|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
| Talitha wrote: |
| I think in the Western world we're brought up with some strong assumptions - in a nutshell we're trained to assume that there is a singular, objective and knowable truth out there. It's hard to put aside this ingrained mindset but personally I've found arguments for relativism to be too compelling to resist. |
Maybe this was poorly worded, or I'm just misreading it, but I thought it was suggesting relativism as a viewpoint alternative to the viewpoint that there actually exists an objective truth ... and suggesting that this "strong assumption" of an objective truth is only assumed because we're trained to assume it, as opposed to because all our experience, when it tells us anything about the truth or falsity of this assumption, tells us it is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Talitha
the Judge!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: 42 |
|
|
I picked the word "trained" because it's difficult to articulate the notion that there are all sorts of assumptions inherent in the very language that we use to talk and think. It wasn't the ideal word.
As for objective truth, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. I'm not convinced either way. The point is that even if it does exist we can't know it completely, we can only ever catch a glimpse of it from our own position and perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:53 pm Post subject: 43 |
|
|
| Talitha wrote: |
| As for objective truth, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. I'm not convinced either way. |
Maybe both? Maybe it exists, and doesn't exist?
(I don't think so) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNOWAX
0.999... of a Troll
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: 44 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Talitha wrote: |
| As for objective truth, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. I'm not convinced either way. |
Maybe both? Maybe it exists, and doesn't exist?
(I don't think so) |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCOE__N6v4o
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:25 am Post subject: 45 |
|
|
My viewpoint is that we have incomplete information about all situations. Individuals cannot know the truth beyond what they have witnessed. In some cases new evidence will bring about proof one theory was incorrect.
One of the most important aspects of religion is what happens after death. Which is something that is hard to experience and then talk about. And those who may have experienced death are viewed with a very high level of skepticism.
The existence of intelligent live is something that people of this world may believe or not believe at this point in time. But if we do come in contact with life outside this planet it may become recognized we are not the only ones. Or if we do a thorough search and find nothing the belief we are the only ones will be strongly reinforced. The latter situation, in my opinion, will never be accomplished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
My viewpoint is that we have incomplete information about all situations. Individuals cannot know the truth beyond what they have witnessed. In some cases new evidence will bring about proof one theory was incorrect.
One of the most important aspects of religion is what happens after death. Which is something that is hard to experience and then talk about. And those who may have experienced death are viewed with a very high level of skepticism.
|
two things:
1. Knowing truth and existence of truth are two very different matter. Before Newton people didn't know what gravity was and yet if they fell off a mountain they still went splat. Things dont pop into existence based our knowledge of them. Stars existed long before we discover them, and in many cases have died before discovery.
2. Why are those who have expirienced death viewed with such skeptisism. Im not saying there are'nt people out there that make up things in order to earn a buck but when do they lose their credibility. Surely not everyone who has been brought back from the brink is lying about their expiriences so why are they suddenly not credible. (I realize this is a tangent but that line just bugged me.)
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: 47 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| 2. Why are those who have expirienced death viewed with such skeptisism. Im not saying there are'nt people out there that make up things in order to earn a buck but when do they lose their credibility. Surely not everyone who has been brought back from the brink is lying about their expiriences so why are they suddenly not credible. (I realize this is a tangent but that line just bugged me.) |
It's not that they're lying, but that it's much easier to explain what they experienced as a vivid hallucination brought on by lack of oxygen to the brain, rather than a glimpse of some actual afterlife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:45 pm Post subject: 48 |
|
|
says the non-believer. We all have an outlook on life but oxygen deprived hallucination is no more scientific than an actual afterlife at least to me. In fact to me a person who doesnt believe in God is usually biased against any so called evidence that doesnt involve Moses and Jesus appearing in front of them doing the Party Rock anthem dance. And probably still would attribute such visual evidence as a hallucination.
My point was it is not the witness credibility that is in question but the bias of the person recieving the information. Or am I wrong.....
