Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:41 pmWhat is observed is NOT disputed. That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed.

See, this is the bit you don't understand.

Wow that is one HUGE ASSUMPTION you just made, based on just a very few words of mine.

It's not an assumption at all; it is demonstrably the case that you do not understand that the same evidence can support different hypotheses. Do you at least understand that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:11 pm See, this is the bit you don't understand.

Wow that is one HUGE ASSUMPTION you just made, based on just a very few words of mine.

It's not an assumption at all; it is demonstrably the case that you do not understand that the same evidence can support different hypotheses. Do you at least understand that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

The cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).
It is simply the case that the observational process is also an interpretive process. There can be no perfectly objective observation since we carry a massive set of expectations based upon our existing world view.
Observations cannot even be easily expressed without some bias.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:11 pm See, this is the bit you don't understand.

Wow that is one HUGE ASSUMPTION you just made, based on just a very few words of mine.

It's not an assumption at all; it is demonstrably the case that you do not understand that the same evidence can support different hypotheses.

If you want to believe this is actually True, and say and insist that "it is demonstrably the case", then, go right ahead and demonstrate that it is the case.

If you do not this now, then some will be saying that either your position has changed, or you in fact can NOT do it.

Also, absolutely ANY thing could "support" a 'hypotheses'. It all just depends on the 'hypotheses' itself, of course. But what you find and class IS 'evidence', I do NOT. Simple really.

Calling some thing 'evidence' without it being proven to be actual evidence for that thing is NOT some thing I do nor partake in.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:05 am Do you at least understand that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

Yes. Did you assume otherwise?

And, I would actually love to see what your definition of those two words are. I actually did point out, in that post, which you are replying to now:
if you explain how you define and use the word 'evidence' here, then we might not be in dispute. But, once again, NO Honesty nor transparency, from you, was forthcoming.

So, I await to see if, this time, you will define the word 'evidence'? And, to see if you will define the word 'proof' as well.

What it appears now is that what you are really saying is that 'galactic red shift', to you, is evidence that the Universe is expanding, but actually the Universe may not be expanding at all anyway. And, that this is all just some story of yours. If this is somewhat correct, then anyone could make up absolutely any story/hypothesis, and then suggest just about anything is evidence for it, and people like yourself will insist that 'it' is evidence for that made up story/hypothesis?

Just so you are FULLY aware; I do NOT look at different hypotheses, guesses, and/or theories, and then look BACK for evidence, which supposedly supports those obviously just made up stories. I, in fact, do the exact opposite thing. I just look at what actually IS only, and then just keep moving FORWARD. This way EVERY thing is the actual EVIDENCE, and thee PROOF which backs up and supports the next thing, continuously.

One of the very reasons WHY human beings have taken so long to discover and SEE what the actual Truth IS, is because they make up hypotheses and theories, and then go looking for, so called, "evidence", which they can 'try to' use to back up and support these, what are essentially 'just stories'. This is is just 'confirmation bias' at it highest, and worst, level.

I do NOT care much for your made up stories about what COULD BE. They only detract from what thee actual Truth IS anyway. See, I much prefer to just always look at only what actually IS, instead. But do feel free to continue on doing what you do. This 'never-ending searching for, so called, "evidence" for your already made up, make-believe stories seems to make you happy.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 am But, if as you say there is only ONE Consciousness, then that would imply, literally, 'an individual', or, literally, 'individuality'.

If there is only ONE, then that would be 'individuality' in its most accurate and Truest sense. Therefore, that ONE would, literally, be the Truest and thus ONLY real form of an 'individual, BEING.

Yes, that is correct, this BEING is all there is, being itself ALONE ALL ONE, [all be it] appearing as the many.

Oneness is Synonymous with unity, singleness, individuality, unanimity. Every one, aka the many, are this same one in essence, aka Consciousness.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amThe "other" perceived individual 'beings' would, as you say, just be ....?

