Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2015, 09:53 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Nose>god Laugh out load

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
17-12-2015, 10:02 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 08:35 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Reltzik:

Thanks for your reply.

You and I exist, and we are certain about that, and our nose also.

But you write so much words to, I wonder what, to DISprove that you and I exist and also our nose?

But it is so easy and to a certainty, that you and I exist, and also our nose: by touching.

Have you tried this simple experiment, pinch your nose hard, really hard, or hit yourself in the head, hard, really hard.

Still using so many words to prove I understand that you cannot be sure that you exist?

In which case, I guess I have to dispense myself from exchanging ideas with you about how humans prove that something exists in reality outside of our mind.

You see, everyone, first we are certain that we exist and also everything that we have as parts of our existence, like the nose in our face.

Then we will proceed to work together to ascertain how we can also prove the existence of things which are not part and parcel of our say, body.

Is that all right with everyone?

We cannot proceed to the next agenda unless you are certain that you exist and also every part of you exists like say, the nose in your face and the bead err I mean head on your shoulders.

Forgive me, as I said, if you find my writing here annoying, tell me in a few words why, I will revise it so that you will not complain anymore.

I find myself to be offending people who are not happy with me because according to them I am into funny condescension on them.

What I try to do is to influence folks so that they have their feet always on firm earth, and not into so many words, when one touch of the nose is enough to arrive at certainty of existence of our selves and our body parts, may I, like the nose in our face.

Dear readers, sooner than later, some people here will complain that they can't understand my English, in which case I suggest they bring my posts to the local grade school teacher of English grammar and writing, and ask her or him whether (s)he can make head and tail of my English.

So, everyone, as soon as we have come to agreement that we have certainty of the existence of our selves and our noses, then we will work together to come to master the proof or the skill to prove the existence of things which we cannot get in contact with by touching.

I almost forgot, about how we prove the certainty of our nose by touching it, there are a very exiguous few humans who cannot be sure that they have a nose, that is a sickness; and if the sickness is so grievous, then society will have to confine them in safety asylum: because they are of no worthwhile interactive relationship with the rest of society, and also for their own health and survival.

Now, dear folks here who are not sick like the above described exiguous minority, let not you take the plunge of drawing the overwhelming faulty conclusion, that therefore man cannot be certain that he exists in actual reality, from by just touching for example his nose -- unless you want to imagine that you are such most abysmal philosophers of a certain un-falsifiable school of insane thinking or more correctly, vanity imagination.

The method for proving the existence of something which we are not directly aware through the senses is called logic. It is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. It works with facts which are discovered and validated first by the senses and then later by a process of induction and deduction. What more do you need?

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
17-12-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 08:35 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  You and I exist, and we are certain about that, and our nose also.

I know that I exist and that my nose exists. Yes, I can touch my nose. You, I am less certain of. Nothing personal, just that we are communicating via internet. Consequently, I have no solid evidence that you are not suffering a tragic birth defect or accident that left you noseless. Similarly, you could be the product of a rougue search engine that has achieved sentience and has no corporeal existence as we understand the term.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though. The statement " I exist and have a nose." comes with such a trivial burden of proof that I would be more skeptical if you claimed anything to the contrary.

(17-12-2015 08:35 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  So, everyone, as soon as we have come to agreement that we have certainty of the existence of our selves and our noses, then we will work together to come to master the proof or the skill to prove the existence of things which we cannot get in contact with by touching.

I think I can see where this is going as plain as the nose on my face.

There are a great many things that I cannot touch but that I can experience with my other senses. I cannot touch the sun, nor would I wish to given the opportunity. I can perceive its warmth on my face nonetheless, even with 150 million km oof vacuum between us.

There are even more things that I cannot perceive directly with any of my senses but that can be observed using any of a variety of fascinating devices. I cannot perceive the Earth's core or the surace of Venus yet seimsographs will show me the former and radar imagery the latter.

Then there is the set of things that I cannot perceive or detect in any manner but whose existence I can infer based on the behavior of objects that can be perceived. The massive black hole that lurks at the center of our galaxy cannot be seen but nothing else could bend the orbits of the surrounding starts and not be blindingly visible.

Lastly there are the abstracts, the things which truly have no physical existence but are as necessary to our existence as food or water. Love, religion, language, even reason itself. None of these exist as physical entities but I can evaluate their existence and effects by observing how they change my behavior and the behavior of my fellow humans. On the one hand, money does not actually exist. A hundred dollar bill has no more inherent worth than a one dollar bill. On the other hand, it doesn't take much genius to understand why a representtive currency is handy for anybody who doesn't want to haul a cartload of carrots and pigs around everywhere.

And now that I have listed a variety of different categories of things that may be experienced and known to geater or lesser certainties, would you kindly get to the point. Unless I am very much mistaken it fits into none of the categories listed above.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-12-2015, 10:41 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 09:53 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Nose>god Laugh out load

Still, he's head and shoulders above the Banana QED God argument. That's not much of a compliment though.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
17-12-2015, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2015 10:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 03:24 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(17-12-2015 03:22 PM)kim Wrote:  Oh boy ...
Pacho is back. Rolleyes

You know this poster? Looks like I had the pleasure of joining after he/she left.

It's Pachy.
And you leave my boyfriend alone.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...at-present
Pachy .... !
Come here and give Bucky a big smoochie.

