Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:44 pm If you want the Truth, then you have to clarify what it is that you are SEEKING.

Come to think of it. I know exactly what I am seeking.

How did you (somebody with knowledge) solve the Münchhausen trilemma?

Who said I had solved this yet?

If you want Me to explain, to you, how to solve it, then you will need to explain how you see what this so called trilemma actually is, and also be prepared to clarify what you are actually saying.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:06 pmHow did you solve the problem of criterion?

I did not know there was a problem.

What do you think/believe the actual problem is here?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:06 pmAnd lastly: What is time and how does it work?

'Time' does NOT work, as it is NOT an actual thing.

'Time' is just the name given, and used, when talking about a measured perceived difference between apparently label given different events.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm Who said I had solved this yet?

You said you have knowledge. My challenge to obtaining ANY knowledge is that exact problem.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm If you want Me to explain, to you, how to solve it, then you will need to explain how you see what this so called trilemma actually is, and also be prepared to clarify what you are actually saying.

Or you can just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm I did not know there was a problem.

What do you think/believe the actual problem is here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6salxWXqqcM

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm 'Time' does NOT work, as it is NOT an actual thing.

'Time' is just the name given, and used, when talking about a measured perceived difference between apparently label given different events.

What is an 'event'?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:44 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 amNo. I am not. I don't have any knowledge.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:52 amIf you do NOT have ANY knowledge, then is it really possible to have any of a percentage of knowledge? As this is what you were trying to suggest that you have previously, when you said that you are a gambler. You were saying that you are NEVER absolutely (100%) certain about any thing but you are, percentage wise, certain to an extent of some things, is this right?

And, when you say and state that 'knowledge is justified true beliefs', which you now state that you are NOT 100% absolutely sure of this, then what are we to make of you having BELIEFS, which you agree with, but you NOT having any 'knowledge', which you say 'knowledge' is justified true belief IS?

Are you now saying that you really do NOT have any 'beliefs', or, that you do NOT have any 'justified true beliefs'?

To me, it seems funny, to have and hold beliefs but to also not have nor hold any justified true beliefs. I think most people would prefer to have and hold justified true beliefs rather than just beliefs that could be, or may possibly be, WRONG.

You do get my point here right, if, as you say, 'knowledge' IS justified true belief, and you also 'do not have any knowledge', then that would mean that you do not have any justified true beliefs, is this what you are trying to suggest and say here?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 amBut you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:52 am1. But I do NOT have a BELIEF, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
2. You have already informed us what 'knowledge' is, when you told us that 'knowledge' is justified true belief. So that is what 'knowledge' is.
3. And, according to you, down below, you already KNOW what MY perspective of the word 'knowledge' IS. So, why would you WANT me to tell you again?
4. How about you tell us what I mean when I use the word 'knowledge' here, from MY perspective. That is some thing that I would really love to see.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 am Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:52 amHere, are you suggesting that you aleady KNOW what meaning I give to the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective.

If so, I would like to KNOW how you obtained that, dare I say it, "knowledge". Would you care to share that insight with the readers here. While you are at it would you care to also show WHAT EXACTLY is the meaning I give the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 am I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:52 amWHERE and WHEN did I give MY definition/meaning for the word 'knowledge', and, WHAT is THAT definition/meaning, which you say you are mirroring.

I certainly do NOT recall ever saying nor using the word 'knowledge' from the perspective of 'knowledge' being justified true belief, which is what you say it is. Is that the "mirroring" of MY use of the word 'knowledge' that you are talking about here?

But maybe you can remind me, and maybe others, WHERE I used the word 'knowledge' that way, if I did?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 amSo much waffle.

That is one way of just dismissing what I have said and NOT responding to any of it.

But the readers can SEE past this for themselves.

Also, how much of it is YOUR waffle?

You did NOT exactly quote it correctly at all, so that is WHY it looks, and reads, like it does.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 amLets focus on you for a while.

If you like.

Are you fearful of some thing, or just embarrassed, or some thing else?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 am I don't want to be selfish and steal all the spotlight here.

WHY?

Some thing to be afraid of, or shy of, or some thing else?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 amLets talk about the tings YOU say.

Again, that is if you really want to.

Let us do that.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 amYou said you have knowledge.

In context to WHAT exactly?

If you want the Truth, then you have to clarify what it is that you are SEEKING.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:03 amTell us what you mean by that.

What I mean when I say, "I have knowledge" is NOT what you think/believe I mean.

One, of many, of the things you insisted above was that what YOU mean by the use of the word 'knowledge' was what I MEAN, from MY perspective. Yet you are completely and utterly incapable of providing ANY actual evidence that you have absolutely any idea at all regarding what MY perspective is, and you are backing this up again now. Considering you have NOT responded to ANY of MY clarifying questions at all, then it seems rather obnoxious of you to expect Me to clarify to you what I mean when I say one thing. Especially considering what you have written down so far.

How about you clarifying up some of your completely contradictory wording first, then I will decide what I will do.

If you SAY that what you mean by 'knowledge' is what I mean, from MY perspective, then you would and should OBVIOUSLY already KNOW what I mean.

If you did not claim to KNOW some thing as ridiculous as this, then I would have already explained what I mean.

Also, I will TRY TO fix the way you provided OUR quotes, so it does NOT look so much like WAFFLE.

I come with no pre-suppositions or expectations. I seek nothing but to hear your perspective and maybe learn something new.

What do you know?

In regards to what exactly?

If I asked you, What do you know? How would you respond?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:58 pmI don't even believe in Truth (with capital T).

If you do NOT believe in some thing, then that causes the exact same situation as if you DO believe in some thing. That is; you are NOT open.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:58 pmYet you are using that word.

Yes I did use that word.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:58 pmMaybe you have found it?

Why did you write this, and, why did you put a question mark at the end?

What you are doing here is like what a person does to a person who used the word God, and you then said, "I don't even believe in God (with capital G), but then went on to also say, "Maybe you have found it?"

With or without the question mark this is all nonsensical. If you do not BELIEVE in some thing, then how could It be found?

What do you mean when you say, "I don't even believe in ...". Are you suggesting/saying that that what you do NOT believe in could actually exist?

If you are not suggesting/saying that, then what are you suggesting/saying?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm In regards to what exactly?

If I asked you, What do you know? How would you respond?

I would answer it exactly like Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm If you do NOT believe in some thing, then that causes the exact same situation as if you DO believe in some thing. That is; you are NOT open.

False dichotomy. The continuum I operate on is disbelief , no belief, belief.
Like you get negative numbers, zero and positive numbers.

No belief is 0.

https://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/

That said. I have DISBELIEF in Truth. I have far too much evidence AGAINST it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm Why did you write this, and, why did you put a question mark at the end?

What you are doing here is like what a person does to a person who used the word God, and you then said, "I don't even believe in God (with capital G), but then went on to also say, "Maybe you have found it?"

Because evidence. Maybe you have it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm With or without the question mark this is all nonsensical. If you do not BELIEVE in some thing, then how could It be found?

What do you mean when you say, "I don't even believe in ...". Are you suggesting/saying that that what you do NOT believe in could actually exist?

If you are not suggesting/saying that, then what are you suggesting/saying?

Because I do not have infinite beliefs OR disbeliefs.

This openness thing. I know how it works - way better than you do

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm Who said I had solved this yet?

You said you have knowledge. My challenge to obtaining ANY knowledge is that exact problem.

But there is NO challenge to obtaining any knowledge. To me there is NO problem here. Obtaining knowledge just happens. This is exactly just HOW the brain works. It obtains ANY knowledge from any or all of the five senses of the body. In other words what the body experiences, becomes knowledge. You will understand this when, and if, you learn HOW the Mind and the brain work. There really is nothing hard nor complicated to learn here.

This, of course, is all depended upon if you have some particular definition for the word 'knowledge' , which specifically means that knowledge is unobtainable, to or by you.

Are you aware that human beings can make things APPEAR hard and complicated to understand. Although the actual Truth is absolutely EVERY thing is easy and simple to understand.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm If you want Me to explain, to you, how to solve it, then you will need to explain how you see what this so called trilemma actually is, and also be prepared to clarify what you are actually saying.

Or you can just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y

But reading or watching that does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT explain HOW you SEE this.

I specifically explained, to you, that if you want Me to explain, TO YOU, how to solve it, then you will NEED to EXPLAIN, to Me, HOW YOU SEE this. But obviously you must of NOT seen or understood this.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm I did not know there was a problem.

What do you think/believe the actual problem is here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6salxWXqqcM

You MUST of overlooked or missed My point AGAIN. That is; What do YOU think/believe the actual problem is here?

I do NOT want "another's" interpretation of a perceived problem is. I want YOURS because it is YOU that wants ME to answer YOUR question/s.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm 'Time' does NOT work, as it is NOT an actual thing.

'Time' is just the name given, and used, when talking about a measured perceived difference between apparently label given different events.

What is an 'event'?
[/quote]

Your eagerness to SHOW that I am WRONG is glaringly obvious. Your NEED to be RIGHT, once again, comes across very obvious.

How long are we going to go on with you asking me to give you a definition for particular words, until you think/believe you are able to PROVE some thing. We could go on as long as that body is able to keep doing this, with no actual real outcome.

Why NOT just say what it is that you want to SHOW and PROVE, now?

From WHAT perspective exactly do you WANT me to answer the question; What is an 'event'?

As I have alluded to already there is a perceived difference within the one and only 'event' of Existence.

This perceived difference is made up only by different labels, given by you, human beings.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm But there is NO challenge to obtaining any knowledge. To me there is NO problem here. Obtaining knowledge just happens. This is exactly just HOW the brain works. It obtains ANY knowledge from any or all of the five senses of the body. In other words what the body experiences, becomes knowledge. You will understand this when, and if, you learn HOW the Mind and the brain work. There really is nothing hard nor complicated to learn here.

This, of course, is all depended upon if you have some particular definition for the word 'knowledge' , which specifically means that knowledge is unobtainable, to or by you.

I do actually. In order for it to be 'knowledge' it must be useful towards fulfilling my needs.
Knowledge must be able to anticipate/predict FUTURE events. Everybody can observe the present - that's mundane.

And so. Here is one of my needs. I need to solve the P vs NP problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm But reading or watching that does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT explain HOW you SEE this.

I specifically explained, to you, that if you want Me to explain, TO YOU, how to solve it, then you will NEED to EXPLAIN, to Me, HOW YOU SEE this. But obviously you must of NOT seen or understood this.

I see it like the content explains it. Is there anything in there that you don't understand?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm You MUST of overlooked or missed My point AGAIN. That is; What do YOU think/believe the actual problem is here?

I do NOT want "another's" interpretation of a perceived problem is. I want YOURS because it is YOU that wants ME to answer YOUR question/s.

It's not an interpretation. It points to the QUESTIONS which are difficult to answer.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm Your eagerness to SHOW that I am WRONG is glaringly obvious. Your NEED to be RIGHT, once again, comes across very obvious.

I asked you a question. How did you read anything about my intentions from a question?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm How long are we going to go on with you asking me to give you a definition for particular words, until you think/believe you are able to PROVE some thing. We could go on as long as that body is able to keep doing this, with no actual real outcome.

Why NOT just say what it is that you want to SHOW and PROVE, now?

From WHAT perspective exactly do you WANT me to answer the question; What is an 'event'?

As I have alluded to already there is a perceived difference within the one and only 'event' of Existence.

This perceived difference is made up only by different labels, given by you, human beings.

Well, that's a rant and a half.

So you have knowledge, but you aren't willing to answer questions or share it with us. Fine.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm In regards to what exactly?

If I asked you, What do you know? How would you respond?

I would answer it exactly like Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is

Are you unable to, or just to lazy, to speak and answer for yourself? Or is some thing else going on here for you?

Just typing words, terms, or phrases into the search engine, and then referencing and/or linking whatever pops up does NOT show much intelligence at all really.

You really are providing more evidence all the time that YOUR assertion that you have NO knowledge IS True, Right, and Correct.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm If you do NOT believe in some thing, then that causes the exact same situation as if you DO believe in some thing. That is; you are NOT open.

False dichotomy. The continuum I operate on is disbelief , no belief, belief.
Like you get negative numbers, zero and positive numbers.

No belief is 0.

AND, from that perspective you are RIGHT, in that what I said is FALSE/WRONG.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:06 pmhttps://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/

That said. I have DISBELIEF in Truth. I have far too much evidence AGAINST it.

So you have "far to much evidence AGAINST Truth" but you have absolutely NO knowledge if that is a true or false statement, correct?

Also, what "EVIDENCE" do you HAVE against Truth?

And, HOW could there be evidence against Truth. I can quickly see and understand evidence against what IS false, but evidence against what IS Truth seems contradictory, to me. Are you at all able to explain more what you are saying here?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm Why did you write this, and, why did you put a question mark at the end?

What you are doing here is like what a person does to a person who used the word God, and you then said, "I don't even believe in God (with capital G), but then went on to also say, "Maybe you have found it?"

Because evidence. Maybe you have it.

But you said you have DISBELIEF in Truth. Therefore, Truth could NOT exist, RIGHT?

Surely YOU, of all people, would NOT have DISBELIEF in some thing that could actually be True, Right, and Correct, would YOU?

You are, after all, the one who prides themself on being the MOST certain RIGHT and CORRECT.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:59 pm With or without the question mark this is all nonsensical. If you do not BELIEVE in some thing, then how could It be found?

What do you mean when you say, "I don't even believe in ...". Are you suggesting/saying that that what you do NOT believe in could actually exist?

Because I do not have infinite beliefs OR disbeliefs.

This openness thing. I know how it works - way better than you do

This is the third time, that I have noticed, you have come to the conclusion, and expressed, that you KNOW some thing, and that you are able to do it better than another can, yet you continually state that you do NOT know things, and this is because you have NO knowledge. All rather contradictory.

Once again, you come across as extremely NEEDY to be RIGHT, as well as being extremely NEEDY to be superior to others. As I stated earlier your eagerness to continually show this comes across very strong and clear here.

Do you really BELIEVE that by just saying that you KNOW HOW this "openness" thing works way better than another does, really means that you do KNOW, and ARE way better at knowing how it works than another does?

From My perspective, you are SHOWING the EXACT OPPOSITE. I have yet to SEE one sign of you even beginning to become open, let alone being open at all. You will, however, say and show signs of being somewhat open, but you do this to just get the other to answer a clarifying question for you, of which you can not wait to TRY TO put the other down and humiliate them. WHY you behave this way I have already explained. Your lack of self-confidence in being able to KNOW any thing drives you to WANT to be RIGHT, and the only way you can TRY TO do this is by TRYING TO show that others are WRONG.

By the way, how you responded did NOT explain nor clarify any thing here. If you say that you DISBELIEVE some thing, then, to you, could it still exist?

A very simple question. Can you give a very simple answer?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm But there is NO challenge to obtaining any knowledge. To me there is NO problem here. Obtaining knowledge just happens. This is exactly just HOW the brain works. It obtains ANY knowledge from any or all of the five senses of the body. In other words what the body experiences, becomes knowledge. You will understand this when, and if, you learn HOW the Mind and the brain work. There really is nothing hard nor complicated to learn here.

This, of course, is all depended upon if you have some particular definition for the word 'knowledge' , which specifically means that knowledge is unobtainable, to or by you.

I do actually. In order for it to be 'knowledge' it must be useful towards fulfilling my needs.

What is the 'it', when you say, in order for 'it' to be "knowledge"?

If you DO have a particular definition for the word 'knowledge', which specifically means that knowledge is unobtainable by you, then to make things easier for the reader, What is YOUR definition for the word 'knowledge'?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pmKnowledge must be able to anticipate/predict FUTURE events. Everybody can observe the present - that's mundane.

But there are NO actual future "events". There is ONLY One event.

Anticipating/predicting, what you call FUTURE can ALSO be very simple and easy. For example living a stress-less, pollution-free, non-abusive and peaceful and harmonious existence will happen. But first YOU, human beings, need to learn HOW it can happen.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pmAnd so. Here is one of my needs. I need to solve the P vs NP problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Seems like a WANT and NOT a NEED, to me anyway.

Also, when, and if, you discover and/or learn HOW to solve ALL problems, then that is just another one that IS easily and simply solved.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm But reading or watching that does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT explain HOW you SEE this.

