Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  As fun as it is to equivocate in circles for 250 posts...

In the strictest sense it is impossible to prove or know anything beyond your own perceptions. This supposition is also useless and irrelevant.

Have any interesting points been made here?

No. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-01-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
Have you hit yourself with a hammer yet? If not, shut the fuck up!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
19-01-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 11:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You don't need to review ALL the evidence just enough evidence as to make the belief rational. You can still be wrong, but being wrong about something doesn't make you irrational. Holding views and opinions not supported by ANY evidence, or even worse AGAINST the evidence is what makes a belief irrational.

Also if the claim is demonstrably true your acceptance of it is not really relevant to the claim being actually true. People willingly believe things that aren't factually accurate all the time. Reality always wins though.
That rules out 1 & 2 then.
So I am supposed to believe your claim that Niagara exists once I feel comfortable with the amount of evidence I find?
I could claim it exists after just 1 try if I felt comfortable with that then?
It's up to me to decide if it exists or not then.
I thought you once said reality exists regardless of perception.
Niagara is supposed to exist regardless of my perception.
So which is it?
1. Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
2. Niagara exists based on my perception?

If 1. Why should I believe that? How can I prove that? Oh right I'm supposed to use the scientific method of proving something exists.
But
I'm not supposed to believe it exists at the point when you tell me
I'm not supposed to believe it just because you provided the evidence
I'm only allowed to believe it after perceiving the falsifiable evidence and feeling COMFORTABLE with it.
But
Isn't Niagara supposed to exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what I was trying to prove? That Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
How did I end up at a point where I can only prove Niagara exists based on my perception.

Why can't I prove how Niagara can exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what you told me?
Niagara exists regardless of my perception?

oh wait didn't you say if a claim cannot be tested, it is useless and should not even be entertained let alone believed in?

Well guess what.

I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists regardless of how I perceive it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.
Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Guess what

I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists before my awareness of it needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists before my awareness of it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists before my awareness of it? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

I'm actually going to bookmark this replay and use it in the future as an example of one of the most intellectually dishonest and evasive none-answers I've ever received. that's counting replies I've gotten from People who think they are in a sexual relationship with god, someone who thinks a McDonalds sign is proof of god, and a man actually in a mental institution.

What's especially annoying is that to type that up you have to ACTIVELY ignore damn near all of the rest of my posts from last night and even deliberately misrepresent several of the things I said. This combined with your constant equivocating, your shifting of the goal posts, your refusal to use terminology and definitions correctly, and especially your trying to change your own definitions in the middle of a conversation when they are shown to be idiotically simplistic and wrong (Which I despise on a personal level, it's basically starting with your conclusion and subbing out whatever failed arguments you have with new ones to maintain that conclusion) makes me no longer inclined towards humoring your public masturbation.
There are about a dozen objections to your bullshit I'm still waiting for you to address which you have avoided repeatedly. Even after you had me go back and re-post them for you you STILL didn't address them.

I'll say it for the last time: "absolute certainty" is not required to make a belief logical, reasonable, or justified. You continually conflate 'knowledge" with "belief" when it suits your argument but not when it does not.

Answer the questions and criticism I've laid at your pseudo-intellectual feet without resorting to evasive non-answers and deliberate misrepresentation of what I am saying or I'll just ignore you as another example of the philosophically uneducated people we get in here all the time.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2016, 11:02 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 02:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 02:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um. I would more take it as an axiom. You gotta start somewhere with logic. It doesn't seem very useful to doubt that some external reality exists. I say this as a figment of your imagination.
How is it useful?.
Any belief that cannot be tested is pretty much useless. Like God's existence.
You're entire position can't be tested in any way yet here you are still vomiting it all over the damn place.

What is even the point of coming here to discuss a belief that you ignore in every second of every day of actually leading your life?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  As fun as it is to equivocate in circles for 250 posts...

In the strictest sense it is impossible to prove or know anything beyond your own perceptions. This supposition is also useless and irrelevant.

Have any interesting points been made here?
Not really, anything approaching a good point has been ignored or misrepresented by the OP.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
19-01-2016, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 12:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Yes you can. You are just too idiotic to consider all the ways it can be done. It can be done directly, and indirectly.
There are countless ways in which sciecnce tests for things out of our perception, all the time, every day.

(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

It's very very simple to construct any number of scenarios, (not unlike your pathetic example of being in the hospital bed) in which it would be of ultimate significance o you. The universe does not work on "what's useful for you". Way back, I mentioned that's one of the first lessons infants (may) learn. You apparently never did.

(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception?

Because humans perceive all sorts of things, on all sorts of levels, incorrectly, and need their perceptions corrected. You are no different. You are not special.

(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.

One does not have to "go back in time" to do that.
But thanks for all the examples in all your posts for examples of :
1. A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy)
2. false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation,
3. denying a conjunct,
4. the either–or fallacy,
5. fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses,
6. the fallacy of false choice,
7. the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle)

(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.

Yes. Obviously. Simple. You can't be THAT stupid. It would be very easy to accomplish this.


(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.

Irrelevant and immaterial. Utterly irrational and illogical question.

(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.

Why would you want to change the data ? Are you insane ? Irrelevant and immaterial. Utterly irrational and illogical question.

