Philosophy Now Forum

...and you two should get a room.



Twaddle.

Satyr:

Two things...
First, the truth is a human abstraction of reality.
Therefore it is relative the the mind constructing it.

This needs justified, as it looks suspiciously incoherent/inconsistent/self-contradictory. Presupposing that reality is different than what we think it is necessarily invokes truth. While truth is relative in a way, it is not relative in the way presented here.

The more a mind perceives or can incorporate into its mental models, abstractions, the more intricate its "truth" is.

What is this supposed to mean?

Second, reality is fluid, and truth is a static representation of it, which no matter how up to date it is, it is lagging behind.

This is complete and utter bollocks. It's shows a complete lack of understanding what truth is, and the role that it plays.

Reality is a process, truth is a model of it.

No it's not.

Reality is dynamic and ongoing - it is constant interactivity. Truth is static.

Again, this is gibberish. Do you think that truth has nothing to do with time? At time t1, X either is the case or not.

creativesoul wrote:...and you two should get a room.



Twaddle.

I can't help it if he fancies me.

Satyr wrote:... Like a typical woman you use gossip and insinuation to emotionally affect because rationally you have nothing to offer. you have about as much of an idea about what reality is as you do about my ex-wife and what resulted in our divorce. ...

Apart from what you stated last time you were here.

Tell me the truth, have you ever had sexual fantasies about a man? ...

Once or twice. Have you?

What does any of the rest have to do with the topic or the questions I asked you?

Satyr wrote:Two things...
First, the truth is a human abstraction of reality.
Therefore it is relative the the mind constructing it.
The more a mind perceives or can incorporate into its mental models, abstractions, the more intricate its "truth" is.

Second, reality is fluid, and truth is a static representation of it, which no matter how up to date it is, it is lagging behind.
Reality is a process, truth is a model of it.
Reality is dynamic and ongoing - it is constant interactivity. Truth is static.

old stuff, boy. achilles cant catch even female pregnant tortoise in a soup. the newest order of the world, science has better or better have at least longer bed time story - evolution. thus not spoke nietzsche but hugged a horse anyway. those animals have bigger heads and all. its even more abstract theory of mother natures blindness than any of those older religious god told us-stories about how men are blind and women likes puppies. why should we praise the lord or mens intelligent hubris rather than other and even funnier ways of blindness? like when they can see that they dont see!? when achilles catch the tortoise and give the first price of silliest games of all to our new hero, [deep male voice over]the tortoise[/deep male voice over]? will the alltime olympic winner stop running away? stop you fool, you won! its all over! i know that you hear me because i am still running right at your tale or back door, seeing you better and better every day! buhahaa! eat that truth of reality check! any flies in the soup will be charged extra.

creativesoul wrote:This needs justified, as it looks suspiciously incoherent/inconsistent/self-contradictory. Presupposing that reality is different than what we think it is necessarily invokes truth. While truth is relative in a way, it is not relative in the way presented here.

Statement with no accompanying arguments.

[urlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34113126/Interaction ... pretations]Interactions and Interpretations [/url]

Name one aspect of its "self-contradiction".

Simple minds cannot but submit to the power of language, dear boy.
Simple mind, the statement "truth is there is no truth" is only self-contradicting because it negates a supposition which presupposes truth.

All languages do this, including math.
The thing, is presupposed, giving rise to the dichotomies of nothing/something which are falsely opposites because they both presume thingness.

Math presupposes the #1...to which it follow that the 0 negates.

These statements are logical in the sense that they adhere to their own presupposed principles.
So 1+1=2 is a logical conclusion only if you assume that there is a 1 to begin with.

All languages presuppose the absent, because they are all reflections of human abstractions or representative of how the mind works.
The path-of-least resistance is taken and so the easiest method is used...in this case binary logic.

I/you, evil/good, here/there, now/then, something/nothing, one/zero, order/disorder...etc.

All these concepts are taken as absolute, when there is not such thing.
Absolute zero temperature and the infamous non-dividable particle, the atomo (atom) still allude discovery.

Now, since all language presupposes what is nowhere in evidence to negate it using language one must assume its presumptions, leading in paradoxes and those dreaded self-contradictions.

