OK I understand your evaluation of this and mine is that there are things that may be known a” priori” that can be deduced from His statements, now understand they are personal and only mine. You might know that either of our views might be considered heresy, since neither of them contemplate a...
Well know you got me all mixed up. How can you believe in heaven and hell and assume from what Jesus said that he does not, where did you get your notion that a heaven and a hell exists from then, even if you consider hell as something many do not?
You can assume not for two reasons Los...
The evidence is that, that is exactly the interpretation of the message passed down through the centuries. Catholic doctrine interpreted those words to mean that the thief who understood what ought to be went to paradise and the bad thief who did not understand what ought to be, did not. His...
What do you think he had in mind for what he did not speak, did he need any words? The message has endured 20 centuries, believe or not humans have followed it.
As I have said before interpretations of words do not express meanings of anything more than what you think you know and that is an...
Then what did He mean when He spoke to the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him on his right and left? Is there another interpretation that mabybe I have missed?
The Tunisia goalkeeper was excellent the results did not show his class. Spain has a team of young studs that could take them all the way. They have showed so far that they can win under diverse circumstances. Eight goals in three games is not bad. We will see what happens next with Saudi Arabia.
What are you referring to as mind the imput data or the output data?
The brain scans the invironment continuously and makes changes to the internal memory.
Here is an interesting paper:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~richardson/docs/SpiveyRichardsonFitneva.pdf [Broken]
Hola MF
Well yes very much entertaining, I will agree with you on that. I do not expect you to go in circles; I would have hoped that you might understand the meanings to my words.
I think I know why this is your meaning, you believe that what you think you know is an emergent property (ie...
Some forms of accord is convention? OK math is the most conventional. Well let’s do it this way, first. “Absolute truth” is a complete set A of all knowledge. What is known “truth” is a subset B of this complete set of all knowledge. Within the subset of B “known truths” are contained the sets...
Why clip and paste only part of my post, it only confuses anyone who is reading this thread. I told you before that meanings, that we give to words are only useful when they are examined in the context of every word that is used to try and explain anything. The answer to your pixies in your...
No just being colorful did not want to rattle your jeans. Let’s try and make some progress to understand each other
I have come to believe that absolute concepts would have to entail “the facts”. Although we can not know what absolute actually is we can have an idea by knowing that what we...
MF, that has been my main point of interpretation of this whole thread. We think in models and interpret other models through our own models of interpretation of the facts. Thus no one really understands each other, only sometimes we say that we think we do and in this case we do not.
The...
Facts are not absolute truths. They are true propositions that can be falsified. Which means that they would have a truth value relative to what is known and when it is known. Yes the Earth is not flat to one who would know it is a sphere.
Has anyone ever had the experience of reading in 3D. What I mean is, while your reading, all the letters on the page can be focused in on like a necker cube. The letters have depth like you see sometimes on the big movie theatre. Its possible to look around the sides of the letters as if they...
I would hope that my expnation below helps.
Although we can go to a dictionary and learn words, its not basically done that way we learn through experience the use and meaning of the words and there use and meaning in this case is nothing but simple, due to the fact that our models of...
As long as time figures in our equations epistemological facts are mutable. You stick to your gun that facts are true propositions. I agree only if we determine in our models that they are. Although facts can be true propositions they can also be proven to be false. Our difference of opinion...
I agree with your last sentence because that is what I am referring to as temporal. The model we are discussing is based on epistemological facts; those facts are true or false based on when we know them.
It’s not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing it’s a matter of understanding that the...
Yes if you slide in temporal before proposition.
Agreed only if interpretations of information are temporal facts.
True and false propositions are relative to when they are thought about. That’s what knowing is, that is precisely how we come to know what the world is. We make...
I do not disagree, interpretation of models entails the facts and the facts are information. I will try and understand you if you will me. This is the meaning I give to facts, facts in the crude sense, are information.
Then you mean there are no facts before human experience? Could you...
I think it is a fact, you stated it correctly in the beginning, this is fundamental and yet simple but a fact is also a tautology and is a statement true by virtue of its logical form that in my opinion, can be falsified eventually. Why because we keep coming up with new facts for better models...
It’s not true when you give the wrong answer.
Consider the question where is the Earth? These are all true answers it just depends on when you ask the question. If you go outside of the timefame you ask the question the answers are false.
01-The Earth is nowhere it is not created yet...
