What Am I?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2016, 11:29 AM
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 10:34 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 07:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  God is absolutely true or Absolutely exists. Therefore not a Theist.
God is absolutely not true or absolutely does not exist. Therefore not an Atheist.
You just described a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist.
You left out agnostic theists, and most importantly, agnostic atheists, which by the way, is what the vast majority of atheists are.

Ok. Which classification do I fall in then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2016 12:12 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 10:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why are you asking us, who are your own mental constructs, for help? I mean what kind of demented brain in a vat invents all this crap like the internet and so forth, just to ask for help proving that it's not a brain in a vat?

I am asking because I have not come across a such a world view that is similar to mines and i would like to know if anyone else knows what to call it or should I invent a new name for now.

I have not claimed to be a brain in a vat, I simply do not rule out the possibility therefore it is just as likely to be an absolute truth as are all other world views. If you have found a way to rule out the possibility then please show me? Is this too much to ask?

Your ridicule of the assumption that all this may have been premeditatedly fabricated in my thought process is fine by me because I never made that assumption.
Do you rule out the possibility that "thought" may be a random occurring process then? Why does it have to be premeditated?
I do not come to my world view by accepting preconceived notions & biases based on others perspectives.
To rule out the possibility that I am not in some sort of matrix when attempting to prove the existence of something is called a bias.
Biases are not used when discussing logic unless all parties involved in the discussion agree to assume the bias on for the sake of argument. I'm such a case the logical conclusion would not be an absolute truth but merely a logical possibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: What Am I?




You're Superman.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 11:50 AM
RE: What Am I?
You wrote: Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth.

You are very confused. The truth does not depend on anyone's acceptance. You speak of logic while denying one of its founding principles, the primacy of existence. For you to state that "absolute truth needs to be unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted ans an absolute truth" is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. You've committed the fallacy of the stolen concept here by using the concept "logic" while denying a concept in its genetic hierarchy, the primacy of existence. In essence you are saying that the law of identity, which logic wrests on is not universally true unless everyone accepts that it is true. This gives primacy to the subject of consciousness over its objects in the subject/ object relationship. It's untenable.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
16-01-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 11:29 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 10:34 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  You just described a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist.
You left out agnostic theists, and most importantly, agnostic atheists, which by the way, is what the vast majority of atheists are.

Ok. Which classification do I fall in then?

You smell Kantian to me.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-01-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: What Am I?
You wrote: To date the only absolute truth that I cannot disprove based on my perspective and maybe yours is that "thoughts exist"
I.e. The process of thinking.

Here's the flaw: Thoughts about what? You are proposing consciousness without any objects to be conscious of. That's a major flaw. Again you trade on stolen concepts. Consciousness presupposes something to be conscious of, which is why solipsism should not be considered seriously.

proposing a consciousness without objects also commits the fallacy of pure self -reference. Picture two mirrors placed touching face to face. There would be nothing for the mirrors to reflect. Similarly a consciousness without objects would perceive only its own object less perceiving. It would perceive nothing.

On my perspective, I do not have to disprove anything to claim knowledge of what exists because I start with an objective starting point. I begin with the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness. These three fundamental recognitions entail a fourth, the primacy of existence, which is the recognition that existence exists independent of anyone's conscious activity. This provides me with a solid base to reason from.

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
16-01-2016, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2016 01:11 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 11:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You wrote: Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth.

You are very confused. The truth does not depend on anyone's acceptance. You speak of logic while denying one of its founding principles, the primacy of existence. For you to state that "absolute truth needs to be unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted ans an absolute truth" is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. You've committed the fallacy of the stolen concept here by using the concept "logic" while denying a concept in its genetic hierarchy, the primacy of existence. In essence you are saying that the law of identity, which logic wrests on is not universally true unless everyone accepts that it is true. This gives primacy to the subject of consciousness over its objects in the subject/ object relationship. It's untenable.

There is no logical fallacy here. You misquote me.
I said the "claim of absolute truth" & not just "absolute truth".
They are 2 totally different things.
One is a claim the other is a concept.
It is simply a case of you cannot claim i believe something if I don't believe something.
Let me correct your misconception of my words:
"In essence I am saying that any "universal claim" to absolute truth, is not universally true unless everyone accepts that it is true."
What logical fallacy am I committing here? Does this statement not make logical sense?

Think of it as a matter of a new born baby.
Inside the womb you do not know what is reality except by the electrical impulses you are fed through "the process of thinking". The act of knowing requires "thought".
This isn't me reinventing the meaning of words here. This is logical discussion. If you disagree with something that has been said please show why.

How can you be a conscious being without a "process of thinking". This process of thinking is called "thought" in the English language. If you do not believe this is a good definition of thought feel free to contact the relevant authorities and to share your new definition of what we should call "thought" but you will still have to give a name to the thing we understand to be "the process of thinking".
This thing we understand to be "the process of thinking" do you deny it's existence?
If you or no one else here logically denies it's existence & we all agree it "exists" then why deny me the right to use it in a logical discussion
The instant anyone here can logically deny it's existence I will stop attempting to use it to make a logical argument.
Answer me this:
How do you know that you exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2016, 01:23 PM
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 12:45 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 11:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You wrote: Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth.

You are very confused. The truth does not depend on anyone's acceptance. You speak of logic while denying one of its founding principles, the primacy of existence. For you to state that "absolute truth needs to be unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted ans an absolute truth" is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. You've committed the fallacy of the stolen concept here by using the concept "logic" while denying a concept in its genetic hierarchy, the primacy of existence. In essence you are saying that the law of identity, which logic wrests on is not universally true unless everyone accepts that it is true. This gives primacy to the subject of consciousness over its objects in the subject/ object relationship. It's untenable.

There is no logical fallacy here. You misquote me.
I said the "claim of absolute truth" & not just "absolute truth".
They are 2 totally different things.
One is a claim the other is a concept.
It is simply a case of you cannot claim i believe something if I don't believe something.
Let me correct your misconception of my words:
"In essence I am saying that any "universal claim" to absolute truth, is not universally true unless everyone accepts that it is true."

The "thing" being claimed to exist, need not exist for us to have a logical discussion about it.
Eg. Bucky could be claiming that thoughts do not exist because he does not have a proper definition of what thoughts are, yet we can still have a logical discussion about "the process of thinking".

I understood you just fine. My worldview claims an absolute truth, that there is a reality, that things exist. This claim is absolutely true whether anyone accepts it or not. In fact it would have to be true for anyone to reject it.

I quoted you directly, and now you are changing your wording to "universal claim" to absolute truth. Now why did you do that?

Any claim that is true is true whether anyone agrees or not. This is the primacy of existence principle. This principle is foundational to logic. You have explicitly denied this principle by stating that 'Any world view that claims absolute truth needs to be unanimously accepted by everyone for it to be logically accepted as an absolute truth". Clearly you are affirming that a worldview's claims are true only if everyone accepts them. You have affirmed the primacy of consciousness here while at the same time speaking of logic. Therefore you have committed the fallacy of the stolen concept.

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
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
16-01-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: What Am I?
(16-01-2016 11:46 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 10:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why are you asking us, who are your own mental constructs, for help? I mean what kind of demented brain in a vat invents all this crap like the internet and so forth, just to ask for help proving that it's not a brain in a vat?

I am asking because I have not come across a such a world view that is similar to mines and i would like to know if anyone else knows what to call it or should I invent a new name for now.

I have not claimed to be a brain in a vat, I simply do not rule out the possibility therefore it is just as likely to be an absolute truth as are all other world views. If you have found a way to rule out the possibility then please show me? Is this too much to ask?

Your ridicule of the assumption that all this may have been premeditatedly fabricated in my thought process is fine by me because I never made that assumption.
Do you rule out the possibility that "thought" may be a random occurring process then? Why does it have to be premeditated?
I do not come to my world view by accepting preconceived notions & biases based on others perspectives.
To rule out the possibility that I am not in some sort of matrix when attempting to prove the existence of something is called a bias.
Biases are not used when discussing logic unless all parties involved in the discussion agree to assume the bias on for the sake of argument. I'm such a case the logical conclusion would not be an absolute truth but merely a logical possibility.

I'm *telling* you that you *are* a brain in a vat. Why don't you believe me?

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
16-01-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: What Am I?
(15-01-2016 08:35 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 08:15 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How can you absolutely prove you are not a a brain in a vat being fed electrical impulses that creates an illusion of pain in the given situation?
How can you prove that pain is real outside of mere thoughts?

To both questions, you can't. However, there is no reason to believe we are a brain in a vat. Neither is there a reason to believe that only thoughts produce pain.

Did God make the vat? Does he keep adding ingredients (immigrants) to keep it bubbling?
I once went to a New Age meeting. A nice looking young lady was "facilitating." She started out by telling us that noting exists as we see it. She banged on the teble with her fist and declared "This table doesn't exist" and then fingered her dress. "This dress desn't exist." Then patted her thigh "This body does not exist." So I piped up and said "Why don't you take off the nonexistent dress so we can see that nonexistent body if you believe that nonsense."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DerFish's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: