Recent content by Mentat

You said that Aristotle's predictions did not correlate with "reality". Before that, you had discussed a specific prediction and showed how it didn't correlate with "observed phenomena". That you used the terms interchangeably was what made me think you were equating them. Well, when you put...

Understood. That was not my intention. I was wondering if you put absolute faith in the concept that it is wrong to put absolute faith in concepts. If one takes the Bible (for example) as a true history, then the worship of God was a rich source of knowledge for the Jews, and the...

Perhaps in the trivial way of software/hardware duality. I should think that the fact that I can copy the information from a floppy onto my PC and then burn the same information onto a CD-ROM is the same concept.

What would "explanation" of something you can't define, point out, or even communicate mean? What would it be to "explain" something without communicating? If one can't explain something -- it is impossible in principle to explain it -- then one shouldn't try. That seems rather obvious...

I was being open-minded and honest, when I began the thread. I only matched your level of closed-mindedness, I never exceeded it.

That's because you define "belief" differently than I do. Anyway, I've tried that before (countering a view I hold on one thread, with a statement on another) and people inevitably end up quoting me to myself. I just don't like "personal observations" in the middle of philosophical debates...

Not all threads in the GD forum are funny, trib. I just don't have any better place to put this, nor do I have all that many personal critics (which means you shouldn't be seeing very much of this thread in the future).

The Pyrrhoneans didn't. And neither did Socrates (again, I refer you to Thrasymachus' critique of Socrates' method, which was very much like the Skeptic method). As to this being a "game" that I play with people with whom I argue...so what? You are debating. Debating is, by its nature, a...

I'm just wondering if it's the "hypatia", from PF2. If so, where've you been?

And they care about how they look, do they? I like this point. Perhaps airkapp is referring to intellectual openness, rather than "honesty", but I still think you make a very good point, cragwolf. Airkapp was talking about a being that existed independent of space and time (which is...

Welcome to the PFs, BillyT :smile: I've got a question about one of your premises. You say that we do not consciously perceive the external world, but rather the simulation that such world produces within our brains, right? You also agree that the external stimulus produces that simulation...

So "reality" = "observed phenomena"? Doesn't that presuppose that that which we observe is the best possible determinant of what is "real"? Ok, but didn't we invent the word "truth"? Rocks don't ponder the nature of "reality" or "truth" or "knowledge"; we do. So, don't we retain the right to...

So the concept that what is in the Bible is true (in some sense or other) isn't even to be considered?

So your entire premise is based on "aw, you know what I mean" reasoning? Sounds like Chalmers to me .

That was the point. Intelligence doesn't help you survive better until it has a chance to evolve into full-blown, technology-producing, civilization-building, niche-creating intelligence, and that takes a long time. Along the way, there is little (if any) advantage to the precursors of such...