The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am How can an obvious FACT that is obvious to YOU have the possibility of being WRONG, also?

Because I don't think in absolutes. I am happy with probabilities. I take informed guesses.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am However, what we are talking about is YOUR very own remark that was, and is supposedly an obvious FACT to you but you also admit could be WRONG. Very contradictory statement to make, from My perspective.

I could be wrong. But I took the chance and said it anyway based on the information I had.

So I am either right or I am wrong. At this point I assume/believe you are no older than 25. You will prove me wrong by telling me your actual age.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:33 pm

Hang on!

I ask you a simple clarifying question, from a completely OPEN viewpoint, and you respond back like this. WHY?

Now I have to ask you more simple clarifying questions; Fix what exactly? What is 'it' that you are referring to in relation to "easy" and "obvious".

You are the one who said some thing is obvious but it could we be wrong. I was just clarifying how some thing to you can be obvious but also be wrong at the same time? Does not the word 'obvious' mean more or less that WHATEVER is obvious could NOT be wrong?

Something can be both true and false (obvious) at the same time as the "truth/falsity" paradigm are duals which exist at the "same time but different respects".

I may look at a tree and see it for what it exists. This is obvious. What is not obvious is movement through time and materiality which led to its creation and destruction as these "things" cannot be observed in and of themselves.

When one "localizes" a truth, one sees the "locality" as true but incomplete in itself.

Obviousness is simplicity, in one manner or another, which gives a foundation to complexity.

You are way, way off topic once again. None of what you wrote is in relation to what I asked to clarify in regards to what YOU, yourself, wrote. What was; The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong,

How can an obvious FACT that is obvious to YOU have the possibility of being WRONG, also?

We are NOT talking about a thing moving through "time" and "materiality" (as if that was even possible?). However, what we are talking about is YOUR very own remark that was, and is supposedly an obvious FACT to you but you also admit could be WRONG. Very contradictory statement to make, from My perspective.

You can TRY and off in as many different tangents as you like but the fact still remains that you wrote what you did, and, I am TRYING TO gain some clarity from you.

YOU ALSO, continually do NOT even attempt to respond to my other clarifying questions in regards to what you say and write down.

What questions? This was the first post I remember between us, and if it is not then there are not that many or whatever question you ask is not notified to me because of absence of quotation.

Are you talking about philosophy And what people want from it?

The reference was not to your age, but rather the logic of something being right and wrong at the same time. It is possible. The post is relevant to the 2nd question before the last. What are you talking about, the issue with age is between you and timeseeker...?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:21 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am How can an obvious FACT that is obvious to YOU have the possibility of being WRONG, also?

Because I don't think in absolutes like you do. I take informed guesses.

So, REALLY it was NOT OBVIOUS. It was just an, miss/informed, guess, RIGHT?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:21 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am However, what we are talking about is YOUR very own remark that was, and is supposedly an obvious FACT to you but you also admit could be WRONG. Very contradictory statement to make, from My perspective.

I could be wrong. But I took the chance and said it anyway based on the information I had.

Which may be right or my be wrong.

So, you base your "obvious facts" on information that you had, which may be right or it may be wrong, is that correct?

So I am either right or I am wrong. At this point I assume/believe you are no older than 25. You will prove me wrong by telling me your actual age.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:21 amI am not an absolutist. You are.

Are you once again NOW basing this apparent "obvious fact" to you that 'I' am an absolutist ALSO on the information that you have that may be right but also may be wrong?

When you able to answer the question who am 'I'? then you will KNOW who 'I' am, and then you will KNOW if you are right or not.

Until then you will HAVE to keep making those ASSUMPTIONS that you keep making and keep going the way you are, which the way you are going you will NEVER make the right assumption. OR, you could just remain OPEN instead and find, discover, and/or learn what the actual TRUTH IS. You are NOT getting anywhere the way you are going now.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:57 pm


Something can be both true and false (obvious) at the same time as the "truth/falsity" paradigm are duals which exist at the "same time but different respects".

I may look at a tree and see it for what it exists. This is obvious. What is not obvious is movement through time and materiality which led to its creation and destruction as these "things" cannot be observed in and of themselves.

When one "localizes" a truth, one sees the "locality" as true but incomplete in itself.

Obviousness is simplicity, in one manner or another, which gives a foundation to complexity.

You are way, way off topic once again. None of what you wrote is in relation to what I asked to clarify in regards to what YOU, yourself, wrote. What was; The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong,

How can an obvious FACT that is obvious to YOU have the possibility of being WRONG, also?

We are NOT talking about a thing moving through "time" and "materiality" (as if that was even possible?). However, what we are talking about is YOUR very own remark that was, and is supposedly an obvious FACT to you but you also admit could be WRONG. Very contradictory statement to make, from My perspective.

You can TRY and off in as many different tangents as you like but the fact still remains that you wrote what you did, and, I am TRYING TO gain some clarity from you.

YOU ALSO, continually do NOT even attempt to respond to my other clarifying questions in regards to what you say and write down.

What questions? This was the first post I remember between us, and if it is not then there are not that many or whatever question you ask is not notified to me because of absence of quotation.

Are you talking about philosophy And what people want from it?

The reference was not to your age, but rather the logic of something being right and wrong at the same time. It is possible. The post is relevant to the 2nd question before the last. What are you talking about, the issue with age is between you and timeseeker...?

Sorry it was My fault completely. I only noticed your name AFTER I responded. I have already re-edited my response. Apologies again

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:32 am So, REALLY it was NOT OBVIOUS. It was just an, miss/informed, guess, RIGHT?

Yes. I never claimed otherwise. Being less wrong implies being better at guessing.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am So, you base your "obvious facts" on information that you had, which may be right or it may be wrong, is that correct?

Well. I assumed you aren't lying to me. I also considered that you may be engaging in Socratic irony, but I have no way of knowing that so whatever.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am Are you once again NOW basing this apparent "obvious fact" to you that 'I' am an absolutist ALSO on the information that you have that may be right but also may be wrong?

I am basing it on your insistence of 'absolute perfection'. I am basing it on your current line of enquiry itself.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am When you able to answer the question who am 'I'? then you will KNOW who 'I' am, and then you will KNOW if you are right or not.

I don't really care who you are. I am commenting on what you DO. I am commenting on your BEHAVIOUR, not on your being.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am Until then you will HAVE to keep making those ASSUMPTIONS that you keep making and keep going the way you are, which the way you are going you will NEVER make the right assumption. OR, you could just remain OPEN instead and find, discover, and/or learn what the actual TRUTH IS. You are NOT getting anywhere the way you are going now.

OK. So how old are you?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:32 am So, REALLY it was NOT OBVIOUS. It was just an, miss/informed, guess, RIGHT?

Yes. I never claimed otherwise. Being less wrong implies being better at guessing.

So, what am I now to interpret you when you use the word 'OBVIOUS' from now on?

When, and if, you use the term 'some thing is obvious to you' am I to interpret that as you KNOWING or just you making an assumption and/or guess about that thing?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am So, you base your "obvious facts" on information that you had, which may be right or it may be wrong, is that correct?

Well. I assumed you aren't lying to me.

Well. I hope you did not assume that. Because I did NOT say any thing regarding an age.

You were the one WHO came up with the age of some thing. NOT ME. I NEVER mentioned any thing about an age, so I am now very curious to KNOW what you were making the assumption that I were not lying to you was about?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am I also considered that you may be engaging in Socratic irony, but I have no way of knowing that so whatever.

You actually DO have a way. The truth is at that moment you were just unsure of how KNOWING that. And, I would NOT be surprised at all if you are still unsure how to KNOW that.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am Are you once again NOW basing this apparent "obvious fact" to you that 'I' am an absolutist ALSO on the information that you have that may be right but also may be wrong?

I am basing it on your insistence of 'absolute perfection'. I am basing it on your current line of enquiry itself.

Great, now we are getting a lot closer to the final point that I have wanted to make in this discussion.

What is My current line of enquiry actually for, do you KNOW?

By the way, IS EVERY one who says that they see 'absolute perfection' in some thing and 'absolutist', to you?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am When you able to answer the question who am 'I'? then you will KNOW who 'I' am, and then you will KNOW if you are right or not.

I don't really care who you are.

You misinterpreted My question. I said, in case you did NOT see it, When 'YOU' are able to answer the question, Who am 'I'? then ....

Remember there are more than one way to interpret some thing.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am I am commenting on what you DO. I am commenting on your BEHAVIOUR, not on your being.

When you say 'comment' you mean you are making a 'judgmental' interpretation, based on the information that you have which may be completely or partly right, or, may in fact be completely or partially wrong. The 'judgmental interpretation' that you are making just being an ASSUMPTION only, of which can only really be based on your own individual personal past experiences. Is this about right?

And also, the BEHAVIOR that you are "commenting" on, is that ALL based on these very words before your eyes. Is this about right also?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am Until then you will HAVE to keep making those ASSUMPTIONS that you keep making and keep going the way you are, which the way you are going you will NEVER make the right assumption. OR, you could just remain OPEN instead and find, discover, and/or learn what the actual TRUTH IS. You are NOT getting anywhere the way you are going now.

OK. So how old are you?

That depends.

Is it really of any importance to the discussions that we are having here, in this face-less forum?

Does the age of a human body, from where thoughts are expressed from, have any real bearing on any thing?

Does KNOWING the age a body of meat and bones allow you to further comment on what that body "DOES" and on the "BEHAVIOR", which you wish to JUDGE it on, really going to of be of any benefit to a DISCUSSION, which IS just an exchange of invisible words?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am So, what am I now to interpret you when you use the word 'OBVIOUS' from now on?

There is sufficient information to make a good enough inference.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am Well. I hope you did not assume that. Because I did NOT say any thing regarding an age.

I didn't say anything about age, you assumed I did (if this is the game you want to play, I can).

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am You were the one WHO came up with the age of some thing. NOT ME. I NEVER mentioned any thing about an age, so I am now very curious to KNOW what you were making the assumption that I were not lying to you was about?

You were the one who brought it up out of context.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am You actually DO have a way. The truth is at that moment you were just unsure of how KNOWING that. And, I would NOT be surprised at all if you are still unsure how to KNOW that.

