Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:01 am

ken wrote:
I also do not have first hand experience if the Universe is expanding or not so how could I be so sure as you appear to be? If you are going to say you believe that the Universe is expanding because you trust the people labeled scientists who tell you that well remember and take into consideration that you would believe ( in ) any thing depending on what period of time you lived in and what the scientists of that day told you. Therefore if you lived in a time period where scientists told you that the sun revolves around the earth or that the size of the Universe began with a big bang or whatever else you were told by scientists then you would believe it. No matter how true or false it actually was

I have already said that I do not do belief. I say the Universe is expanding not because I believe scientists but because of the red shift of galaxies which is evidence of its expansion. The Sun revolving around the Earth was merely an assumption unsupported by science so it is not comparable You have therefore made two false assumptions. And you have no idea what I would have thought about anything at any point in the past beyond my current lifetime. That is both an unsupported and unsupportable assertion

Does the red shift of galaxies undoubtedly prove that the Universe is expanding?

How do you know the red shift of galaxies?

Have you seen the red shift of galaxies, or have you been told this, through stories?

If you have been told this by other people, then how do they "know" this? Have they seen this?

If you have seen the red shift of galaxies is that all you need as evidence that the Universe, Itself, IS expanding?

Is just seeing things with the eyes all that human beings need as and for evidence?

In other words could there not possibly be any thing else happening in nor to the Universe other than expansion? Could the Universe NOT be anything different from that what the eyes on that body see, or different from that what the ears on that body hear, is that what you are telling Me?

I apologize profusely if I said that you do or have or hold beliefs, but I do not recall ever saying you do. I did state that IF you did say you believe some thing. But I did not state that you do. You say that 'the Universe is expanding' not because you believe people labeled as scientists, which is great, but I am still unclear as to why exactly you say that 'The Universe is expanding'. I am very interested to know your answer to this, and to the next questions. In fact I am very interested to know people's answers to ALL the questions I ask. I would not ask them otherwise.

Anyway, are you absolutely sure that 'The Sun revolving around the Earth was merely an assumption unsupported by science'. I am not sure when 'science' came into "play", for lack of a better word, and thus when people started being labeled as "scientists", but if science and "scientists" were around in the days when human beings believed that the sun revolved around the earth what was science and "scientists" actually saying about this?

What were the actual two false assumptions that you say I made? If I am correct and you look much closer to what I actually wrote I NEVER assumed any thing. I made a proposal that if you did some thing, then some thing else would happen but I never assumed any thing would happen. In fact you made two very strong assumptions, namely that, 'I have no idea what you would have thought about in regards to anything at any point in the past beyond your current lifetime' IS unsupported and unsupportable.

Because I KNOW how the Mind and the brain work I know what ALL people would have thought about in regards to every thing and any thing at any point throughout Life. Within ALL human bodies the thoughts that arise are in direct relation to what that particular body has experienced. This is the exact same for each and every human being, including 'you'. This can and will be supported the more human beings start to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work also.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:45 am

ken wrote:
Have you or many other human beings actually thought about how believing and accepting what a scientist says just because they say it is just the same as those human beings who believe and accept what a person labeled priest says just because they say it. Without first hand experience how would you or any human being KNOW what IS true

What scientists say has to be capable of replication or observation and inter subjectively so too. And hypotheses have to be capable of potential falsification. And results have to be peer reviewed. The collective process is known as the scientific method and is the most brutal methodology ever devised. There is none more so. And so there is no place for belief. The scientific method does not do belief. Instead it tests hypotheses to absolute destruction or as close to as possible. As that is far and away the most reliable means that there is for studying observable phenomena

Besides the last sentence that all sounds pretty accurate and what obviously appears to happen also. But is science so thorough that what it says is true, right, and correct at one point in "time" never changes? What is the most reliable at a given time does not mean it is the most reliable forever more, as is implied here. Also, a better methodology might have already been devised, or be in the process of being devised, but this just has not yet be expressed nor explained yet.

