Page 7 of 10
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 1:12 pm
by Age
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:10 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am
Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.
Is there ANY empirical 'thing', which is NOT verifiable and justifiable by 'science'?
If no, then there was NO using adding on the last seven words. But I am ALREADY AWARE that you like to use the 'science' word as often as you can as you BELIEVE that using that word will help in you in backing up and supporting your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.
By the way, who and/or what EXACTLY is the, so called, "empirical self"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am
Note non-humans don't rely on their consciousness to study their empirical self.
Do ALL non-human 'things' have such a thing as a "non-human consciousness"?
And what is the difference between, so called, "human consciousness" and "non-human consciousness"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am
What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.
And, what 'you', "veritas aequitas" do is use the 'science' word consistently as though using that word somehow backs up and supports your FAULTY thinking and reasoning. By the way, some have suggested, 'your OVERUSE of the 'science' word' here.
Age, it's entirely possible someone could answer all your questions,
Okay. But by the way it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE for someone to answer ALL of my questions.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:10 am
but not if you never stop asking them or won't stick around to see how the answers fit together or accept any of the answers anyway, etc.
WHY did you say, "If I won't stick around to see how the answers fit together ..."?
When have I NOT "stuck around"? I hope that you will NOT dare say that you have answered some questions of mine but I did NOT respond to them. Because you IF YOU DO, then I will REMIND that I have ALREADY INFORMED you that until you learn how to quote properly AND correctly, then I do NOT get messages that you have replied to me, AND I am NOT going to LOOK FOR some 'thing' that may not even exist.
Now, WHY EXACTLY did you write the words:
"Age, it's entirely possible someone could answer all your questions, but not if you ... won't stick around to see how the answers fit together ..."?
Also, if answers do NOT fit together logically nor empirically, then I am NOT going to accept those ones. The answers provided have to fit the big and FULL picture PERFECTLY, and I will stop asking questions until someone can PROVIDE the PERFECTLY FITTED PUZZLE, which PROVIDES the CRYSTAL CLEAR BIG and FULL PICTURE of 'Life', Itself.
i was and am able to do this, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY I will add. and if i could do this, then ANY of 'you' here can as well.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:37 pm
by Advocate
[quote=Age post_id=486517 time=1609071179 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=486507 time=1609053035 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=486455 time=1609047931 user_id=16237]
Is there ANY empirical 'thing', which is NOT verifiable and justifiable by 'science'?
If no, then there was NO using adding on the last seven words. But I am ALREADY AWARE that you like to use the 'science' word as often as you can as you BELIEVE that using that word will help in you in backing up and supporting your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.
By the way, who and/or what EXACTLY is the, so called, "empirical self"?
Do ALL non-human 'things' have such a thing as a "non-human consciousness"?
And what is the difference between, so called, "human consciousness" and "non-human consciousness"?
And, what 'you', "veritas aequitas" do is use the 'science' word consistently as though using that word somehow backs up and supports your FAULTY thinking and reasoning. By the way, some have suggested, 'your OVERUSE of the 'science' word' here.
[/quote]
Age, it's entirely possible someone could answer all your questions, [/quote]
Okay. But by the way it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE for someone to answer ALL of my questions.
[quote=Advocate post_id=486507 time=1609053035 user_id=15238]
but not if you never stop asking them or won't stick around to see how the answers fit together or accept any of the answers anyway, etc.
[/quote]
WHY did you say, "If I won't stick around to see how the answers fit together ..."?
When have I NOT "stuck around"? I hope that you will NOT dare say that you have answered some questions of mine but I did NOT respond to them. Because you IF YOU DO, then I will REMIND that I have ALREADY INFORMED you that until you learn how to quote properly AND correctly, then I do NOT get messages that you have replied to me, AND I am NOT going to LOOK FOR some 'thing' that may not even exist.