Like with the statement: "There are absolutely no absolutes"...right?
The statement simply denies what the sentence presupposes, placing the language in conflict with itself.

But in order to conceive and perceive the mind MUST create these abstractions, which are then take literally, resulting in the absurdity of God.
So, that the mind needs, here need is a basic part of all existing, an absolute, in order to make a fluid reality more comprehensible it takes this fact and thinks that its own projections are really real, rather than merely its own projections.

Allow me to use a metaphor to make it even easier on you:
The mind is like a photograph machine that can also splice and connect the photos taken, continuously, resulting in the perception of movement.
But this act creates gaps between splices, necessarily, as the mind cannot understand fluidity directly. In these gaps the mind constructs all kinds of hypotheticals when they are but a product of its own inadequacy and limitations.
Now, each snapshot is like a frozen interpretation of the world, taken in by the senses" the lens or the microphone, if you will. The mind then begins believing absolutes because it creates these frozen simplified, generalized instances, which are only mental abstractions. The concepts of a beginning and an end, a Big Bang, a Cause with no effect (God) an ideal, as various ways the mind defines these abstractions.

In fact there is no cut between one instance and the next, because fluidity, activity, is a continuum. Proof of this is that no matter how deeply we delve the absolute eludes us; the particle is infinite divisible; the border fades into a new boundary and no beginning or end is ever found, no matter how had deluded religious fanatics imagine them.

creativesoul wrote:What is this supposed to mean?

Sorry there's only so much dumbing-down I can indulge in before I start feeling silly myself.

The link provided offers a more complete view of my perspective.
Read it or do not...who the fuck cares?

creativesoul wrote:This is complete and utter bollocks. It's shows a complete lack of understanding what truth is, and the role that it plays.

It appears to play the role of a God for you...something you worship.

creativesoul wrote: No it's not.

Excellent response.

creativesoul wrote:Again, this is gibberish. Do you think that truth has nothing to do with time? At time t1, X either is the case or not.

Turd, time is a human standard for measuring change, or interactivity.
It too is infinitely divisible.
Time is not a thing, retard.

Time is based on human cellular, metabolic rates, and so its basic foundation in the beating of the heart or systolic/diastolic cellular rates.

How you categorize, symbolize, conceptualize, reality is your problem as it only affects your success within it.

Brilliant. More bollocks.

No reason for me to continue a philosophical discussion with another who...

1. thinks that s/he has it all figured out while simultaneously denying that which has been necessarily presupposed within every expression they've made.

--

Do I find other flaws throughout the rejoinder. Of course. Need I another reason to end it here?

Nah.

Have fun knowing that which you, by your own criterion, cannot.

Oh yeah, since I'm feeling a little humorous today, regarding your calling me a "boy"...

Feel again.

Satyr wrote: The thing, is presupposed, giving rise to the dichotomies of nothing/something which are falsely opposites because they both presume thingness.

absence of belief( that no deities exist)/belief( that some deities exist) are both presuming believable deities, same way that nothing/something are both presuming thingness?

All languages presuppose the absent, because they are all reflections of human abstractions or representative of how the mind works.

sounds like ontological presuppositions trying to negate also epistemological presuppositions, both presuming logicness?

creativesoul wrote:Brilliant. More bollocks.

No reason for me to continue a philosophical discussion with another who...

1. thinks that s/he has it all figured out while simultaneously denying that which has been necessarily presupposed within every expression they've made.

--

Do I find other flaws throughout the rejoinder. Of course. Need I another reason to end it here?

Nah.

Have fun knowing that which you, by your own criterion, cannot.

Cannot absolutely, my little infantile boy.
Do you claim that omniscience is possible or that only a superior or inferior knowledge or awareness is possible?

Do I claim to know everything, no because there is no absolute, so I only claim to know more than you, dear boy...your obsession with the word truth exposes a mind still trapped in Deities and dualism.
For a simpleton if someone does not know it all then he must know nothing at all.

Thank you for not wasting any more of my time.

Mark Question wrote:

Satyr wrote: The thing, is presupposed, giving rise to the dichotomies of nothing/something which are falsely opposites because they both presume thingness.

absence of belief( that no deities exist)/belief( that some deities exist) are both presuming believable deities, same way that nothing/something are both presuming thingness?