I specifically explained, to you, that if you want Me to explain, TO YOU, how to solve it, then you will NEED to EXPLAIN, to Me, HOW YOU SEE this. But obviously you must of NOT seen or understood this.

I see it like the content explains it.

But you have yet to even DEFINE just ONE, of the many, WORD/S that I have asked to clarify what its definition IS, to you. So, HOW would I KNOW what content you SEE?

Is there anything in there that you don't understand?[/quote]

Is there any thing that you KNOW?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:27 pm You MUST of overlooked or missed My point AGAIN. That is; What do YOU think/believe the actual problem is here?

I do NOT want "another's" interpretation of a perceived problem is. I want YOURS because it is YOU that wants ME to answer YOUR question/s.

It's not an interpretation. It points to the QUESTIONS which are difficult to answer.

Remember that are DIFFICULT to answer, to YOU.

They are VERY easily answered, by Me.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm Your eagerness to SHOW that I am WRONG is glaringly obvious. Your NEED to be RIGHT, once again, comes across very obvious.

I asked you a question. How did you read anything about my intentions from a question?

Because of the WAY you WRITE, THINK, and BELIEVE.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:48 pm How long are we going to go on with you asking me to give you a definition for particular words, until you think/believe you are able to PROVE some thing. We could go on as long as that body is able to keep doing this, with no actual real outcome.

Why NOT just say what it is that you want to SHOW and PROVE, now?

From WHAT perspective exactly do you WANT me to answer the question; What is an 'event'?

As I have alluded to already there is a perceived difference within the one and only 'event' of Existence.

This perceived difference is made up only by different labels, given by you, human beings.

Well, that's a rant and a half.

So you have knowledge, but you aren't willing to answer questions or share it with us. Fine.

What do you mean by NOT willing to answer questions or share it with us?

YOU, obviously, did NOT read WHAT I WROTE. Because I clearly and obviously ANSWERED your question, AND SHARED IT.

You really do have TROUBLE seeing what I actually WRITE. I am NOT sure HOW, as they are IN WORDS. If you are unsure WHY do you NEVER ask for further clarification but instead just go off on some other tangent?

YOU are the ONE who has NEVER clarified a definition to a word, YET.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:22 pm But there are NO actual future "events". There is ONLY One event.

Anticipating/predicting, what you call FUTURE can ALSO be very simple and easy. For example living a stress-less, pollution-free, non-abusive and peaceful and harmonious existence will happen. But first YOU, human beings, need to learn HOW it can happen.

No future events? That's not how humans experience time! Maybe you are different?

We have knowledge of the past but cannot control it; we may control the future but we do not know it.

Are you clairvoyant? If you are - then can you tell us when the next tsunami will hit Thailand; when the next airplane will crash; when the next big earthquake will hit; when the next natural disaster will strike' when and where the next terrorist attack will take place? You know, so we can warn everyone?

We need exact dates, times and places please?

Tell us how to cure cancer, heart disease, stroke, alzheimer's disease or any of the things that kill humans ALL THE TIME: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

If you know - tell us! Do you know?

And if you don't (yet) know - do you know how to learn those answers?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:03 am It is so obvious that all proofs and arguments must be supported by reliable evidences from various sources, e.g. research papers, links, references, etc.

However we need to understand there is a limitation to the above in relation to any online philosophical forum such as this one.
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. To optimize, what can be done is provided reference and links as a rough lead to greater details if necessary.

I have often received complains like this;

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:05 am Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.
What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

The onus is on the one who disagree to argue why my real empirical evidence are not true nor reliable.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Besides 'TimeSeeker' tell me who else?

Views?

There is not system of ethics in the academic community that does not give sway to eventual entropy at one point or another.

The "fake news" movement, as well as the increasing propaganda of political ideologies on college campus's, not to mention corporate funding for the majority of scientific research, is pointing towards not just to an inherent bias within information but a fundamental movement where people are beginning to distrust sources of information.

Part of this may be observed intuitively where the continual bombardment of "x" study or some pop trivia we see in social media and various magazines is going to head to a disillusionment with information at one point or another. People one day will start to see that with this increase information a correlative form of disorder will be observed where truth will be strictly deemed as the subjective creation of various parties and individuals.