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: 49 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| We all have an outlook on life but oxygen deprived hallucination is no more scientific than an actual afterlife at least to me. |
Really? I find that hard to believe. Everything we see, hear, smell, taste or touch corresponds to things that are happening in our brain, which when the brain is working properly, correspond to external reality. We know this fails at times, producing hallucinations, and we should certainly expect it to fail near death. How is accepting at face value a report of an experience of an afterlife, which can't in any way be corroborated, scientific?
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| In fact to me a person who doesnt believe in God is usually biased against any so called evidence that doesnt involve Moses and Jesus appearing in front of them doing the Party Rock anthem dance. And probably still would attribute such visual evidence as a hallucination. |
I believe in God, but that doesn't mean I need to throw rationality aside. I can believe in God and also believe the tears of blood dripping from the statue of Mary on someone's lawn have a perfectly rational natural explanation.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| My point was it is not the witness credibility that is in question but the bias of the person recieving the information. Or am I wrong..... |
Not all experiences or memories of experiences correspond to reality. Just because someone experienced seeing some thing, that does not mean that the thing they saw was real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: 50 |
|
|
2. What happens after death. The reason I view any viewpoint with skepticism is that I have been lied to on countless times because people seem to think it is easier. The religious people who describe it have watered it down or added their own beliefs without every having experienced it.
For example, if I recall correctly, the movie The Prestige had a character who recalled a sailor who nearly drowned. At first he says the experience was pleasant, like fading away. At the end of the movie the same person says that experience was actually very very horrible. Basically he sweetened it up to help another character ease the loss of a loved one and then used it in a vengeful manner.
And in my own life, I was taught by the schools that "drugs were bad". Never try drugs; they are bad. Bad Bad Bad. All of it came from people who probably had never tried such things. So when I got around to trying marijuana about 6 months ago after extensive research, I was not surprised to find out that basically everything I had be told was a lie and that websites from actual users were basically truthful.
| Jimmy Buffett, Manana wrote: |
Don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it
Don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:28 am Post subject: 51 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| For a more real example Zag's what if reality bubbles is not a valid proof of post-modernism because by presenting himself to others in different forms he has ceased to be the being I believe in as God. |
Is this not the six blind men and the elephant though? God is God. We can only encounter God through our human understanding. If we are arrogant enough to assume that we can encompass the entirety of God and impose our understanding on other people then that's our problem, not God's. If anything, I find the variety of ways in which people have encountered God is stronger evidence for me than if we all had the same experiences. But I can easily understand why others might take the opposing view.
Growing up with a religious and political background which was all about tolerance and compromise it's hard for me to see "post-modernism" as anything other than the norm. Yes, there are some things for which there must be an objective truth (2 + 2 = 4) but there are others for which there cannot be (the value of art or music) and what we are notable bad at doing as humans is distinguishing which is which (I certainly don't claim to know where to draw the line, or even if there is one) and then maintaining that our "opinion" on something must be the only right or valid one. It's one reason why I could never get properly involved in party politics because it frequently devolves so quickly into us-and-them - as indeed does too much organised religion.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: 52 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| For a more real example Zag's what if reality bubbles is not a valid proof of post-modernism because by presenting himself to others in different forms he has ceased to be the being I believe in as God. |
Is this not the six blind men and the elephant though? God is God. We can only encounter God through our human understanding. If we are arrogant enough to assume that we can encompass the entirety of God and impose our understanding on other people then that's our problem, not God's. |
One doesn't need to encompass the entirety of God to have some understanding of what "God" means. One only needs some understanding to be able to say "that's not God". One needs some understanding for the word to have any meaning at all. In other words, if you don't know enough about what God is to be able to say, sometimes, as UM did, "that isn't God", then "God is God" is purely meaningless.
