Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 05:04 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
To even debate, you're granting there as something.




"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
28-03-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 05:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  To even debate, you're granting there as something.



You may have missed the irony of his first 4 posts.
He wants me to argue with him but he claims he never made an argument.
I can't help him until he helps himself.
For his own good he should hit the ignore button, at least he won't feel rejected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 05:27 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 01:11 PM)morondog Wrote:  In the context of a forum conversation I prefer people who can keep it concise. Writing walls of boring blather is the first and most damning sign you're a crank IMO. People who're totally invested in an idea are the only ones who think requiring others to read long meandering crap-posts or watch long stupid videos is reasonable.

Quoth Wilde, brevity is the soul of wit. A writer by hobby, that's a maxim I take seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
28-03-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 05:27 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 01:11 PM)morondog Wrote:  In the context of a forum conversation I prefer people who can keep it concise. Writing walls of boring blather is the first and most damning sign you're a crank IMO. People who're totally invested in an idea are the only ones who think requiring others to read long meandering crap-posts or watch long stupid videos is reasonable.

Quoth Wilde, brevity is the soul of wit. A writer by hobby, that's a maxim I take seriously.

Or, in a similar vein, if you can't explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-03-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 07:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 05:27 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Quoth Wilde, brevity is the soul of wit. A writer by hobby, that's a maxim I take seriously.

Or, in a similar vein, if you can't explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough.

But I can! Shane's an idiot. Simple as that.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-03-2016, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 07:33 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thought is more real than physical reality
No, other people can directly interact with reality and they can not directly interact with your thoughts, what few there are, making physical reality far more real.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  reality may not exist without thoughts.
No.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let's perform a good test and examine the results.
Your test is based on a sample size of one and carried out by a known incompetent and liar on himself, produces no demonstrable results and requires the complete ignorance of the scientific method. You have no controls of any kind let alone accounting for researcher bias, no relevant education in either field, and a history of falsifying data in your favor. Your understanding of what constitutes a "good test" is as poor as your understanding of psychology, philosophy, mathematics, basic English, and many more. Which is to say cloudy with a chance of fucktarded.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The sample must have a timeline and a state for it to be a valid sample.
It requires FAR more than that, not that I would expect you to know that. Or accept that even when explained in depth.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Ok good, we have our data.
No you really really do not, for the reasons listed above. You have a single, unreliable and untrustworthy, jack off with no concept of scientific methodology convinced he has stumbled across something profound by counting to 60 more than once.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Was it a thought that initiated the clock or was it the clock that initiated the thought?
This is just stupid. Your thoughts initiated in your brain, whichhas to exist before your thoughts, and relies on EXTERNAL stimuli making the entire question pointless. Simply rewording your nonsense makes it's nonsense obvious:
Was it digestion that initiated the stomach or was it the stomach that initiated the digestion?
Was it internal combustion that initiated the engine or the engine that initiated the internal combustion?

The only reason you think the thought "initiated the clock" is because you have arbitrarily assigned the thought as the start point, which is both erroneous and fallacious. If we take a single step backwards, a single step, we know that the brain initiated the thought which "initiated the clock", and a brain is thing that exists in reality.


(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have repeated this test multiple times and the results were always the same.
And that's not scientific. One person counting to 60 gives no relevant data. If I asked a single person who could cross their eyes to cross their eyes and then came to the conclusion that ALL people could cross their eyes I'd be quite obviously wrong. If I then asked the SAME person to cross their eyes again and again and again...that would not be further support for my conclusions no matter the number of times I did it.

Your "test" is both useless and unscientific. Andrew fucking Wakefield had a larger sample size when he claimed vaccines cause autism. Controls exist for a reason. Sample sizes are important too.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thought comes before the reality in chronological order.
Only because you intentionally designed your "test" to give that answer by removing all the things that happen before your thought. Like the (alleged) development of your brain. Which happened in reality.

If you think thought comes before reality count, in the exact same way you did in your "test", to 340 seconds in a single minute. This should illustrate which has supremacy: reality or your thoughts.

This is why people have to have some form of either education in science or a basic understanding of it's methodology before they are competent enough to carry out any experiments worth their weight. You are neither, which is why you think a single, dishonest and incompatible, person counting to 60 is evidence that reality comes after thought.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The question is "how do you know" reality exist before thought.
How do you know thoughts exist to exist before reality? Your question is unfalsifiable and has no supporting evidence, and is thus worthless. I have been given not a single shred of reliable evidence to cast doubt on the idea that reality exists outside individual perception.
Hell aren't your thoughts a reality or are they a fiction?

Say you had never seen nor heard of a house cat before. Someone describes it to you having scales, breathing fire, and being no less then 2 tons in weight and entirely red, and having never seen one before you accept this as true (for the sake of argument). Now why is it that when you see a house cat it looks like a fucking house cat and not a dragon when you THINK that "dragon" is what a house cat looks like?
How come people who thinks cigarettes don't cause lung cancer get lung cancer?
How come people who think they can fly fall to the ground?
How come people who think they are fine to drink and drive often cause crashes?

For fuck sake if thought comes before reality than how do mind altering substances work? Why do they work when you're not aware you have taken them?

Your entire dumbass argument that reality comes after thought falls apart the second something you think is true is shown to be not true. This is why your solipsism nonsense is viewed as idiotic to anyone with a BASIC understanding or philosophy or science, and why almost no one treats it with anything other than disdain and dismissal.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You can't possibly know without a thought, you can only guess.
This is just patently false, and requires you to be entirely and willfully ignorant of the scientific method.
I can think the walls of my room are made of chocolate and then compare what I think to what is objectively demonstrable, and what I think has exactly 0% influence over what my walls can be shown to be actually made of, because reality supersedes thought.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Reality exists before thought. Null hypothesis
God-fucking-damnit Shane, the Null Hypothesis is that there is NO link between measured phenomena. You can't even use Null Hypothesis correctly you incompetent twit. You should have accidentally gotten something right by now. You are arguing AGAINST the Null Hypothesis.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thought exists before reality. Easily proven.
You have proven nothing but your own incompetence in both science and philosophy. Again. There are so many holes it I could use it to pan for gold.

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
[+] 9 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
29-03-2016, 02:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 04:44 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not even going to read or reply to the remainder of your post past the first point.


That's par for the course with you anyways, especially so when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter with all the trimmings.



(28-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The logic of someone, when asked to provide evidence, tells me "to the best of our knowledge" is his evidence is not very interesting to me.


A hard solipcist asking for evidence is illogical, because solipsism is unfalsifiable. There is no possible evidence one can present to falsify an unfalsifable position, you stupid cunt.


An example:

Theist: I demand that you present evidence with the scientific method to disprove my god!
Dude: Okay, define your 'god'.
Theist: He is an invisible, undetectable being that exists outside of our space and time.
Dude: Congrats, your god is unfalsifiable. There is no way to test, and thus falsify, such a thing. It may or may not exist, but we have no reason to think that it does.
Theist: But you better not masturbate! He hates when you do that!
Dude: Oh just fuck off...



(28-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am hereby instructing you to make a mockery of the debate after this post, insults included. Don't let me down.
Have fun


I can't make a mockery of a debate that doesn't exist, you stupid cunt. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
29-03-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not even going to read or reply to the remainder of your post past the first point.
The logic of someone, when asked to provide evidence, tells me "to the best of our knowledge" is his evidence is not very interesting to me.
I am hereby instructing you to make a mockery of the debate after this post, insults included. Don't let me down.
Have fun

Why? Seems actually quite interesting to me that someone who clammers on about not making certain claims seems to combat that position when others use it in their own ways. Even if it's seemingly of a mundane type of response.

That's the greatest beautiful thing about scientific claims. That they properly don't proclaim a problematic position of absolute certainty, instead use probability of the best of our knowledge and current achievable evidence. It's why it ought to be encouraged to continue that way more than not to the skeptically indulgent.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
29-03-2016, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 04:10 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(29-03-2016 05:50 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not even going to read or reply to the remainder of your post past the first point.
The logic of someone, when asked to provide evidence, tells me "to the best of our knowledge" is his evidence is not very interesting to me.
I am hereby instructing you to make a mockery of the debate after this post, insults included. Don't let me down.
Have fun

Why? Seems actually quite interesting to me that someone who clammers on about not making certain claims seems to combat that position when others use it in their own ways. Even if it's seemingly of a mundane type of response.

That's the greatest beautiful thing about scientific claims. That they properly don't proclaim a problematic position of absolute certainty, instead use probability of the best of our knowledge and current achievable evidence. It's why it ought to be encouraged to continue that way more than not to the skeptically indulgent.
It has nothing to do with personal disappointment my friend. (if that's what you are thinking)
I'm merely stating the obvious.
In a debate (about a claim) when asked to provide evidence and you do not provide evidence, I'm still stuck waiting for evidence.
If I change the question to suit their response it leaves the debate inconclusive and worthless.
It "is" not my intention to have a worthless debate at this time. <--- side note... See the "is" there? My "thoughts" are the only thing I can be sure about in this world & I use "my" very loosely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:28 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is all I am saying:
"we cannot know what reality outside of perception looks like if we do not already know what reality outside of perception looks like"
It's the same thing as saying:
"we cannot know what the color blue looks like if we do not know what the color blue looks like"

A meaningless tautology. YOU did not know about reality, before your LEARNED how to integrate and associate perceptions and memories. You LEARNED to validate perceptions and integrate them. Then you did have a reasonable perception of reality. (Well most do). Your point is meaningless, obvious, and irrelevant. The LEARNING process in no way "creates" reality. You become aware of it BY LEARNING. It was always there. Facepalm
Weeping

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: