At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...
Some of his other perspectives agreed; and some disagreed. The rest were on the fence.
At least one of his perspectives claimed that anyway...
You assumed I missed it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pmYou have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pmNice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?
Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.
Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.
Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.
Trillema.
Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
False, I never said that with that context.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pmNot really it's a contradiction and as such is always false.Eodnhoj7 wrote: False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.
I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?
What context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false. If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.Eodnhoj7[/quote wrote:
False, I never said that with that context. ...
Are you slightly mental? As this is what I was telling you in the thread about your tin-foil experiments, it's called intersubjective agreement but there you argued against it or I think you did as it's hard to tell what you say aa it was your usual obtuse rambling.Objectivity is multiple subjective states in agreement. Objectivity exists.
For example.It occurs between individuals and groups (such as the Munchauseen trillema agreed upon as an existing fallacy) and within the individual (multiple aspects of the psyche aware of eachother through self reflection. For example a person can reflect upon the good/positive they have done from there bad/Negative persona and viceversa).
You are playing the perspectivist game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
It depends on what is meant by "exist".Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am What context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false.
Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 am If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.
My point I'd have thought?Skepdick wrote: It depends on what is meant by "exist".
I's it not? Johndoe pretty much argued exactly this when faced with a cat sitting on a mat. He claimed it existed and didn't st the same time and I'm pretty sure he meant the actual cat.Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.
Going to switch unicorns for horses so we don't get stuck bickering about rainbows and glitter.
That the concept of a horse is not the same ontological thing as an actual horse is not disputed or assumed by either side (i think)....
How so? As the context is clarified in the word "concept" or idea if you like. So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.The problem is that when you say "concepts of horses exist" and "horses exist" you are using "exists" in two different senses ...
Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.And just as much a contradiction is an error, so is equivocating existence. This is the fundamental flaw and undoing of dualist and pluralist philosophies IF you subscribe to the axiom of identity.
Trillema.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:20 amYou are playing the perspectivist game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
Different axioms in different contexts produce different conclusions/truths.
Those who seek explanations in psychologism might (mis?)diagnose you with multiple personality disorder.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:11 amWhat context? You claim unicorns can exist and not exist which is a contradiction and always false. If by "context" you mean that real unicorns don't exist but conceptual ones do then they are not the same things and so of course one can exist and the other not at the same time.Eodnhoj7[/quote wrote:
False, I never said that with that context. ...
It is not a contradiction. Unicorns do not exist as an empirical reality. They exist as imaginary entities.
Empirical reality, and imaginary entities are both contexts.
Thus the unicorn, because of context can both exist and not exist at the same time. Truth is determined as having value through context. This recurssion of context, however is an absolute truth. Thus relative truth is an approximation of one truth: context through various contexts.Are you slightly mental? As this is what I was telling you in the thread about your tin-foil experiments, it's called intersubjective agreement but there you argued against it or I think you did as it's hard to tell what you say aa it was your usual obtuse rambling.Objectivity is multiple subjective states in agreement. Objectivity exists.
False, there is no agreed upon definition to objectivity, in philosophy or the sciences, that does not depend on agreement. The subjective states can be viewed as objective points that effectively are given form by connecting into a pattern. This pattern, or interpretation, is the means through which reality is given form and measured.
Group agreement is a pattern of dynamic behavior, as this agreement (such as the objective notion that the Hadron collider needed to be built (cause) for particles to be broken down and studied (effect)) bends time and space (hadron collider is built).
For example.It occurs between individuals and groups (such as the Munchauseen trillema agreed upon as an existing fallacy) and within the individual (multiple aspects of the psyche aware of eachother through self reflection. For example a person can reflect upon the good/positive they have done from there bad/Negative persona and viceversa).
For example. I am over come by desire and eat too much food. My perspective, is changed and from one of being in a state of equilibrium.
I eat the food, get sick. My perspective again is changed to where I should never had eaten the food at all.
It goes from one extreme, of excessive desire to another state of repulsion.
These desires and repulsions, however form the nature of the personality.
We hear this all the time in real life. "That is so and so when they dont eat ever few hours, when so and so eats so and so acts this way."
Now if I reflect on both states of being from a third vantage point of the personality, one that exists in a state neither desire nor repulsion I can observe not only various facets of my psyche that exist because of certain contexts, but I can also observe how aspects of the self are dependent upon specific contexts...thus the "I" becomes an objective entity.
The objectification of the self occurs through self reflective meditation.
"
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 amMy point I'd have thought?Skepdick wrote: It depends on what is meant by "exist".I's it not? Johndoe pretty much argued exactly this when faced with a cat sitting on a mat. He claimed it existed and didn't st the same time and I'm pretty sure he meant the actual cat.Pause the movie right here. This is the usual paradox that emerges between dualists and monists because the word "exists" is being equivocated.
