Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/13/10 01:05 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Not neccessarly. If paradise is a spirtual realm where 'souls' exist without physical bodies, then the laws that govern the idea of 'perfection' in the physical world would no longer apply.

That doesn't really address the issue. You're rebracketing the dilemma to the extent that you're avoiding the dilemma.

It's: whether paradise is possible physically. It's: whether paradise is possible.

How this works is unaswerable. It could vary based on a number of opinions and beliefs.

To address this, and the more recent developments since I was gone: Invoking variation is a red herring when these variations either inhabit the larger dilemma or are inconsequential to it.

You can come up with a million different motivations for God, and they'd all still fall under God intentionally creating. You can come up with a million different reasons that God's power is limited, and it'd still fall under God being less than omnipotent.

At 4/13/10 07:30 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: It's: whether paradise is possible physically. It's: whether paradise is possible.

Ugghhh.

It's NOT: whether paradise is possible physically. It's: whether paradise is possible.

At 4/11/10 04:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Should we suddenly derail to talking about prototype theory?

you can suddenly derail to whatever you want, spouting your opinions left and right, if you knew a thing about general semantics you wouldn't spout

At 4/13/10 11:21 PM, pr0ded wrote: you can suddenly derail to whatever you want

Thank you! :)

Still hung up on testing omnipotence?

Thank you! :)

just remember that clinging to common sense assumptions such as common sense theories of perception are the root cause of blankism such as your extremism

same statement but better
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/postr eply.php?id=34723&quotepost=562568#posta rea

At 4/14/10 08:27 PM, pr0ded wrote:

Thank you! :)

just remember that clinging to common sense assumptions such as common sense theories of perception are the root cause of blankism such as your extremism

Oh ok. Sure. We can get into this again if you want to.

What about my 'theories' are 'common sense'?

What about my 'theories' are extremist?

What is blankism?

Your link didn't work.

theories of perception, one which both religious and nonreligious share

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threa ds/do-aristotelian-logic-and-quantum-mec hanics-contradict-34723.html

quote number 10

At 4/16/10 06:02 PM, pr0ded wrote: theories of perception, one which both religious and nonreligious share

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threa ds/do-aristotelian-logic-and-quantum-mec hanics-contradict-34723.html

quote number 10

"Objective truth implies absolute knowledge of something"

No it does not, though some people probably exploit it as such. Other than that... exactly what was I suppose to disagree with? I don't have a problem with anything else he said (though I could foresee having problems with some of the ways his logic is often applied by others elsewhere).

At 4/16/10 07:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: No it does not, though some people probably exploit it as such. Other than that... exactly what was I suppose to disagree with? I don't have a problem with anything else he said (though I could foresee having problems with some of the ways his logic is often applied by others elsewhere).

Because citing a forum is obviously backing up what he's saying.

At 4/17/10 08:36 AM, The-universe wrote: Because citing a forum is obviously backing up what he's saying.

Hm? I don't understand what you mean.

Theists, has it ever occured to you that the Bible, in all of its translations and ptential mistakes, mispelings, errors, and the fact that it was changed by several Roman Emporer's because they didn't like bits of it and the 2000 years for Chinese whispers to develope, that maybe it has, chaned a bit since it was first written.

I mean, what if rather than being God-inspired Jews, they were philosophists that basically wrote God as natural selection, and turned all the other nonsensical crap you see in there today into scientific theories? And then told the story of a nice, possibly shizophrenic man named Jesus who helped people and then got crucified for a crime he didn't commit? And then, over the years, people will make mistakes in translations etc and add bits in and change things to make them sell better, to the point where you basically get a shit version of the Lord of the Rings?

Just think about that for a second.

At 4/17/10 05:05 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/17/10 08:36 AM, The-universe wrote: Because citing a forum is obviously backing up what he's saying.

Hm? I don't understand what you mean.

When has anyone ever encouraged optimism in their argument by citing a forum?

At 4/18/10 05:40 AM, The-universe wrote: When has anyone ever encouraged optimism in their argument by citing a forum?

Oh. Well, I mean, I don't think he was using it to back up his argument. I think he just opted to use the link rather than explain it himself... which I don't really have anything against as a matter of broaching a topic.

***

However, pr0ded, if you're just getting back into the [respond to everything with a link accompanied by an incomplete sentence, and followed by playing off the opposition's bewilderment as stupidity and ignorance] routine again then, well, I might have to just surrender to your (to me, unfathomably) superior intellect.

At 4/18/10 07:06 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh. Well, I mean, I don't think he was using it to back up his argument. I think he just opted to use the link rather than explain it himself... which I don't really have anything against as a matter of broaching a topic.

If that is the case, wouldn't that be intellectual laziness and he's just using someone else arguments to forward his own inept viewpoint?

Lord knows I've posted links saying "I'm saying basically this", but then again, if just reading and nodding is a form of intelligence, then having good memory rather than thinking skills is a primary goal.