The philosophical question as to the nature of evidence stems away from a strict empiricism in these regards as statistics not only do not provide any from of certainty but an inherent ambiguity as all statistical studies are just a localization of any set of relations in reality. The localization of any one truth is fundamentally the distortion of another considering clarity in one field leads to a form of ambiguity in another; hence a form of division occurs not just in standard religion, but the sciences of various sorts, as "truth" becomes a form of subjective tribalism leading to a "fear of the dark" where anyone party is afraid to venture away from the tribe in fear of being consumed by what lies beyond the veil around there own intellectual fire.

While the spiritual movements of the past and present have left us with an inherent sense of disillusionment and confusion as to not just the nature of the universe but ourselves, the current scientific priesthood is strictly an reflection of this trend as it is strictly a projection away from its roots in the theocracy of the middle ages relative to the west. The problem occurs with any projection away from one's roots comes an inherent reformulation of them and in many respects the modern world is strictly a cycle to the dark ages of ignorance where the wolves we fear outside our tribe, ready to eat those who leave the group, are not literal but rather humanity itself.

Now while the faiths, and there roots in the past, give mind to an inherent repression of certain aspects of knowledge the same applies strictly in the modern sense as well. This repression is viewed under a new nature, one synonymous to a whirlwind or vortex of relativism, and the modern religion of science is not so advanced from its ancestors in these respects as it requires a continual system of sacrifice to feed this metaphorical "god". Where prior systems used altars for sacrifice to various gods the modern establishment still uses this construct through the altar of the lab table and the temple of the lab itself, the only difference is the nature of what god we are sacrificing too however the reason's for it have changed little.

The premise of "matter" is a fickle god by any standard of the old and any truth we see to infer from something which exists in the dark becomes embodied within not just how man sees the world but his inherent identity as well. This is considering all empirical proof is inherently relativistic by nature, as what is observed through the senses of one individual is observed by those sense's alone in many respects considering one empirical phenomena is observed through various angles through various eyes and no empirical phenomena is effectively the same in these respects.

The problem occurs in that any facet of reality can be localized to observe its inherent relations and studies grounded in statistics observe an inherent subjective nature in these regards as not just the framework, but the variables being measured in the framework, are strictly variables pushed by a specific party.

With the increase in the subjective relativistic movement towards determining truth, where no authority can be trusted except the self, the standard hierarchies of academia and religion will inevitably crumble and be forced to exist as shells of there former selves synonymous in nature to a "tribe".

This tribalism reflects the entropy of knowledge as what is unified man under a common perspective becomes a merely clashing particles in another and we are left through the empirical nature no real truth but the relations of various parts which exist as such if they are viewed as seperate from another.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:03 am By the way, in "practice", I do things a bit differently. That is;
1. I do NOT have BELIEFS.
2. I do NOT look at what could be the case.
3. I do NOT make up hypothesis.
4. Instead, I look at, and SEE (understand), what IS already True, Right, and Correct.

Point 1-4 are your BELIEFS thus counter your point 1.

If that is what you so BELIEVE.

I have asked you before to expose what you BELIEVE my BELIEFS are, so that the readers can SEE what you are imagining.

You have yet done this so that we can look into them in greater detail.

Obviously I can NOT write down what MY BELIEFS are because I do NOT have any.

What you believe is the above, i.e. you don't have BELIEFS.

Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs [which is inherent in all human beings] there is nothing for me to comment.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:22 pm But there are NO actual future "events". There is ONLY One event.

Anticipating/predicting, what you call FUTURE can ALSO be very simple and easy. For example living a stress-less, pollution-free, non-abusive and peaceful and harmonious existence will happen. But first YOU, human beings, need to learn HOW it can happen.

No future events?

Yes, there are NO eventS. There is only One event (no 's'), unfolding before your eyes. Most of you, human beings, are just unable to recognize and see this.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pmThat's not how humans experience time! Maybe you are different?

Of course that is NOT how MOST of YOU, human beings, experience 'time'. You ALL learn, from others, and then can only teach what you have already learned. There, obviously, are many things that you, human beings, have NOT yet discovered, learned, and understood the Truth of yet, 'time' being just one of those things. I have already explained what 'time' is, and is NOT. Remember it is YOU, human beings, who are still TRYING TO work things out, like, just what 'time' is, and how 'it' supposedly works.

You, human beings, have learned to compartmentalize so much that you now have a distorted belief that there IS an actual separation, but the truth is that is only a perceived separation you have, of the one and only Real and True thing. This ability to see different and separate things has evolved purposely so that you can better learn how to understand ALL things, but unfortunately along the way you have now perceived, and thus believe, that there is a real and actual separation.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pmWe have knowledge of the past

But you do NOT, as you have stated and reaffirmed that you have NO knowledge.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pm but cannot control it; we may control the future but we do not know it.

Some of you, human beings do NOT know the future, just like some of you are unaware of HOW you CAN control the past. That is because you have NOT yet discovered and learned some things yet.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pmAre you clairvoyant?

No, not from the perspective of 'clairvoyant' that you are using here. So the rest of what you write here is just moot, and a totally distorted assumption of what IS, actually Real and True.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:41 pm If you are - then can you tell us when the next tsunami will hit Thailand; when the next airplane will crash; when the next big earthquake will hit; when the next natural disaster will strike' when and where the next terrorist attack will take place? You know, so we can warn everyone?

We need exact dates, times and places please?

Tell us how to cure cancer, heart disease, stroke, alzheimer's disease or any of the things that kill humans ALL THE TIME: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

If you know - tell us! Do you know?
And if you don't (yet) know - do you know how to learn those answers?

Yes I do KNOW.

Also, were you at all aware of just how self-centered, and human-centered, you actually look and see from?

ALL you are concerned about here is YOU, human beings, as though YOU actually matter.

You have a distorted perception that YOU, human beings, have some sort of importance over any and all other, perceived, THINGS.

Let Me tell you, that YOU, human beings, were only here to serve a purpose, and that this purpose has already been fulfilled, so what WILL happen to you ALL is now well under way. YOUR end "time" is now up and the extinction of YOU, human beings, is slowly beginning.

I could easily show HOW to prevent the death of yourselves, but WHY would I? Greed would only flourish more within YOU, and YOU would once more only care about SOME and not ALL, and in turn destroy further the one and only home that you now live on. What is far more beneficial IS wiping YOU, human beings, out and allow Life to flourish and prosper again, like it once did before YOU, came along.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:32 pm There is not system of ethics in the academic community that does not give sway to eventual entropy at one point or another.

The "fake news" movement, as well as the increasing propaganda of political ideologies on college campus's, not to mention corporate funding for the majority of scientific research, is pointing towards not just to an inherent bias within information but a fundamental movement where people are beginning to distrust sources of information.

Part of this may be observed intuitively where the continual bombardment of "x" study or some pop trivia we see in social media and various magazines is going to head to a disillusionment with information at one point or another. People one day will start to see that with this increase information a correlative form of disorder will be observed where truth will be strictly deemed as the subjective creation of various parties and individuals.

The philosophical question as to the nature of evidence stems away from a strict empiricism in these regards as statistics not only do not provide any from of certainty but an inherent ambiguity as all statistical studies are just a localization of any set of relations in reality. The localization of any one truth is fundamentally the distortion of another considering clarity in one field leads to a form of ambiguity in another; hence a form of division occurs not just in standard religion, but the sciences of various sorts, as "truth" becomes a form of subjective tribalism leading to a "fear of the dark" where anyone party is afraid to venture away from the tribe in fear of being consumed by what lies beyond the veil around there own intellectual fire.

While the spiritual movements of the past and present have left us with an inherent sense of disillusionment and confusion as to not just the nature of the universe but ourselves, the current scientific priesthood is strictly an reflection of this trend as it is strictly a projection away from its roots in the theocracy of the middle ages relative to the west. The problem occurs with any projection away from one's roots comes an inherent reformulation of them and in many respects the modern world is strictly a cycle to the dark ages of ignorance where the wolves we fear outside our tribe, ready to eat those who leave the group, are not literal but rather humanity itself.

Now while the faiths, and there roots in the past, give mind to an inherent repression of certain aspects of knowledge the same applies strictly in the modern sense as well. This repression is viewed under a new nature, one synonymous to a whirlwind or vortex of relativism, and the modern religion of science is not so advanced from its ancestors in these respects as it requires a continual system of sacrifice to feed this metaphorical "god". Where prior systems used altars for sacrifice to various gods the modern establishment still uses this construct through the altar of the lab table and the temple of the lab itself, the only difference is the nature of what god we are sacrificing too however the reason's for it have changed little.

The premise of "matter" is a fickle god by any standard of the old and any truth we see to infer from something which exists in the dark becomes embodied within not just how man sees the world but his inherent identity as well. This is considering all empirical proof is inherently relativistic by nature, as what is observed through the senses of one individual is observed by those sense's alone in many respects considering one empirical phenomena is observed through various angles through various eyes and no empirical phenomena is effectively the same in these respects.

The problem occurs in that any facet of reality can be localized to observe its inherent relations and studies grounded in statistics observe an inherent subjective nature in these regards as not just the framework, but the variables being measured in the framework, are strictly variables pushed by a specific party.

With the increase in the subjective relativistic movement towards determining truth, where no authority can be trusted except the self, the standard hierarchies of academia and religion will inevitably crumble and be forced to exist as shells of there former selves synonymous in nature to a "tribe".

This tribalism reflects the entropy of knowledge as what is unified man under a common perspective becomes a merely clashing particles in another and we are left through the empirical nature no real truth but the relations of various parts which exist as such if they are viewed as seperate from another.

The main topic is "Supporting Evidences and References are Critical"
so where are your Supporting Evidences and References??

Note Ying Yang with dualism and monism of the Tao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Thus for whatever the entropy, there is an expansion and increase in knowledge with a positive trend of incremental positives [whatever that may be].

You seem to focus only on one side of the equation, i.e. entropy and seem to be blind to the other.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 am
Point 1-4 are your BELIEFS thus counter your point 1.

If that is what you so BELIEVE.

I have asked you before to expose what you BELIEVE my BELIEFS are, so that the readers can SEE what you are imagining.

You have yet done this so that we can look into them in greater detail.

Obviously I can NOT write down what MY BELIEFS are because I do NOT have any.

What you believe is the above, i.e. you don't have BELIEFS.

But I do NOT believe that, as you assume and love to BELIEVE is True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:24 amUntil you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs [which is inherent in all human beings] there is nothing for me to comment.

So do you really BELIEVE that you KNOW what IS inherent in ALL human beings?

BELIEVING that ALL human beings have BELIEFS is about as distorted as BELIEVING that I have BELIEFS.

Also, WHY would I have to communicate and state any thing, to you, that you already BELIEVE that you already KNOW what it IS?

Especially since you were the one that started this thread called; Supporting Evidence and References are Critical, WHERE is your SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and REFERENCES which are, as you state, CRITICAL for your BELIEF that BELIEFS ARE INHERENT IN ALL HUMAN BEINGS?

While you are at it WHERE is your critical supporting evidence and references for what you allege are My BELIEFS?

If I say, I do NOT have BELIEFS, then all that means is I do NOT have BELIEFS. That does NOT mean that I BELIEVE that, nor any thing else.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:57 pm

If that is what you so BELIEVE.

I have asked you before to expose what you BELIEVE my BELIEFS are, so that the readers can SEE what you are imagining.

You have yet done this so that we can look into them in greater detail.

Obviously I can NOT write down what MY BELIEFS are because I do NOT have any.

What you believe is the above, i.e. you don't have BELIEFS.

But I do NOT believe that, as you assume and love to BELIEVE is True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:24 amUntil you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs [which is inherent in all human beings] there is nothing for me to comment.

So do you really BELIEVE that you KNOW what IS inherent in ALL human beings?

Yes, quite sufficiently.
'Beliefs' are fundamental to survival and this activity in believing [irrational or rational] within the human brain/mind had been adapted from our ancestors who had survived with this mental feature, thus embedded and inherent in ALL human beings.

My stance remains;
Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs, there is nothing for me to comment. The activity of believing [BELIEF] is inherent in all human beings.