"Objective" Evidence

[skepticalbip]

As I said, what anyone "says" about the table, is irrelevant as to its existence.

What makes you think reality gives a shit about what you experience of say?

Not true at all.

It's existence is totally dependent on what people report.

If there are no reports of it's existence then it cannot be thought to have existence.

Yet again, what people think is irrelevant to reality. What is, is, but people can certainly be wrong about what they think "is".

 

[untermensche]

As I said, what anyone "says" about the table, is irrelevant as to its existence.

What makes you think reality gives a shit about what you experience of say?

Not true at all.

It's existence is totally dependent on what people report.

If there are no reports of it's existence then it cannot be thought to have existence.

Yet again, what people think is irrelevant to reality. What is, is, but people can certainly be wrong about what they think "is".

What people think about what they experience is what "reality" means.

 

[skepticalbip]

Only to an egomaniac living under the delusion that they are the center of the universe.

 

[untermensche]

Only to an egomaniac living under the delusion that they are the center of the universe.

"Reality" means there is an experience and the person believes the experience points to something that has existence.

To say something is real is to say there is a belief it has an existence.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's totally amazing how you so easily pull such asinine assertions out of your ass. That's gotta hurt. You could do yourself a great favor by investing in a dictionary.

 

[fast]

Untermensche,

When people speak of their reality in that manner (i.e. My reality, your reality, his reality etc), that is not truly a reality but rather a perception of reality. In that odd linguistic manner, there have been many people that talk of their own realities and say such things as "... not in my reality" -- or "not in my world," especially when trying to contrast 'the realities of the worlds they live in"--as if to say their lives and the circumstances they find themselves in are light years apart. But, that's 'flowery' talk.

The distinction I have made between "reality" and "perception of reality" oughtn't be confused--or else it'll lead you to dismiss the truths of the world that sustain themselves in the absence of perception, like just how real it is that there was a planet in our universe we now call Earth long before there were ever humans to have what you might call a reality of their very own.

If you persist (as I'm sure you will) that there is no reality without a mind that allows for subjective experience, then your denial that there is an objective reality (or objective evidence) won't be a denial of the very thing we're asserting that exists. You're defining it away by your dismisal that there are real things, which is a mistake because that which is real is a reality far distinguished from our perceptions of reality.

I once denied that an act was criminal because the act was legally sanctioned, but once it was pointed out that there was another sense in which the word was used, I could no longer blanketly deny that the act was criminal in every sense of the word. Words are ambiguous. They have different meanings. They do not exclusively mean whatever definition you latch onto.

You should be a lil more open to the complexities of language.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

It’s nice to see that your repeated calls for people to give you objective evidence were sophistry. You’ve dug a fine deep hole for yourself.

 

[steve_bank]

Like what?



If somebody sees the criminal they experienced a representation of the criminal created by the brain.

The only thing any human has access to are experiences.

There is nothing else.

In science objective evidence is a repeatable experiment.

That's experiencing the same thing twice.

Still just an experience.

There is nothing else.

To a human all is experience.

There is nothing else.

It is intuitively obvious.

It is all experience, but there are categories of experience. Paranoia is experience classified as a psychological disorder.

 

[steve_bank]

There was the judge in an obscenity trial who said he may not be able to define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it.

I can't define objective, but I know it when I see it....

 

[DBT]

You miss every point I make.

You have not addressed anything as usual.

If a person is killed they are not experiencing anything.

And a killed person is an experience for some other person.

All evidence is an experience of some human.

You have yet to make a single point. However, the point you missed on this occasion was that external world does not cater to our beliefs and assumptions, that a fall from a cliff will injure or kill you or anyone else regardless of beliefs, and is therefore objective.

The external world of objects and events being objective.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

Information that can be verified by all observers.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that Koy remembers Yahzi; I expect others here do, too. He had an infallible method of demonstrating objective reality- he called it the 'Baseball Bat Test'. Trouble was, he couldn't perform it online, only IRL.

Pity, that.

I remember that. Pity it can't be done online.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A table is only present to a mind experiencing one.

That has an ambiguous overtone.

If you mean "present to a mind," as if to say there is no cognition of the tables presence without a mind to allow us to experience the fact there is a table present, then that is akin to saying we do not have awareness of its presence without a mind. In other words, knowledge requires a subject.

But, i'm not disagreeing that we cannot know of a table's presence without a mind. What I'm saying is that there is a table whether you know it or not. If it wasn't already there (already, I say), then mind or not, you would not have come to experience the fact it's there.

So, if you mean "present to a mind" as if to say the very presence of the table depends on there being a mind, then I wholeheartedly disagree. It's like you're saying everything we see disappears when we close our eyes, as if to say only what we actually see in the moment exists.

You know UM operates far beyond any laws of language, don't you?

Thing is, we can only try to explain things to him literally through language. Ah. Yes. I knew there was a catch here.

Keep trying, though, perhaps sainthood is awaiting you somehow.

Please note I have the awaiting grammar right here. Yet, who will care nowadays?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Jesus & Mo on objective experience-
View attachment 15778

Yeah, brilliant!


Still, I found myself wondering what could be the subliminal meaning of the bitten apple ostensibly showing at the back of the very computer screen Jesus is using...

And what of the DELL logo?

Two logos, then.

I'm sure you all know that but "DELL" means Development of Early Language Learning. That's a fact of life. So, could this have something to do with the idea that at the beginning was the word? You know, logos, the Word of God?

