"Objective" Evidence

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What it must be like to be reduced to that.

You have no position or rational criticism of mine.

Goodby.

FFS, it’s been nothing but page after page after page of rational and devastating criticism that has reduced your position to the idiotic bundle of obvious fallacies/category errors that it so obviously consists of and your only response is to re-assert your asinine fallacies and pretend everyone else has no position or rational criticism. Dunning, meet Kruger.

 

[DBT]

My position is that there is brain activity that results in products.

Products like a mind.

And the product is not activity.

It is a product of activity.

Like heat is a product of a heater.

And there most definitely is the finished product of a bird in a cage.

All experiences are finished products.

Sorry, but your position is fatally flawed for the numerous reasons already given, but rejected by you because they do not happen to conform to your position.

It's like someone who is arguing for a geocentric solar system in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

You have given no flaws. That is absolute nonsense.

Your position is unsupportable.

All you have are subjective experiences of a wall. You have no wall to speak of.

A wall is a mental construction based on subjective experiences.

Flaws in your position have been provided and described at length by several posters, including me. You typically ignore anything that you don't agree with, without consideration, no counterargument, just your typical arbitrary dismissal.

 

[DBT]

The subjective experience of not being able to pass though a solid wall is based on the physical fact of not being able to pass through a solid wall.

It is the subjective experience of not being able to move.

From this experience, along with a visual experience, a wall is constructed in the mind.

The experiences are known.

The wall is a construct.

This is a fact and no amount of hand waving can change it.

The solid wall is an objective reality.

That is a label we give to something when we believe it is there based on our totally subjective experiences. It is a subjective judgement.

Your subjective experience of 'not being able to move' through the wall is based on the objective reality of being physically unable to pass though a solid wall.....that being objective because nobody is able to pass through the wall. This is true for all people and all animals, hence objective. Testable, verifiable, predictable....

 

[untermensche]

What it must be like to be reduced to that.

You have no position or rational criticism of mine.

Goodby.

FFS, it’s been nothing but page after page after page of rational and devastating criticism that has reduced your position to the idiotic bundle of obvious fallacies/category errors that it so obviously consists of and your only response is to re-assert your asinine fallacies and pretend everyone else has no position or rational criticism. Dunning, meet Kruger.

Laughable.

Every ameboid that slithers around these days talks of Dunning–Kruger. To see it is to know you are dealing with a worthless hand waver.

My position stands stronger than when I started.

The criticism is third rate and absurd.

You have nothing.

Red is a product.

It is something that can be distinguished from other products, like green.

The visual experience is a production. A massive in terms of complexity production.

 

[untermensche]

Flaws in your position have been provided and described at length by several posters, including me. You typically ignore anything that you don't agree with, without consideration, no counterargument, just your typical arbitrary dismissal.

There has been third rate criticism of the position but no flaws have been shown.

Which is why you can't beat me over the head with some sustained specific criticism and are reduced to mumbling nonsense about flaws.

Your subjective experience of 'not being able to move' through the wall is based on the objective reality of being physically unable to pass though a solid wall...

That is an unsupported claim you cannot demonstrate in any way.

You believe a wall is there.

You have faith in objects.

It is a rational faith, meaning: based on a direct experience, but nothing but a faith none-the-less.

 

[untermensche]

Knowledge: To know. This is direct experience. We cannot doubt direct experience. When we experience red we cannot doubt we are experiencing red.

Faith:

Religious faith: To believe in things not experienced.

Rational faith: To believe in things based on direct experience.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Knowledge: To know. This is direct experience. We cannot doubt direct experience. When we experience red we cannot doubt we are experiencing red.

Faith:

Religious faith: To believe in things not experienced.

Rational faith: To believe in things based on direct experience.

I broadly agree and science broadly agrees, too. Still, I wouldn't myself necessarily call "rational" our most fundamental beliefs.