Just because science may be the "best" method now does not mean a new or newer and better method can not and will not come along. Also, just because a certain method within science is the "best" method at one particular "time" period does not mean another method can not be discovered.

A far better methodology might be "just around the corner", which might make the science of today as redundant as the idea that 'the world is flat' has become. If science was always 100% correct and obtains all the right answers, then it would not need to change, but science obviously does not always come up with the correct answers.

By the way I really wish you would quote Me exactly how I wrote it. Messages can and do get quite easily misinterpreted and/or misunderstood especially if writings are not as precise as they can be. Conveying the exact message as intended is hard enough in of itself without having My writings changed. If you would like a hint on how to copy and paste My writings exactly, which is very quick and easy, you can private message me if you like.

ken wrote:
Because I KNOW how the Mind and the brain work I know what ALL people would have thought about in regards to every thing and any thing at any point throughout Life. Within ALL human bodies the thoughts that arise are in direct relation to what that particular body has experienced. This is the exact same for each and every human being including you. This can and will be supported the more human beings start to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work also

I do not think the concepts of Mind and Me actually exist because there is zero evidence for them
They are not the same as the concepts of mind and me which do exist for which there is evidence

ken wrote:
is science so thorough that what it says is true and right and correct at one point in time never changes ? What is the most reliable at a given
time does not mean it is the most reliable forever more as is implied here. Also a better methodology might have already been devised or be
in the process of being devised but this just has not yet been expressed nor explained

Science is primarily an inductive discipline that relies upon evidence so it can never be totally reliable. This is because scientific knowledge is never complete. The scientific method is how science is conducted and while technology may make it more robust it is in principle as absolute
as can be. The only real flaw is not in the method itself but in those who execute it because they are human and are therefore capable of bias

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:22 am

ken wrote:
Because I KNOW how the Mind and the brain work I know what ALL people would have thought about in regards to every thing and any thing at any point throughout Life. Within ALL human bodies the thoughts that arise are in direct relation to what that particular body has experienced. This is the exact same for each and every human being including you. This can and will be supported the more human beings start to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work also

I do not think the concepts of Mind and Me actually exist because there is zero evidence for them
They are not the same as the concepts of mind and me which do exist for which there is evidence

Do you think the concepts of God and I actually exist?

Again, you make another assumption about there being zero evidence for some thing. You express this like you have been exposed to ALL the things in the Universe already, and thus if you have not experienced some thing, then there MUST be zero evidence for it.

If I recall correctly it was you who liked writings to be as precise as can be. Instead of expressing there is zero evidence for some thing, it is far more true, right, and correct to express that you have not seen any evidence for some thing. What IS actually true, right, and/or correct can be completely and even oppositely different from what you think it is.

You say there is evidence for "mind" and "me", so what evidence exists for "mind" and what evidence exists for "me"? And, where are they exactly and how do they exist exactly?

Also, again not one clarifying question asked. Just the assumption that you already know what IS true, right, and correct.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:38 am

ken wrote:
is science so thorough that what it says is true and right and correct at one point in time never changes ? What is the most reliable at a given
time does not mean it is the most reliable forever more as is implied here. Also a better methodology might have already been devised or be
in the process of being devised but this just has not yet been expressed nor explained

Science is primarily an inductive discipline that relies upon evidence so it can never be totally reliable. This is because scientific knowledge is never complete. The scientific method is how science is conducted and while technology may make it more robust it is in principle as absolute
as can be.

You appear to have an extremely very narrow view of things. So, to you, the scientific method, in the 2017 year after the death of a human body labeled "jesus", is in principle as 'absolute as can be'. Very interesting.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:38 am The only real flaw is not in the method itself but in those who execute it because they are human and are therefore capable of bias

Exactly. Human beings are capable of bias, which has been proven countless times already in this forum alone. There is enough evidence of this just in this thread for that matter to be well and truly settled. Now, why are you biased?