Would be a perception of other which can only be couched within oneness / consciousness itself, only to BE appearing as the many.
So how can one be many? ..the answer comes from yourself only, from HERE there is no consciousness because there is no other than consciousness.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amCould the only way to break down the ONE into smaller be, literally, with words only?

Yes, to break ONE DOWN is to conceptualise it - in this CONCEPTION...but it's an immaculate conception.

Because, ''other'' is a projection that can only be sourced from the first person singular pronoun. For example: I is the original source of itself, the projection of ''other'' is known as a something, and can only be known in relation to nothing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:59 am

Wow that is one HUGE ASSUMPTION you just made, based on just a very few words of mine.

It's not an assumption at all; it is demonstrably the case that you do not understand that the same evidence can support different hypotheses. Do you at least understand that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

The cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).

You could not have misconstrued me anymore than you have here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am It is simply the case that the observational process is also an interpretive process.

If you had decided to CLARIFY with me first, BEFORE you ASSUMED what I was saying and meaning, then you may have come to realize that what you are saying here has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with what I actually said, AND MEANT.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am There can be no perfectly objective observation since we carry a massive set of expectations based upon out existing world view.

But not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all. In fact, some have absolutely NO 'expectations' at all. But when you use the 'we' word, you maybe referring to some else entirely.

Also, if as you propose and claim here that there can be NO perfectly objective observation, then there is also NO "matter of fact" as absolutely EVERY thing would just be a 'matter of opinion', which includes absolutely EVERY thing you have said here. And, which you would have to Honestly admit, EVERY one of your opinions here could also be completely and utterly WRONG.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am Observations cannot even be easily expressed without some bias.

Again, this has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I actually MEAN.

Oh, and by the way, I totally agree that;
1. When people disagree about what they have actually observed, then this will cause great confusion among them.
2. The observational process, for some people, is an interpretive process.
3. Some people have a massive set of expectations, based upon their existing, so called, "world" view, which directly results in distorting them from what thee One and ONLY actual universal view IS, and, which directly distorts them from learning HOW to have and be at an advantage point where one can actually obtain a perfect objective observation. (But obviously if one ALREADY BELIEVES that a Truly objective observation is NOT possible, then they would NOT be OPEN enough to SEE this. They would BELIEVE that their observation here is, contradictory, a view that cannot be disputed nor refuted).
4. Observations cannot even be easily expressed and understood, by those with biases.

Also, if you are ever become interested in actually finding out and knowing how your assumptions, interpretations, and biases have so misconstrued what I have actually meant, then I will be more than happy and glad to answer any and all of your clarifying questions.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 am But, if as you say there is only ONE Consciousness, then that would imply, literally, 'an individual', or, literally, 'individuality'.

If there is only ONE, then that would be 'individuality' in its most accurate and Truest sense. Therefore, that ONE would, literally, be the Truest and thus ONLY real form of an 'individual, BEING.

Yes, that is correct, this BEING is all there is, being itself ALONE ALL ONE, [all be it] appearing as the many.

Oneness is Synonymous with unity, singleness, individuality, unanimity. Every one, aka the many, are this same one in essence, aka Consciousness.

But, 'these many' could NOT, in essence, be thee One Consciousness, Itself. They are just parts of thee One. They are also certainly NOT YET conscious of what thee Consciousness actually IS.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amThe "other" perceived individual 'beings' would, as you say, just be ....?

Would be a perception of other which can only be couched within oneness / consciousness itself, only to BE appearing as the many.
So how can one be many? ..the answer comes from yourself only, from HERE there is no consciousness because there is no other than consciousness.

But how could there be a 'yourself', or even a 'your' 'self' to provide an answer, if 'you' or a 'yourself' can only BE an appearance of many. Obviously is only to "BE appearing as some thing", then it actually does NOT exist all.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amCould the only way to break down the ONE into smaller be, literally, with words only?

Yes, to break ONE DOWN is to conceptualise it - in this CONCEPTION...but it's an immaculate conception.

Because, ''other'' is a projection that can only be sourced from the first person singular pronoun. For example: I is the original source of itself, the projection of ''other'' is known as a something, and can only be known in relation to nothing.

Or, in relation to thy Self, or thee One Self, also known as Consciousness, Itself.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 am But, if as you say there is only ONE Consciousness, then that would imply, literally, 'an individual', or, literally, 'individuality'.

If there is only ONE, then that would be 'individuality' in its most accurate and Truest sense. Therefore, that ONE would, literally, be the Truest and thus ONLY real form of an 'individual, BEING.

Yes, that is correct, this BEING is all there is, being itself ALONE ALL ONE, [all be it] appearing as the many.

Oneness is Synonymous with unity, singleness, individuality, unanimity. Every one, aka the many, are this same one in essence, aka Consciousness.

But, 'these many' could NOT, in essence, be thee One Consciousness, Itself. They are just parts of thee One. They are also certainly NOT YET conscious of what thee Consciousness actually IS.

The parts are not Conscious of what Consciousness actually is, because the parts are known by the only knowing there is which is Consciousness itself. Parts are appearances within Consciousness and do not exist in and of themselves.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amBut how could there be a 'yourself', or even a 'your' 'self' to provide an answer, if 'you' or a 'yourself' can only BE an appearance of many. Obviously is only to "BE appearing as some thing", then it actually does NOT exist all.

There is no perception without a perceiver. The perception is a known appearance within the perceiver, known to itself only, the only knowing there is. You are that knowing. As consciousness,you are the questioner and the answering in the same instant.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:07 pmOr, in relation to thy Self, or thee One Self, also known as Consciousness, Itself.

Yes, that is correct. The Self is known only through the duality of opposites in relation to itself only.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 amThe cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).

Well yeah, the theory-dependence of observation and all that; but frankly what hope is there that some loon who capitalises arbitrarily and writes Thee will ever accept that? After all, it was in this very thread that FlashDangerpants posted this link: https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science which had no discernible impact on anyone who isn't already up to speed.

soMe LoOns aRe BetTer tHAn otHErS

ARBITRARILY Thee...

Accept - Princess of the Dawn

acting upon observations can be troublesome for not all interpretations of that which is observed are accurate for the wider audience...

-Imp

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:01 am If that is what you see them as being, and you say they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

As I have already said and noted; the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

Thus, the more that is actually being REVEALED, again thanks to 'you'.

Those that are starting to discover, learn, and understand and know who and what the 'you' actually IS, will be-coming Truly amazed at what is actually unfolding here NOW, and on reflection, what has been unfolding and coming-to-light.

The Unfolding has spoken. We are all witnessing something beautiful.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:53 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:05 am
It's not an assumption at all; it is demonstrably the case that you do not understand that the same evidence can support different hypotheses. Do you at least understand that evidence and proof are not the same thing?

The cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).

You could not have misconstrued me anymore than you have here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am It is simply the case that the observational process is also an interpretive process.

If you had decided to CLARIFY with me first, BEFORE you ASSUMED what I was saying and meaning, then you may have come to realize that what you are saying here has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with what I actually said, AND MEANT.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am There can be no perfectly objective observation since we carry a massive set of expectations based upon out existing world view.

But not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all. In fact, some have absolutely NO 'expectations' at all. But when you use the 'we' word, you maybe referring to some else entirely.

When you stop getting so hysterical and TRY to actually understand what people are trying to communicate to you, you will learn something.
We all, and at all times carry expectations. Your idiotic response is a case in point.
You have expected and only seen what you want to see in what I have written and utterly failed to find anything in it you did not expect to find. In that you are, as per usual, wrong on a series of levels you could not even hint at.

Also, if as you propose and claim here that there can be NO perfectly objective observation, then there is also NO "matter of fact" as absolutely EVERY thing would just be a 'matter of opinion', which includes absolutely EVERY thing you have said here. And, which you would have to Honestly admit, EVERY one of your opinions here could also be completely and utterly WRONG.

Since there is no place you can stand without having a point of view, yes, there can be no perfect objective observation. In the first instance you can only look with your eyes. The human eye is not capable of seeing everything in front of it. People see what they can only see, and usually what they want to see. They only see what they consider relevant. That immediately eliminates them from being able to see a thing perfectly objectively.
This is psychology 101.
It's not difficult, but you might have to stop bleating and actually THINK for a few seconds.
I shall not be holding my breath.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am Observations cannot even be easily expressed without some bias.

Again, this has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I actually MEAN.

You don't even know what you mean.

Oh, and by the way, I totally agree that;
1. When people disagree about what they have actually observed, then this will cause great confusion among them.
2. The observational process, for some people, is an interpretive process.
3. Some people have a massive set of expectations, based upon their existing, so called, "world" view, which directly results in distorting them from what thee One and ONLY actual universal view IS, and, which directly distorts them from learning HOW to have and be at an advantage point where one can actually obtain a perfect objective observation. (But obviously if one ALREADY BELIEVES that a Truly objective observation is NOT possible, then they would NOT be OPEN enough to SEE this. They would BELIEVE that their observation here is, contradictory, a view that cannot be disputed nor refuted).
4. Observations cannot even be easily expressed and understood, by those with biases.

Also, if you are ever become interested in actually finding out and knowing how your assumptions, interpretations, and biases have so misconstrued what I have actually meant, then I will be more than happy and glad to answer any and all of your clarifying questions.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:23 am

Yes, that is correct, this BEING is all there is, being itself ALONE ALL ONE, [all be it] appearing as the many.

Oneness is Synonymous with unity, singleness, individuality, unanimity. Every one, aka the many, are this same one in essence, aka Consciousness.

But, 'these many' could NOT, in essence, be thee One Consciousness, Itself. They are just parts of thee One. They are also certainly NOT YET conscious of what thee Consciousness actually IS.

The parts are not Conscious of what Consciousness actually is, because the parts are known by the only knowing there is which is Consciousness itself. Parts are appearances within Consciousness and do not exist in and of themselves.

Are 'you' agreeing or disagreeing with 'me' here?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:39 amBut how could there be a 'yourself', or even a 'your' 'self' to provide an answer, if 'you' or a 'yourself' can only BE an appearance of many. Obviously is only to "BE appearing as some thing", then it actually does NOT exist all.

There is no perception without a perceiver. The perception is a known appearance within the perceiver, known to itself only, the only knowing there is. You are that knowing. As consciousness,you are the questioner and the answering in the same instant.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:07 pmOr, in relation to thy Self, or thee One Self, also known as Consciousness, Itself.

Yes, that is correct. The Self is known only through the duality of opposites in relation to itself only.

If 'you' are saying what is correct or not correct, then that means 'you' know, and, if the only knowing there is, is Consciousness, Itself, then that would mean that 'you' are Consciousness, Itself, correct?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:01 am If that is what you see them as being, and you say they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

As I have already said and noted; the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

Thus, the more that is actually being REVEALED, again thanks to 'you'.

Those that are starting to discover, learn, and understand and know who and what the 'you' actually IS, will be-coming Truly amazed at what is actually unfolding here NOW, and on reflection, what has been unfolding and coming-to-light.

The Unfolding has spoken. We are all witnessing something beautiful.

As I already implied, the more that you write, then the more is actually being REVEALED.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 amThe cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).

Well yeah, the theory-dependence of observation and all that; but frankly what hope is there that some loon who capitalises arbitrarily and writes Thee will ever accept that? After all, it was in this very thread that FlashDangerpants posted this link: https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science which had no discernible impact on anyone who isn't already up to speed.

