Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Grendel]

Do you mean to say that qualia are not what they seem?

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa ....

What kind of argument is that?!

Again you just sound illogical to me.

I think it's fair to say you're not making sense.

Can you explain yourself properly at all?

you are proving yourself incapable of articulating your position coherently.

All you've done so far is illogical

unsupported and unexplained statements.

Perhaps these books will explain, in words more literate than anything I can write?

​

See ya later Alligator

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Only physical and material reality exists. Everything else is metaphysical verbiosity.

that's pretty provincial.

- - - Updated - - -

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa ....

you are proving yourself incapable of articulating your position coherently.

All you've done so far is illogical

unsupported and unexplained statements.

Perhaps these books will explain, in words more literate than anything I can write?

View attachment 18691


See ya later Alligator

Both general relativity and quantum physics overall are utterly contrary to your op so that is a strange way to support your argument.

 

[untermensche]

That there may be something objective behind some of the experiences and not others is a subjective hypothesis.

An observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.

All "evidence" is just some person's subjective experience.

No amount of subjective experiences can create an object.

The objective is hypothesized, believed to be there.

There is no way to prove using only experience, and that is all that is available, that anything besides experience exists.

 

[Speakpigeon]

that's pretty provincial.

- - - Updated - - -

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa ....

Perhaps these books will explain, in words more literate than anything I can write?

View attachment 18691


See ya later Alligator

Both general relativity and quantum physics overall are utterly contrary to your op so that is a strange way to support your argument.

His argument? You're being too generous here. He has a view but no argument. The only way to "support an argument", as you put it, are facts, logic, and the argument itself. He's been challenged to explain himself in all those respects but apparently can't get to do it. His last post here is merely chicken out. His has no facts, no logic and no argument. At least nothing he was prepared to share with us. All he seems capable of are childish gimmicks. No substance. Even his own metaphysical view, the so-called "compositional nihilism", I had to make it explicit for him because he couldn't get himself to articulate it. We're not going to go anywhere I'm afraid.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That there may be something objective behind some of the experiences and not others is a subjective hypothesis.

An observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.

All "evidence" is just some person's subjective experience.

No amount of subjective experiences can create an object.

The objective is hypothesized, believed to be there.

There is no way to prove using only experience, and that is all that is available, that anything besides experience exists.

Again, an observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.

Btw, what do you think a hypothesis entails?

 

[untermensche]

All "evidence" is just some person's subjective experience.

No amount of subjective experiences can create an object.

The objective is hypothesized, believed to be there.

There is no way to prove using only experience, and that is all that is available, that anything besides experience exists.

Again, an observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.

Btw, what do you think a hypothesis entails?

What is this "evidence" you speak of?

You mean the subjective experience of something?

There is nothing else.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

All "evidence" is just some person's subjective experience.

No amount of subjective experiences can create an object.

The objective is hypothesized, believed to be there.

There is no way to prove using only experience, and that is all that is available, that anything besides experience exists.

Again, an observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.

Btw, what do you think a hypothesis entails?

What is this "evidence" you speak of?

Empirical.

There is nothing else.

Again, an observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence. Would it suit you better if I said, "Considering the empirical evidence"?

And, again, what do you think a hypothesis entails?

 

[untermensche]

What is this "evidence" you speak of?

Empirical.

You mean something experienced?

Seeing something is an experience. Measuring something is nothing but experiences.

How do we know about this "evidence"?

All we know are our experiences.

The rest is hypothesis.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What is this "evidence" you speak of?

Empirical.

You mean something experienced?

That’s what the word means.

Seeing something is an experience. Measuring something is nothing but experiences. How do we know about this "evidence"? All we know are our experiences. The rest is hypothesis.

Again, an observation of trivial importance. At this point you’re simply regurgitating a tautology. You operate according to this hypothesis every millisecond of every day. You are doing so right now, when reading what I—not you—wrote. On a computer that you hypothesize exists externally. On the external keyboard that you must instruct your external hands to type on. Etc., etc., etc.

That fact that we subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times—is not exactly a new concept.

You—all sentient beings—have exactly two base options; accept that your senses are relaying accurate information, or don’t. You are already accepting that they do, because you’re using a computer and responding to other posts.

Don’t, and the only option is to sit in a padded cell rocking back and forth for your entire life.

That’s it. This has been known for centuries and cannot be overcome, due exclusvely to the fact that its a by-product of the way in which our brains create analogue selves. The dog will never be able to eat its tail.