By the way why do you like to only reply in regards to the same issues with the same things? Why do you not like to answer any of My other clarifying questions?

ken wrote:
you make another assumption about there being zero evidence for some thing. You express this like you have been exposed
to ALL the things in the Universe already and thus if you have not experienced some thing then there MUST be zero evidence

When I say there is no evidence for something I mean none that is currently known so it a provisional statement not an absolute one

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:25 am

ken wrote:
you make another assumption about there being zero evidence for some thing. You express this like you have been exposed
to ALL the things in the Universe already and thus if you have not experienced some thing then there MUST be zero evidence

When I say there is no evidence for something I mean none that is currently known so it a provisional statement not an absolute one

Even your statement here is obviously not precise. A much more precise statement would be, there is no evidence for some thing that is currently known by you.

For all you know others could have the evidence and thus they know the evidence or the evidence could even be written down somewhere where are few people have seen it thus it IS known, but you have just not seen it yet and so it is not known by you, yet.

ken wrote:
Human beings are capable of bias which has been proven countless times already in this forum
There is enough evidence of this just in this thread for that matter to be well and truly settled

By the way why do you like to only reply in regards to the same issues with the
same things? Why do you not like to answer any of My other clarifying questions

Bias is actually unavoidable in any human being with basic cognitive ability
Although It can be reduced if the will exists but it can never be eradicated

I already said I do not answer all your questions only the ones I find interesting enough to want to reply to

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:43 am

ken wrote:
Human beings are capable of bias which has been proven countless times already in this forum
There is enough evidence of this just in this thread for that matter to be well and truly settled

By the way why do you like to only reply in regards to the same issues with the
same things? Why do you not like to answer any of My other clarifying questions

Bias is actually unavoidable in any human being with basic cognitive ability
Although It can be reduced if the will exists but it can never be eradicated

Is that another one of your assumptions, posed as an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:43 amI already said I do not answer all your questions only the ones I find interesting enough to want to reply to

Yes I know and I have already acknowledged that when you said it last time.

Again you are only replying with the same things that you have already replied with previously.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I already said I do not answer all your questions only the ones I find interesting enough to want to reply to

Yes I know and I have already acknowledged that when you said it last time

Again you are only replying with the same things that you have already replied with previously

Then I do not know why you repeat something if you already know what my reply is going to be

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Bias is actually unavoidable in any human being with basic cognitive ability
Although It can be reduced if the will exists but it can never be eradicated

Is that another one of your assumptions posed as an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed

It is a condition of being a cognitively functioning human being because it is what makes us human
Without bias we would be machines as we would only be able to think logically but not emotionally

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:14 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Bias is actually unavoidable in any human being with basic cognitive ability
Although It can be reduced if the will exists but it can never be eradicated

Is that another one of your assumptions posed as an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed

It is a condition of being a cognitively functioning human being because it is what makes us human
Without bias we would be machines as we would only be able to think logically but not emotionally

Yes you have already told Me that human beings will be that way forever more that human beings exist. Again, you say it like you KNOW what the future holds, and I have already counter argued it. Going over the exact same things is not really necessary here.

If you take notice of what I write the amount of "bias" is sometimes completely eradicated compared to the way you write. I have explained how this is possible and how to maintain it. You disagree that I do it and insist it is impossible. Is there any thing more to add to this?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:33 pm It's a fact that Christians claim that they need to "save" others. But, since the Bible states atheists can never be saved, it looks like Christians like you have admitted that Jesus' power is limited and not godly in any way. It's rather comical, actually.

Its comical when people like you are soooo short sighted, and understand nothing. You will have life after life as an atheist if you continue. Or, you will have some faith, and eventually come to real eyes the truth, at least in one of those lives.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:46 pm
...I'm glad seeds has come back to the forum. I would really like to begin to fathom seeds ideas.

Thank you Dam, that’s very kind of you to say.
_______