When I hear fundamentalists preaching of the eternal damnation of those born and raised in the wrong religion, I say "that's not God". A blind man may feel an elephant's leg and mistake it for a tree trunk, but my concept of God (and I must have a concept for the word to be other than gibberish) does not allow God to be mistaken for something I see as evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| and then maintaining that our "opinion" on something must be the only right or valid one. It's one reason why I could never get properly involved in party politics because it frequently devolves so quickly into us-and-them - as indeed does too much organised religion. |
Oh by all means my opinion of God could be wrong which means therefore that post-modernism is bull crap. Because how I define God isnt what it actually is. I could totally buy the logic of one god and all the different religions are interpretations of the same thing. Take the hilarious story you refrenced the six blind (mice was how I heard it) men and the elephant. was the tail a snake no it was a tail. The objective absolute truth in that story was an elephant.
@extro
I agree with 90% of that post (not your newest one). my point was I believe in the afterlife and therefore am more likely to trust the eyewitness testimony of those brought back. an atheist is less likely to believe the evidence because they are starting from a position of no afterlife. So it is the bias of the observer not the credibility or lack thereof of the witness that most determines how much credence you give these stories.
As to the only part of your post I have trouble with. say a woman was mugged and there was an eyewitness. The case goes to court but Because of some technicality all the forensic evidence is thrown out and the testimony of one person determines if the perp is brought to justice. I'd be inclined to trust the eye-witness unless there was a reason to suspect ulterior motive.Without other evidence I am forced to use eye-witness testimony for or against the afterlife. so unless given a reason that they are incompetant or lying I see no reason to disregard their stories. But again thats because I believe in the afterlife in the first place. I am a victim to my own bias to believe anything that agrees with my pre-established world view.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: 54 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| As to the only part of your post I have trouble with. say a woman was mugged and there was an eyewitness. The case goes to court but Because of some technicality all the forensic evidence is thrown out and the testimony of one person determines if the perp is brought to justice. I'd be inclined to trust the eye-witness unless there was a reason to suspect ulterior motive. |
So you never saw the forensic evidence? (as opposed to being told by the judge to disregard it as inadmissible)
It's very well established that honest eye-witnesses can be very unreliable. People convicted on eye-witnes accounts, without ulterior motive, have been later proved innocent.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| Without other evidence I am forced to use eye-witness testimony for or against the afterlife. so unless given a reason that they are incompetant or lying I see no reason to disregard their stories. |
I'd say that their being dead, in some sense, is a good reason to suspect their brain having been stressed seriously enough to have caused hallucinatory experiences. I don't accept people's recollections of dreams as being of something real, why would I accept their recollection of some other experience while not conscious, but "dead"?
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| But again thats because I believe in the afterlife in the first place. I am a victim to my own bias to believe anything that agrees with my pre-established world view. |
I believe in God, yet I am not biased toward believing other's experiences are valid evidence that God exists.
Whether I believe in an afterlife is tough to say, because the word may mean different things to different people. It certainly seems that bodies die. What else there is, is beyond the scope of this topic. Nevertheless, I don't see why belief in something need bias one toward accepting alleged evidence of it as actual evidence. When the evidence is recollection of an experience had while not conscious (either asleep or dead), I'm inclined to think of it as like a dream, no matter whether the reported experience agrees with my beliefs or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: 55 |
|
|
| Adding to the above, clearly the physical brain inside our skulls is involved in creating, keeping and recalling memories. Different kinds of damage to the brain can disrupt that in different ways. If I (whatever "I" is) leave my body, enter the afterlife, see things (with what sense organs?), then return to my body, how do memories of that get back into my brain? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:19 pm Post subject: 56 |
|
|
well Iv'e heard humans only use 10% of the brains capacity anyway so I dont think we have worked exactly how memories work. but I ma not nearly competent enough to argue about what happens to the brain in situations where the heart stops but the person is brought back.
