How to convert True Scotsman
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2014, 11:46 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(22-06-2014 03:20 PM)kim Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 03:14 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ---
--
- deistic logic?

So how does that work?

Wink

Certainly you've heard: Mysterious Ways. Wink

Or....Yanno....there's magic too weeeer

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2014, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2014 08:07 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(23-06-2014 11:14 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 09:43 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Shadow Fox,

you wrote: I AM NOT SAYING, THINK IT EXISTS AND IT DOES..

And then 2 sentences later you wrote: Reality is 100% perception and thought. Nothing more!

How is that not a contradiction?

Because you are confusing

I think X exists and therefor it poofs into existence with magic with..

X exists because we can think. Because we have thought we are to recognize that it is there in front of us and there for it is real.

It is because we are here and are able to think and perceive it to exist that we KNOW it does.

Without consciousness, we do not exist because existence is perception.
Without the ability to stand up and say...I know I exist because I can think, because I can feel and see and smell and hear everything and everything around me is effected by my relative actions and existence. Then nothing exists. Its just a meaningless space where no living or non living entity is there to recognize it.
Without that being there, nothing exists.



Let me ask you a question in the form of a scenario.

Let's say you are standing in front of me.
I cannot see you
I cannot smell you
I cannot hear you
I cannot touch you
I cannot hear you
I cannot think about you because we never met.

AND
You have no consciousness!
You cannot feel
You cannot think
You cannot see
You Cannot smell
You cannot hear

We cannot interact in any way shape or form, you give off no energy and do not interact with gravity, energy, Dark or negative energy or anything.

Are you really there in front of me? Do you actually exist? How could you possibly prove that?
You cannot, therefor, you don't exist unless something, someway is able to recognize you as having existed. Sure you might still be "something" standing there. But, just like the stuff outside the universe and what was here before time and space happened. You don't technically exist until something external your you internally recognize yourself as being there.

I'm not confusing anything. You explicitly said that reality is 100% thought which means that thought is 100% reality. That is what the primacy of consciousness means. And when you say something is 100% this or that, that is a claim that something is an absolute. That it obtains independently from consciousness which is what the concept "absolute" or "100%" means. You keep contradicting your claim of the primacy of consciousness every time you make a truth claim and you don't seem to have a problem with that. If the universe is 100% subjective as you have claimed then there is no such thing as truth, or proof, or any need for argument since something can be true for you and not true for me at the same time.

I'm glad that my thinking isn't this muddled.

To answer your question:

Let's say you are standing in front of me.
I cannot see you
I cannot smell you
I cannot hear you
I cannot touch you
I cannot hear you
I cannot think about you because we never met.

AND
You have no consciousness!
You cannot feel
You cannot think
You cannot see
You Cannot smell
You cannot hear

We cannot interact in any way shape or form, you give off no energy and do not interact with gravity, energy, Dark or negative energy or anything.

Are you really there in front of me? Do you actually exist? How could you possibly prove that?
You cannot, therefor, you don't exist unless something, someway is able to recognize you as having existed. Sure you might still be "something" standing there. But, just like the stuff outside the universe and what was here before time and space happened. You don't technically exist until something external your you internally recognize yourself as being there.


My answer is yes because existence has primacy over consciousness. existence obtains independently of consciousness and your questions affirms this implicitly. You start off your example with "lets say you're standing in front of me" How could I be standing in front of you unless I exist. How could I prove anything unless I exist. Your question presupposes my existence.

When you say "you can not hear, smell, think, feel or see" you are presupposing there is some thing which doesn't posses these faculties. Give up Shadow, you can't escape from the primacy of existence.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
24-06-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Yes, a sound is only a sound unless something can hear it. That is why we call it sound.
No, sound is the production of sound waves regardless of whether there is a receiver (ear) to hear the sound. When you hear a sound, you don't say you "created the sound". You "hear" that which already exists. It doesn't come into existence because you heard it, it only comes into your perception of it. Likewise, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it still falls. The perception of it falling has nothing to do with it actually falling.

(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  My argument is reality is 100% subjective. We exist because we...can...THINK.

How hard is that to possibly understand?

If we had no consciousness and no possible way of thinking and nothing else is around to perceive existence. Then Nothing exists.
You seem to be confusing existence with knowledge of existence. A rock does not know it exists and yet it does exist. We know the rock exists because we can see and touch it. But if all conscious beings ceased to exist, that would only mean that there would no longer be a conscious being aware of the rock's existence. The rock, however, would continue to exist. And if conscious life again formed through the same processes as it did in the first place, awareness of the existence of the rock would again exist - because the rock itself existed all along.

(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  The only reason I exist in this universe is because I can think.
Here's the same confusion. Correctly stated, the only reason you can think is because you exist, not the other way around. The only reason you know you exist is because you can think.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
24-06-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(24-06-2014 01:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Yes, a sound is only a sound unless something can hear it. That is why we call it sound.
No, sound is the production of sound waves regardless of whether there is a receiver (ear) to hear the sound. When you hear a sound, you don't say you "created the sound". You "hear" that which already exists. It doesn't come into existence because you heard it, it only comes into your perception of it. Likewise, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it still falls. The perception of it falling has nothing to do with it actually falling.

(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  My argument is reality is 100% subjective. We exist because we...can...THINK.

How hard is that to possibly understand?

If we had no consciousness and no possible way of thinking and nothing else is around to perceive existence. Then Nothing exists.
You seem to be confusing existence with knowledge of existence. A rock does not know it exists and yet it does exist. We know the rock exists because we can see and touch it. But if all conscious beings ceased to exist, that would only mean that there would no longer be a conscious being aware of the rock's existence. The rock, however, would continue to exist. And if conscious life again formed through the same processes as it did in the first place, awareness of the existence of the rock would again exist - because the rock itself existed all along.

(23-06-2014 02:51 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  The only reason I exist in this universe is because I can think.
Here's the same confusion. Correctly stated, the only reason you can think is because you exist, not the other way around. The only reason you know you exist is because you can think.

Well said and succinct Impulse!!

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
25-06-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
Sounds like you are talking about idealism and realism.

There is a difference between reality and appearance. The reality "looks" independent of conscious thought would be different than the way to appears TO conscious thought.

Not really sure what the purpose of the thread but… hope it helps.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Just Another Atheist's post
25-06-2014, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2014 07:15 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(25-06-2014 12:41 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Sounds like you are talking about idealism and realism.

There is a difference between reality and appearance. The reality "looks" independent of conscious thought would be different than the way to appears TO conscious thought.

Not really sure what the purpose of the thread but… hope it helps.

I'm talking about Objectivism Vs. Subjectivism.

I'm not sure what you mean above since reality "looks" exactly how it appears to our consciousness. We have no other way of looking at reality except through our senses. Where all the errors in thinking happen is in the identification and integration of the information brought to us by our senses. The errors and flat out evasions happen on the conceptual level. That process is rife with opportunities to mis-identify and flat out evade reality such as looking out at nature and conceptualizing a super natural cause.

My real purpose was to point out the absurd contradiction of claiming that There is an all powerful creator that created, maintains and can change existence through acts of conscious will. Really those who are claiming this are affirming a primacy of consciousness view of the world which makes the Universe subjective and this contradicts everything we know about the universe so far. It contradicts all of the basic axioms of philosophy and every principle of a rational metaphysics.

I was sure that everyone would see "prove to me that the universe is subjective" for the fool's errand that it is and get a chuckle out of it. I thought there might be a few theists who would challenge it but in doing so realize that if the universe is subjective then the concepts "truth", "objective", "argument", "convince" and any other concept having to do with knowledge are meaningless. I get tired of refuting the same old already-been-refuted arguments so I thought I would try a different tack. It is something totally new that they have never encountered and I hope it will jump start the reasoning centers of their brains.

What I am finding out though is that most theists don't understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean. They keep insisting that objective morality must come from a subjective metaphysics which is a total non sequitur.

There really is no way to refute the argument from primacy if one is honest and doesn't allow for contradictions to exist and if they interact with it long enough and are honest they will lose their faith in imaginary beings. The question boils down to "give me objective evidence that everything is subjective. Impossible.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
25-06-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(22-06-2014 11:18 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  OK. I'm tired of all the CRRAP I get (continuous resurrection of refuted arguments and premises). It gets really tiresome to refute the same old arguments over and over and over so I am going to take a different tack. From now on I'm going to tell those who are trying to convince me exactly how to do it. Let's cut to the chase, this is what you have to do to convince me.

You have to prove to me that the universe is subjective. What I mean by that is that consciousness has primacy over existence. This means that the universe and everything in it conforms to some form of consciousness, that things are not what they are independent of consciousness. That A is not A.

This is the antithesis of what I hold. My whole worldview is predicated on the fact that existence holds primacy over consciousness. That the universe is objective and that things are what they are independent of any consciousness. This is the view that the subject of consciousness has to conform to its objects and not the other way around. That A is A regardless of anyone's wishes, feelings, dreams, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums.

If you could prove that the universe is subjective then that would necessitate an all powerful consciousness that created, maintains and could change any aspect of it at will. It would have to be omniscient as well because our finite consciousness is not all knowing enough to create all this.

Now I have some ground rules. I want objective proof. You can't use the bible or any sacred text because I would have to take it on faith. You can't use feelings or personal anecdotes either because those are subjective. I want objective, empirically verifiable proof. I want you to prove to me that existence is subjective regardless of what anyone wants, likes, dislikes, favors, wishes, dreams, demands or prefers. That's the only way I'll accept that the subjective nature of existence is absolutely true.

Do you hold to what Ayn Rand referred to as Objectivism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(25-06-2014 07:44 PM)Ecce Homo Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 11:18 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  OK. I'm tired of all the CRRAP I get (continuous resurrection of refuted arguments and premises). It gets really tiresome to refute the same old arguments over and over and over so I am going to take a different tack. From now on I'm going to tell those who are trying to convince me exactly how to do it. Let's cut to the chase, this is what you have to do to convince me.

You have to prove to me that the universe is subjective. What I mean by that is that consciousness has primacy over existence. This means that the universe and everything in it conforms to some form of consciousness, that things are not what they are independent of consciousness. That A is not A.

This is the antithesis of what I hold. My whole worldview is predicated on the fact that existence holds primacy over consciousness. That the universe is objective and that things are what they are independent of any consciousness. This is the view that the subject of consciousness has to conform to its objects and not the other way around. That A is A regardless of anyone's wishes, feelings, dreams, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums.

If you could prove that the universe is subjective then that would necessitate an all powerful consciousness that created, maintains and could change any aspect of it at will. It would have to be omniscient as well because our finite consciousness is not all knowing enough to create all this.

Now I have some ground rules. I want objective proof. You can't use the bible or any sacred text because I would have to take it on faith. You can't use feelings or personal anecdotes either because those are subjective. I want objective, empirically verifiable proof. I want you to prove to me that existence is subjective regardless of what anyone wants, likes, dislikes, favors, wishes, dreams, demands or prefers. That's the only way I'll accept that the subjective nature of existence is absolutely true.

Do you hold to what Ayn Rand referred to as Objectivism?

Yes.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 08:17 PM
Re: RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(25-06-2014 07:44 PM)Ecce Homo Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 11:18 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  OK. I'm tired of all the CRRAP I get (continuous resurrection of refuted arguments and premises). It gets really tiresome to refute the same old arguments over and over and over so I am going to take a different tack. From now on I'm going to tell those who are trying to convince me exactly how to do it. Let's cut to the chase, this is what you have to do to convince me.

You have to prove to me that the universe is subjective. What I mean by that is that consciousness has primacy over existence. This means that the universe and everything in it conforms to some form of consciousness, that things are not what they are independent of consciousness. That A is not A.

This is the antithesis of what I hold. My whole worldview is predicated on the fact that existence holds primacy over consciousness. That the universe is objective and that things are what they are independent of any consciousness. This is the view that the subject of consciousness has to conform to its objects and not the other way around. That A is A regardless of anyone's wishes, feelings, dreams, hopes, fears, faith or tantrums.

If you could prove that the universe is subjective then that would necessitate an all powerful consciousness that created, maintains and could change any aspect of it at will. It would have to be omniscient as well because our finite consciousness is not all knowing enough to create all this.

Now I have some ground rules. I want objective proof. You can't use the bible or any sacred text because I would have to take it on faith. You can't use feelings or personal anecdotes either because those are subjective. I want objective, empirically verifiable proof. I want you to prove to me that existence is subjective regardless of what anyone wants, likes, dislikes, favors, wishes, dreams, demands or prefers. That's the only way I'll accept that the subjective nature of existence is absolutely true.

Do you hold to what Ayn Rand referred to as Objectivism?

I doubt Scotsman does, that has nothing to do with objective reality.

It's just a horribly misleading title like "scientology" which confuses outsiders making them think it refers to scientific thought.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: How to convert True Scotsman
(25-06-2014 08:17 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I doubt Scotsman does, that has nothing to do with objective reality.

He does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: