Ok so you are denying physics. And you put me to the test by reifying your abstractions, which is one of the most basic philosophical errors.
There is no certainty, including this statement, you don't even understand the basics.You claim we cannot have any absolute certain at all considering all means of understanding, through human awareness, are merely just approximations. I am strictly pointing out that your statement of "we cannot have certainty" is not only a statement of certainty but depending on the words which form it having conceptual certainty.
And I did not say that it is "measured" in it, geez. It tends to correlate. There are even entire languages that lack the abstract, and those people tend to have on average like 80-90 IQ and usually don't even understand the abstract. Again you failed.You equate abstract thinking within the human condition to an IQ number, it is not a statement of implication you made. Either you don't know what you are talking about, you are lying, or most likely the case is you are just angry because your world-view is threatened.
Don't project buddy, you said absolutely nothing so far that would threaten my worldview.
I don't even work in IT geezYou build computers for a living, you literally do. You cannot claim I put everything in a box, when all you claim is that my reasoning is either circular or irrational.
That too is part of physics, geezI am not denying empirical knowledge at all, it has its place. But even you point out the laws of physics may change, who is the real one denying it?
And physics works right now and you deny it
Then you should visualize some hot women for yourself and they'll appearA technique, as a function of perception, causes the empirical world we understand to change.
Well I've never seen it taken to such an extreme before, that's trueBut you without a shadow of a doubt claimed I was alone in this perception.
I won't read that, just point out that Tibetan Buddhism is just one branch of BuddhismNo you are the hypocrite who is generalizing:
When did I claim to be an expert? Again you are lyingOh...so you are not even an expert in your computer field? You never even worked on a computer in your course of study? If you didn't then you did not study it at all, but if you did then my point still stands.
How can you study computers for years without never working on one, do you understand what you are saying? What a fail
What point of you stands? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Have you never met a human before? Because if so then your question would make some senseBut don't avoid the question, what is a cognitive process?
Look I'm pretty sure you don't really believe in neuroscience or psychology either, so..The question is meant for you, I already have an argument, you should have seen it by now. What is a cognitive process to you?
Same thing basically, I just like my expression of it betterHow are these objects floating in air, using the prior computer example, they form reality?
That's obvious to everyone in philosophy, except youIf it is not perfectly worked out yet, then how can you argue it as the premise for all truth? All the "laws" you claim the universe works by, you also claim can change, hence by default your argument is strictly in a state of perpetual change.
Only you have Absolute Certainty
Nah, you are just losing it, I've pretty much demolished your worldview at this point.How can I when the conversation is through a computer screen? I am pulling everything you know out of you, whether you like it or not...you have no choice but to respond...you are here because I tell you to respond...it is that simple. And why am I forcing you to do this? to observe my premise from every conceivable angle.
You don't get it, I am just playing your ego....
The way you wildly make up stuff I never said, or make up stuff that makes zero sense, also shows it.