You believe in God but you don't think people can expirience God???  that confuses me unless my definition of God and your are different (very possible as we've discussed context of a word or idea matters). But in case you are at least skeptical of an afterlife so it would take probably a personnal expirence to change that additude correct. I believe in the afterlife so when someone says they saw a white light and their grandma for 2 minutes I say sure I can buy that. Doesnt mean I would bet a thousand bucks on them being right.
heres what all these arguments come down to for me. whenever I talk to atheist or agnostics about the existence of God or the afterlife they ask for proof. Now we can argue who has the burden of proof all day but just to humor them for the sake of argument. I ask what they will accept as proof. Seriously what do you require to prove the existence of an afterlife? You won't accept ANY eyewitness testimony because they are either lying or out of their minds. And since the after life ocours by definition after life how are those of us still alive who believe it in supposed to prove its existence. Neither can you prove outside of eyewitness testimony that an afterlife doesn't exist. Yet I am sometimes looked upon as ignorant or unscientific or unreasonable simply because of my religious beliefs how is that fair?
also I find it funny this on topic forum thread has veered off topic. I never meant this to turn into a religous discussion. But I do enjoy being challenged.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| whenever I talk to atheist or agnostics about the existence of God or the afterlife they ask for proof. Now we can argue who has the burden of proof all day but just to humor them for the sake of argument. I ask what they will accept as proof. Seriously what do you require to prove the existence of an afterlife? You won't accept ANY eyewitness testimony because they are either lying or out of their minds. |
I would be more willing to give credence to the eyewitness accounts if they weren't so biased to reflect the witness's expectations. When you interview people who grew up in the Christian-predominant countries, they talk of a white light, their beloved ancestors/pets meeting them, a feeling of joy or welcoming. When you interview people from India, they talk about a big bureaucracy where people are being processed (rather clinically) for reincarnation. Other cultures have different "eyewitness accounts" that differ radically from the primary Western one. If there really were one afterlife that we all go to, wouldn't the experiences overlap more?
Furthermore, I'm looking for some realistic explanation of how the physics works. "I floated up near the ceiling and watched the doctors working on my lifeless body." is a pretty common claim. What is the "I" in that sentence? What did "you" see with. If you can remember it now, then it must mean that whatever pseudo-energy or pseudo-matter that did the seeing has interacted with the very real energy and matter in your brain to allow you to store the memory. If this "soul stuff" or whatever it is that was "you" but outside of your body can, indeed, interact with matter and the forms of energy we do understand, then why can't we detect it? Either it can interact with matter or it can't. If it can, we'd be able to make a sensor that detects it. If it can't, there's no way you could articulate your memory of the event.
On the other hand, explaining the phenomena as hallucinations, perhaps corresponding to what the near-dead person can hear, seems a vastly more likely answer. No entirely new branches of physics need to be invented for us to understand more or less how it works. Our understanding is not complete, but it is at least confined. It is science and not magic. (Whereas, introducing an entirely new pseudo-energy or pseudo-matter for holding the "self" outside of a living body constitutes magic, by A.C.Clarke's definition of the word.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| You believe in God but you don't think people can expirience God??? |
Perhaps they can, and perhaps it's a very rare thing. I certainly think that many things people attribute to God have natural explanations, and that they are mistaken.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| But in case you are at least skeptical of an afterlife so it would take probably a personnal expirence to change that additude correct. |
A personal experience that I can be sure wasn't a vivid dream or hallucination. If I'm alive to recollect memories of the experience, I would assume they were stored in my brain while my brain was in fact functioning, i.e. while I was actually alive ... unconscious, but not dead, not in the afterlife.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| heres what all these arguments come down to for me. whenever I talk to atheist or agnostics about the existence of God or the afterlife they ask for proof. Now we can argue who has the burden of proof all day but just to humor them for the sake of argument. I ask what they will accept as proof. Seriously what do you require to prove the existence of an afterlife? You won't accept ANY eyewitness testimony because they are either lying or out of their minds. And since the after life ocours by definition after life how are those of us still alive who believe it in supposed to prove its existence. |
"Lying or out of their minds" ... I'm not calling such people insane (or liars). They are recollecting an experience had while unconscious, not apprehended via any of our known sense organs. That sounds like a dream to me.