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
17-12-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 03:25 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  You should look up something along the lines of "proving to a blind person that color exists." It's at least an interesting experiment.

The same way you prove microwaves (and other invisible ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum) to someone who can see.

Colors are simply collective labels we have for particular hues of the visible electromagnetic spectrum, but it would still exist even if we couldn't see it; as indeed we don't see most of it.

[Image: EM_spectrum_compare_level1_lg.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 12:36 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 08:35 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Reltzik:

Thanks for your reply.

You and I exist, and we are certain about that, and our nose also.

But you write so much words to, I wonder what, to DISprove that you and I exist and also our nose?

But it is so easy and to a certainty, that you and I exist, and also our nose: by touching.

Have you tried this simple experiment, pinch your nose hard, really hard, or hit yourself in the head, hard, really hard.

Still using so many words to prove I understand that you cannot be sure that you exist?

In which case, I guess I have to dispense myself from exchanging ideas with you about how humans prove that something exists in reality outside of our mind.

You see, everyone, first we are certain that we exist and also everything that we have as parts of our existence, like the nose in our face.

Then we will proceed to work together to ascertain how we can also prove the existence of things which are not part and parcel of our say, body.

Is that all right with everyone?

We cannot proceed to the next agenda unless you are certain that you exist and also every part of you exists like say, the nose in your face and the bead err I mean head on your shoulders.

Forgive me, as I said, if you find my writing here annoying, tell me in a few words why, I will revise it so that you will not complain anymore.

I find myself to be offending people who are not happy with me because according to them I am into funny condescension on them.

What I try to do is to influence folks so that they have their feet always on firm earth, and not into so many words, when one touch of the nose is enough to arrive at certainty of existence of our selves and our body parts, may I, like the nose in our face.

Dear readers, sooner than later, some people here will complain that they can't understand my English, in which case I suggest they bring my posts to the local grade school teacher of English grammar and writing, and ask her or him whether (s)he can make head and tail of my English.

So, everyone, as soon as we have come to agreement that we have certainty of the existence of our selves and our noses, then we will work together to come to master the proof or the skill to prove the existence of things which we cannot get in contact with by touching.

I almost forgot, about how we prove the certainty of our nose by touching it, there are a very exiguous few humans who cannot be sure that they have a nose, that is a sickness; and if the sickness is so grievous, then society will have to confine them in safety asylum: because they are of no worthwhile interactive relationship with the rest of society, and also for their own health and survival.

Now, dear folks here who are not sick like the above described exiguous minority, let not you take the plunge of drawing the overwhelming faulty conclusion, that therefore man cannot be certain that he exists in actual reality, from by just touching for example his nose -- unless you want to imagine that you are such most abysmal philosophers of a certain un-falsifiable school of insane thinking or more correctly, vanity imagination.

I was not entirely clear before.

I was not arguing with whether we have noses. I agree that we do. (Well, most of us do. Injuries, as I mentioned.) While I will not express absolute certainty on the subject, I will express such a high degree of certainty (in a gut, Bayesian-probability sense) that the odds of my being wrong on the subject are worse than one in a million -- perhaps far, far worse -- so that the distinction is rather academic. I will also grant a similar degree of certainty for the other parts of my body.

I do, however, take issue with your method of verification. While touching something is good, solid sensory evidence, it's far from completely reliable. Even leaving aside the brain-in-a-vat style scenario, it's far from completely reliable. I have had vivid dreams in which I saw and touched things that were nothing more than figments of my unconscious imagination. Amputees can still "feel" a phantom limb where the old one was. And I don't even want to guess what tactile sensations hallucinogens can generate. Since it is possible to have a tactile sensation of something being there even when that something doesn't actually exist, touch cannot be absolute proof of something's existence. By and large, yes, touching things is a good way to verify they exist, and provides strong evidence, but it's not reliable enough to form an axiomatic, absolute basis of epistemology.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
18-12-2015, 01:33 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Ohhhh I understand. The catholic God is in young children so the priests keep touching them to experience said God.

Got it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Nishi Karano Kaze's post
18-12-2015, 04:44 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
How to prove something:

I touch something, I see something, I taste something - Therefor I have good reason to think that something exists.

I bring something to another person and ask them what they see, taste and touch...they confirm it for themselves and have good reason to think its there.

We hook it up to a computer and computer tests it, Computer has good reason to believe it exists.

I use a mathematical equation to demonstrate that something CAN EXIST within the confines of how we "think" reality works...and math has good reason to believe thing exists.

I perform an experiment or a series of experiments to determine if thing could NOT possibly exist and it confirms it DOES exist.

I repeat the experiment.

Experiments no matter how done differently or when or by whom they are performed or where on the planet they are performed all yeild the same exact precise results and confirm it.

I gather data on everyone's experiment.

I have greater reason to believe thing exists.

I search for more information around the world that could increase the knowledge of the thing.

I find more evidence.

I apply new evidence to the same experiment as before and so doesn't everyone else.

New experiment yields same result but with more information

I no longer have any reason to believe thing exists.

Because think DOES exist regardless of what my belief is.

Thing exists outside of my belief and it's existence is not dependent on me believing it or not.

Therefor, Thing exists.

/END.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
18-12-2015, 04:49 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
We get it, things are like other things

1 Like = 1 Prayer
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes izel's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: