Keeping End3 Honest.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

You're conclusion is moronic

 

That should be "your".  Thanks? My pleasure, anytime.

 

 

Why attempt to keep End3 honest?  He'll just invoke his standard non-relationship, graceless and non-communal tactics of passive-aggressiveness, moving the goalposts, innate stubbornness, changing the subject and (his favorite) bald hate.

 

He doesn't have any meaningful relationships, or any grace or any community.  That's why he's always fantasizing about relationships, grace and community.  He self-medicates by pretending he has these things when, actually, he does not.  

 

I hope he gets a Jesus Action Set for Christmas.  He can go play relationship, grace and community with that.

Pretty accurate S. I actually do have several very honest, meaningful, wonderful, and joyous relationships. Not an overwhelming number, but several good, real ones that are more valuable than a whole congregation of marginal. It is through Christ Himself that I have come to realize the value in relationships.

 

But you're right, I came by the list of qualities you mention honestly in my youth. Many of you here trigger these qualities in me. Y'all often remind me of the same selfish trash responsible for my errant learning curve. Should I have more grace for y'all? Sure. But I don't sometimes.

 

But, the good news is I HAVE seen the Light, the difference, due to my Jesus Action Set. I hope you find yours because one thing I DO recognize S is the true hate that I know, it's in you too.

 

 

Aw c'mon, sdelsolray doesn't hate you... haven't you heard the saying "hatred is nearer to love than indifference"?  He is like a cat playing with a mouse.  The cat doesn't hate the mouse.  But if the mouse comes into the cat's house he or she can expect certain things to happen.

 

And quit referring to the "selfish trash responsible for [your] errant learning curve".  Lots of us had tough childhoods, but once we are adults we are responsible for our own choices.  I've suggested therapy before but I think you just prefer to whine about it instead.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

This is because unavoidably subjective science cannot (by your own definition) strive for any level of objectivity.

How do you come to the conclusion, your conclusion that science, although subjective, can not strive for objectivity. Seriously, how the hell did that come out of your brain. You act like it is an all or nothing choice. That is never what I have expressed. YOU are the one making this claim.

 

 

How do I come to my conclusion..?    By applying YOUR measure, End.   Everything is subjective.

 

If everything is subjective, then no matter how much you strive for objectivity... everything remains subjective.

If everything is subjective, then objectivity is impossible.  Your every attempt to strive for objectivity is automatically negated.  Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.  

 

That is what EVERYTHING means.

.

.

.

Oh and... "Reasons Greetings!"   

 

BAA.

[Orbit]

End, objective reality exists regardless of whether you subjectively perceive it. Case in point: gravity. Case in point: ants. They exist even when you don't see them! Why is this so hard for you?

[♦ ficino ♦]

All that exists is me and my ideas.

 

But wait... if there is just one idea after another, going by in a stream, where's the "me"?

 

So all that exists is my ideas.

 

But wait... how can they be "my" ideas if there's no "me"?

 

So all that exists is a stream of ideas.

 

But wait... if there's no "me" and no "my," there's no identifying the stream of ideas as different from anyone else's.

 

So there are identical streams of ideas going by.

 

But wait... if they're identical, there is really only one stream.

 

But if there's one stream of ideas, there is no outside vantage point from which to distinguish one idea from another in the stream.

 

Therefore, it's all one Idea.

 

Therefore, it is MIND.

 

But wait... it's one Mind.

 

So behind Mind is the One.

 

But there's still some change.

 

But wait... change implies movement, and that implies Soul.

 

Proved: NeoPlatonism is the truth.

 

Believe now or rot forever in Plato's Cave, suckers!

 

Merry Christmas

[midniterider]

All that exists is me and my ideas.

 

But wait... if there is just one idea after another, going by in a stream, where's the "me"?

 

So all that exists is my ideas.

 

But wait... how can they be "my" ideas if there's no "me"?

 

So all that exists is a stream of ideas.

 

But wait... if there's no "me" and no "my," there's no identifying the stream of ideas as different from anyone else's.

 

So there are identical streams of ideas going by.

 

But wait... if they're identical, there is really only one stream.

 

But if there's one stream of ideas, there is no outside vantage point from which to distinguish one idea from another in the stream.

 

Therefore, it's all one Idea.

 

Therefore, it is MIND.

 

But wait... it's one Mind.

 

So behind Mind is the One.

 

But there's still some change.

