EPTStatements all TL members agree with - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On December 08 2009 01:15 Cloud wrote: 7. If you bitch about your parents, you are an ungrateful son. False for a little over half the people in the world. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On December 08 2009 00:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I am wondering if there are any statements that all TL members agree with. I have a argumentative context in mind. Maybe these could serve as a point(s) of common ground for constructive debate instead of flames. Some contenders could be: 1. Reality is what it is despite what you think about it. 1. I disagree or agree and I`m right and wrong at the same time, whether agreed/disagreed. What is reality ? Everything that exists . Then , however , it is indescribeable in words or any sensory/mental data because of what it is - if it is everything then it is indefineable. Existance - it cannot be non-existance - but then , when u take your thinking on another level , non-existance can be another existance because it can simply be constructed of something that is unrelated to any sensory data humanity knows. * Then , even though non-existance is the exact opposite of existance it can be another existance itself. So the words are imperfect - they might lead to describing existance as non-existance. Further example : if existance is non-existance and non-existance is existance then there is no such thing as non-existance but then it means that reality is an infinity . If reality(all that exists) is infinity then infinity has INFINITE number of anomalies and paradoxes , therefore there could be non-existance in infinity and that would mean that infinity is FINITE. So again - finite infinity, non-existant existance. In fact you can keep agreeing and disagreeing with everything nearly forever and whether you agree or not is simply measured by its place in quee of agree/disagree tail. You can disagree with literally everything and then disqualify what u used to disagree with and therefore agree with the statement that u disagreed. This can be repeated forever. Statement 1. Agree1------------------------------------ Disagree1 Disagree(2) with Disagree1 argument- therefore agree(2) with agree1-------------------------------------------------Disagree(2) with agree(2) (agree with Disagree1) Disagree(3) with disagree(2) ( agree with agree(2) ) etc etc and you can disagree with whole of this at once , there are no limits disagree - there are limits because some statements might be insanely hard to disagree with and how much analitical power they will require isn`t limited so it might be too hard for one trying to disagree to disagree - so there are limits . Another example Statement : - Everyone here is TL.net member. What if this post was written by by someone who saw this site for first time ever ? He isn`t TL.net member. * Just because we were never able to perceive something by human senses or any of its technology and imagination - doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.You simply cannot prove that. So more directly to your statement : 1. Reality is what it is despite what you think about it. Reality isn`t unrelated to what you think about it because what you think is a part of reality so it what u think changes the reality. This, however, can also be disagreed. You can agree or disagree with any statement and be right at the same time. The only thing that changes there is difficulty level included to be able to agree or disagree. PS. I purposely didn`t mix in the 'point of view' ingredient. Fact of being able to do this is another proof. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On December 08 2009 00:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I am wondering if there are any statements that all TL members agree with. I have a argumentative context in mind. Maybe these could serve as a point(s) of common ground for constructive debate instead of flames. Some contenders could be: 1. Reality is what it is despite what you think about it. 2. An entity cannot have and not have the same property at the same time in the same respect. 3. Human beings are not omniscient. 4. Just because you hold a position doesn't make that position true (or, in other words: Just because you say you are right doesn't mean you are). 5. Beliefs should aim for truth not falsehood. 6. It is useless to try and stop flames on TL. I also disproved 2 by my previous post. | ||
|
bEsT[Alive]
606 Posts
Exactly how old are you? | ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
 | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
| ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + rule 6 | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On December 08 2009 08:56 Roffles wrote: I'm fucking retarded. I think we can all agree on that. | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
On December 08 2009 08:30 Schnake wrote: How can reality be subjective? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. A scientific realist admits to the possibility of the 'matrix paradox' that all of our perceived existence could be a lie. Our brain, however, does not operate on this principle. By the architecture of our consciouness, we must assume that all we see, experience, or sense, detect, and 'prove' is 'real.' But keep in mind that any one individual can hallucinate, and any scientific experiment can yield 'bad' data and anyone analyzing 'good' data can make a wrong conclusion. As a civilization we must be wary of superstition or incorrect thinking. In the scientific community there is great celebration whenever someone goes through the necessary steps to carefully disprove a theory which does not describe the function of the 'real' world. The key to understand reality in my eyes is accepting the postulate that there is an objective consensus reality that does not change because of what we *believe*, and accepting that the universe will behave in a more-or-less predictable way. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On December 08 2009 01:21 Undeadhunter wrote: Don't agree with this, I think in most cases it's not the parents but other external influences that would make someone kill someone else. Parents aren't competely to blame here, but do have a certain influence Hahaha, your 27 post count is why you don't get that. That whole post is sarcasm. I have not read the thread completely, so maybe someone said that already, but I smirked while reading it. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On December 08 2009 07:55 niteReloaded wrote: Pretty good, except for #2 which I don't agree with. btw, gg the other day. "typical, all this cute fancy shit, and you can't macro" <3 Just trying to make you understand that the only TRUE way to win a game of starcraft is through sheer force! Bust straight up the gut through the toughest defense, and play in your opponents blood. Micro will never give you a sweet tasting victory. | ||
|
timmeh
Austria177 Posts