And what does it mean for Moses to call Mohammad, "bastard"?

Jesus the Son of God, well, that's kind of true, I guess, but Mohammad?
EB

 

[bilby]

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

No. The thing is, you don't even know you have a brain. I saw nice pictures of my own brain and yet I don't actually know I have one. No big deal.

Even UM is wrong here. You don't know that you've not known anything. Maybe you did know, who knows?

And you obviously don't even know your own past subjective experiences and whether you had them at all. All you have is something that feels like the memory of them. So, it's just your subjective experience, i.e. just the one you have now, that you seem to have the memory of past things. And then, quick, it's gone!

I certainly think we need to assume we have something like a brain to do all that. But we don't know. Or at least, I certainly don't know. Maybe you do. What do I know?

Still, as I said, no big deal. It's old news and there's no real reason to go on and on about this.

The fact is UM doesn't know you don't know. That's at least something he should recognise if he had enough logical sense. But his position isn't logical.

And I guess that last bit is the same as made by Sub about UM asking for objective proof.

No need to get upset about all that.

I'm having red beans, by the way. With one big red oignon, and pepper I guess. And olive oil.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It's totally amazing how you so easily pull such asinine assertions out of your ass. That's gotta hurt. You could do yourself a great favor by investing in a dictionary.

I am not surprised you dribble this worthlessness instead of actually dealing with ideas.

I repeat since you did not even address. It frightens you perhaps?

To say something is real is to say there is a belief it has an existence.

 

[untermensche]

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

It’s nice to see that your repeated calls for people to give you objective evidence were sophistry. You’ve dug a fine deep hole for yourself.

You can't deal with it can you?

Your little mind explodes.

Your entire existence has been nothing but your subjective experiences.

You have known nothing else.

You cannot know anything else.

You cannot know your wife. You can only know your subjective experience of her.

 

[untermensche]

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

Information that can be verified by all observers.

That is a collection of subjective experiences.

You can choose to call it something else if you like.

Your mind can freely do things like that.

- - - Updated - - -

It is intuitively obvious.

It is all experience, but there are categories of experience. Paranoia is experience classified as a psychological disorder.

Some are completely oblivious to it.

They have a lifetime of nothing but one experience after another. Nothing but experiences.

Yet they think there is something more beyond blind faith in something more.

Paranoia is an attitude in the person who has it. The fear instinct has been put into overdrive and it cannot be shut down.

They feel constant fear and eventually generate stories to explain it.

If they are out of touch with what we call "reality", the consistent and somewhat stable experience of the world, they can invent all kinds of outlandish stories to explain their fears.

 

[untermensche]

And you obviously don't even know your own past subjective experiences and whether you had them at all. All you have is something that feels like the memory of them. So, it's just your subjective experience, i.e. just the one you have now, that you seem to have the memory of past things. And then, quick, it's gone!

That sounds like my position.

All you have are experiences. You have an unending series of present experiences.

Some of those present experiences are memories.

And memories can be faulty. But they can be good too. The recall of information in some people can be amazing.

The fact is UM doesn't know you don't know.

I know beyond a shadow of any doubt that a person only has their subjective experiences about the world.

What they make of that is subjective too.

Subject, nothing else.

You are stuck with the subject you create.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You have no access to anything besides subjective experiences.

So the question is, why are you telling yourself this?

Dodge.

Worthy of a three year old.

Your brain is older than three years old. Or is it? Your position does not allow you to know any such thing. Your position—radical skepticism—means, basically, that you are talking to yourself. So why are you bothering? To convince yourself? There are no others in your world view, only an “experience” of others that your brain generates as “presentations” to the “mind” your brain also generates, so it is pointless to ever post anything, because nothing objectively exists in your world view.

Literally everything “you” “experience” is nothing more than a “presentation” generated by your brain to itself (in the form of “mind”). So, again, why are you talking to yourself? You—the brain generated “mind”—have “faith” that the “presentations” the brain generates for “you” to “experience”—is doing so accurately? How could “you” possibly come to such a conclusion/assumption if “you” are some other thing than brain, yet entirely generated by and dependent upon “brain” for literally all of your “experiences”?

Your position requires “you”—the brain generated other thing—to be completely isolated and without the ability to ontologically assess. “You” are always only what the brain generates, yet, again, your own position does not allow you to even accept that a brain exists. You can assert it exits, but you can’t accept that it does or else you violate your position. As with all “experiences,” “you” can never know anything beyond Descartes.

“You” can’t even know “you.” Everything “you” are typing and asserting and declaring—by the terms of your own position—cannot be asserted or declared or “true” becuase for “you,” it is always a question of brain, which is a question “you” can’t answer or even access.

Iow, in case it isn’t crystal clear, you screwed your own pooch. You’ve backed yourself into a corner out of which no amount of declarative statements can extricate.

It doesn’t matter what anyone itt posts—or what “you” post—by embracing radical skeptisism, you have rendered your own function moot in favor of form.

 

[untermensche]

Your position—radical skepticism—means, basically, that you are talking to yourself.

Absolute nonsense. Does not follow in any way. Something pulled from your backside.

My position is that all we have access to are subjective experiences. An undeniable truth.

What you subjectively make from that is your affair.

I make from it many things.

None of which is that I am the only thing capable of having subjective experiences.

I act as if there are others capable of having subjective experiences. The people I experience.

And it has been fruitful. Sometimes. Not with you.

People that lie about their experiences are not people worth dealing with.