Yet another one who appears to have absolutely NO idea at all with what my; 'What is observed is NOT disputed' comment is actually referring to and meaning, and they NEVER will know if they continue on with the absolutely CLOSED way of looking at things that they are showing and revealing here.

Just because 'you', human beings, have not yet used the word 'blue' does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' did not yet see 'blue'.

This fact is the exact same with how 'you', human beings, individually have not yet used all of the 450 or so emotional words to describe how you each actually emotionally feel at different times, but this also does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' did not yet feel or experience all of those emotions.

Just because you do not have or use a word YET that does NOT mean that you are not yet seeing or experiencing that 'thing'.

It is said that human beings once did not see the color orange, and the ability to see the color orange, which 'you' can now see when this is being written, came about because of the fruit, orange.

Also, and by the way, 'you', human beings will NEVER know if the color you each, individually, see is the exact same color for "another", as I have already explained why.

So, 'what is observed is NOT disputed', as I have previously said.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:53 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am
The cause of greatest confusion when trying to make distinction between matter of opinion and matter of fact is this myth "What is observed is NOT disputed. " (quoted from Age above).

You could not have misconstrued me anymore than you have here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am It is simply the case that the observational process is also an interpretive process.

If you had decided to CLARIFY with me first, BEFORE you ASSUMED what I was saying and meaning, then you may have come to realize that what you are saying here has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with what I actually said, AND MEANT.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am There can be no perfectly objective observation since we carry a massive set of expectations based upon out existing world view.

But not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all. In fact, some have absolutely NO 'expectations' at all. But when you use the 'we' word, you maybe referring to some else entirely.

When you stop getting so hysterical and TRY to actually understand what people are trying to communicate to you, you will learn something.

Just as I was implying, if you decided to CLARIFY with me first, then you will SHOW that you are actually trying to understand what I am communicating, to you, and then you will have learned some thing.

Why did you make the assumption that I was "getting so hysterical"?

Now, you have made the other assumption that I am not understanding what you are trying to communicate, and so I did not learn something.

So, what was it that you were trying to communicate to me? What is that thing you want, think, or believe I could learn?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm We all, and at all times carry expectations. Your idiotic response is a case in point.

In case you MISSED it, I said; 'But not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all.

And, if you decide to CLARIFY with me first, then you will SHOW that you are actually trying to understand what I am communicating, to yu, and then you may learn some thing.

Now, you made the HUGE CLAIM that 'we' ALL, and at ALL times carry expectations. I am NOT sure what else you could be 'trying to' communicate here other than "ALL people at ALL times carry expectations". Is this what you are 'trying to' communicate, with me?

If yes, then that WAS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD.

Now, let us see if you understand what I am trying to communicate, to you. Do you understand what I ACTUALLY MEAN when I say; 'Not ALL carry a massive set of 'expectations' at all, as you claimed earlier on?

If yes, then what do I ACTUALLY MEAN?

But if you do not yet understand, then I have ALREADY suggested what to do.

Oh, and by the way, you have now made the claim that "Your idiotic response is a case in point". Are you at all AWARE that just because I do NOT agree with you and do NOT accept your conclusions and claims that this then does NOT mean that I do not understand what you are saying, AND MEANING?

If you were NOT aware before, then you are NOW.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm You have expected and only seen what you want to see in what I have written and utterly failed to find anything in it you did not expect to find.

What are you ASSUMING and CLAIMING I "expected" to see in what you have written? And, what have I, supposedly, "utterly failed to find anything in what you wrote, which I supposedly did not "expect" to find?

From my perspective, the VERY THINGS you are ASSUMING and CLAIMING in regards to 'me' is EXACTLY what 'you', yourself, are doing.

I was NOT 'expecting' ANY thing in what you wrote. What I saw was what you wrote, which was;
"we carry a massive set of expectations based upon out existing world view."

If that does NOT mean "we carry a massive set of expectations based upon our existing world view", then what does that actually mean?