5) bullshit. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On December 08 2009 06:09 tinman wrote: Holy shit! You're laboring under the almost comically misinformed impression that words like thought and belief and perception actually signify existents in the universe in demonstrable ways about which one can be correct or incorrect? Holy shit?! And you're calling someone out for calling someone out about being a dumbfuck??! What a dumbfuck. Too bad that's a belief and not reality, hah! | ||
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Damn, you're a harsh one.  | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
On December 08 2009 08:50 UFO wrote: 1. I disagree or agree and I`m right and wrong at the same time, whether agreed/disagreed. What is reality ? Everything that exists . Then , however , it is indescribeable in words or any sensory/mental data because of what it is - if it is everything then it is indefineable. Existance - it cannot be non-existance - but then , when u take your thinking on another level , non-existance can be another existance because it can simply be constructed of something that is unrelated to any sensory data humanity knows. * Then , even though non-existance is the exact opposite of existance it can be another existance itself. So the words are imperfect - they might lead to describing existance as non-existance. Further example : if existance is non-existance and non-existance is existance then there is no such thing as non-existance but then it means that reality is an infinity . If reality(all that exists) is infinity then infinity has INFINITE number of anomalies and paradoxes , therefore there could be non-existance in infinity and that would mean that infinity is FINITE. So again - finite infinity, non-existant existance. In fact you can keep agreeing and disagreeing with everything nearly forever and whether you agree or not is simply measured by its place in quee of agree/disagree tail. You can disagree with literally everything and then disqualify what u used to disagree with and therefore agree with the statement that u disagreed. This can be repeated forever. Statement 1. Agree1------------------------------------ Disagree1 Disagree(2) with Disagree1 argument- therefore agree(2) with agree1-------------------------------------------------Disagree(2) with agree(2) (agree with Disagree1) Disagree(3) with disagree(2) ( agree with agree(2) ) etc etc and you can disagree with whole of this at once , there are no limits disagree - there are limits because some statements might be insanely hard to disagree with and how much analitical power they will require isn`t limited so it might be too hard for one trying to disagree to disagree - so there are limits . Another example Statement : - Everyone here is TL.net member. What if this post was written by by someone who saw this site for first time ever ? He isn`t TL.net member. * Just because we were never able to perceive something by human senses or any of its technology and imagination - doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.You simply cannot prove that. So more directly to your statement : 1. Reality is what it is despite what you think about it. Reality isn`t unrelated to what you think about it because what you think is a part of reality so it what u think changes the reality. This, however, can also be disagreed. You can agree or disagree with any statement and be right at the same time. The only thing that changes there is difficulty level included to be able to agree or disagree. PS. I purposely didn`t mix in the 'point of view' ingredient. Fact of being able to do this is another proof. Seriously, UFO, lern2English. I think I would disagree with you, but I honestly can't be sure because I can hardly decode the combination of letters and punctuation you're using. First, read my above post to understand what I mean by 'consensus objective reality'. I think you're trying to argue that 'reality' and 'exist' are confounded terms and that any attempt to define one using the other is essentially a form of 'begging the question' or circular logic. I get that. However, I don't understand your whole argument about non-existence being a form of existence. If something can be termed to exist, it cannot be said also not to exist. A drawing of a cat may exist, even if the cat portrayed in the drawing does not exist. And a cat similar to the cat portrayed in the picture may also exist. The 'state' of existence or non-existence may be assigned to a concept or object. But the state of non-existence is acknowledge by all to exist as a possible state for an object or concept. Existence is NEVER non-existence. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not-exist where information about that object is available. I would assume you're familiar with the Schrödinger's Cat Paradox. Even if you want to get metaphysical, Schrödinger's cat is both alive AND dead, 2 well known and understood states, and if it's survival is measured (by opening the box) one of the possible states will be 'selected' (quantum wave function collapse). Here is a hilarious little quote: Just because we were never able to perceive something by human senses or any of its technology and imagination - doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.You simply cannot prove that. Reality isn`t unrelated to what you think about it because what you think is a part of reality so it what u think changes the reality. This, however, can also be disagreed. This is like the most hilarious contradiction I think I've heard all week. You're trying to say in the first paragraph that what you experience or believe doesn't change consensus objective reality, but you're saying in the second paragraph that what we think about reality somehow changes it. In other words, according to your first statement, if there is a cat in front of me, whether or not I can see the cat sitting in front of me doesn't change the fact that there is a cat in front of me. Your second paragraph, however, contends that just not believing in the cat or not knowing about it somehow changes whether or not it is there. I think I'm done here. | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
How you perceive a train of mass greater than 2000 tons, travelling at 100 m/s towards you doesn't change the fact that you could die if you don't move. Whether or not you believe in Newton's laws of motion or that America's hospitals can save you doesn't really matter once you're struck by that train. Even if you 'think' you can outrun the train by running at 20 m/s in the opposite direction, it doesn't mean you'll make it. Hell, your opinion about whether or not the train is even 'real' doesn't really matter too much. The reality is, you'll more than likely die if you stay where you're standing. The reality is that humans can only afford to believe what they perceive, to question, question, question their beliefs and always refine their understanding of the universe and ways in which they predict its actions. And also, to understand the difference between what they perceive, what they believe, what they think, and what is 'true'. Fun quiz time: What is the 'default' belief state for a premise or claim? | ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
: ) | ||
| ||