Or I could just be bored and wasting time in order for the day to end because I'm wasteful of life.

At 4/16/10 07:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
"Objective truth implies absolute knowledge of something"

objective truth is outside your nervous system, it complete/absolute, perceive it incompletely

perceiving the billion(s) of the signals you receive would be chaotic

only 50micrograms of delysid is required to increase conciousness/ understanding of sensory information substantially

scientific research is prohibited

and made no response to what i was initially discussinglink

looks like these scientists need to expand their awareness (then they would be forced to abandon 'naive realism' long before that conclusion.. like many others for thousands of years) , it is true enough

At 4/18/10 09:43 AM, pr0ded wrote: objective truth is outside your nervous system, it complete/absolute, perceive it incompletely

[outside your nervous system] does not automatically take you to [complete/absolute]. Empiricism is objective, and if you look at the definition, it's ridiculously close to the definition for "subjective."

Please let us get through this without me having to talk about Magritte's pipe.

perceiving the billion(s) of the signals you receive would be chaotic

only 50micrograms of delysid is required to increase conciousness/ understanding of sensory information substantially

Drugs in no way solve the problem of gaining an objective viewpoint. Ego-death is not objective. Sensory amplification is still limited. Sensory expansion is unproven, and even if it were, the gain is not substantial - rather negligible actually. And any increase in cognitive ability is irrelevant to the discussion of naive realism.

I'm being hyperbolic but: Tripping out and seeing a toaster walk around the room does not confirm the quantum dilemma that things don't have 'real' characteristics.

scientific research is prohibited

and made no response to what i was initially discussinglink

looks like these scientists need to expand their awareness (then they would be forced to abandon 'naive realism' long before that conclusion.. like many others for thousands of years) , it is true enough

'long before that conclusion'

What conclusion? (It seems to understand this last section of your passage I'd have to know what conclusion you're talking about.)

At 4/18/10 04:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

[outside your nervous system] does not automatically take you to [complete/absolute]. Empiricism is objective, and if you look at the definition, it's ridiculously close to the definition for "subjective."

yes, because its lossless information that becomes lossy via the senses, it is not a pipe, but a

perceiving the billion(s) of the signals you receive would be chaotic

only 50micrograms of delysid is required to increase conciousness/ understanding of sensory information substantially

Drugs in no way solve the problem of gaining an objective viewpoint. Ego-death is not objective. Sensory amplification is still limited. Sensory expansion is unproven, and even if it were, the gain is not substantial - rather negligible actually. And any increase in cognitive ability is irrelevant to the discussion of naive realism.

give reasons and i continue reading

your idea of the expereince is skewed, you don't see walking toasters , you perceive things clearer

At 4/19/10 10:57 PM, pr0ded wrote: your idea of the expereince is skewed, you don't see walking toasters , you perceive things clearer

Or maybe you don't but you think you do because your a crackhead.

And while it's great that your able to link your hobby of taking drugs into a wide variety of topics I really don't understand what "scientist not taking drugs" and "drugs show you more things about reality" have to do with our title subject of theism and atheism.

If you do have an argument about drugs witch actually relates to discovering god or w/e then could try to be a bit more clear and focused about presenting it(this may be a challenge for you).

At 4/19/10 10:57 PM, pr0ded wrote: [...]

If you want to get a little, then you're going to have to give a little. I can't very well have a conversation with you if you're going to spontaneously drop things out of the discussion like nothing was ever there to begin with.

You said: "looks like these scientists need to expand their awareness (then they would be forced to abandon 'naive realism' long before that conclusion.. like many others for thousands of years) , it is true enough"

Emphasis: "that conclusion"

What conclusion are you talking about?

At 4/19/10 11:28 PM, MrHero17 wrote:

it's you're, and it has a lot to do with a scientific materialist atheist, which is based on naive realism. a so called 'common sense theory of perception'
this has nothing to do with crackheads, all you're trying to do is suppress information that goes against the suppositions of the majority (common sense, theist or non)
its also used in my examples, i could also use meditation etc in perception alteration

If you want to get a little, then you're going to have to give a little. I can't very well have a conversation with you if you're going to spontaneously drop things out of the discussion like nothing was ever there to begin with.

maybe you need to look back at what i originally discussed, and how i compared that statement with the 'conclusion' the quantum scientists made

a response to a user called "the universe"

or maybe we should remember that science vs religion topic, where it took multiples attempts, saying the same thing and linking to the same articles and only until i said "this this part of the article" until you admitted i was correct

this crackhead has superior memory,

At 4/22/10 10:36 AM, pr0ded wrote: this crackhead has superior memory,

You were expecting me to do more than just remember. You were asking me to assume beyond any reasonably local clarification by you, and without any previous employment of the word "conclusion" "conclude", what explicitly 'that conclusion' was referring to.

I didn't call you a crackhead. That wasn't me.