Quote:Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.

Irrelevant and immaterial. Utterly irrational and illogical question.

Quote:Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

Quote:It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Completely 100 % fase assertions. Easily demonstrable, testable, repeatable, and 100 % predictable, under the noral logical conventions of logi and science.

Irrelevant and immaterial. Utterly irrational and illogical question.
I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.
[/quote]

Maybe you can't figure that one out, but 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of others on the Earth can.

Guess what ?

You are a Soliopsist and you belong in the nut house/funny farm.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-01-2016, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 01:47 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 02:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 02:03 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No. The belief in "Reality existing regardless of how you perceive it" is untestable in the same way God's existence is untestable.
It is a completely useless belief and therefore should not be believed in.

Um. I would more take it as an axiom. You gotta start somewhere with logic. It doesn't seem very useful to doubt that some external reality exists. I say this as a figment of your imagination.

The IdiotCanine's got it. I am not at all certain of any reality whatsover, either external or internal. But so the fuck what? Don't have dick to do with the price of tea in China. Pragmatically it appears to behoove me to act as if I believe there is. Certainty is highly overrated and outside of formal systems is likely not obtainable.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-01-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:59 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That rules out 1 & 2 then.
So I am supposed to believe your claim that Niagara exists once I feel comfortable with the amount of evidence I find?
I could claim it exists after just 1 try if I felt comfortable with that then?
It's up to me to decide if it exists or not then.
I thought you once said reality exists regardless of perception.
Niagara is supposed to exist regardless of my perception.
So which is it?
1. Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
2. Niagara exists based on my perception?

If 1. Why should I believe that? How can I prove that? Oh right I'm supposed to use the scientific method of proving something exists.
But
I'm not supposed to believe it exists at the point when you tell me
I'm not supposed to believe it just because you provided the evidence
I'm only allowed to believe it after perceiving the falsifiable evidence and feeling COMFORTABLE with it.
But
Isn't Niagara supposed to exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what I was trying to prove? That Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
How did I end up at a point where I can only prove Niagara exists based on my perception.

Why can't I prove how Niagara can exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what you told me?
Niagara exists regardless of my perception?

oh wait didn't you say if a claim cannot be tested, it is useless and should not even be entertained let alone believed in?

Well guess what.

I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists regardless of how I perceive it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.
Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Guess what

I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists before my awareness of it needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists before my awareness of it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists before my awareness of it? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

I'm actually going to bookmark this replay and use it in the future as an example of one of the most intellectually dishonest and evasive none-answers I've ever received. that's counting replies I've gotten from People who think they are in a sexual relationship with god, someone who thinks a McDonalds sign is proof of god, and a man actually in a mental institution.

What's especially annoying is that to type that up you have to ACTIVELY ignore damn near all of the rest of my posts from last night and even deliberately misrepresent several of the things I said. This combined with your constant equivocating, your shifting of the goal posts, your refusal to use terminology and definitions correctly, and especially your trying to change your own definitions in the middle of a conversation when they are shown to be idiotically simplistic and wrong (Which I despise on a personal level, it's basically starting with your conclusion and subbing out whatever failed arguments you have with new ones to maintain that conclusion) makes me no longer inclined towards humoring your public masturbation.
There are about a dozen objections to your bullshit I'm still waiting for you to address which you have avoided repeatedly. Even after you had me go back and re-post them for you you STILL didn't address them.

I'll say it for the last time: "absolute certainty" is not required to make a belief logical, reasonable, or justified. You continually conflate 'knowledge" with "belief" when it suits your argument but not when it does not.

Answer the questions and criticism I've laid at your pseudo-intellectual feet without resorting to evasive non-answers and deliberate misrepresentation of what I am saying or I'll just ignore you as another example of the philosophically uneducated people we get in here all the time.
I have probably answered more replies per day in a single thread than any other user on these forums.
I do not evade questions.
If you have some unaddressed points that you think I have overlooked simply put them here so I can address them.
Take them 1 at a time please (I do not appreciate shotgun arguments & I'm sure you don't either)
Shifting my own goal posts
Incorrect usage of popular terminology & definitions
Changing my own definitions to prove a point

In return this is all I ask:
You are the one that first pointed out that if a claim cannot be tested then it should not be believed in.
I have shown why the claim cannot be properly tested.
It shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong.
If it can be properly tested then simply show me how.
Please don't just say something like " it can be tested because we have tested it many times"
Such a statement does no prove anything, yet 90% of the responses to me are plagued with only this as the rebuttal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 02:06 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 10:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  As fun as it is to equivocate in circles for 250 posts...

In the strictest sense it is impossible to prove or know anything beyond your own perceptions. This supposition is also useless and irrelevant.

Have any interesting points been made here?

No. Drinking Beverage

Agreed.
Anyone that makes the claim that it's impossible to know anything beyond your own perceptions is making an utterly useless claim.

So tell me what do you think about someone claiming that he is absolutely certain about the things he perceives via self awareness?
Because this is what I have been claiming since the OP & I haven't changed my stance yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:53 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Have you hit yourself with a hammer yet? If not, shut the fuck up!
If I hit myself with the hammer we would both be agreeing that the hammer and the pain exists.
Why try to prove a point to someone that already shares your belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: