Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:45:25 +0100

Skep

My bad bro i know that oak outside is lookin sexy...

and i am a bit of a skeptic myself, i think it may be one of the more analytical views...question everything is a good way to see things. but to an extent. we ARE here, wherever here may be, and that fact should although does not nessessarily prove that everything we 'take for granted' as being true, we can still posit other "truths" and while those truths can inturn be skeptified, doesn't mean they're not true.

there may be no way to PROVE abosolute certainty, but the ability to prove, in and of itself should be evidence enough to put this mental masterbation into good ol' bumpin uglies.

plus women are hot! i wouldn't know how hot they were until i touched one and she touched back. i definitly knew i was in the room, not just in my head. i was in her head too! so to speak.

does that make her the tree? trees are sexy.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:04:05 +0100

This actually has alot to do with my thought and action idea. If you guys want to check it out and tell me what you think i would apreciate it.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:01:45 +0100

Awww D gallo you rined it for me, i had my eye on that oak outside my window. haha

Of course i go out and have sex with the real world. But thats another questions how much of that is jenuine and how much is disguised masturbation. I personally need to ask these questions otherwise the interaction has no mor value then an illusion and hence is masturbation.

Also i thin the outlook i adopted gives me the ability to examine everything in the most critical manner, if you take away the conviction in everythng being true and right simplly because you think so then you can examine everything with less bias.

In a way masturbation leads to better sex.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:01:10 +0100

Skeptic

"I think therefore perception is. Seems objectivelly true enough.

The issue is im curentlly trying to prove to myself that i am in fact thinking, and am aware, by thinking."

The fact that you are trying to prove to yourself that you are thinking is proof of the thought. We introspect, examine ourselves even in the absense of the real world (granted there would be no basis of the thought if we didnt have that REAL world), but the multiple people socratically bantering in our head should be proof enough! If you can take "I think there for perception is" as a truth, then you shouldn't get cought up in trying to leave the realities of you head.

Tree in a forrest, who cares if nobody was there to hear it would it make a sound. we are here it DID make the sound so that should be proof enough that there is something outside yourself. Your thought is the proof. no outside no thought. no thought no trying to prove to yourself whether you're thinking or not. all of the pieces of the puzzle need to be there in order to create the picture.

does the world dissapear when you die??? as we speak someone just died. sucks. but its true. we're still here. did his world dissapear??? a question that none of us here LIVING can answer. you - go and die- come back - tell me that's another story.

I think we could all use a little sex with the real world...don't try and fu*k that tree tho, splinters are a bitch.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:12:15 +0100

i understand how you feel skeptic- i was just getting the feeling like i needed to being have some sex with the real world as opposed to masterbating with my own thoughts

there is an intersting concept- interaction with the real world as a sort of sex- and abstract thinking, imagination, and those things are masterbation

you kind of get to know your body better then sex gets better....

delve into thought and attempt know yourself, then you can expirence the world...?

crazy ideas...

muyscs-astralia

sounds right....;)

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:49:17 +0100

Oh it is sir, but whats wrong with that. Most philosophy that goes deeper the politics is usually not very aplicable in the real world.

But who cares, im alowed my thought, and if it be verbal masturbation so be it, it makes me think and that is all i care about.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:47:07 +0100

Jesse... I shouldn't have to tell you to the put 'U' into masturbation!!

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:39:22 +0100

prove to me that this is not all just verbal masterbation....

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:01:12 +0100

Damn one L again, sorry mate.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:59:21 +0100

D galo.

You have a point there, we have come to this paradox earlier. I think therefore perception is. Seems objectivelly true enough. The issue is im curentlly trying to prove to myself that i am in fact thinking, and am aware, by thinking.

I was not yet able to. Ah weres that bullet when you need it.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:53:20 +0100

"but the sudden change from one state to another because of this interjection of sudden non-awareness CANNOT be dismissed as a mere assumption"

You say because its a state change the change cant be dismissed as an assumption. Firs how do you what this state change presents in itself, how do you know awarness stops, and how can the sessation of awarnes on the part of one individual be proven to be objectivelly true to all.

Let us say one man dies and experiences the lack of awarness, we can not prove objectivelly that this ever has or has not happened, because we cant prove the existance of other people, but lets asume that it is a fact, the only thing this impllys is that that particular man lost his awarness or ceaced to be, nothing more, not an objecive claim about reality. But as i said we cant even prove that.