Yes.
Either when one says thing or nothing he is presuming thingness....just as believing in God is a belief in the absolute and denying it must then offer an equal and opposite absolute to negate it, playing into the hands of the believer which can then say: "So, you believe in the absolute non-existence of God"

The premise is wrong from the start as there is no reason to even assume a God...but if one does then one can only negate it using the same premises used to construct the delusion of one.

Furthermore since language reflects how the mind thinks, and this is in a binary fashion where it constructs absolutes because they are absent, no man can express any concept without allud8ng to an absolute and must then offer disclaimers, if he is aware and honest.
For example "I know.... " alludes to omniscience and "I am..." alludes to completion but both these concepts are nonsensical.

So, in order to contradict a language that presupposes absolutes one must fall into a logical conundrum, as one must use an absolute to contradict its existence.
But language is merely an expression of reality...so the one claiming an absolute state must provide evidence for it....

The question "Is there a God" is a nonsensical question because it presupposes what it then asks for...like the question "Who created the universe" but to ask this question one must first prove that a universe requires creation, or that it begins at some point, (point being a singularity).

To ask the question:"When does life begin" is nonsense...because it presupposes that there is a beginning and then demands that this beginning be provided or defined.

Look at the concept of a "here"....it is a human one.
There is on actual absolute "here" as by the time you even say the word it has ceased to be the same here it was when you even thought of uttering it.
The world spins, the galaxy spins, the universe is expanding so what "here" are you referring to?

You are referring to a generalized, simplified abstraction enclosed within your perceptual event horizon with arbitrarily applied an ambiguously defined boundaries.
In effect you are referring to a measurement of change enclosed within your biological functions, or your synaptic speeds and metabolic rates.

There is no absolute here, or now in a fluid state, which existence is...there is only a continuum of interactivity.
How this interactivity is perceived and understood is given in the concepts man uses to try to make sense of it.

Coming back to the retard before, who found an escape before he exposed his idiocy, when we claim knowledge, or truth as we call it, are we claiming absolute knowledge, absolute truth, omniscience, or are we simply claiming a superior more complete knowledge in relation to another's?
So, when I say "there is no truth" am I saying that the possibility of omniscience is improbable, if not impossible, because what we call existence is fluid and so this truth, even if we could exist reality and perceive it all as a whole, is ever-changing; I am saying that to know the absolute truth one must be exterior to it, separated from it, because one cannot be within and perceive the whole, in which case one must prove how anything outside existence is possible; I am saying that "truth" is a human abstraction denoting a nonsensical concept but most often used to refer to a superior perceptive: I am saying that to even ask "Is there truth?" is a nonsensical question, demanding a nonsensical response.

Satyr wrote:The premise is wrong from the start as there is no reason to even assume a God...but if one does then one can only negate it using the same premises used to construct the delusion of one.

"So, you believe.." so, you are reasoning from what presuppositions that there is no reason to even assume a god? because of wrong presuppositions, premises, reasoning or mood? is it really a big thing to make good or bad premises or reasonings, from presuppositions as background beliefs? does it really matter if my logical thinking sucks or not, if my background beliefs can be like from LSD factbook, wikileaks or from sexy goddess who likes to play with men or boy toys? does this reasoning of mine sucks? are lsd pills a medicine or what? should i take more? is there any medicine man on duty here?

So, in order to contradict a language that presupposes absolutes one must fall into a logical conundrum, as one must use an absolute to contradict its existence.
But language is merely an expression of reality...so the one claiming an absolute state must provide evidence for it....

reminds me that back door in religious stories, where critisising those believable stories, turns to applauses for those believable stories where man has to fall into east, dirty ganges or at some old farts feet kissing..so the one claiming an non-absolute state must..

Mark Question wrote:

Satyr wrote:The premise is wrong from the start as there is no reason to even assume a God...but if one does then one can only negate it using the same premises used to construct the delusion of one.

"So, you believe.." so, you are reasoning from what presuppositions that there is no reason to even assume a god?

No, I do not even assume a god, since there is no reason to.

It's a bottom up reasoning rather than the top down reasoning which begins with a hypothesis and then tries to find reasons to defend it.

Existence shows no evidence of a beginning, and so none is presumed....and so no need for a creator.