You mean hypothesis testing? I am a Bayesian At any one moment I am testing at least 6. You only get to hear 1.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am What is My current line of enquiry actually for, do you KNOW?

The only way I can guess your intent is via abductive reasoning, not a deductive reasoning. And so I have no way of verifying my guess until you tell me what your intentions are. But I do have a hypothesis, and my hypothesis is that I don't care what your enquiry is for

But would it be fair, in turn, to say that I was correct in GUESSING (but not telling you that I GUESSED) that you are not OPEN and HONEST about your intentions?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am Remember there are more than one way to interpret some thing.

Depending on your background in linguistics and statistics we could debate this point. I think there is actually an infinite number of ways to interpret things Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am

OK. So how old are you?

That depends. Is it really of any importance to the discussions that we are having here, in this face-less forum?

Does the age of a human body, from where thoughts are expressed from, have any real bearing on any thing?
[/quote]
Well. Since you are running a little experiment - so am I. I am showing the distinction between abductive and deductive reasoning. Without a mechanism for verification deduction is IMPOSSIBLE (laws of physics stuff)

And so you won't tell me. So I am going with what I have. Best guess from the information available.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am Does the age of a human body, from where thoughts are expressed from, have any real bearing on any thing?

The CONTENTS? No. But if I guessed your age correctly, one ought to say that the way you speak reveals something about you.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am Does KNOWING the age a body of meat and bones allow you to further comment on what that body "DOES" and on the "BEHAVIOR", which you wish to JUDGE it on, really going to of be of any benefit to a DISCUSSION, which IS just an exchange of invisible words?

If I guessed (predicted) correctly - then I would say it's a hypothesis worth looking into

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:49 am So, what am I now to interpret you when you use the word 'OBVIOUS' from now on?

There is sufficient information to make a good enough inference.

But the "sufficient" information that you have so far provided is that what is OBVIOUS to you, may also in fact actually be WRONG.

So, with that "sufficient" information that is what observers may infer.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:01 amIf I guessed (predicted) correctly - then I would say it's a hypothesis worth looking into

A hypothesis worth looking into, for WHAT EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm But the "sufficient" information that you have so far provided is that what is OBVIOUS to you, may also in fact actually be WRONG.

It may also in fact be CORRECT. Risk vs reward kinda thing.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm So, with that "sufficient" information that is what observers may infer.

High risk: 15 to 20decibels
Low risk: 5-7 decibels

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm A hypothesis worth looking into, for WHAT EXACTLY?

Whatever I feel like

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm But the "sufficient" information that you have so far provided is that what is OBVIOUS to you, may also in fact actually be WRONG.

It may also in fact be CORRECT. Risk vs reward kinda thing.

So, really to you, the definition of the word 'obvious' can also really mean 'NOT obvious'?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm A hypothesis worth looking into, for WHAT EXACTLY?

Whatever I feel like

So, really that hypothesis may NOT really be worth looking into after all?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:11 pm So, really to you, the definition of the word 'obvious' can also really mean 'NOT obvious'?

It can also mean a unicorn.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm So, really that hypothesis may NOT really be worth looking into after all?

That is not a grammatically correct sentence. it has no subject.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:11 pm So, really to you, the definition of the word 'obvious' can also really mean 'NOT obvious'?

It can also mean a unicorn.

If, to you, the definition of the word 'obvious' can also mean 'unicorn', then so be it.

I have just been trying to understand how you use words. That is all.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm So, really that hypothesis may NOT really be worth looking into after all?

That is not a grammatically correct sentence. it has no subject.

Finally. I have been wanting help in learning how to communicate better. Thank you.

Because I, literally, do NOT know how to make a grammatically (if that even is an actual word?) correct sentence, then I will just have to make a guess.

So, really that hypothesis, that you thought up all by yourself, may NOT really be worth looking into after all?

Now, is that a grammatically correct sentence? Does it now have a subject?

Once again, thank you.

I will NOT thank you in advance because I do NOT know if you will continue helping me or not.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:28 pm I do NOT know if you will continue helping me or not.

You don't deal well with uncertainty, do you?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:28 pm Finally. I have been wanting help in learning how to communicate better. Thank you.

I think you are lying though. How do I know that you actually understood what I am saying? What if you didn't and you are just confused. Or if you are still deceitful about your intentions? Maybe I have to re-explain.

After all, you have been OBSERVING, but not LEARNING how to use language. Now I just said the magic phrase and *poof* you learned just like that? Open Sesame? Maybe you should have expressed your EXPECTATIONS more clearly?

Which ASPECTS of communication are you struggling with and why wasn't Information Theory good enough for you?

Information theory studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Since you had a very narrow-minded conception of COMMUNICATION, Maybe that hypothesis is worth following up after all?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:28 pm I do NOT know if you will continue helping me or not.

You don't deal well with uncertainty, do you?

WHAT made you ASSUME that?

Was it SOLELY because I did NOT thank you in advance?

By the way WHAT does 'not dealing well with' actually entail?

Did you NOT deal with my NOT thanking you in advance?