So, again, you pointing to it repeatedly is an observation of trivial importance.

 

[untermensche]

That fact that we subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times—is not exactly a new concept.

Great.

Then we agree.

There are the subjective experiences we know.

And the things we merely believe.

 

[Grendel]

That fact that we subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times—is not exactly a new concept.

You—all sentient beings—have exactly two base options; accept that your senses are relaying accurate information, or don’t. You are already accepting that they do, because you’re using a computer and responding to other posts.

Don’t, and the only option is to sit in a padded cell rocking back and forth for your entire life.

Well said Koy

 

[untermensche]

That fact that we subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times—is not exactly a new concept.

You—all sentient beings—have exactly two base options; accept that your senses are relaying accurate information, or don’t. You are already accepting that they do, because you’re using a computer and responding to other posts.

Don’t, and the only option is to sit in a padded cell rocking back and forth for your entire life.

Well said Koy

His post could be reduced to three words.

"I really believe!"

 

[fromderinside]

Read the introduction in French here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...laire_technique_et_critique_de_la_philosophie

EB

Lots of you going me heard stuff. But you finally got to something I can verify and even have translated.

Thanks.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That fact that we subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times—is not exactly a new concept.

You—all sentient beings—have exactly two base options; accept that your senses are relaying accurate information, or don’t. You are already accepting that they do, because you’re using a computer and responding to other posts.

Don’t, and the only option is to sit in a padded cell rocking back and forth for your entire life.

Well said Koy

His post could be reduced to three words.

"I really believe!"

Supported by an additional four words: “Based on the evidence.”

Just like you and all humans to have ever and will ever exist.

 

[untermensche]

We just went through this.

What is called "evidence" is an experience.

I have a visual and tactile experience of the table.

I have experiences. Not a table.

A table is something believed to be there based on experiences.

There are real experiences and tables believed to be behind them.

And no matter how strong the belief it can never be more than faith.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We just went through this.

Then why are you regurgitating it?

What is called "evidence" is an experience.

I know. Hence my use of the term “empirical.”

And no matter how strong the belief it can never be more than faith.

Everyone knows this. It is a belief based on the empirical evidence that supports it. You are stating nothing new and have made nothing more than an observation of trivial importance.

Unless you are attempting to pull the old cult members’ equivocation of the word “faith” (i.e., “religious” faith: believing something to be true in spite of the evidence against it, vs. “scientific” faith: believing something to be true based upon the evidence that supports it), you are adding nothing to a conversation that’s thousands of years old.

Indeed, even if you are simply edging ever closer to that cult sophistry, you would still not be adding anything new as that stupidity has long existed as well.

So, once again and for auld lang syne, you are making observations of trivial importance (while employing empirically based assumptions every time you hit “save”).

And....?



ETA: From another thread I vowed to leave:

I am saying...that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

So, you are deriving a belief based on empirical evidence.

See? An observation of trivial importance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Read the introduction in French here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...laire_technique_et_critique_de_la_philosophie

EB

Lots of you going me heard stuff. But you finally got to something I can verify and even have translated.

Thanks.

You're welcome. I knew you would be up to the task.

You already did it once, with an unfortunately poor result, though. Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme? I hope this time proved better.

I'm even impressed since the thing was a picture of the introduction, not something easily machine-readable. I'm in awe. Did you really do that?

Perhaps you could copy here the translation? For the benefit of DrZoidberg?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Then why are you regurgitating it?

Again.

Then we agree.

There are experiences. Some can be labeled "empiracle" if you like but the designation is arbitrary.

It is based only on experienced utility. Not knowledge.

There is no knowledge of the objective.

Only faith it is behind experience.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Some can be labeled "empiracle" if you like but the designation is arbitrary.

All such designations are (technically) arbitrary.

It is based only on experienced utility.

Again, that is what the word empirical means.

There is no knowledge of the objective.

In the strictly ontological and therefore utterly trivial sense, the brain does not directly interact with any external thing (beside the skull) and therefore its "knowledge" of the external world can only be based on derivation.

Only faith it is behind experience.

If you like to equivocate "faith" with derivation, it's your choice, but the designation is arbitrary and then you'd have to square it with other statements you have made, such as:

I am saying...that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

Do you really wish to leave both threads knowing that by your own semantics games you just said, "I have faith something objective is the cause" as that would call into question your use of the qualifier "unlikely"?

 

[untermensche]

You've made no point.

You have no point.