Now, WHY EXACTLY did you write the words:
[u][b]"Age, it's entirely possible someone could answer all your questions, but not if you ... won't stick around to see how the answers fit together ..."?[/b][/u]
Also, if answers do NOT fit together logically nor empirically, then I am NOT going to accept those ones. The answers provided have to fit the big and FULL picture PERFECTLY, and I will stop asking questions until someone can PROVIDE the PERFECTLY FITTED PUZZLE, which PROVIDES the CRYSTAL CLEAR BIG and FULL PICTURE of 'Life', Itself.
i was and am able to do this, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY I will add. and if i could do this, then ANY of 'you' here can as well.
[/quote]
I have tried answering your questions completely but you add three more in every response. No thanks! Nobody can answer questions exhaustively, nor is there any need to do so. I've personally taken great plains to endure and validate that i can answer all questions in metaphysics and epistemology but somehow it's insufficient for you?
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:44 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:50 am
If this is what 'you' do, then so be it.
And, if this is what 'you' actually do, and this is NOT what 'I' actually do, then WHY I suggest to just try to do the things, which I do, makes even MORE SENSE.
What you are saying here PROVIDES MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF for what I have been SAYING, and MEANING.
The reason WHY 'you', human beings BELIEVE the things that you do, which are (obviously) False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, is because you ASSUME and ACCEPT them to be true, right, and/or correct.
I suggest you just LOOK AT
what ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE you start ASSUMING, and then ACCEPTING ANY thing.
OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'things' are ASSUMABLE. But, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, they do NOT have to be ASSUMED, OBVIOUSLY.
LOL How could this even be CLOSE to the Truth, when the ACTUAL Truth IS; ALL assumptions can be COMPLETELY, or partly, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?
LOL Witnessing some of what you write is ABSOLUTELY humorous AND amusing, as; IF the first or prior assumption is actually false but the next or further assumption fails to align with that prior assumption, then the next or further assumption could actually be True.
YOUR ASSUMPTION here AGAIN is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW and WHY ALL ASSUMPTIONS can ALWAYS just be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
If this is what YOUR ASSUMPTIONS tell 'you' IS TRUE, then this MUST BE TRUE, to 'you', correct?
If you say so, but, unlike 'you', 'I' MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT
what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, and then START from there ONLY.
Give an example of something which cannot be taken on assumption.
The human body needs air, water, and nutrients to keep existing.
All of these phenomenon imprint themselves on the human body, thr human body assumes them. The continuity of these assumptions necessitate certain assumptions are static and unchanging.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Facts are subject to change thus falsifiability as well.
How do you define the word 'fact'. To me, a 'fact' is NOT subject to change and thus is NOT falsifiable at all.
A fact is a definition of a phenomenon.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
For example eggs yolks where once viewed as good then bad,
LOL If you REALLY thought or BELIEVED that either was a 'fact', then there is NO wonder you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that a 'fact' is subject to CHANGE and thus IS FALSIFIABLE as well.
These where considered facts as the definition of relations between one phenomenon and another.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
or the fact of Pluto being a planet changed to Pluto no longer being a planet.
ONCE MORE LOL AGAIN. Some of what you say "eodnhoj7" REALLY do AMUSE me and make me LAUGH sometimes.
The object that some of 'you', human beings, call a "planet", or "not a planet", does NOT make what 'you' call 'it' A FACT.
A fact is a definition of relations, Pluto's relationship to the other planet was seen as one thing then defined as another.
What makes some 'thing' A FACT is that 'it' has been or can be PROVEN True. Like, for example, some of 'you', human beings, call an object, away from earth, "pluto", AND, that some of 'you' say that, what is sometimes known as "pluto", "is a planet" and some say, "it is not a planet". This is A FACT, which can be and has been PROVEN True, and which is NOT subject to 'change' and is NEITHER 'falsifiable'. Which is what ACTUALLY and EXACTLY makes a 'fact' A FACT.
Thus not all things are subject to change.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
The fact that a car is red is falsifiable given a long enough timeline where the paint jobs rusts.
No one, with proper and correct thinking, would say; "A car is red", to begin with and CLAIM that to be 'A FACT'.
It is the definition of relations between the color and the car.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Everything as subject to change necessitates facts as changing as well.
This is just AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS "eodnhoj7", which is based on YOUR CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS ALONE, and which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
And to FALSIFY YOUR ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here "eodnhoj7" has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
False, an assumption is the imprinting of one phenomenon to another, it is the acceptance of a phenomenon. All phenomenon as acceptable, through imprintation are assumable.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:48 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:05 am
Wrong again.
You are in a orgy of conflation.
It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science.
What you are doing is straying from science into the metaphysical woo woo of la la land.
But the empirical self is an hallucination, according to your stance, as it is a result of neurons forming the hallucination.
There is no issue here,
the whole lot, i.e.
"It is the empirical self that is relying upon human consciousness to study its empirical self which is verifiable and justifiable by science"
within a hallucination.
Yet all is an hallucination driven by empirically sensed neurons. The neurons are sensed empirically thus are hallucinations as well. One hallucination studies another leaving all as subject to a "la la land".
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:43 am
by Age
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Give an example of something which cannot be taken on assumption.
The human body needs air, water, and nutrients to keep existing.
All of these phenomenon imprint themselves on the human body, thr human body assumes them. The continuity of these assumptions necessitate certain assumptions are static and unchanging.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Facts are subject to change thus falsifiability as well.
How do you define the word 'fact'. To me, a 'fact' is NOT subject to change and thus is NOT falsifiable at all.
A fact is a definition of a phenomenon.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
For example eggs yolks where once viewed as good then bad,
LOL If you REALLY thought or BELIEVED that either was a 'fact', then there is NO wonder you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that a 'fact' is subject to CHANGE and thus IS FALSIFIABLE as well.
These where considered facts as the definition of relations between one phenomenon and another.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
or the fact of Pluto being a planet changed to Pluto no longer being a planet.
ONCE MORE LOL AGAIN. Some of what you say "eodnhoj7" REALLY do AMUSE me and make me LAUGH sometimes.
The object that some of 'you', human beings, call a "planet", or "not a planet", does NOT make what 'you' call 'it' A FACT.
A fact is a definition of relations, Pluto's relationship to the other planet was seen as one thing then defined as another.
What makes some 'thing' A FACT is that 'it' has been or can be PROVEN True. Like, for example, some of 'you', human beings, call an object, away from earth, "pluto", AND, that some of 'you' say that, what is sometimes known as "pluto", "is a planet" and some say, "it is not a planet". This is A FACT, which can be and has been PROVEN True, and which is NOT subject to 'change' and is NEITHER 'falsifiable'. Which is what ACTUALLY and EXACTLY makes a 'fact' A FACT.
Thus not all things are subject to change.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
The fact that a car is red is falsifiable given a long enough timeline where the paint jobs rusts.
No one, with proper and correct thinking, would say; "A car is red", to begin with and CLAIM that to be 'A FACT'.
It is the definition of relations between the color and the car.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:54 am
Everything as subject to change necessitates facts as changing as well.
This is just AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS "eodnhoj7", which is based on YOUR CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS ALONE, and which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
And to FALSIFY YOUR ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here "eodnhoj7" has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
False, an assumption is the imprinting of one phenomenon to another, it is the acceptance of a phenomenon. All phenomenon as acceptable, through imprintation are assumable.
Obviously some thing that happened in the past, and thus is ALREADY over and finished, is at this moment NOT 'subject to change'. The words 'has been' made this VERY CLEAR. 'Changing the past' is ONLY POSSIBLE when time travelling is ACTUALLY OCCURRING.
The rest of what you wrote here are just YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and which, by definition, ALL of them OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
by Eodnhoj7
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:23 am
The human body needs air, water, and nutrients to keep existing.
All of these phenomenon imprint themselves on the human body, thr human body assumes them. The continuity of these assumptions necessitate certain assumptions are static and unchanging.
How do you define the word 'fact'. To me, a 'fact' is NOT subject to change and thus is NOT falsifiable at all.
A fact is a definition of a phenomenon.
LOL If you REALLY thought or BELIEVED that either was a 'fact', then there is NO wonder you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that a 'fact' is subject to CHANGE and thus IS FALSIFIABLE as well.
These where considered facts as the definition of relations between one phenomenon and another.
ONCE MORE LOL AGAIN. Some of what you say "eodnhoj7" REALLY do AMUSE me and make me LAUGH sometimes.
The object that some of 'you', human beings, call a "planet", or "not a planet", does NOT make what 'you' call 'it' A FACT.
A fact is a definition of relations, Pluto's relationship to the other planet was seen as one thing then defined as another.
What makes some 'thing' A FACT is that 'it' has been or can be PROVEN True. Like, for example, some of 'you', human beings, call an object, away from earth, "pluto", AND, that some of 'you' say that, what is sometimes known as "pluto", "is a planet" and some say, "it is not a planet". This is A FACT, which can be and has been PROVEN True, and which is NOT subject to 'change' and is NEITHER 'falsifiable'. Which is what ACTUALLY and EXACTLY makes a 'fact' A FACT.
Thus not all things are subject to change.
No one, with proper and correct thinking, would say; "A car is red", to begin with and CLAIM that to be 'A FACT'.
It is the definition of relations between the color and the car.
This is just AN ASSUMPTION of YOURS "eodnhoj7", which is based on YOUR CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS ALONE, and which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
And to FALSIFY YOUR ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here "eodnhoj7" has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
False, an assumption is the imprinting of one phenomenon to another, it is the acceptance of a phenomenon. All phenomenon as acceptable, through imprintation are assumable.
Obviously some thing that happened in the past, and thus is ALREADY over and finished, is at this moment NOT 'subject to change'. The words 'has been' made this VERY CLEAR. 'Changing the past' is ONLY POSSIBLE when time travelling is ACTUALLY OCCURRING.
The rest of what you wrote here are just YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and which, by definition, ALL of them OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.
The past changes based upon the angle it is observed. What happened in the past takes a new form based upon the angle it is observed.
But they could also be right, correct and accurate.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:44 am
by Age
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:43 am
Obviously some thing that happened in the past, and thus is ALREADY over and finished, is at this moment NOT 'subject to change'. The words 'has been' made this VERY CLEAR. 'Changing the past' is ONLY POSSIBLE when time travelling is ACTUALLY OCCURRING.
The rest of what you wrote here are just YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and which, by definition, ALL of them OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.
The past changes based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
What happened in the past takes a new form based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
But they could also be right, correct and accurate.
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the ACTUAL words 'could be' in my sentence made this VERY OBVIOUS and EXTREMELY CLEAR.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:12 pm
by Iwannaplato
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:45 am
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.
Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary. It is a false dichotomy. Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence. Our perceptions guide
useful actions, but lack truth. Not, there are facets of perception that accurately reflect reality and others that do not. No we have useful here and truth there. It's amazing how useful perception is not true. I mean, even non-pragmatists should be immediately grasp there is a problem. Further any theory with this paradox at the root of it is either fruit of a poison tree or Rationalism - iow the ideas came directly through revelation. But since VA is an empiricist, no his whole theory is based on perceptions that hide the truth, because empirical science is based on observations.
No nuance. Just binary immaculate separate categories.
While the rest of us live in a more nuanced world.
I also notice that the book that is a quote from is heralded as groundbreaking. But those ideas have been around for thousands of years. And there are dozens of modern writers who have written popular books approaching the problems with common sense in perception, filters, that we always have a perspective, that our perception is limited and fallible. Some of them even taking the same self-undermining binary position. Others understanding that if perception hides the truth, we can't know anything. But I notice that people who argue this position are always pushing their perceptions of everything, considering that they somehow managed to built up the truth about objective reality - which includes all of us, the people they are telling about how we are - based on, get this empirical data, that is perceptions. And yah, of course, inferesnt plays a role. But people have been drawing incredibly accurate conclusions well before, thousands of years before science developed. Hell, even animals do. Anyone doubts this, and since they are part of the external world for, say, a tiger. Jump into the tiger exhibit at the zoo or taunt a tiger in the jungle, and you will find out just how well the tiger is getting information through perception that is both true and useful.