As far as everything being reliant on the mind, in a sence that someone needs to experience the universe in order for it to be real, the whole tree in the forest argument. Then what you are saying is that reality is entirelly subjective to the individual. And there are no objective truths. I cant say that that is true or false, because i can not for an objective picture of what the mind presents. You can aplly the skepticism with reguard to the senses, and call it skepticism with reguard to the mind.

To preove to you that the interjection that causes a state change can not be proven objectivelly true all i have to do is ask you to prove to me the existance of said interjection. Im not sure that its real, i dont know weather i can experience a state change, and if i do i dont know that anyone else will.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:14:19 +0100

Skeptic44: I understand that you are unable to see a difference between touching a cup of coffee and having your life snuffed out by a bullet. One you cannot be sure of, the other is fracking real. I am not claiming the bullet, your brain or your consciousness to be real, but the sudden change from one state to another because of this interjection of sudden non-awareness CANNOT be dismissed as a mere assumption.

The whole point of this difference between objective and subjective truths is that the MIND is the perceiver. That the mind that can perceive the difference is suddenly snuffed out is NOT inconsequential. Hume insists that Objective Truths exist irrespective of the mind, yet the mind is needed to grasp that thought; and once touched by thought, becomes subjective. Without the mind there is no difference, no objective, no subjective, no math no universe and no love.

Thus D galo is correct. But what I am suggesting is that this is NOT a duality, but that the sudden state change that destroys the mind is a third option and MUST necessarily be real as all options are destroyed when the mind is destroyed. Can the very action of destroying the mind be seen as the interjection of objective truth?

I insist that you prove that this interjection that causes such a state change to the mind cannot be seen as real, but an ASSUMPTION. There is something inside the bullet, not the bullet itself, that causes an objective state change; thus there is something objective in the bullet: WHAT?

-death
-velocity
-mass
-electrons
-gravity
-time
-being
-existence

Maybe existence itself is objective: I am therefore I am.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:24:07 +0100

Coyote, meditation of not, we can clear our head of all things, create a space and go back before the big bang and imagine wherst it call came (from nothing) and where the universe is expanding into (nothing) but to clear your head of your conciousness itself, can't happen. and as far as everything being real...it is...jesus too..how about santa. prove to me santa doesn't exist...for that matter prove that he does...can't...and that's all skeptic is trying to say. we prove the existence of anything outside the mind, for it is the only certainty we have the ability to PROVE

skeptic, two LLs there brother...
you wrote
The lack of bility to prove anything objectivelly does not indicate that nothing is real. It simplly indicates that we do not know what is or is not real, true or untrue, there is always an element of uncertainty no matter how much we deduce.

Of course...I get it... I was trying to show you that you can't discount everything or else even your certain mind would be of no importance relevance or even be there at all. so in my opinion that the very fact that we can generate this certainty of the mind itself releaves us of the burden of proof of a physical universe, for with out the physical universe the mind would be meaningless, for it would have no place to draw meaning from.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:29:46 +0100

D galo
The lack of bility to prove anything objectivelly does not indicate that nothing is real. It simplly indicates that we do not know what is or is not real, true or untrue, there is always an element of uncertainty no matter how much we deduce.

Coyote
We all use the earthlly aproach in everyday life me, you, and Hume alike. But it remains that all these earthlly "facts" are basically assumptions. Usefull assumptions to be sure, but again just assumptions.

I dont see why you keep refering to crashing cars, and jumping off roofs. How do they differ from any other senario, how are they more onjectiely real? It seems to me to siplly be emotional apeal because they are more extreme senarios. But the same rules aplly when we are talking about the reliablity of my senses with reguard to my cup of coffe. These senarios dont prove objective reality more then any other.

Im not saying that if i jump off the rrof, and think i wont die i wont. Im saying we cant be 100% cetain, that the roof, myself, and the ground really exists. I think its a good assumption that they do and that i will die hence i dont jump off, but its not objetive truth.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:29:48 +0100

D Gallo posted: 'I ask you to try and imagine "NOTHINGNESS" try to experience not to be able to experience. not blackness or emptiness. but nothingness.
i cant do it. can you?'

Most meditations seek such a state. For example, that is an important state in Kabbalic meditation; start with:
-Ain Soph: the vast emptiness of space; Nothingness; and at the same time the vast Nothingness out of which the universe sprang; [the universe being (mostly) nothingness] You must empty your mind and imbibe Nothingness.

-out of Nothingness, Intuition. (right shoulder, or ear)
-Intuition which springs from Nothingness leads to Understanding. (left shoulder, or ear)
-Understanding gives rise to Compassion. (right hand)
-Compassion born of Understanding yields true Power. (left hand)
-If we follow this path of Intuition, Understanding, and Compassion tempering Power, then we will have Balance and our lives will exhibit and experience Beauty. (navel)

Then again, on a more rude earthly approach, try falling off a tall building, crashing the BMW, bullet in the head, or exploding dynamite. Ask moldy old Hume what he now experiences.

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:03:26 +0100

D Gallo; Too much working in the mirrors; too much dependence upon negatives indicates that your approach is of the devil ;)

Your entire approach is the mirror, thus illusionary. And if illusionary, then nothing is real. Therefore everything is real, including Jesus. Huh?

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:35:03 +0100

Wow, my head hurts...that's the last time i read striaght through ten pages of posts!

Since skeptic credits me for sparking this spirited debate, I felt obligated to reply.

So let us turn this debate on its head and start with the 'objective truth' that NOTHING IS REAL...

if nothing is real.. then what is nothing? is it something to be nothinged?

if we want to discredit the real world experiences then i ask you to try and imagine "NOTHINGNESS" try to experience not to be able to experience. not blackness or epmtyness. but nothingness.

i cant do it. can you?

so, if we can't prove nothingness (a negative) can we deny somethingness (existence)?

if we cant say that nothing is here does that mean something has to be?

something external to ourselves?

something that has order? without order, thought and perception would be impossible. characteristics would not have meaning without difference and as coyote puts dualities. up down and so forth.

up would have no meaning without down
light without dark

but the existence of one brings about the existence of the other.
without light we couldn't KNOW dark
does that prove the existence of light?
if not is it just in our heads?
and if that's true than doesn't the very existence within our minds prove some REAL entity that individual posits knowledge a knowledge that would have no meaning without differences to differentiate.

so what can the know but knowing itself? an act that requires some kind of experience that requires somekind of inter action with a world that cannot be proven or even exist without the use of the only thing we have the ability to prove. our minds.

so all i know is that NOTHING IS REAL but its ok because if nothing wasn't real then we wouldn't be able to say that everything is!

COPYRIGHT THAT SH*T! DAVID M. GALLO a man who knows he isn't real!

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:22:44 +0100

Skeptic44: Thanks for the discussion. I am going to get some nature now so I may not post back in a timely fashion.

'how can our experience prove anything false?'
falling off a tall building, crashing the BMW, bullet in the head, exploding dynamite. These CANNOT be simply dismissed as perception or assumptions. This is where something more solid interjects, and that needs to be properly described rather than dismissed as (sneer) 'assumptions!'

'I actually think Hume included geometry into his truths.'
Yes he apparently did. Thus my model which relies on geometry is Hume approved. But I need to hear how geometry does not pass through our perceptions, while the formula for dynamite, or water does.

How can a tetrahedron exist as an objective truth while water or the sun do not?

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:07:43 +0100

jesseakers: reply posted
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9493

Comment on: Proff of an objective truth, Socratic method.

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:58:25 +0100

So once again, the game results in the conclusion that NO OBJECTIVE REALITY exists, and this we know from experience to be false.

Im sorry first how can our experience prove anything false. Second if we experience it we perceive it, so that does not get eround the issue of perception.

Am i to understand that you are saying that geometric concepts ar the onlly thing that can be proven objectivly?

I actually think Hume included geometry into his truths. And i think that woul be corect by virtue of geometry being based on algebra. In a sence that it takes algebraic concpts to conceive shapes or figures.

By virtue of what are these things true objectivley. Simplly enough because we do not perveive them yet the ideas can still be conceived and stand reguardless of perception. We can never experience or perceive a perfect cube, or an exact singularity. But wa can deduce these concepts using using algebra, or geometry what they would present in theory.

Im not sure about the argument that in another
universe the basick laws of algebra wold not apply, i will have to tink about it further.

Oh and is by WASP you mean White Anglo Saxon Protestant(dont really see how thats an inult) then you are mistaken. Hume was a Scotsman hence celtic, and he was not a protestant but an atheist.