And if you haven't yet figured out that I was patronizing you when I said "shit, you're right" (or whatever derivative thereof), then let me explain...

You had fallen into a mantra regarding a discrepancy, in an analogy I used, that was irrelevant - functionally moot - to the point the analogy was making. Despite explaining this to you at least a couple different ways, you eventually puked up an unintelligible, but seemingly similarly aimed, response... well... let's look it up...

"im not gamble the difference between large and small"

And this was after I, despite not being able to get a straight answer from you, attempted to answer your question, which you promptly ignored to launch into the aforementioned mantra. What was I suppose to do? Reason with you? I had already tried that. So I quoted the last thing you actually put forth 'against' my stance, and said you were right, despite having read it prior, despite already agreeing to what the link put forth, and despite my beliefs and the link NOT being mutually exclusive.

***

At 4/19/10 10:57 PM, pr0ded wrote: yes, because its lossless information that becomes lossy via the senses, it is not a pipe, but a

... painting of a pipe.

Also note that the information is inherently incomplete, as tools employed to aid the senses are themselves limited.

Soooo... {outside your nervous system} does not automatically take you to {completeness/absoluteness}. Objectivity is not inherently absolute nor complete, as objectivity, via empiricism, is explicitly not absolute nor complete.

give reasons and i continue reading

Ego death is not objective because all information is still digested by a singular being's finite senses. The experience is strictly subjective - anecdotal - paramount to hearsay. Just because the viewpoint is altered doesn't suddenly make it objective.

Sensory amplification is limited. Within the contexts of the senses you currently possess, you cannot sense everything. As everything is inextricable, you are therefore rendered unable to sense everything about anything.

Sensory expansion is unproven. I've yet to find any reputable studies showing that people actually gain senses via drug use.

Increase in cognitive ability is irrelevant because any purpose it could serve as an adequate interpreter of absolute, complete, and/or objective data is prevented by the aforementioned bottlenecks.

your idea of the expereince is skewed, you don't see walking toasters , you perceive things clearer

I said it was hyperbolic, didn't I?

Perceptions are not solely clearer. Altering your senses does not confirm the quantum dilemma that things don't have 'real' characteristics.

At 4/22/10 12:11 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Sensory expansion is unproven. I've yet to find any reputable studies showing that people actually gain senses via drug use.

i really think it should be said that science is heavily invested in sensory expansion, though not through chemical use. comprehension of most subjects requires instrumentation and method allowing us to perceive things well beyond the most attuned senses. so as far as limits of perception, saying that science is limited in objectivity due to its, presumably, minuscule sensory scope is misleading.

At 4/22/10 12:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote: saying that science is limited in objectivity due to its, presumably, minuscule sensory scope is misleading.

I'm not saying that. I was talking about drug use. I'll put it this way: a trip is not objective, and it's especially subjective if pr0ded insists on claiming that 'objective' and 'absolute' are synonymous.

Paradise isn't possible physically, utterly not in our existence. The thread is a philosophical one.

At 4/22/10 01:04 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/22/10 12:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote: saying that science is limited in objectivity due to its, presumably, minuscule sensory scope is misleading.

I'm not saying that. I was talking about drug use. I'll put it this way: a trip is not objective, and it's especially subjective if pr0ded insists on claiming that 'objective' and 'absolute' are synonymous.

I hope you don't mind me asking your criticisms on this, but when knowledge is defined as a justified true belief, if pressed to go for one or the other, would you vouch for Empiricism or Rationalism? It is relevant to a limited extent.

At 4/22/10 01:27 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: I hope you don't mind me asking your criticisms on this, but when knowledge is defined as a justified true belief, if pressed to go for one or the other, would you vouch for Empiricism or Rationalism? It is relevant to a limited extent.

I don't mind. I side with empiricism, as it treats precedent as a thing rooted in something more than an individual's imagination. Rationalism is inherently unjustified from an empirical standpoint, where as empiricism is excess from a(n ideally) rational standpoint. I think. I'm actually not even sure if rationalists think rationalism is justified.

And there are just some weird things about rationalism. I mean, I think most people at least admit to rationalism not being pure in application. Thinking otherwise would just be plane dishonest. But what's the difference between impure rationalism and simply being logical?

And since logic is built into empiricism, I'd say it's the more inclusive paradigm of the two with regard to assimilation, and thus the more accurate with regard to validation/ justification.

At 4/22/10 10:36 AM, pr0ded wrote: a response to a user called "the universe"

or maybe we should remember that science vs religion topic, where it took multiples attempts, saying the same thing and linking to the same articles and only until i said "this this part of the article" until you admitted i was correct

this crackhead has superior memory,

When you start talking coherently you'll get a response.

Until then, drop the pipe before your brains pour out of your ears.

http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/v8p189-21 0Mende.pdf

Im not really sure what I think of this, but I thought it was interesting.