And jeez you really think there is no connection between the shape of a cube and what it feels/looks like? Or that when I see two people one tiny and 'in the distance' this perception is not a direct perception of what is 'out there'. Notice I am not saying, remotely, that perception is infallible. But to assert that my perception that my father is standing, in relation to me, behind my mother, is hiding the truth
is simply an almost radical kind of denial. My sense of the location of things in relation to me has no truth in it, but it guides my actions usefully.
LOL
Another way to look at this is the difference between the perception of color and the perception of volume and location and shape. We can immedialy SEE that there are gradations of truth, filters, interpretation...etc. It's not just perception hiding truth. Which is an obviously absurd statement if made blanket.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 3:52 pm
by Advocate
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=486800 time=1609240328 user_id=3619]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=485832 time=1608630331 user_id=7896]
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.
[/quote]
Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary. It is a false dichotomy. Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence. Our perceptions guide [b][u]useful[/u][/b] actions, but lack truth. Not, there are facets of perception that accurately reflect reality and others that do not. No we have useful here and truth there. It's amazing how useful perception is not true. I mean, even non-pragmatists should be immediately grasp there is a problem. Further any theory with this paradox at the root of it is either fruit of a poison tree or Rationalism - iow the ideas came directly through revelation. But since VA is an empiricist, no his whole theory is based on perceptions that hide the truth, because empirical science is based on observations.
No nuance. Just binary immaculate separate categories.
While the rest of us live in a more nuanced world.
I also notice that the book that is a quote from is heralded as groundbreaking. But those ideas have been around for thousands of years. And there are dozens of modern writers who have written popular books approaching the problems with common sense in perception, filters, that we always have a perspective, that our perception is limited and fallible. Some of them even taking the same self-undermining binary position. Others understanding that if perception hides the truth, we can't know anything. But I notice that people who argue this position are always pushing their perceptions of everything, considering that they somehow managed to built up the truth about objective reality - which includes all of us, the people they are telling about how we are - based on, get this empirical data, that is perceptions. And yah, of course, inferesnt plays a role. But people have been drawing incredibly accurate conclusions well before, thousands of years before science developed. Hell, even animals do. Anyone doubts this, and since they are part of the external world for, say, a tiger. Jump into the tiger exhibit at the zoo or taunt a tiger in the jungle, and you will find out just how well the tiger is getting information through perception that is both true and useful.
And jeez you really think there is no connection between the shape of a cube and what it feels/looks like? Or that when I see two people one tiny and 'in the distance' this perception is not a direct perception of what is 'out there'. Notice I am not saying, remotely, that perception is infallible. But to assert that my perception that my father is standing, in relation to me, behind my mother, is hiding the truth
is simply an almost radical kind of denial. My sense of the location of things in relation to me has no truth in it, but it guides my actions usefully.
LOL
Another way to look at this is the difference between the perception of color and the perception of volume and location and shape. We can immedialy SEE that there are gradations of truth, filters, interpretation...etc. It's not just perception hiding truth. Which is an obviously absurd statement if made blanket.
[/quote]
More simply put, it's a false dichotomy because what is approximately accurate is almost always what is most useful.
Beings that actively delude themselves in one situation will quickly find that doing so in another leads to death. In particular, while you might be able to maintain a facade of feelings, which can be self-fulfilling, a facade of facts is nearly always counterproductive if not fatal. That idea is postmodern nonsense designed to allow anyone to believe anything and be ok with it, to hell with truth or reality.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am
by Eodnhoj7
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:43 am
Obviously some thing that happened in the past, and thus is ALREADY over and finished, is at this moment NOT 'subject to change'. The words 'has been' made this VERY CLEAR. 'Changing the past' is ONLY POSSIBLE when time travelling is ACTUALLY OCCURRING.
The rest of what you wrote here are just YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and which, by definition, ALL of them OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.
The past changes based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
Observing the history of the persecution of a peoples from the perspective of those persecuted, rather than the persecutors, gives a different interpretation of past events.
The past is determined by interpretation as it repeats itself through interpretations.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
What happened in the past takes a new form based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
See above.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
But they could also be right, correct and accurate.
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the ACTUAL words 'could be' in my sentence made this VERY OBVIOUS and EXTREMELY CLEAR.
Yes and "could be" applies to the same absence of consistency if "they could be" wrong, incorrect, or false. A fact, such as x person committed y action, could be proven false in light of further interpretation.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 am
by Age
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
The past changes based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
Observing the history of the persecution of a peoples from the perspective of those persecuted, rather than the persecutors, gives a different interpretation of past events.
The past is determined by interpretation as it repeats itself through interpretations.
But you OBVIOUSLY wrote, 'the past changes', which is VERY DIFFERENT from now writing 'the interpretation of the past changes'.
Did you REALLY NOT NOTICE what I was GETTING AT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
What happened in the past takes a new form based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
See above.
AGAIN,
The (ACTUAL) past does NOT take a new form. ONLY the interpretation/perceptions are different.
I was thinking that this was Truly OBVIOUS ALREADY considering the FACT that for the EXACT SAME EVENT there can be as MANY DIFFERENT interpretations of that EXACT SAME PAST EVENT as there are INTERPRETERS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
But they could also be right, correct and accurate.
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the ACTUAL words 'could be' in my sentence made this VERY OBVIOUS and EXTREMELY CLEAR.
Yes and "could be" applies to the same absence of consistency if "they could be" wrong, incorrect, or false. A fact, such as x person committed y action, could be proven false in light of further interpretation.
[/quote]
But WHY was there an ASSUMPTION of 'guilt' made FIRST, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth was DISCOVERED and thus SEEN and KNOWN?
Absolutely EVERY thing is REALLY a COULD BE until KNOWN FOR SURE.
But, sadly AND unfortunately, adult human beings have a tendency to ASSUME they KNOW thee Truth BEFORE they rarely EVER do.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:06 am
by Eodnhoj7
Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:44 am
Okay. Will you provide an example?
Observing the history of the persecution of a peoples from the perspective of those persecuted, rather than the persecutors, gives a different interpretation of past events.
The past is determined by interpretation as it repeats itself through interpretations.
But you OBVIOUSLY wrote, 'the past changes', which is VERY DIFFERENT from now writing 'the interpretation of the past changes'.
Did you REALLY NOT NOTICE what I was GETTING AT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
What happened in the past takes a new form based upon the angle it is observed.
Okay. Will you provide an example?
See above.
AGAIN,
The (ACTUAL) past does NOT take a new form. ONLY the interpretation/perceptions are different.
I was thinking that this was Truly OBVIOUS ALREADY considering the FACT that for the EXACT SAME EVENT there can be as MANY DIFFERENT interpretations of that EXACT SAME PAST EVENT as there are INTERPRETERS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:52 am
But they could also be right, correct and accurate.
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the ACTUAL words 'could be' in my sentence made this VERY OBVIOUS and EXTREMELY CLEAR.
Yes and "could be" applies to the same absence of consistency if "they could be" wrong, incorrect, or false. A fact, such as x person committed y action, could be proven false in light of further interpretation.
But WHY was there an ASSUMPTION of 'guilt' made FIRST, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth was DISCOVERED and thus SEEN and KNOWN?
Absolutely EVERY thing is REALLY a COULD BE until KNOWN FOR SURE.
But, sadly AND unfortunately, adult human beings have a tendency to ASSUME they KNOW thee Truth BEFORE they rarely EVER do.
[/quote]
What guilt, there is none. An assumption may be true or false, or both, just like a fact may be true or false, or both.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:52 am
by Age
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:06 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am
But you OBVIOUSLY wrote, 'the past changes', which is VERY DIFFERENT from now writing 'the interpretation of the past changes'.
Did you REALLY NOT NOTICE what I was GETTING AT?
Okay. Will you provide an example?
See above.
AGAIN,
The (ACTUAL) past does NOT take a new form. ONLY the interpretation/perceptions are different.
I was thinking that this was Truly OBVIOUS ALREADY considering the FACT that for the EXACT SAME EVENT there can be as MANY DIFFERENT interpretations of that EXACT SAME PAST EVENT as there are INTERPRETERS.
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the ACTUAL words 'could be' in my sentence made this VERY OBVIOUS and EXTREMELY CLEAR.
Yes and "could be" applies to the same absence of consistency if "they could be" wrong, incorrect, or false. A fact, such as x person committed y action, could be proven false in light of further interpretation.
LOL Okay.
But WHY was there an ASSUMPTION of 'guilt' made FIRST, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth was DISCOVERED and thus SEEN and KNOWN?
Absolutely EVERY thing is REALLY a COULD BE until KNOWN FOR SURE.
But, sadly AND unfortunately, adult human beings have a tendency to ASSUME they KNOW thee Truth BEFORE they rarely EVER do.
What guilt, there is none. An assumption may be true or false, or both, just like a fact may be true or false, or both.
LOL Okay.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:53 am
by Eodnhoj7
Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:52 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:06 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:35 am
LOL Okay.
But WHY was there an ASSUMPTION of 'guilt' made FIRST, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth was DISCOVERED and thus SEEN and KNOWN?
Absolutely EVERY thing is REALLY a COULD BE until KNOWN FOR SURE.
But, sadly AND unfortunately, adult human beings have a tendency to ASSUME they KNOW thee Truth BEFORE they rarely EVER do.
What guilt, there is none. An assumption may be true or false, or both, just like a fact may be true or false, or both.
LOL Okay.
Yes, lol okay.
Re: Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:19 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:45 am
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.
Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary.
It is a false dichotomy.
Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence.
Our perceptions guide
useful actions, but lack truth.
Not, there are facets of perception that accurately reflect reality and others that do not. No we have useful here and truth there. It's amazing how useful perception is not true. I mean, even non-pragmatists should be immediately grasp there is a problem. Further any theory with this paradox at the root of it is either fruit of a poison tree or Rationalism - iow the ideas came directly through revelation. But since VA is an empiricist, no his whole theory is based on perceptions that hide the truth, because empirical science is based on observations.
No nuance. Just binary immaculate separate categories.
While the rest of us live in a more nuanced world.
Btw, I am not a pure empiricist, but rather a rationalist-empiricist, i.e. an empirical realist.
Truth is quite a loose term.
Truth in this case refer to the truth of the ultimate-reality of what-is-perceived.
- Here is an example.
It is very often that people perceived[1] a snake that is real and is stricken with fear and avoid moving forward and take a detour. When upon close perception[2] and examination it is actually a piece of thick rope in the shadow.
Here is a case where evolution 'hide' the truth [or generate a falsehood] of what is perceived so as to motivate useful actions to ensure one is not bitten by a poisonous snake.
So this example, proved my point. There is no fallacy.
The video and the book goes on into a further perspective,
i.e. even the thick piece of rope as eventually perceived [2] and felt is not the ultimate truth.
On more closer perception[3] the truth is that piece of rope is a bunched of tightened fibers of some materials.
On more closer perception[4] the tightened fibers are fibers of
hemp.
On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the individual hemps are make cellulose molecules.
On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [C6H12O6] are comprised of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
On more closer perception[7], it is a bundle of generic atoms
On more closer perception[8], it is a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
On more closer perception[9], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived.
On more closer perception[10], there are various types quarks
Then, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the piece of rope we perceived[2].
As you can see what is perceived is never 'the truth' but merely an apparent truth.
Under the above initial conditions, evolution is not interested in the more refined truths of perceptions 2 to 10 but rather generate a falsehood to ensure survival just in case it is a real poisonous snake.
The above is proof that
natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.
Thus the OP, there is no ultimate Objective Reality of things [objects and the likes] we perceived.