 

But wait... change implies movement, and that implies Soul.

 

Proved: NeoPlatonism is the truth.

 

Believe now or rot forever in Plato's Cave, suckers!

 

Merry Christmas

 

People are nothing but groupings of atoms that move around amongst other atoms that aren't called people. Why there is so much concern by society over the future and survival of atoms grouped in a certain arrangement is beyond me. 

 

As one collection of random, purposeless atoms to another, Merry Christmas. :-)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

MM,

 

You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

 

You're right, you did do that, but in the context of some objective reality outside of our perception. So what. You wouldn't know about a leaf cutter ant without your subjective perception. Everything is processed that subjective frame. By the very objective relationships that bring you the ant also brings a brain. You can not say one is real without the other.

 

So, I guess when you have jesus to forgive you, there's no need to apologize for your lie?  That's fine; I a big boy.  You're forgiven.

 

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

 

If the answer is "No", then there is an objective reality that exists outside of your subjective perceptions.  This is how the rest of us can objectively know that leaf cutter ants are real.

 

No response, End3?

[mymistake]

 

Why attempt to keep End3 honest?  He'll just invoke his standard non-relationship, graceless and non-communal tactics of passive-aggressiveness, moving the goalposts, innate stubbornness, changing the subject and (his favorite) bald hate.

 

He doesn't have any meaningful relationships, or any grace or any community.  That's why he's always fantasizing about relationships, grace and community.  He self-medicates by pretending he has these things when, actually, he does not.  

 

I hope he gets a Jesus Action Set for Christmas.  He can go play relationship, grace and community with that.

Pretty accurate S. I actually do have several very honest, meaningful, wonderful, and joyous relationships. Not an overwhelming number, but several good, real ones that are more valuable than a whole congregation of marginal. It is through Christ Himself that I have come to realize the value in relationships.

 

But you're right, I came by the list of qualities you mention honestly in my youth. Many of you here trigger these qualities in me. Y'all often remind me of the same selfish trash responsible for my errant learning curve. Should I have more grace for y'all? Sure. But I don't sometimes.

 

But, the good news is I HAVE seen the Light, the difference, due to my Jesus Action Set. I hope you find yours because one thing I DO recognize S is the true hate that I know, it's in you too.

 

 

 

Oh come on End3.  We don't hate you.  We just enjoy watching you paint yourself into a corner.  These ideas you put forth are false.  It is very easy to test them and demonstrate their lack of merit.  All you have to do to avoid the trap is say "that idea was wrong" and move forward.  It is your refusal to abandon bad ideas that causes you so much trouble.

 

 

But with that said I do hope you have a merry Christmas.  Enjoy your holiday.

[Guest end3]

 Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki BAA since no one has the gonads to post the definitions....

 

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

 

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.[citation needed]

 

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).[2]

[Guest end3]

 

 

Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki BAA since no one has the gonads to post the definitions....

 

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

 

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.[citation needed]

 

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).[2]

 

I dont get it, isnt that what was stated by BAA originally? or was he refering to a invalid christian argument about subjectivity.

 

To my understanding he is saying that objective reality exists outside of our subjectivity. I don't know that I have problems with this, but I also hear him saying that somehow we may remove ourselves from our own subjectivity through science, that we may have objective certainty per the def above even know the very definitions are created from a subjective position. I believe science may help us subjectively agree, but it's still subjective agreement. For some reason, I think he thinks science defines a reality outside of subjectivity....which is absurd.

 

Edit: Let me rephrase that last sentence.....that science defines a reality from a non subjective perspective. This is where the argument is in my mind.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki BAA since no one has the gonads to post the definitions....

 

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

 

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.[citation needed]

 

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).[2]

 

 

I'm not using Wiki definitions, End.

 

I'm using your words and your standards.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki BAA since no one has the gonads to post the definitions....

 

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

 

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.[citation needed]

 

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).[2]

 

I dont get it, isnt that what was stated by BAA originally? or was he refering to a invalid christian argument about subjectivity.

 

To my understanding he is saying that objective reality exists outside of our subjectivity. I don't know that I have problems with this, but I also hear him saying that somehow we may remove ourselves from our own subjectivity through science, that we may have objective certainty per the def above even know the very definitions are created from a subjective position. I believe science may help us subjectively agree, but it's still subjective agreement. For some reason, I think he thinks science defines a reality outside of subjectivity....which is absurd.

