"Objective" Evidence

[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.

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

It’s not a THING. Stop equivocating. Heat—in this context—is the activity of the heater. There is no separation; there are not two conditions; there is only one condition. The heater is on.

You gain nothing by repeating this sophomoric category error.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I have already replied to that:

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

We don't have the same notion of what a reason is. As I see it, if you can't articulate it, it's not a reason. Case closed.
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.

I have already replied to that:

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

We don't have the same notion of what a reason is. As I see it, if you can't articulate it, it's not a reason. Case closed.
EB

Your English is weak. That is all.

You have a partial understanding of the word "reason".

And you have no point because of it.

The idea of having a reason for believing something is not as narrow as you believe.

A reason for believing can just be the experience. Therefore no cognitive activity is necessary to have a reason.

No cognitive activity is necessary for there to be a reason a person falls in a hole.

The reason has nothing to do with human thought.

 

[untermensche]

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

It’s not a THING. Stop equivocating. Heat—in this context—is the activity of the heater. There is no separation; there are not two conditions; there is only one condition. The heater is on.

You gain nothing by repeating this sophomoric category error.

Heat in this context is an increase in the energy of the air molecules.

The heater is a machine that causes it.

The heater is not an increase in the energy of air molecules. The heat is.

They are not the same thing. Not close.

To think they are shows severe problems in reasoning.

Something approaching the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

It’s not a THING. Stop equivocating. Heat—in this context—is the activity of the heater. There is no separation; there are not two conditions; there is only one condition. The heater is on.

You gain nothing by repeating this sophomoric category error.

Heat in this context is an increase in the energy of the air molecules.

The heater is a machine that causes it.

Write that out properly. The heater is a machine that causes an increase in the energy of the air molecules. An increase in the energy of the air molecules is what we call “heat.”

They are not the same thing.

HEAT IS NOT A “THING” IN THE SAME SENSE THAT A HEATER IS A “THING.” STOP EQUIVOCATING THAT TERM.

You JUST defined “heat” as: an increase in energy of air molecules. Aka, a change in state.

What caused that change in state? The heater’s activity. Activity=changes in state. Thus “heat” is the activity of the heater.

Your OWN terms keep properly aligning with “mind” is the activity of the brain. Not separate from the activity; it is the activity just as “heat” is the activity of the heater. They cannot be separated in this context.

You turn the heater “on” and it is the activity of the heater that increases the energy in the air molecules. It is this activity that we label “heat.”

You are making a blatant category error and Dunning-Kruger is the only theory that explains you constantly denying it while at the same time repeating it over and over and over again.

<Personal insult removed--staff edit>

 

[untermensche]

An increase in energy can be measured.

We call it an increase in temperature.

You think we can measure things that do not exist.

You display one bad idea after another.

Creating heat is the activity of the heater. Creating an increase in the activity of air molecules.

Like brain activity creates a mind.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You think we can measure things that do not exist.

It isn’t that it doesn’t exist.

Creating heat is the activity of the heater...*repeat*.....

And round and round again.

Word that properly. The activity of the heater increases the energy of air molecules. We call the increase of the energy of air molecules “heat.” Thus, the activity of the heater is what we call “heat.”

It is painfully and blatantly straightforward for all but a simpleton to grasp.

 

[untermensche]

What we call heat is something about the air, not something about the heater.

Take the heater apart and you will not find any heat. You will find metal and plastic.

You are seriously lost.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What we call heat is something about the air, not something about the heater.

Category error, once again, by your OWN definitions. The heater’s activity increases the energy of the air molecules. We call the increase in energy of the air molecules “heat.” Thus, in this context, it is the activity of the heater that we call “heat.” “Heat”—in this context—is the activity of the heater.

Heat=Activity. Not Activity creates discrete “finished products” of Heat. You turn on the heater, it increases the energy of the air molecules. That activity—the increasing of energy of air molecules—is what we refer to as “heat.”

<Personal insult removed--staff edit>

 

[untermensche]

The activity of the heater is the electrical and mechanical activity needed to create heat.

The activity of the heater is not heat.

The product of the activity of the heater is heat.

<Removed personal insult--staff edit>

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The activity of the heater is the electrical and mechanical activity needed to create heat.

Category error.

What is “heat”? The increase in the energy state of air molecules. That is an activity. In this context, what activity is increasing the energy state of air molecules? The heater’s activity is increasing the energy state of air molecules.

Thus, in this context, the activity IS the heat.

The activity of the heater is not heat.

Bullshit. They are inseparable. The activity of the heater is the increase of the energy state of air molecules.

The product of the activity of the heater is heat.

Sophomoric semantics game. The activity is the heat. No activity, no heat.

<Removed personal attack--staff edit>

 

[untermensche]

Heat is activity of air molecules.

It is not the activity of the heater.

The activity of the heater is the activity of the parts of the heater. The electrical and mechanical activity of the heater.

<Removed personal attack--staff edit>

 

[Copernicus]

/mod

 

[Copernicus]

/mod

 

[untermensche]

Saying somebody is lost is a personal attack?

I really need a rational clarification about this. It does not compute.

What is saying somebody is mistaken?

How are you supposed to follow rules that seem to be made up as you go?