I might accept any sort of verifiable message from beyond. Say, my cousin comes back and says grandma told him some secret that only she and I knew. Maybe.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| Neither can you prove outside of eyewitness testimony that an afterlife doesn't exist. Yet I am sometimes looked upon as ignorant or unscientific or unreasonable simply because of my religious beliefs how is that fair? |
I believe Carl Sagan once said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's not so extraordinary to think such an "after life" experience, happening while outside the body, but the memory stored within the body (within the brain), actually happened inside the body, inside the brain, while still the brain was alive, but while the person was unconscious ... and to think it was an hallucination.
You wrote earlier "oxygen deprived hallucination is no more scientific than an actual afterlife at least to me". That, to me, is quite unreasonable. It's one thing to believe in an afterlife, but another to say the belief is as scientific as concluding something we have ample evidence occurs naturally - a hallucination or dream.
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| also I find it funny this on topic forum thread has veered off topic. I never meant this to turn into a religous discussion. But I do enjoy being challenged. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| I would be more willing to give credence to the eyewitness accounts if they weren't so biased to reflect the witness's expectations...If there really were one afterlife that we all go to, wouldn't the experiences overlap more? |
Just to be sure: this isn't some evidence to "disprove" an afterlife, is it?
This discussion really should be moved...It's bad enough the evolution/atheist/Christian threads are all pretty much the same (minus the comics Chuck posts in each).
To get back on point, it seems we are saying about post-modernism that each person has a different perspective and viewpoint on "truth," but none is necessarily more true than another. Really though, to say we are all trying to describe a truth in some way seems to suggest there is something behind it all. I thought this was poignant:
| Talitha wrote: |
| Post-modernism is a critique of who holds the power in society...Empiricism has become like religion before it - it doesn't examine or question its own assumptions. And there are many assumptions that it is based on that can be questioned: materialism and universalism are a couple of them. |
It seems post-modernism is about questioning the beliefs we hold and why. It's about holding things to the fire and seeing what survives. The problem is who is objective enough to do that and give the final answer? Really, no one. In the end, post-modernism wants to tear down the assumptions, but nobody is qualified to build them back up. Thus, the idea of no absolute truth. That doesn't seem to be much different than any other power-based struggle in which somebody without power wants those over them to be brought down...only to have themselves elevated to that place. It really doesn't seek equality or a solution, just a turning over of the current system with the power in different hands.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:16 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You wrote earlier "oxygen deprived hallucination is no more scientific than an actual afterlife at least to me". That, to me, is quite unreasonable. It's one thing to believe in an afterlife, but another to say the belief is as scientific as concluding something we have ample evidence occurs naturally - a hallucination or dream. |
Extremely well stated!
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| I would be more willing to give credence to the eyewitness accounts if they weren't so biased to reflect the witness's expectations...If there really were one afterlife that we all go to, wouldn't the experiences overlap more? |
Just to be sure: this isn't some evidence to "disprove" an afterlife, is it? |
No, it's an attempt to point out that the best evidence that there is for an afterlife (such as it is) is tainted. I still consider the burden of proof to be on the more complex description of the universe, the one that has to bring in magic to explain its own holes.
============
(Similarly attempting to return to the subject...)
============
I think that an important aspect of Post-modernism is the concept that everyone has a RIGHT to believe what they want, whether or not the governing body thinks it is wrong, stupid, foolish, or whatever. (... even whether or not I think it's wrong!) They even have the right to try to convince others of the belief, as long as they do it without harming others. As much as I detest the Westboro Baptist church idiots, I still feel that they have the right to think what they like and even to say it. I don't believe that they have the right to interrupt funerals and force their opinions on others, since interrupting a funeral is clearly harming others (I'd secretly cheer for someone who opened up on them with an uzi when they were doing it.) but if they kept their opinions to public forums, they should be allowed to express them.
This is actually a fairly new concept in the world, and is hardly universal. How many Shia Imams were killed by Sunnis, and vice-versa, just for preaching something that made the other unhappy? How many Jews were slaughtered by Stalin and Hitler, just for their beliefs? How many "heretics" were killed by the Catholic Church between 1200 and 1900? History is rife with bullies in power who are intolerant of someone thinking something different, and think that it justifies killing the different thinker.
Even if the extremists of the post-modernist movement teach passive acceptance of stupidity, that could be seen as just an extreme position of tolerance. If "Post-modernism" is the motivating force for teaching (normal, reasonable) tolerance, it deserves accolades.
Last edited by Zag on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
@ extra I can't believe I am about to say this but we will just have to agree to disagree. Of course one of us is right. (Its me BTW  ) and the fun thing about my belief is if Im right I will get to say I told you while if your right you will just lie there. UMonk for the win.
@Jedo no no no. One truth is definately more true than others thats the point. There is a truth out there. we argue what it looks like but one of us is bound to be right. or at least all are wrong. Post-modernism may WANT to tear down assumptions and bring back the hippies (Im joking don't start throwing the tomatoes.) BUT what it actually accomplishes is destroy our ability to appreciate and understand each other. If everyone problem you encountered was handled the way post-modernist handle problems then there would be no moral or intellectual growth.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:26 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
I still consider the burden of proof to be on the more complex description of the universe, the one that has to bring in magic to explain its own holes.
|
you say you are trying to return to the topic at hand after a malicious and inflamatory comment like that.
For shame Zag thats like being in the middle of a fight then kicking your opponent in the junk. Then hastily waving your arms calling a truce. 
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject: 63 |
|
|
Sorry. I really didn't mean "magic" in a derogatory sense. As I stated earlier, I am using A.C. Clarke's definition of magic: a technology sufficiently advanced that we are incapable of comprehending it. To refer to this "essence of self" which can exist independent of the body and nervous system, but then can interact with it later to form memory (but we are unable to make any sort of sensor that detects it), that qualifies. This is a position I've taken in at least 4 other discussions in other places, and you're welcome to pick them up there.
So the comment wasn't malicious, nor does it need to be inflammatory. It was merely a statement of fact. I ask, "There are four known types of energy, and there's matter. In which of these is this 'essence of self' represented?" If you answer, "something else that isn't any of those" then you are essentially saying, "magic." I'm not insulting your position, just clarifying it.
Last edited by Zag on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:35 pm Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| @ extra I can't believe I am about to say this but we will just have to agree to disagree. Of course one of us is right. (Its me BTW ) and the fun thing about my belief is if Im right I will get to say I told you while if your right you will just lie there. UMonk for the win. |
I'm not saying there's no afterlife. I'm saying there are scientific explanations, simple natural ones, explaining the claimed afterlife experiences, and that assuming the extraordinary, that the experiences actually are of an afterlife, is not at all scientific. If you disagree, you've got a strange notion of what's scientific that I'm not familiar with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: 65 |
|
|
| Yeah. I was surprised when you chose extro. If you'd like to have someone at whom you can point and laugh when you're in the afterlife and your target is simply gone, pick me. I'll state for the record that I don't believe that there is any afterlife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: 66 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| @Jedo no no no. One truth is definately more true than others thats the point. There is a truth out there. we argue what it looks like but one of us is bound to be right. or at least all are wrong. Post-modernism may WANT to tear down assumptions and bring back the hippies (Im joking don't start throwing the tomatoes.) BUT what it actually accomplishes is destroy our ability to appreciate and understand each other. If everyone problem you encountered was handled the way post-modernist handle problems then there would be no moral or intellectual growth. |
For the record, I believe there is an absolute truth.
I was trying to describe/define post-modernism and make it manageable. (A bit far-reaching, yes, but my goodness we have to be able to start somewhere.) I was just going off the blind men and the elephant analogy: Our different viewpoints are no more true than the other, but we're all grasping at different aspects of the truth. The problem comes when the post-modernist says something to this effect but is actually attempting something else (restructuring of power into their own hands). If that's the case...(I have seen few situations where it isn't.)
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: 67 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| @Jedo no no no. One truth is definately more true than others thats the point. There is a truth out there. we argue what it looks like but one of us is bound to be right. or at least all are wrong. Post-modernism may WANT to tear down assumptions and bring back the hippies (Im joking don't start throwing the tomatoes.) BUT what it actually accomplishes is destroy our ability to appreciate and understand each other. If everyone problem you encountered was handled the way post-modernist handle problems then there would be no moral or intellectual growth. |
I am starting to believe in a society that holds the one truth idea can be the best. For example Korean society is very closed and uniform for Koreans. Their traditions have survived thousands of years. People from other cultures living in Korea live inside a social bubble to preserve the fabric of society.
(source: MASH episodes and an American friend who lived there for a year)
A world that held the same moral standards could be very kind. If everyone followed the 10 Christian commandments, I would never have to concern myself with being robbed or murdered. If there was something or in fact anything that was universally held to be true across all people I would be happier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
I am starting to believe in a society that holds the one truth idea can be the best. For example Korean society is very closed and uniform for Koreans. Their traditions have survived thousands of years. People from other cultures living in Korea live inside a social bubble to preserve the fabric of society.
(source: MASH episodes and an American friend who lived there for a year)
A world that held the same moral standards could be very kind. If everyone followed the 10 Christian commandments, I would never have to concern myself with being robbed or murdered. If there was something or in fact anything that was universally held to be true across all people I would be happier. |
I really think you're mixing two completely different things here. One is the notion, that while we may be uncertain what it is, or believe we know it but disagree on it, there is some objective truth that we can seek to discover. The other is everyone holding some common belief as truth, because maybe it's somehow a good thing to believe, regardless of whether it's objectively true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: 69 |
|
|
I have trouble with an objective truth that exists that people are wrong about.
Maybe it is just splitting hair between a universal truth and an objective truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:48 am Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
I have trouble with an objective truth that exists that people are wrong about.
Maybe it is just splitting hair between a universal truth and an objective truth. |
The Earth was a sphere when everyone thought it was flat. That's a simple example of an objective truth (the shape of the Earth) that everyone was wrong about.
Universal, objective ... I think there's only one kind of truth. Any other kind is an abuse of the word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:27 am Post subject: 71 |
|
|
But the Earth clearly isn't a sphere. It is a spheroid at best. And the planar assumption of Earth is a perfectly good approximation for many things. In my everyday life I have no reason to care that it isn't.
Now I believe that if you get far enough away our universe will look like a point of light in the night's sky. I believe that it is possible but not achievable by anyone who lives at the scale of a human being. Earth at this scale will be so insignificant at this scale that our existence really won't matter. As far as I know, our universe is also a spheroid. Or maybe as far as we can realistically observe it is planar.
So what scale do you want the absolute truth to exist at? At the size of a human? The Earth? The galaxy? The universe? Something even larger than our universe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:19 am Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
| But the Earth clearly isn't a sphere. It is a spheroid at best. |
You know, I actually did think to write "roughly spherical" in case someone might make that pointless nitpick, but figured who would do that?
| MatthewV wrote: |
| And the planar assumption of Earth is a perfectly good approximation for many things. In my everyday life I have no reason to care that it isn't. |
It was not believed to be a "perfectly good approximation for many things". It was believed that the Earth was a flat surface - that one could fall off the edge of it. There was a picture in mind of the reality, and it did not approximate the actual reality. So what did you mean by:
| Quote: |
| I have trouble with an objective truth that exists that people are wrong about. |
If in your everyday life you have no reason to care that what those people believe is not the truth, but very different than the truth, how does it trouble you?
There are countless examples of things everyone believed that turned out to be false, and there are undoubtedly things today that most or all believe that are false. The point is there is a truth, and it sounds like you're toying with denying that, but only toying with it - not actually putting your foot down and saying so.
| Quote: |
Now I believe that if you get far enough away our universe will look like a point of light in the night's sky. I believe that it is possible but not achievable by anyone who lives at the scale of a human being. Earth at this scale will be so insignificant at this scale that our existence really won't matter. As far as I know, our universe is also a spheroid. Or maybe as far as we can realistically observe it is planar.
So what scale do you want the absolute truth to exist at? At the size of a human? The Earth? The galaxy? The universe? Something even larger than our universe? |
What does that mean, about scale? If the Earth or whatever "looks like" a point of light from a distance, there's a truth about what the Earth is, a truth about what it looks like from a distance, and a truth about why. These don't conflict or contradict.
For a serious discussion, I think people need to say what they mean. God exists. God does not exist. For whatever you might choose 'God' to mean, one of those is objectively true, one of those is objectively false, and which it is has nothing to do with what people believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: 73 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The Earth was a sphere when everyone thought it was flat. That's a simple example of an objective truth (the shape of the Earth) that everyone was wrong about. |
(Must resist urge to point out that most educated people have thought the earth was round once ships started being built, and that Columbus's dispute with the establishment wasn't about the shape of the earth, but the size: he incorrectly thought the Earth was much smaller than it really was, and got lucky because the Americas were roughly where he thought China would be.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:34 am Post subject: 74 |
|
|
| (must resist urge to point out I didn't put a date on when they thought it was flat, and more so the urge to point out the particulars of the example would only matter to a dolt) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject: 75 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| (must resist urge to point out I didn't put a date on when they thought it was flat, and more so the urge to point out the particulars of the example would only matter to a dolt) |
If you go back far enough, you run into the problem that most people didn't care about the shape of the Earth. If you never travel more than hundred miles from your place of birth, it doesn't matter whether the Earth is round or flat, and there's no particular reason to think about it.
And even then, it might not be true. Enough people can see the shape of the moon/sun to know that those objects are round, and it's not like spherical objects are uncommon.
(If you used something like Newtonian physics versus Relativity, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it's a better example of how objective truth can change.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: 76 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| (If you used something like Newtonian physics versus Relativity, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it's a better example of how objective truth can change.) |
Objective truth isn't changing, what people believe about it is, and their beliefs are either right or wrong. This whole branch stemmed from "I have trouble with an objective truth that exists that people are wrong about", and of course it exists.
(I also think more people were prone to wonder about the extent and shape of the surface of the Earth they walked upon, even if they would only walk within a limited region, than there were people prone to think about laws of physics) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: 77 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Objective truth isn't changing, what people believe about it is |
Right. My last statement was extremely poorly worded. (I've clipped where I've clipped deliberately.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: 78 |
|
|
why was I arguing with extra....He is saying exactly what I was trying to argue with this subject. Note never use religion when making a point in a non-religious topic.
To add to what he is saying what you and I believe to be true has no impact on what an objective truth is. I believe post-modernism is merely trying to soothe our own inflated egos. "No Undercover Monk you were'nt wrong about Peyton manning playing football in 2011 you were just looking at it the wrong way he played football just not professionally." Balderdash I was wrong. I can be wrong. I will in all likelyhood be wrong again. I will be wrong probably sometime before I go to sleep tonight. and thats ok. I see no problem with being wrong.
Once in first grade I argued with my mom that Abraham Lincoln was the fifth president of the United States. In my defense it made sense that if the guy on the 1 dollar bill was the first president then the guy on the 5 dollar bill was the fifth president. There you go an objective truth that I was wrong about. also proof that an argument can be logical and rational and still be wrong.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:24 pm Post subject: 79 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| I will in all likelyhood be wrong again. I will be wrong probably sometime before I go to sleep tonight... |
That's spelled 'likelihood." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: 80 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| I will in all likelyhood be wrong again. I will be wrong probably sometime before I go to sleep tonight... |
That's spelled 'likelihood." |
If he's making a crossword, he need only add (var.) and he can make whatever spelling mistakes he wants without correction. 
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