 

Edit: Let me rephrase that last sentence.....that science defines a reality from a non subjective perspective. This is where the argument is in my mind.

 

 

 

Gee End, you are not a very good listener.  To me all he said is that your claim regarding subjectivity is wrong.  Perhaps you are adding some extra layers that are not there.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

MM,

 

You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

 

You're right, you did do that, but in the context of some objective reality outside of our perception. So what. You wouldn't know about a leaf cutter ant without your subjective perception. Everything is processed that subjective frame. By the very objective relationships that bring you the ant also brings a brain. You can not say one is real without the other.

 

So, I guess when you have jesus to forgive you, there's no need to apologize for your lie?  That's fine; I a big boy.  You're forgiven.

 

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

 

If the answer is "No", then there is an objective reality that exists outside of your subjective perceptions.  This is how the rest of us can objectively know that leaf cutter ants are real.

 

No response, End3?

 

Still no response, End3?

[Guest end3]

I'm not using Wiki definitions, End.

Obviously...or any other definitions.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

Subjectivity always remains at 100% and objectivity at 0%, no matter what you do.  Every thought you think and every decision you take is... subjective.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki BAA since no one has the gonads to post the definitions....

 

Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

 

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.[citation needed]

 

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).[2]

 

I dont get it, isnt that what was stated by BAA originally? or was he refering to a invalid christian argument about subjectivity.

 

To my understanding he is saying that objective reality exists outside of our subjectivity. I don't know that I have problems with this, but I also hear him saying that somehow we may remove ourselves from our own subjectivity through science, that we may have objective certainty per the def above even know the very definitions are created from a subjective position. I believe science may help us subjectively agree, but it's still subjective agreement. For some reason, I think he thinks science defines a reality outside of subjectivity....which is absurd.

 

Edit: Let me rephrase that last sentence.....that science defines a reality from a non subjective perspective. This is where the argument is in my mind.

 

 

 

Gee End, you are not a very good listener.  To me all he said is that your claim regarding subjectivity is wrong.  Perhaps you are adding some extra layers that are not there.

 

I just gave him a definition I am happy with, and tried to make my point as clear as possible, but now he says he "doesn't use" that definition.

[Guest end3]

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

I understand. One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective. Regardless of whether we may assert something post consciousness, it still doesn't make it completely objectively true.

 

I can see where BAA is leaning towards science describing an absolute truth, but I don't think we have the ability to completely define that...and never will.

[mymistake]

 

I just gave him a definition I am happy with, and tried to make my point as clear as possible, but now he says he "doesn't use" that definition.

 

 

You claimed that everything is subjective.  That leads to madness.  This can be explained clearly in many different ways but I don't think you will ever understand.

[♦ ficino ♦]

One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective.

end3, could it be that you're getting at the way language is intersubjective? Speakers of English agree to call certain kinds of insects "ants." The calling this kind "ant" is not completely subjective except for the person who has a private language. Your and my use of the word is limited by the agreement among millions of subjective individuals, so we know what we mean, and to what sort of insect we refer, when we use the linguistic token we agree on using.

 

If you ask BAA to answer a question and he answers it, you've both done things with words, the meanings of most of which you agree on. If language were completely subjective, we couldn't all have this website.

 

Does the "intersubjective" idea contribute anything useful to the point you're making?

 

cheers, f

[Guest end3]

All I am trying to say is everything is ultimately filtered through a subjective lens. It can't be any other way. I will agree that we may be as objective as we may possibly be, but that doesn't change that that objectivity doesn't have to then travel through the subjective mind.

 

 

One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective.

end3, could it be that you're getting at the way language is intersubjective? Speakers of English agree to call certain kinds of insects "ants." The calling this kind "ant" is not completely subjective except for the person who has a private language. Your and my use of the word is limited by the agreement among millions of subjective individuals, so we know what we mean, and to what sort of insect we refer, when we use the linguistic token we agree on using.

 

If you ask BAA to answer a question and he answers it, you've both done things with words, the meanings of most of which you agree on. If language were completely subjective, we couldn't all have this website.

 

Does the "intersubjective" idea contribute anything useful to the point you're making?

 

cheers, f

 

In my mind all definitions of some absolute reality have been formed via a subjective process.....which then put them in the category of "everything is subjective".

 

In my opinion, being subjects of the universe, we are doomed to our own definitions of reality. But again, that in itself makes it subjective.