I have read over several times what you have said and with a 99.9% accuracy I would say using my model of interpretation of what your model of what my interpretation was is correct to a very high degree but we can never know for sure what each others interpretation of thoughts might be. I guess...
Cool I am not alone in the world.
What would be your best hypothesis? What we are claiming is that something can be known "A priori".
Also your statement is a fine example of what I am trying to define.
So what could that possible mean, depends on who is interpreting it?
A- You...
You originally in your first post came up with a thought which was an idea. “Everything is done within a model”. You further said that, I think I have realized something fundamental although simplistic as well. I will agree with that. You further set out to explain how we model ideas as a...
That might be the case when you’re talking in first person but I was not referring to that. From what you have answered, that is what precisely I was trying to tell you. No one knows what anyone else is really saying because they have no access to any of the meanings that are being set to words...
Yes
Are you sure you seem to be making sense. Although you are using a model in this case English to express an idea, there is a model inside your model which is a model of limitations on what can be known. The words and propositions inside this model each have there own model within a model...
Something like knowing that you can only know what is in your model?
You mean nonsense to other models but not within your model?
Then it would not be attainable a unique model that describes what actually might be?
Why do you think there is a limit on what your model can know and...
This thread is proving if absolute morals exist. I understand your perspective of absolute morality of the individual which is relative morality. That is why I contend and said that:
Few would disagree that morality is not a concept; my hypothesis is that it is absolute for the very simple...
Could you explain to me what this means, are they actually saying that a Janus model experimentally indicates that effects in one frame make causes in another? Now how is that? It seems to me that, that is only possible, if there are undiscovered laws.
Originally Posted by Rader
Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world.
Because we observe a change in this physical world in a direction that we can not explain through physical phenomena. We are the only animal which has an idea of what absolute...
Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world. I realize that we would have to define increase in good so I will say it is an increase in natural perfection. So now I have to define increase in natural perfection and will call it existence. I think we all know...
Then any collection of particles should have this quality yet many collections do not. I am sure we could set up a particle experiment with a chimpanzee yet it would be quite difficult with a rock.
I will agree with you that concepts are non-physical but there corresponding physical...
I know that we both know enough to understand what I am questioning and why we seem to have different perspectives. This statement holds veracity only because macro objects have a negligible measurement between the crests of there waves which would make them then appear as solid objects...
So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.
Not sure...
Look at this a little closer: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/pg_2
Are you aware that blind people who have blindsight also have had OBE NDE or both? Granted you could make the assumption that blind people can see they just do not know it, do to the fact...
We discussed this in one of the consciousness threads. It was a Spanish documentary that filmed the episode. I pretty much summed it up in my last post.
Here is a interesting NDE. There is a book on two year research of blind NDE cases.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html...
I have considered your idea of testing already. The problem is that OBE and NDE are spontaneous, we can not control when they happen. We have to relay on the memory recall of the patient. At least the ten cases that I have had personal contact with cannot conjure them up whenever they want to...
Well I took time to read this and have made a copy of some of the things he has said that highlight his theory. There is a lot that I have copied cause they all are important statements to argue his point. I hope they fit and I will comment below.
To some up Metzinger's theory, the self is a...
Well thanks for explaining your philosophy clearly. I knew semantics was the culprit again. Although I said OK I agree with your last statement, it is clear that you interpret it one way and I quite another. My philosophy is that killing be it terrorism or assassination are both evil and morally...
OK, I will agree with your last statement. I have two questions, ONE Then how come States interpret this unalienable right in the wrong way? TWO Why do you say assassination and terrorism are both morally evil and then previously say J. Caesar was not assassinated, he was put to death by the...
Well some do!, because they know that they know something that they think they know, that they do not know.
You rather have a dilemma there, since you can not falsify there answer.
I am rather interested, what might some of those facts be?
I consider that a true statement only if...
Is not the cause, the observation, which is the result? Experiments verify that the pure act of observations changes reality even after the fact. So really it makes no difference which one it went through.
Just for the record do you think it was a good thing or not?
Ceasar broke the laws of Rome? Well, I realize we can all choose to judge history as we wish. The law of Rome was whoever had the power and the power was, its armies was the law. Legions were controlled by whoever backed them. The...
The only sure thing in life, is death. Death of what? I know my body will be eventually reduced to a sack of dust. If black holes eventually give back everything that is swallowed up, that a relief, my dust will still remain within this universe. What concerns me is what happens to my...