Also, I was even OPEN enough to ask you to clarify what the word 'we' here was in reference to, SO THAT I did NOT make any assumptions at all.

I was NOT and am NOT 'expecting' ANY thing at all from your writings.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm In that you are, as per usual, wrong on a series of levels you could not even hint at.

There has been probably countless times I have been accused of being "wrong" YET NOT ONE shred of evidence is provided for this. NOT even a hint as to what it is that I am supposedly "wrong" about is even given other than PRIME EXAMPLES like this one, which is: "You are wrong on a series of levels".

Now, do NOT forget you are in a philosophy forum. Therefore, I suggest backing up and supporting this claim with some actual evidence and/or proof, so that we at least have SOME thing to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

I purposely came into a philosophy forum to get my views scrutinized, criticized, and challenged. I also wanted to be questioned in regards to what I say. Yet I get more successful attempts at this from kindergarten aged children then I do from most in this forum.

How many times are you going to hint that I am WRONG but NEVER provide any actual thing for your claim other than that is what you BELIEVE?

Have you noticed just HOW MANY TIMES all you do is say what you BELIEVE IS TRUE but NEVER provide any evidence nor proof for it?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm

Also, if as you propose and claim here that there can be NO perfectly objective observation, then there is also NO "matter of fact" as absolutely EVERY thing would just be a 'matter of opinion', which includes absolutely EVERY thing you have said here. And, which you would have to Honestly admit, EVERY one of your opinions here could also be completely and utterly WRONG.

Since there is no place you can stand without having a point of view, yes, there can be no perfect objective observation.

BUT WHY?

What does 'perfect objective observation' ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

See, from my perspective, these two things you have proposed here DO NOT necessarily belong with each other. Certainly YOUR conclusion does NOT follow on from YOUR premise.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm In the first instance you can only look with your eyes.

So, does this mean to you that ALL, so called, "blind people" can NOT have a point of view?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm The human eye is not capable of seeing everything in front of it. People see what they can only see, and usually what they want to see.

They only see what they consider relevant. That immediately eliminates them from being able to see a thing perfectly objectively.[/quote] Do you fall into these categories as well?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pmThis is psychology 101.

LOL

If that is psychology 101, then there is about 1 million and 1 more lessons you have to also learn.

Also, you say that like psychology does not change.

Was psychology 101 in the 1920 the SAME as in the year 1980 as it is in the year 2020?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm It's not difficult, but you might have to stop bleating and actually THINK for a few seconds.

Once again, each time you talk ABOUT 'me' the resemblance to 'you' is STRIKINGLY BRIGHT.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:03 pm I shall not be holding my breath.

Again, the resemblance is as CLEAR as daylight.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:46 am Observations cannot even be easily expressed without some bias.

Again, this has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I actually MEAN.

You don't even know what you mean.

Oh, and by the way, I totally agree that;
1. When people disagree about what they have actually observed, then this will cause great confusion among them.
2. The observational process, for some people, is an interpretive process.
3. Some people have a massive set of expectations, based upon their existing, so called, "world" view, which directly results in distorting them from what thee One and ONLY actual universal view IS, and, which directly distorts them from learning HOW to have and be at an advantage point where one can actually obtain a perfect objective observation. (But obviously if one ALREADY BELIEVES that a Truly objective observation is NOT possible, then they would NOT be OPEN enough to SEE this. They would BELIEVE that their observation here is, contradictory, a view that cannot be disputed nor refuted).
4. Observations cannot even be easily expressed and understood, by those with biases.

Also, if you are ever become interested in actually finding out and knowing how your assumptions, interpretations, and biases have so misconstrued what I have actually meant, then I will be more than happy and glad to answer any and all of your clarifying questions.

As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED ONCE AGAIN, NOT ONE solitary notion of interest NOR investigation to what I am actually saying AND MEANING is being shown.