 

It would be like a child walking up to an older person and dictating the use of some object that has been long used as one thing but then all the child knows is the modern day use. Our objective reality is like telling God, "no God that's not what you designed....we know it's this"....arrogantly mind you.

[Guest end3]

 

I just gave him a definition I am happy with, and tried to make my point as clear as possible, but now he says he "doesn't use" that definition.

 

You claimed that everything is subjective.  That leads to madness.  This can be explained clearly in many different ways but I don't think you will ever understand.

 

Our personal computers, our minds, our thoughts, are by definition subjective. How would MM process any reality if it didn't go through your mind?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

I understand. One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective. Regardless of whether we may assert something post consciousness, it still doesn't make it completely objectively true.

 

I can see where BAA is leaning towards science describing an absolute truth, but I don't think we have the ability to completely define that...and never will.

 

So, the important thing here isn't that you bore false witness against me.  The important thing, in your opinion, is that I might use the word "ant" and you think I am referring to my mother's sister.  Way to major on the minors, there, End3.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I may be missing the point, but a lot of the above discussion seems a little like a bull session in a dorm in freshman year. I don't think anyone contests the claim that each person's mental presentations are immediate only to that person. We're not contesting the intersubjectivity of language. We're not contesting that there is something "out there" that is independent of each person's mind.

 

So end, are you trying to argue that since each of us makes judgments that rest somehow on experience, and each person's experience is immediate only to that person, then ... ? therefore we must posit God, or else there's no objective ground of reality?

 

I don't really see where this discussion is going.

 

if it's revolving around a proof of God's existence from the need to postulate at least one objective observer or mind, I think that line of thinking has been explored, and debunked, many times. But perhaps your overall point is something else. I haven't read every post in this and previous threads, so I may have missed things.

[Guest end3]

I may be missing the point, but a lot of the above discussion seems a little like a bull session in a dorm in freshman year. I don't think anyone contests the claim that each person's mental presentations are immediate only to that person. We're not contesting the intersubjectivity of language. We're not contesting that there is something "out there" that is independent of each person's mind.

 

So end, are you trying to argue that since each of us makes judgments that rest somehow on experience, and each person's experience is immediate only to that person, then ... ? therefore we must posit God, or else there's no objective ground of reality?

 

I don't really see where this discussion is going.

 

if it's revolving around a proof of God's existence from the need to postulate at least one objective observer or mind, I think that line of thinking has been explored, and debunked, many times. But perhaps your overall point is something else. I haven't read every post in this and previous threads, so I may have missed things.

First, you may thank BAA for the ongoing discussion....the continued harassment.

 

To the God issue, it's the old religion vs. science discussions. He will admit that objectively defining our own subjectivity is an insurmountable hurdle, but he won't abandon whatever it is in his mind that keeps him allied with Spock and some objective perfection. I'm with you regarding the discussion, but they kept wanting me to admit to something totally outside of the definition.

 

Edit: To reiterate, I would lean further towards science if we could predict our own subjectivity. This would remove the default to faith.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

I understand. One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective. Regardless of whether we may assert something post consciousness, it still doesn't make it completely objectively true.

 

I can see where BAA is leaning towards science describing an absolute truth, but I don't think we have the ability to completely define that...and never will.

 

So, the important thing here isn't that you bore false witness against me.  The important thing, in your opinion, is that I might use the word "ant" and you think I am referring to my mother's sister.  Way to major on the minors, there, End3.

 

A coil just blew in my irony meter....

 

I don't dislike you Prof. I will try to be more responsible on my end. Thx. Apologies.

[Orbit]

End, you are confusing your perception of reality with reality itself. They are not the same. The ant exists regardless of if you see it or what you call it. Once you perceive something, you are perceiving it, not creating it. You are confusing subject and object.

[mymistake]

 

 

I just gave him a definition I am happy with, and tried to make my point as clear as possible, but now he says he "doesn't use" that definition.

 

You claimed that everything is subjective.  That leads to madness.  This can be explained clearly in many different ways but I don't think you will ever understand.

 

Our personal computers, our minds, our thoughts, are by definition subjective. How would MM process any reality if it didn't go through your mind?

 

 

 

That is irrelevant to the existence of an objective reality.  If I had never been born objective reality would have continued along anyway even though my perception was never there to notice.

 

This isn't rocket science.