I believe the table I seem to be looking at is a real, physically real, materially real, table. We all do. Yet, I fail to see what would be rational in that belief. Rather, it seems to be just a fact. No doubt, a very necessary fact, a fact crucial to our survival in our environment. We generally better believe that mountain lion coming at us is real if we are to survive. But we don't have to think about it. We don't have to rationalise our perceptions to believe they're real. Rather, we have perceptions and we have the impression our perceptions just are the real world around us. We don't need to have a rational theory saying that our perceptions are most plausibly rather accurate representations of the world. Instead, we just take them for granted and there's nothing rational in that. It's rather beastly, and indeed other animals just do the same and don't have the advantage of being able to rationalise anything much.

And so, there's a problem. We know what we experience subjectively, as you say, and yet we're essentially mystified as to what our perceptions are since we essentially take them to be something that would be out there in the material world and outside our subjective experience. So, how come we can know something and at the same time be seriously wrong about what it really is?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I believe the table I seem to be looking at is a real, physically real, materially real, table. We all do. Yet, I fail to see what would be rational in that belief.

You have specific kinds of experiences of the table.

You have a visual experience. You have tactile experiences. You can knock on it and get an auditory experience.

You are not imagining. You are seeing and touching and hearing.

When we have these kinds of experiences we have faith there is an object behind them.

It is rational faith because there are reasons (the experiences which are consistent) for believing it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I believe the table I seem to be looking at is a real, physically real, materially real, table. We all do. Yet, I fail to see what would be rational in that belief.

You have specific kinds of experiences of the table.

You have a visual experience. You have tactile experiences. You can knock on it and get an auditory experience.

You are not imagining. You are seeing and touching and hearing.

When we have these kinds of experiences we have faith there is an object behind them.

It is rational faith because there are reasons (the experiences which are consistent) for believing it.

No. No reasons. Little kiddies don't think up "reasons". Obviously their experiences need to be consistent for them to learn "from experience", but that all has to be the result of an unconscious process. Thinking can only develop progressively. So, belief, yes. Rational belief, no. Rationality comes later.

And so, there's a problem. We know what we experience subjectively, as you say, and yet we're essentially mystified as to what our perceptions are since we essentially take them to be something that would be out there in the material world and outside our subjective experience. So, how come we can know something and at the same time be seriously wrong about what it really is?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I believe the table I seem to be looking at is a real, physically real, materially real, table. We all do. Yet, I fail to see what would be rational in that belief.

You have specific kinds of experiences of the table.

You have a visual experience. You have tactile experiences. You can knock on it and get an auditory experience.

You are not imagining. You are seeing and touching and hearing.

When we have these kinds of experiences we have faith there is an object behind them.

It is rational faith because there are reasons (the experiences which are consistent) for believing it.

No. No reasons. Little kiddies don't think up "reasons".

But they have the reasons. They have the experiences.

Rational faith: Having reasons, the experiences, for the faith even if those reasons are not even acknowledged.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But they have the reasons. They have the experiences.

Rational faith: Having reasons, the experiences, for the faith even if those reasons are not even acknowledged.

Why do you want to call "reasons" things people couldn't recognise nor articulate, things arrived at without reasoning. I don't call a hunch a "reason". I don't call an intuitive idea a "reason".

Calling "reason" things that are not the result of a reasoning just makes what you say confused and results in vacuous debates.
EB

 

[untermensche]

But they have the reasons. They have the experiences.

Rational faith: Having reasons, the experiences, for the faith even if those reasons are not even acknowledged.

Why do you want to call "reasons" things people couldn't recognise nor articulate, things arrived at without reasoning. I don't call a hunch a "reason". I don't call an intuitive idea a "reason".

Calling "reason" things that are not the result of a reasoning just makes what you say confused and results in vacuous debates.
EB

The person has reasons to have the faith.

They have the experiences.

The experiences are the reasons to believe in the objects.

Not something articulated in language.

 

[DBT]

Flaws in your position have been provided and described at length by several posters, including me. You typically ignore anything that you don't agree with, without consideration, no counterargument, just your typical arbitrary dismissal.

