The Half-life of Facts.

Cyracuz said:

Quote:

As far as we KNOW they [any other living creatures anywhere in this galaxy] do not exist. That is all we can say without speculating.

But speculating is FUN.. Smile

For example given the huge distances that make physical travel between the stars impractical, maybe aliens out there are trying to contact us TELEPATHICALLY?
Problem is, when a human brain picks up the alien message, it can't "unscramble" it, and it might trigger hallucinations in the recipient.
For example the telepathic message "Hi, we are aliens" might trigger the human into "seeing" a close up UFO and experiencing abduction hallucinations.
---------------------------------------------

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/swag80_zps72962e87.gif~original

0 Replies

Incidentally that Twilight Zone DC-3 episode drew some interesting comments at youtube, for example one guy said- "But why didn't he push a stick or something into the whirling prop to see if the plane was an illusion, instead of taking the risk of pushing his hand into it?"
One reply was- "If he'd pushed a stick into the prop instead of his hand, maybe the gesture wouldn't have been powerful enough to break the illusion, and the stick would have got chewed up and the plane wouldn't vanish. But pushing his hand in it was a very powerful "statement of faith" and it successfully shattered the illusion"
--------------------------------------------

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Your mind is closed on this, Cyracuz

Frank, get over yourself and your kindergarten semantics, will you?

And if it is within your capacity for comprehension, answer this question:
Do the identities of objects, (their place and purpose as we see them), come from the objects themselves, or are they projections of a being that sees a purpose to identifying objects?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

A more important consideration with regard to Fresco's hobby horse is that before human understanding, there was a reality, and there were facts which lead to the evolution of humanity.

While I agree that there was reality, I do not agree that there were facts before human understanding. Facts are descriptions. There are no descriptions if there are no describers.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Your mind is closed on this, Cyracuz

Frank, get over yourself and your kindergarten semantics, will you?

And if it is within your capacity for comprehension, answer this question:
Do the identities of objects, (their place and purpose as we see them), come from the objects themselves, or are they projections of a being that sees a purpose to identifying objects?

Cyracuz...what the hell difference would any answer make to REALITY.

You want arbitrarily to define REALITY as "that which humans are able to sense and to comprehend"...so for you, REALITY is that which humans are able to sense and comprehend. But that is capricious.

You could just as easily arbitrarily define REALITY as "that which humans can sense when having the left eye closed and while standing with one's right foot raised off the ground." Then for you REALITY would be that which humans can sense when having the left eye closed and while standing with one's right foot raised off the ground.

REALITY is whatever IS.

Get over it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

We've been through this already. Facts are not just descriptions. Tediously, i'll point out to you once again that you don't get to have your own, personal definitions of words.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

A fact is information. Do you disagree?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Cyracuz...what the hell difference would any answer make to REALITY.

If you can't even answer that for yourself I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you.
You demonstrate that you are blind to the distinction I am trying to make, the distinction between "thing" and "what we can say/know about thing".

You are claiming that "ting" is REALITY, while I am claiming that REALITY might be whatever happens when "thing" meets "entity that can say/know anything about thing". In that case, neither "thing" nor "entity that can say/know" constitute reality by themselves. The phenomenon that happens in the interaction between the two... REALITY.

It MIGHT be that this is the case.
And in that event, do you agree that whatever is outside of the "thing-entity that can say/know" relationship could not rightly be called REALITY?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Don't try to play games with me, Cyracuz, you're not that good at this. A fact can be information, but it is not only information, as i've pointed out now several times, and for which i have provided the authority of a good, reliable English dictionary. You're engaged in question-begging by attempting to either create your own definition, or using only a definition which will support your thesis. I'm not going to play your game.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Cyracuz...what the hell difference would any answer make to REALITY.

If you can't even answer that for yourself I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you.

It makes no difference what the answer is.

Quote:

You demonstrate that you are blind to the distinction I am trying to make, the distinction between "thing" and "what we can say/know about thing".

No...I am not blind to that distinction. But YOU ARE BLIND to the fact that what you can know or say about anything...DOES NOT NECESSARILY INFLUENCE REALITY.

You are suggesting that REALITY is dependent upon humans.

It MAY BE that REALITY is dependent upon humans...and the human ability to sense...BUT IT MAY BE THAT REALITY is completely independent of humans and what they can sense.

That is the thing you refuse to acknowledge. Apparently you are so wedded to the notion that REALITY is a function of something humans do or say or sense...that you cannot allow yourself to even acknowledge that possibility.

Quote:

You are claiming that "ting" is REALITY, while I am claiming that REALITY might be whatever happens when "thing" meets "entity that can say/know anything about thing".

I am saying that whatever IS...IS. And that is REALITY. You are limiting REALITY to what humans can sense.

Quote:

In that case, neither "thing" nor "entity that can say/know" constitute reality by themselves. The phenomenon that happens in the interaction between the two... REALITY.

YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT...AND IT MAY BE COMPLETELY FALSE!!

Stop pretending that you know stuff that you do not...or at least that it is almost certain you do not. (You may be GOD...in which case, my argument is shot to crap. But you are not GOD...you do not know!)

Quote:

It MIGHT be that this is the case.

It might be...which is what I have been saying right along. But you are insisting that it is. Read what you have written...and read what I have written.

Quote:

And in that event, do you agree that whatever is outside of the "thing-entity that can say/know" relationship could not rightly be called REALITY?

Whatever IS, Cyracuz...that is what IS. That is the REALITY. And if the REALITY is that all sorts of things exist that humans do not know or sense or interact with...and never will...then that is the REALITY.

0 Replies

Let's bring Mr Spock in on this-

ME - "Hey Spock,here we all are on this spinning ball of mud sailing through space, not knowing how we got here or where we're going, so how can we make sense of it all?"
SPOCK -"We cannot, We need input from an external source to help us understand"
ME - "What external source?"
SPOCK - "Someone from outside our plane of existence"
ME - "Like who?"
SPOCK - "An ideal candidate would be the young carpenter from Nazareth"
ME - "But why should we listen to him?"
SPOCK - "Because he had the power to bend the laws of physics or "reality" at will which marks him out as someone special"
ME - "But he was only human wasn't he, and not an 'external source'?"
SPOCK - "Although he adopted human form, he nevertheless said -"I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going...I am not of this world" (John 8:14/ 8:23)
ME- "So Jesus has all the answers?"
SPOCK- "Yes but even he doubted whether we had the brainpower to grasp them- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
ME - "But you'd listen to him then?"
SPOCK - "Affirmative, it would be illogical not to listen, I'm all ears"

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub4/spockB.jpg

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

To re-iterate the point I made about "the world prior to humans", I said that "time" is a human concept. So "prior world" is also a human concept constructed for present day purposes involving "causality" another human concept and prediction, another human concept and control another human concept.

Now as humans with common physiology and common needs there is a lot of agreement and confidence about the utility of these mutual concepts. But that is as far as claims about their ontological status can go. i.e. They work in limited contexts subject to zeitgeist. Those who find that uncomfortable need only look at say how the status of "time" in physics has undergone radical change in the last century such that it is now no longer "an absolute" or independent of other dimensions.

The use of the adjective "silliness" to describe such analysis merely indicates the ignorance of the user.

4 Replies

@fresco,

These guys are not ready for that. They cling to their naive materialism with religious fervor, true to form with ridicule and semantic nonsense to validate their belief.

2 Replies

@fresco,

To reiterate the point that i've constantly made, you will not address the question of the provenance of the humans you allege create reality as a concept. That is why your hobby horse riding deserves the description of silliness. It is typical of the religious zealot that he would describe those who disagree as ignorant. Answer the question, rather than playing the semantic games Cyracuz accuse others of playing, and you might get some credibility. I doubt it, though.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

These guys are not ready for that. They cling to their naive materialism with religious fervor, true to form with ridicule and semantic nonsense to validate their belief.

I certainly am not "clinging to naive materialism"...although unlike you I am not pretending that I know REALITY and can discount it as impossible.

Stop being a fraud, Cyracuz. As I've noted before, you are better than that. I am clearly acknowledging that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and therefore I cannot categorically rule in or out anything.

But you are pretending there is one answer...and that you can furnish it.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Correct. I've often speculated on the irony if research in dimensionality might at some future time suggest that all we call "life" is a single entity linked through non-visible connections ! Just think, those guys could be appendages of us! Mr. Green

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I believe you quoted Merriam Webster earlier. Here's what it says about "fact":

Quote:

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

The really fun thing is that according to these definitions, "world outside our experience", or "absolute reality" does not qualify as reality.

We cannot know that it truly exists and happens. We would need to experience it to know.

We do not know if it has actual existence. (It may be just a potential reality, requiring "thingers" to become actual reality.)

We do not know if it is a true piece of information.

So ya... materialism is a belief...

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

To re-iterate the point I made about "the world prior to humans", I said that "time" is a human concept. So "prior world" is also a human concept constructed for present day purposes involving "causality" another human concept and prediction, another human concept and control another human concept.

So, the concepts of time, causation, prediction, and control are human concepts? Or are time, causation, prediction, and control human concepts?

0 Replies

@fresco,

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I believe you quoted Merriam Webster earlier. Here's what it says about "fact":

Quote:
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

The really fun thing is that according to these definitions, "world outside our experience", or "absolute reality" does not qualify as reality.

We cannot know that it truly exists and happens. We would need to experience it to know.

We do not know if it has actual existence. (It may be just a potential reality, requiring "thingers" to become actual reality.)

We do not know if it is a true piece of information.

So ya... materialism is a belief...

Cyracus...have you nuts????

What is wrong with you?

How can you possibly suggest that the definition offered excludes the world outside our experience?

It says "something that truly exists or happens." It does not say that we have to be aware of it...or know of it...or be able to sense it.

What are you think about?

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know