Mark Question wrote: because of wrong presuppositions, premises, reasoning or mood?

Because some hypotheticals are based on need.

Mark Question wrote: is it really a big thing to make good or bad premises or reasonings, from presuppositions as background beliefs?

Beliefs are founded on probabilities, not on absolutes, or else they are dogmatic, simple and nonsensical.
When I say "the sun will come up tomorrow" I make a statement of probability based on my experiences, but it is not a given, an absolute fact.....

Mark Question wrote:does it really matter if my logical thinking sucks or not, if my background beliefs can be like from LSD factbook, wikileaks or from sexy goddess who likes to play with men or boy toys?

It depends on your motives.
If your motive is to escape reality or to cope with it then it does not even matter if you think your closet leads to another magical dimension, but if your motive is to see as much of reality as possible then it matters if you are deluded or not.

Also consider: to remain deluded is only possible for a period of time in a sheltered environment where stupidity is protected form itself.
In the wild, for instance, your delusion will find a quick end.

Mark Question wrote:does this reasoning of mine sucks?

Again, it depends on your motive.

For instance my motive for being insulting is to drive the retards away, clearing the space so that I do not have to deal with the same shit over and over again.

Mark Question wrote:are lsd pills a medicine or what? should i take more? is there any medicine man on duty here?

Anything that adds to your inebriation is no medicine, unless you consider life and reality a disease, as Socrates did.

Mark Question wrote:reminds me that back door in religious stories, where critisising those believable stories, turns to applauses for those believable stories where man has to fall into east, dirty ganges or at some old farts feet kissing..so the one claiming an non-absolute state must..

The lengths people will go to to avoid reality or perceiving the world as it is, are limitless.

Did you see how the retards here found an excuses, that both flatter them and insulted me, to not deal with my views?
I've mastered the technique of making retards do just that, because it saves me time and those dreaded assaults of "you are afraid" if I ignore them.

Like the moron arising_uk who badgered me for months with nonsensical questions and then found the opportunity to declare himself the victor once I had stopped posting.
He comforted himself with the delusion of a "logical corner" which HE presumably forced me in but which he cannot offer now.

His greatest pleasure, like with most females, is that she is paid attentino to, resorting to gossip and innuendos because she has nothing else to offer but the trite...and because she finds her self-esteem in semantics.
Have you ever tried to argue with a female? Thee is no sense in it. It turns to frustration when you realize that there is no reason there, only emotion.

Satyr wrote:... Like the moron arising_uk who badgered me for months with nonsensical questions and then found the opportunity to declare himself the victor once I had stopped posting.
He comforted himself with the delusion of a "logical corner" which HE presumably forced me in but which he cannot offer now.

His greatest pleasure, like with most females, is that she is paid attentino to, resorting to gossip and innuendos because she has nothing else to offer but the trite...and because she finds her self-esteem in semantics.
Have you ever tried to argue with a female? Thee is no sense in it. It turns to frustration when you realize that there is no reason there, only emotion.

How emotional of you.

I did no such thing turd-brain, it's your delusion that I was referring to your metaphysics.

I have never declared 'victory', just humour at the position you put youself in and the fact that you're back despite your words and avowed strong 'will'. You called them 'non-sensical' questions, I assume your talking about my questions about your metaphysics, is that why you never answered them?

I must admit that what I find most interesting about your replies to me are the bits you don't answer. How post-modern of me, it must be catching.

Satyr wrote: Beliefs are founded on probabilities, not on absolutes, or else they are dogmatic, simple and nonsensical.

sorry about my bad engrish but i am now trying to make colonoscopic or endoscopic examination of some english words: so, your beliefs are founded on probabilities and should be called assumptions, which are considered as beliefs that are founded on probabilities? and dogmatic beliefs are considered as dogmatic beliefs? sounds logical to me, like "existing gods are existing gods".
and what about this kind of english that google found with words "atheist and god knows"?: "I define Belief as accepting something as truth without 100% evidence. I define Faith as accepting something as truth while there is more evidence against it then for it." or in some older global language: "‘axiopistis’ and ‘autopistos.’" anyway, ne ponatur in mea vicinitate, from what background assumptions, beliefs or faits we are reasoning those same words? is this the classical snake eating its tale situation too? or like mother giving birth to himself?