There has been third rate criticism of the position but no flaws have been shown.

Which is why you can't beat me over the head with some sustained specific criticism and are reduced to mumbling nonsense about flaws.

Your subjective experience of 'not being able to move' through the wall is based on the objective reality of being physically unable to pass though a solid wall...

That is an unsupported claim you cannot demonstrate in any way.

You believe a wall is there.

You have faith in objects.

It is a rational faith, meaning: based on a direct experience, but nothing but a faith none-the-less.

Mere assertion.

The flaws in your position have been described by several posters over the course of many weeks.

You simply reject the given descriptions and assert your own beliefs.

 

[fromderinside]

Anybody here seen reports from a puffed up chest type that keeps getting responses to its illogical and unreasonable posts even though those posts no more than air stirring?

Suggestion. Resist poking that person.

I've not seen any evidence that suggests posts reacting to Trump's tweets are behavior changing either.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But they have the reasons. They have the experiences.

Rational faith: Having reasons, the experiences, for the faith even if those reasons are not even acknowledged.

Why do you want to call "reasons" things people couldn't recognise nor articulate, things arrived at without reasoning. I don't call a hunch a "reason". I don't call an intuitive idea a "reason".

Calling "reason" things that are not the result of a reasoning just makes what you say confused and results in vacuous debates.
EB

The person has reasons to have the faith.

They have the experiences.

The experiences are the reasons to believe in the objects.

Not something articulated in language.

You haven't addressed my point. You're just repeating yourself. This can only make this discussion vacuous. So I better leave that to DBT.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Anybody here seen reports from a puffed up chest type that keeps getting responses to its illogical and unreasonable posts even though those posts no more than air stirring?

Suggestion. Resist poking that person.

I've not seen any evidence that suggests posts reacting to Trump's tweets are behavior changing either.

I agree with you about "poking". That's not what I'm doing, though, if you can still see the difference, that is. Still, I have to admit the result is the same, just more civilised.

At least Trump got Kim Jong Un's attention. Trump performed a "miracle". He metamorphosed Mr. Kim into the ideal faire-valoir. We ain't seen the end of it yet, I tell ya! I wouldn't be surprised if Kim ran for the next U.S presidential election and won by a landslide.

But we're still waiting for UM's miracle. So, Mr. UM effectively proved sturdier than Mr. Kim. Kudos for that at least. He's closer to rocks and amorphous matter than from human beings.

And you can't really complain. You're not much better yourself.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Every ameboid that slithers around these days talks of Dunning–Kruger. To see it is to know you are dealing with a worthless hand waver.

My position stands stronger than when I started.

And that's a wrap.

 

[DBT]

The person has reasons to have the faith.

They have the experiences.

The experiences are the reasons to believe in the objects.

Not something articulated in language.

You haven't addressed my point. You're just repeating yourself. This can only make this discussion vacuous. So I better leave that to DBT.
EB

Oh, it's Noddy the All Knowing. How clever.

 

[untermensche]

Every ameboid that slithers around these days talks of Dunning–Kruger. To see it is to know you are dealing with a worthless hand waver.

My position stands stronger than when I started.

And that's a wrap.

No the wrap was when some creature said the heat is the same thing as the mechanism that creates the heat.

 

[untermensche]

The person has reasons to have the faith.

They have the experiences.

The experiences are the reasons to believe in the objects.

Not something articulated in language.

You haven't addressed my point. You're just repeating yourself. This can only make this discussion vacuous. So I better leave that to DBT.
EB

I have fully addressed your point.

A reason is not necessarily some mental formulation.

The reasons the person fell were because they have mass and there is gravity.

The reason the sun appears to rise is because the earth is rotating.

The reason the child believes there is an object is because they have experiences.

The child has reasons for the faith. It is reasonable faith.

As opposed to blind faith. Pure faith with no reasons, just the faith. I believe because I believe.

As opposed to, I believe because I have experiences. Daily continual and consistent experiences.

When people have continual and consistent experiences they BELIEVE an object is behind them.