaneous, of that moment, that I am somehow responsible for them. But I assure you, I have nothing to do with it in that moment, and that actually they come from mans history, and are the culmination of much work. My small part is only in their verification, as is everyone's.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I still want to know of sob: how do You You You You differentiate between what you believe is absolutely true and what is not your belief. ??
You're such a cheeky little bastard, as if the "You" key got stuck on your keyboard. This is not about Me Me Me Me. It just blows my mind that some people use words in such a way that they actually believe it disproves something in nature. I'm just smart enough to realize that when something like that occurs, it's mans words, and not nature that is mistaken, as mans words are merely labels that represent those things found in nature. Mans relative words can never be as potent as the absolute truth of the nature that has allowed man to create such relative words.


One of you vacillating moves is that you speak of the absolute truth that man has uncovered and then speak of how what you know may be merely belief. You have even spoken about how what man has uncovered may also be not absolutely true.
What is this ?
Do I vacillate? Or is that merely your perception, as with your not understanding the context, in which I speak of these modes of mans truth, that you see as contradictory.

I see that you often ask how I can know these truths, as if the knowledge is instantaneous, of that moment, that I am somehow responsible for them. But I assure you, I have nothing to do with it in that moment, and that actually they come from mans history, and are the culmination of much work. My small part is only in their verification, as is everyone's.

Perhaps at least some of the problems of this absolutely true world of yours is due to people not taking responsibility for them.

And, I am honestly asking: how do you? How. By what mechanism, by what synthesis, by what means, what method do you invoke or use, to know of this Ab truth - so I might use your method and thus be able to be as certain as you. Tell me, please. Tell me how you know this.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Just one question.


How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

Well, that fell on deaf ears.

Not at all, I had missed your post, until now. It would seem your impatience breeds your presumption.

I don't know to what extent you believe induction comes into play, as you have not conveyed the crux of that point using your language as far as my ears are concerned.

One can claim what ever they want, remember we are talking of language, speech that is simply sound that humans grunt. There is no necessary meaning in any particular human grunting. In order for human grunting to have factual, truthful meaning, the particular grunts have to have been assigned and agreed upon by the masses that use a particular language in order for factual, truthful ideas to be conveyed.

As such, it has been scientifically proven, specifically within the field of study dubbed Biology, that O2 is the single constituent of air that allows for human life processes to function. As a matter of fact, both the aviation and space community utilize liquid O2 that is converted to it's gaseous form to supplement the human need, to sustain it's life, under low or no O2 conditions.

Such that one can say what ever they want, but if one deprives their human bodies cells of O2, that the human bodies lungs extract from earths air, they shall surely die. If you don't believe me, do it to yourself! Of course this is not to say that one of mans machines that he has built for this very purpose, can't bypass the lungs and uses the vascular system as an entry point for this human life requirement of O2.

The point is that human life requires O2 how ever it's delivered to the bodies cells. But it's a fact, the absolute truth, that the natural way in which this is done is via the human lungs and earths air.

No one can prove this incorrect, thus it is one of the absolute truths, that nature provides, despite mans words or beliefs.

Ginkgo wrote:Just one question.

How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

Ginkgo wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Well, that fell on deaf ears.

Not at all, I had missed your post, until now. It would seem your impatience breeds your presumption.

I don't know to what extent you believe induction comes into play, as you have not conveyed the crux of that point using your language as far as my ears are concerned.

One can claim what ever they want, remember we are talking of language, speech that is simply sound that humans grunt. There is no necessary meaning in any particular human grunting. In order for human grunting to have factual, truthful meaning, the particular grunts have to have been assigned and agreed upon by the masses that use a particular language in order for factual, truthful ideas to be conveyed.

As such, it has been scientifically proven, specifically within the field of study dubbed Biology, that O2 is the single constituent of air that allows for human life processes to function. As a matter of fact, both the aviation and space community utilize liquid O2 that is converted to it's gaseous form to supplement the human need, to sustain it's life, under low or no O2 conditions.

Such that one can say what ever they want, but if one deprives their human bodies cells of O2, that the human bodies lungs extract from earths air, they shall surely die. If you don't believe me, do it to yourself! Of course this is not to say that one of mans machines that he has built for this very purpose, can't bypass the lungs and uses the vascular system as an entry point for this human life requirement of O2.

The point is that human life requires O2 how ever it's delivered to the bodies cells. But it's a fact, the absolute truth, that the natural way in which this is done is via the human lungs and earths air.

No one can prove this incorrect, thus it is one of the absolute truths, that nature provides, despite mans words or beliefs.

Yes, but you used language to establish your proposition in the first place. I want to use the same language principles and the same language techniques you applied in establishing your truth to deny that truth. Why would it be the case that just because you have established this position you can lift it to a higher level of reality whereby it must remain untouched?
This is what I'm talking about, just because you say things don't mean they're true. There is no such thing as a higher or lower level of reality, there is just reality. It would seem you create false concepts so as to prove your false concepts.

You can never prove your statement with certainty, but you can always disprove it with certainty.
Incorrect!

If I found one contrary example of someone who didn't need O2 in the air then the statement. All, humans need O2 would be false. By the same token the statement remains true only until I find this person. The chances of me find such a person would be next to impossible. But it can never be a zero chance.
What are you smoking? Biology dictates this, there is a 0 chance, end of story.

So I don't have to prove you statement incorrect. If I can conceive of such a possibility (which I can) then it has a probability factor. That's the problem of induction.
This is no problem that a rational human being would have. You, therefore, must be irrational. This is an example of you having an agenda, due to your limitation, such that you subscribe to a belief that is in fact false. You cannot provide such a person, but I can provide proof via the records of Biology, as the biologists have already done the work for me.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I still want to know of sob: how do You You You You differentiate between what you believe is absolutely true and what is not your belief. ??
You're such a cheeky little bastard, as if the "You" key got stuck on your keyboard. This is not about Me Me Me Me. It just blows my mind that some people use words in such a way that they actually believe it disproves something in nature. I'm just smart enough to realize that when something like that occurs, it's mans words, and not nature that is mistaken, as mans words are merely labels that represent those things found in nature. Mans relative words can never be as potent as the absolute truth of the nature that has allowed man to create such relative words.


One of you vacillating moves is that you speak of the absolute truth that man has uncovered and then speak of how what you know may be merely belief. You have even spoken about how what man has uncovered may also be not absolutely true.
What is this ?
Do I vacillate? Or is that merely your perception, as with your not understanding the context, in which I speak of these modes of mans truth, that you see as contradictory.

I see that you often ask how I can know these truths, as if the knowledge is instantaneous, of that moment, that I am somehow responsible for them. But I assure you, I have nothing to do with it in that moment, and that actually they come from mans history, and are the culmination of much work. My small part is only in their verification, as is everyone's.

Ginkgo wrote:This is no problem that a rational human being would have. You, therefore, must be irrational. This is an example of you having an agenda, due to your limitation, such that you subscribe to a belief that is in fact false. You cannot provide such a person, but I can provide proof via the records of Biology, as the biologists have already done the work for me.


It's not my fault. Hume, Kant and Popper are the ones saying your inductive statement has no logical necessity.


You agree your statement about humans needing O2 is inductive? You do agree it is inductive, don't you?

Ginkgo wrote:You can never prove your statement with certainty, but you can always disprove it with certainty. If I found one contrary example of someone who didn't need O2 in the air then the statement. All, humans need O2 would be false. By the same token the statement remains true only until I find this person. The chances of me find such a person would be next to impossible. But it can never be a zero chance.