Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[johnnylightnin]

Y'all are doing a great job proving MY theory that objectivism is an illusion. You evaluate this data and that data according to your understanding of sensory data you have experienced. You take things on faith and then evaluate them against the reality that you perceive in your incredibly finite window of perception. My point is that making the sweeping generalizations about reality based on your tiny window of perception is foolish as you cannot personally verify a VAST majority of the beliefs that you hold. My faith isn't contrary to my sensory data. In fact, it explains all that I observe. Back to class.

[randerizer]

Y'all are doing a great job proving MY theory that objectivism is an illusion. You evaluate this data and that data according to your understanding of sensory data you have experienced. You take things on faith and then evaluate them against the reality that you perceive in your incredibly finite window of perception. My point is that making the sweeping generalizations about reality based on your tiny window of perception is foolish as you cannot personally verify a VAST majority of the beliefs that you hold. My faith isn't contrary to my sensory data. In fact, it explains all that I observe. Back to class.

Nope - the validity of the senses is axiomatically valid. See the beginning of the "knowledge" thread. Care to refute?

Your faith reflects poor contextualization of your sensory data, or an attempt to evade it. Ever watch someone transcend from the ground to the heavens?

Who says anyone wants to make sweeping generalizations about reality based on a tiny window of perception? I don't make sweeping generalizations when I am outside of my area of confidence. I think that's exactly the point WE are making.

But you would rather trust what someone else says is or is not, even if this is counter to what you have perceived?

[saltydawg]

Nope - the validity of the senses is axiomatically valid. See the beginning of the "knowledge" thread. Care to refute?

Your faith reflects poor contextualization of your sensory data, or an attempt to evade it. Ever watch someone transcend from the ground to the heavens?

Who says anyone wants to make sweeping generalizations about reality based on a tiny window of perception? I don't make sweeping generalizations when I am outside of my area of confidence. I think that's exactly the point WE are making.

But you would rather trust what someone else says is or is not, even if this is counter to what you have perceived?

What's real......What's an illusion?



does it matter.????


Perhaps you two think that the little thing you call a brain can figure it all out? ROTFLMAO!!!


You two are "thinking" way too much. Slow down and like the Spirit reveal itself to you.

[randerizer]

Perhaps you two think that the little thing you call a brain can figure it all out? ROTFLMAO!!!
You two are "thinking" way too much. Slow down and like the Spirit reveal itself to you.

The track record of those who have used their "brains" is much better than those that tried to simply tune into their "spiritual" sides. :icon_wink:

[Guisslapp]

What's real......What's an illusion?

does it matter.????

Perhaps you two think that the little thing you call a brain can figure it all out? ROTFLMAO!!!

You two are "thinking" way too much. Slow down and like the Spirit reveal itself to you.

You tripping on acid again?

People who thinking an objective view of reality is an "illusion" (JL) or "impossible" (Salty) have clearly never tried purging their minds of the mental clutter caused by religion and traditional Western philosophy. You may be surprised how easy things are to understand when your concepts are in order (properly contextualized with the appropriate heirarchy and perceptual basis).

Your senses are your only connection to existence and it is up to you whether you want to trust them or not. If you choose not to you are leaving it all to chance and blind luck.

[saltydawg]

The track record of those who have used their "brains" is much better than those that tried to simply tune into their "spiritual" sides. :icon_wink:

Says "WHO"?:icon_wink:

[saltydawg]

You tripping on acid again?

People who thinking an objective view of reality is an "illusion" (JL) or "impossible" (Salty) have clearly never tried purging their minds of the mental clutter caused by religion and traditional Western philosophy. You may be surprised how easy things are to understand when your concepts are in order (properly contextualized with the appropriate heirarchy and perceptual basis).

Your senses are your only connection to existence and it is up to you whether you want to trust them or not. If you choose not to you are leaving it all to chance and blind luck.

No, not tripping on acid but you could use some some if you are so conceited to think that your puny brain is capable of understanding just a little portion of our world. There is a lot more to it than our brains can process.:icon_wink:

[Guisslapp]

No, not tripping on acid but you could use some some if you are so conceited to think that your puny brain is capable of understanding just a little portion of our world. There is a lot more to it than our brains can process.:icon_wink:

Salty - that machine you are typing on is not a typewriter or word processor - it is a computer. Computers have significant processing capabilities that can be harnessed and used.

[saltydawg]

Salty - that machine you are typing on is not a typewriter or word processor - it is a computer. Computers have significant processing capabilities that can be harnessed and used.

True, but my computer cannot think or feel.

[Guisslapp]

Your computer is capable of thinking.

[saltydawg]

Your computer is capable of thinking.

Now you are playing word games.. Have you or randerizer ever try acid?

I ask because i would like to know how far you trust your sense of perception.

[Guisslapp]

LSD affects receptors in the brain.

[saltydawg]

LSD affects receptors in the brain.

True, but you didn't answer my simple question.

[Guisslapp]

Artificial intelligence is a real scientific field. We already have developed software that can "learn." I think, for good reason, computers will one day be capable of consciousness as well.

[saltydawg]

Artificial intelligence is a real scientific field. We already have developed software that can "learn." I think, for good reason, computers will one day be capable of consciousness as well.

Eh, are you "experienced" or not? AI is a separate topic. The human brain is what we are talking about at the moment.