"Objective" Evidence

[untermensche]

Due to your triggering of radical skepticism, that too is categorically impossible.

Perhaps you actually think that is an argument.

I do not. It is a fact, not an argument.

I have triggered nothing.

You have little understanding.

I am not required by some magic spell to say that because all we have access to are experiences that experiences are all that exist.

You have no arguments.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I do not. It is a fact, not an argument.

I have triggered nothing.

You have little understanding.

I am not required by some magic spell to say that because all we have access to are experiences that experiences are all that exist.

You have no arguments.

Ironically it is you that endlessly repeat the same sophomoric chants, while hiding behind the shakiest grasp of global scepticism. A doctrine demonstrated to be self refuting in the eighteenth century.

 

[untermensche]

I do not. It is a fact, not an argument.

I have triggered nothing.

You have little understanding.

I am not required by some magic spell to say that because all we have access to are experiences that experiences are all that exist.

You have no arguments.

Ironically it is you that endlessly repeat the same sophomoric chants, while hiding behind the shakiest grasp of global scepticism. A doctrine demonstrated to be self refuting in the eighteenth century.

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

Yes you did mention a word.

Are you claiming you have access to more than experiences?

 

[steve_bank]

Ironically it is you that endlessly repeat the same sophomoric chants, while hiding behind the shakiest grasp of global scepticism. A doctrine demonstrated to be self refuting in the eighteenth century.

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

Yes you did mention a word.

Are you claiming you have access to more than experiences?

Of course we have access to things beyond our experience. It is the great cosmic disembodied mind, comprised of art, music, literature, poetry, science, cable global news.

 

[steve_bank]

I am saying how things really are.

We only have subjective experiences of the world.

We have no objective knowledge of the world.



In science it is prediction of future experiences.

There is objective evidence

There are experiences only.

Most claim there is something objective behind their experiences but nobody really knows.

It is impossible to peak behind experiences.

You obviously do not see the holes in your arguments.

A view of 'reality as it is' has to be a singular subjective experience. The point you avoid is that by your own arguments, you can never view anything as objective truth. You can not both claim all is subjective perception and then make a declarative statement amounting to objective truth, it is mutually exclusive.

What do you mean precisely by all is subjective and objective does not exist? It is the crux of your view, if you can not define it then your arguments are baseless. I gave multiple examples contrasting objective vs subjective.

Objective evidence, not subject to personal bias or interpretation. Example, measuring gravitational experience. How is this not objective under the definition I give?

Subjective, open to personal bias and interpretation. In a crime drama 'I just know the husband killed the wife', says the brother in law who has a personal grudge against the husband.

 

[untermensche]

You obviously do not see the holes in your arguments.

No I see no holes in it.

A view of 'reality as it is' has to be a singular subjective experience. The point you avoid is that by your own arguments, you can never view anything as objective truth. You can not both claim all is subjective perception and then make a declarative statement amounting to objective truth, it is mutually exclusive.

That we are experiencing is the objective truth.

If you are experiencing red you know you are experiencing red. You know you are not experiencing blue.

If you are experiencing red there is no way to doubt you are experiencing red.

What do you mean precisely by all is subjective and objective does not exist?

I say all we can know are our subjective experiences.

We cannot know there are objects behind our experiences.

We also cannot know there are not.

 

[steve_bank]

You are using then word subjective without definition. Obviously you can not answer my questions and fall back to claims of truth.

Open to a greater reality, it is worth it.

 

[untermensche]

You are using then word subjective without definition. Obviously you can not answer my questions and fall back to claims of truth.

Open to a greater reality, it is worth it.

This makes little sense.

The subject is the thing that has the experiences.

You are a thing that has experiences.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

It goes without saying that only a particularly narrow minded sort of Trumpster would be unaware that the rest of the world spell 'scepticism' correctly, rather than the Websterised simplification adopted by American low brows.

Just as it goes without saying that this bollocks about only knowing experience assumes Cartesian dualism. If you don't take the religious position that there is more than one substance then existence of mental events is evidence of the physical events that instantiate them. I would say a priori again, but what's the point?

Pitiful.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

rather than the Websterised simplification adopted by American low brows.

Hey. All right, it’s a fair cop.

 

[untermensche]

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

It goes without saying that only a particularly narrow minded sort of Trumpster would be unaware that the rest of the world spell 'scepticism' correctly, rather than the Websterised simplification adopted by American low brows.

Just as it goes without saying that this bollocks about only knowing experience assumes Cartesian dualism. If you don't take the religious position that there is more than one substance then existence of mental events is evidence of the physical events that instantiate them. I would say a priori again, but what's the point?

Pitiful.

Tell me what a body is since you seem to have some hangup on dualism.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I do not. It is a fact, not an argument.

I have triggered nothing.

Oh, well, if you say so, then it must be true.

You have little understanding.

Irony. Big fan.