Going to switch unicorns for horses so we don't get stuck bickering about rainbows and glitter.
That the concept of a horse is not the same ontological thing as an actual horse is not disputed or assumed by either side (i think)....
Over the time zone of 25 years, with the cat existing as a time zone, the cat exists and does not exist given a specific context. That is the point...and yes I am talking about the empirical cat for this example.How so? As the context is clarified in the word "concept" or idea if you like. So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.The problem is that when you say "concepts of horses exist" and "horses exist" you are using "exists" in two different senses ...Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.And just as much a contradiction is an error, so is equivocating existence. This is the fundamental flaw and undoing of dualist and pluralist philosophies IF you subscribe to the axiom of identity.
Besides your assumption is completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong for two reasons:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pmYou assumed I missed it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pmYou have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pm
Nice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?
Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.
Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.
Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.
Trillema.
Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
Another wrong assumption you make here.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Another wrong assumption you make hereEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pmThose assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)
Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Another wrong assumption you make here. You can not prove this assumption is even close to be correct, so what is the point of continually expressing your assumption/s?
Clarification then: It depends on how many different ways you are using 'exists'
Hence dualism. You've invented a line between "world' and "ourselves".Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
Propositional logic uses axioms. You used the axiom of non-contradiction to draw conclusions about the statement.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:32 amBesides your assumption is completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong for two reasons:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pmYou assumed I missed it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pm
You have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.
Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.
1. I added the word 'OR' so I never even assumed what you thought/assumed I did.
Actually you assumed probabilistic behavior, it was defined by a specific number of categories.
2.Even if I had assumed what you thought/assumed I did your insistence OR inability to not even provide the example, and try and refute it, helps in provinh my example is 100% True, Right, and Correct, for two reasons:
Dude, learn to read. I explained in multiple examples how your ideas are both assumptions and composed of assumptions
1. You are proving my view of hoe the brain works.
Not really, external environmental factors determine various functions of the brain. It may not be the brain but the environment causing the brain to act a certain way. You want to originate it with the brain....but this is an assumption.
2. From what I have observed so far there is no possible way you could refute my example of what is not assumed.
Yes, from what you assume there is no possible way to refute your assumptions that your arguments are not assumptions...I agree.
Another wrong assumption you make here.
False, you said everyone's brain is locked in a certain way of defending there beleifs thus yours is as well.
Another wrong assumption you make here
Good, then tell me why...other wise it is just and assumption.
Another wrong assumption you make hereEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:34 pmThose assumptions are letters, words, symbols and contexts (such as personal sensory experience, point of view etc.)
Words such as "I" and "you", because they are not defined, are assumed. They are defined within a specific context, however the context is also assumed as other contexts can be presented.
Duh...duh...duh... seriously? Throw in a stutter, like petey, and you will be more convincing.
I enjoy how you are assuming everyone understands why saying "your wrong" constitutes a good explanation.
Another wrong assumption you make here
why?
Another wrong assumption you make here. You can not prove this assumption is even close to be correct, so what is the point of continually expressing your assumption/s?
Actually I can prove it considering proof is merely definition. The nature of math being grounded in the assumption of 1 proves this. Basic 1 is an assumption, yet this assumption defines itself through recurssion into a proof. The relation of 1 and 1, as many numbers Inverts isomorphically to 2 as 1 number. Equations are isomorphic in nature. It argues how many parts invert to one...in this case number.
Your attempt at a theory can not even be proven false, so again what is the point of continually reiterating some thing that is completely worthless and useless?
Anything can be proven false given a context change.
If you want me to provide my example of 'what is not assumed', then I will. I have nothing to hide so I can keep presenting my example and proving it correct if you like. But if you are to afraid that I can do this, and do you will keep ignoring it, then so be it. Your continual ignorance of my example shows anyway, and thus proves, that what I am saying is true and correct also. So, either way I am happy.
Yes please, provide it.
Both all of your responses as well as your non responses continually proves that what I KNOW and am saying is True, Right, and Correct. You, unfortunately for you, NEVER know if you are correct or not, and you are NEVER able to prove any thing you assume and say.
False, assumption is truth. Disconnected truths are false. All contradiction is grounded in the fragmentation of truths, hence the fragmentation of assumptions.
The connection of assumptions mandates truth, as this connection allows for an inherent form which exists as is. Form is inseperable from assumption as assumption takes on a projective and receptive nature. Truth is grounded in form.
Agreed.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:40 amClarification then: It depends on how many different ways you are using 'exists'
Hence dualism. You've invented a line between "world' and "ourselves"Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am So both the idea of a horse and a horse exist in the world but only one exists outside of ourselves.
Propositional logic uses axioms. You used the axiom of non-contradiction to draw conclusions about the statement.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:23 am Since I generally just use propositional logic it's not an issue for me.