I am not required by some magic spell to say that because all we have access to are experiences that experiences are all that exist.

Quite right. There is no magic spell involved. You are, however, required by the logic and terms of your own position—which is radical skepticism—to say it, so if you have an issue it is with your own declarative statements.

You have no arguments.

I don’t need them. Your position is self-defeating. It relies on poorly defined terms, equiovocation, basic category errors and petulant declarative statements in a sophomoric attempt to fiat acceptance. When assailed, you pretend superiority and just double-down on the petulant declaratives. It is a pointless waste of everyone’s time, but especially yours if you truly accepted your own position, which is probably the biggest irony of the whole lot. You don’t, or else you wouldn’t be posting the same declaratives over and over and over and over.

You are stomping your foot on a virtural playground that according to your position only exists as a “presentation” of your brain to a part of itself that it also generates.

 

[untermensche]

You addressed the argument in no way.

You have not shown that you have access to anything beyond experience.

You have waved your arms a lot and looked like an ass.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

It goes without saying that only a particularly narrow minded sort of Trumpster would be unaware that the rest of the world spell 'scepticism' correctly, rather than the Websterised simplification adopted by American low brows.

Just as it goes without saying that this bollocks about only knowing experience assumes Cartesian dualism. If you don't take the religious position that there is more than one substance then existence of mental events is evidence of the physical events that instantiate them. I would say a priori again, but what's the point?

Pitiful.

Tell me what a body is since you seem to have some hangup on dualism.

Oddly, I have no particular need or desire to try to educate someone with no qualifications, knowledge or aptitude in this area. In any other domain than the internet, it must be very very lonely. Behave like this in real life and it would not go well.

 

[untermensche]

There are no qualifications necessary to understand anything.

All that is required is understanding.

Something you have little of.

So you drone on about magic qualifications and special knowledge.

The fact is you don't have the slightest clue what a body is.

If you are a physicist you know some behaviors of bodies but you do not know what they are.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You addressed the argument in no way.

You have no argument.

You have not shown that you have access to anything beyond experience.

I don’t have to, you silly child.

You have waved your arms a lot and looked like an ass.

Awww, poor widdle. Stomp stomp stomp.

 

[Subsymbolic]

There are no qualifications necessary to understand anything.

Of course not. That's why the overwhelming majority of progress in Philosophy, Science and pretty well anywhere else is made by blustering bullshiiting blowhards on the internet while people with training and qualifications look on in awe.

All that is required is understanding.

So let me get this straight: All you require to understand anything is understanding? I would take the piss out of you for this, but how could I improve on the job you are doing yourself?

Something you have little of.

I know, I just have to get by on having been taught, when you can understand anything just by understanding it. If only I'd known. I could have taken the unterjerome one step program to expertise in all areas.

So you drone on about magic qualifications and special knowledge.

That has something to do with having wasted over a decade of my life studying under experts in the field and most of the rest of it teaching others when I could have just understood by understanding as you do.

The fact is you don't have the slightest clue what a body is.

I don't have to, I don't root truth in correspondence but in coherence. That's because i'm not pathetically ignorent of modern scientific metaphysics and still stuck in the mistakes of the the sixteenth century.

If you are a physicist you know some behaviors of bodies but you do not know what they are.

I'm not a physicist. I'll say it again, it doesn't matter whether, ultimately the fundamental basis of stuff is elf cum or quantum goo, as long as all of the theories fit together coherently, and they do, then I'm just fine. You, stuck with your century out of date misunderstanding of hypothetico-deductive model, can get as excited as you like about sceptical tossery, but the rest of the world sailed by years ago.

It's just pitiful.

 

[untermensche]

You have no argument.

Says you.

My argument begins with the clear fact that all a human has access to are subjective experiences and the things they subjectively make of those subjective experiences.

 

[untermensche]

That has something to do with having wasted over a decade of my life studying under experts in the field and most of the rest of it teaching others when I could have just understood by understanding as you do.

Worse than a waste.

It has turned you into a parrot unable to make arguments.

You have been made simple.

You think mentioning some argument is enough.

You blab on and on about some mind/body problem yet have no clue what a body is.

You are as lost as a mind can be.

You have no tools to find your way.

 

[Subsymbolic]

That has something to do with having wasted over a decade of my life studying under experts in the field and most of the rest of it teaching others when I could have just understood by understanding as you do.

Worse than a waste.

It has turned you into a parrot unable to make arguments.

You have been made simple.

You think mentioning some argument is enough.

You blab on and on about some mind/body problem yet have no clue what a body is.

You are as lost as a mind can be.

You have no tools to find your way.

Do you realise just how theological you sound? More to the point, what you don't realise and can never realise is the sort of debate that can go on when there isn't someone trolling every debate. Either way, that's enough time wasted on you for a day. Sat there like a zombie squid spraying troll juice over every discussion and turning it all to the only thing that matters to you. You.