morality, drugs, existence

@Frank Apisa,

What you are saying is perfectly clear, Frank. It's just wrong.

Facts are knowledge. Just as the word "car" is not the same as an actual car, a fact is not the same as the actual phenomenon it describes.

You can drink milk. That is a fact. But you can't drink facts. Get your head straight. This is one of those moments where you need to admit you are in error. There is no shame in it, and I promise I won't gloat.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

That you agree with Frank is not good news for him, seeing as you are one of the most ignorant, illiterate sophists on all of a2k. Wink

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Clearly you are under the same misapprehension as Frank.

Quote:
Information is a thing.

No. Information is data. It is non-physical, unlike things.

Quote:
We don't report facts we report information about facts when we have it

Again, wrong. We report information about phenomena. The information that reflects the actual phenomena best is what we call 'fact'.

1 - Since when data and non physical stuff are not things ???
2 - No. First phenomena are facts either known or unknown. Second the reporting itself is a fact or it didn't happen. Whether it portrays better or worse or nothing other then its pseudo concept its irrelevant. Information refers to what it refers no matter how much you know to what it actually refers.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

In this, my take is clearly better than both Frank's and Fil's, simply because mine offers greater precision and clarity when communicating about this, while equating fact with phenomena gives rise to misconceptions.

Clearly, what Ptolemy and Copernicus studied was the same phenomenon. When they arrived at different facts, that was because Copernicus saw more than Ptolemy.
Even today, if we use Ptolemy's method and only study the things that were available for him to study, we could not prove Ptolemy wrong.
In other words, Ptolemy was not wrong. He was dead on according to what he was able to observe and study, and according to the methods he used. Like I said, if we limit ourselves to what Ptolemy had available, we would not be able to prove him wrong.

You simply cannot...or will not...acknowledge the difference between comprehending or understanding a fact...and a FACT.

The facts were that the earth was NOT at the center of the solar system...and the sun did NOT circle the Earth.

Those were the FACTS.

The interpretation or comprehension or understanding of the facts were faulty...

...but the facts were the facts.

You obviously are intelligent enough to see this...that you are confusing the two. I cannot understand why you will not acknowledge it.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Your are one of the biggest trolls A2K has ever had the displeasure and misfortune of knowing. Half of your posts are spend on vulgar insults when people demonstrate just how dumb and insecure you are. Your IQ is a disgrace hard to equal or rival. Sometimes I indulge reading your pathetic posts on ignore just to have a good laugh, you don't ever disappoint. If you could see yourself from afar you probably would end up doing something stupid...thankfully ignorance is blissed and nature complacent with the stupid not knowing they are stupid. That is a clear fact that you have no knowledge about. Laughing

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The facts were that the earth was NOT at the center of the solar system...and the sun did NOT circle the Earth.

Those were the FACTS.

No. Those were the actual situation.

Get it straight. A fact is not what actually happens. It is the description of what actually happens.
And those descriptions are always to the best of our ability to determine them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There is a distinction which indeed is important to be made. Claims on actual state of affairs are just that, claims. Claims about facts may or may not be right and often supposed facts are proven wrong with time. Nonetheless the definition about facts doesn't change. What changes is that reported facts about states of affairs may or may not refer to what they intended to refer. If nothing else pseudo facts refer to what they suppose to be the case, and that, is precisely the reason they are pseudo facts.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The facts were that the earth was NOT at the center of the solar system...and the sun did NOT circle the Earth.

Those were the FACTS.

No. Those were the actual situation.

Get it straight. A fact is not what actually happens. It is the description of what actually happens.
And those descriptions are always to the best of our ability to determine them.

You are arbitrarily re-defining "fact" so that it comports with what you want to be true.

Whether or not the Earth circles the sun or the sun circles the Earth...is a fact. There were times when humans did not know the facts....and guessed incorrectly about them. But the facts are the facts...and the facts do not change.

Anyway...have a great Thanksgiving. I intend to eat myself into oblivion. I love turkey.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You clearly don't know the meaning of the word 'troll' when used in regards to internet forum communication.

Quote:

Half of your posts are spend on vulgar insults when people demonstrate just how dumb and insecure you are.

And the other half is incomprehensible to you.

Quote:

Your IQ is a disgrace hard to equal or rival.

It's tested, and it's somewhere between 130 and 140, so yes, for most people that is hard to rival or equal.

Quote:

Sometimes I indulge reading your pathetic posts on ignore just to have a good laugh, you don't ever disappoint

Glad to hear it. I don't like to disappoint.

Quote:

If you could see yourself from afar you probably would end up doing something stupid

I could. And I did.

Quote:

thankfully ignorance is blissed and nature complacent with the stupid not knowing they are stupid

You are living proof of that.

Quote:

That is a clear fact that you have no knowledge about.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I have extensive knowledge of the limits of your comprehension. You demonstrate them frequently.

1 Reply

1 - Facts are the correspondence of reported information with actual state of affairs of the world. Facts establish knowledge.

2 - About presumed facts, when in the case such correspondence fails to refer to what it intended to refer, and we know it, we may say we are in the presence of a factual pseudo fact. An assumption which strongly resisted inquiry. (Itself a factual assumption)

3 - So it is clear, whenever we either, learn that a correspondence between a claim n a state of affairs refers or not refers we still always establish a fact. Either a fact on what was intended to be referred, or a fact about a presumed fact which is true was false.

4 - There are cases in which we don't have confidence to establish neither. Nor certainty about facts that refer to what was intended, as equally, no certainty on facts about presumed facts, false assumptions we could not yet falsify. In which case we should be mute in all respects except we still can establish with confidence that our lack of knowledge is itself a fact. Our lack of knowledge is confirmed, and thus itself a reportable fact !

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The facts were that the earth was NOT at the center of the solar system...and the sun did NOT circle the Earth.

Those were the FACTS.

No. Those were the actual situation.

Get it straight. A fact is not what actually happens. It is the description of what actually happens.
And those descriptions are always to the best of our ability to determine them.

You are arbitrarily re-defining "fact" so that it comports with what you want to be true.

Whether or not the Earth circles the sun or the sun circles the Earth...is a fact. There were times when humans did not know the facts....and guessed incorrectly about them. But the facts are the facts...and the facts do not change.

Anyway...have a great Thanksgiving. I intend to eat myself into oblivion. I love turkey.

Note please, a fact is a claim which happens to be true, independently on whether we know it with full certainty to be true. Indeed Fact refers to thing but it is not the thing. It just points to it. Now the heart of the matter is that a fact is not dependent on observation to be true, as miss perceptions themselves exist, although it is dependent on observation to be asserted. Cyracuz can't distinguish between those two things.

When we say that there are states of affairs which are true we start with the first fact about our own state of affairs in relation to the world. We make assumptions which may or may not correspond to what we intended but that nonetheless always refer to our own state of affairs.

1 Reply

Here's a small exercise demonstrating that we have to be careful how we phrase a question- How many funnels did the Titanic have?

Those who say '4' are correct.
And those who say '3' are also correct.. Smile

Anybody care to explain why?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/ExIS/sos-titanic.gif~original

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

We seem to have strayed slightly towards the facts thread.

Just a point about your use of the word "actually". It tends to conflict with your (and my) concept of "reality" as experiential. As modern humans with astronomical knowledge we are able to experience in the minds eye a heliocentric model which we find superior (in terms of picture quality) to a geocentric one. Indeed, contrary to general understanding, physicists point out that it is only the superior elegance of the model which has led to its establishment. Yet when not wearing our astronomers hats...wearing our gardeners hats say...we are happy with the limited picture of the sun crossing the sky. My point is that facticity (aka actuality) is context dependent. In short, facts are functional statements about what suffices to be the case. Facts may be called "right or wrong" but I suggest we are simply making statements about what is experientially "fit for purpose".

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Here's a small exercise demonstrating that we have to be careful how we phrase a question- How many funnels did the Titanic have?

Those who say '4' are correct.
And those who say '3' are also correct..
Anybody care to explain why?

One was a phony.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

We seem to have strayed slightly towards the facts thread.

Just a point about your use of the word "actually". It tends to conflict with your (and my) concept of "reality" as experiential. As modern humans with astronomical knowledge we are able experience in the minds eye a heliocentric model which we find superior (in terms of picture quality) to a geocentric one. Yet when not wearing our astronomers hats...wearing our gardeners hats say...we are happy with the limited picture of the sun crossing the sky. My point is that facticity (aka actuality) is context dependent. In short, facts are functional statements about what suffices to be the case. Facts may be called "right or wrong" but I suggest we are simply making statements about what is experientially "fit for purpose".

But only if you have to in order to preserve the fiction you want to preserve.

The sun simply does not circle the Earth...the Earth circles the sun. The apparent motion of the sun around the Earth is an illusion...sorta like the one that scared the hell out of me the other day.

I was in the "go straight" lane at a traffic light when I noticed that I was rolling backwards. I put my foot on the brake pedal full force because it just didn't seem to be working. But the bus in the "left only" lane was just quietly inching forward...and created the illusion (to an inattentive me) of my car rolling backwards.

The fact is that the Earth circles the sun...the reality is that the Earth circles the sun. Although I understand that if you absolutely are committed to preserving the fiction of the need of humans to REALITY...you can make the argument you are making.

It is an enjoyable argument to hear made. Reminds me of an old Rutgers story I will tell later.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Rutgers has a motto: “I’d die for Rutgers.” Came from a comment “Pop” Grant made when being carried from the football field after breaking his leg during his football career, “I’d die for dear old Rutgers.”

During a debate between teams from Princeton and Rutgers, one of the Rutgers debaters spoke too quickly…and found he had not filled the mandatory time for presentation. So, rather sheepishly, he just presented the closing thoughts a second time.

The Princeton participant who followed opened his argument with, “Now I know what it means to die for dear old Rutgers!”

You guys are creating all sorts of stuff that doesn't really make sense...and seems to be offered for no other reason than to preserve what you feel essential to be preserved. You are in effect, dying for dear old...non-duality U.

(In the background, "Gimme an "n"; gimme an "o"...)

0 Replies

Facts have extension and need not descriptively exhaust that which their are trying to describe. They just need describe something to the extent they can.

It is true a human on the surface of the Earth sees the image of the sun crossing the sky...such fact can be easily confirmed everyday by anyone which is not blind.
Now if someone jumps to the conclusion that the sun goes around the earth because we see it crossing the sky, clearly that person is not correctly describing the phenomena which was in fact witnessed, and which was true, that is, the image of the sun crossing the sky when seen from the surface of the Earth.
None of this counters the fact that such perception is witnessed by every being with eyes on the surface of the earth, on the contrary, such consensus is proof the illusive phenomena is factual.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You are arbitrarily re-defining "fact" so that it comports with what you want to be true.

No. I am simply explaining to you the difference between a phenomenon and the description of that phenomenon. Do you agree that there is a difference?

Quote:

Whether or not the Earth circles the sun or the sun circles the Earth...is a fact.

Erm... I get the gist, but this is not entirely coherent.

What you are doing is equating 'fact' with 'reality'.
But that is not right. Reality is... REALITY.
Fact is true information about reality.
If you disagree, could you please explain the difference between 'fact' and 'reality', as you see it.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Note please, a fact is a claim which happens to be true, independently on whether we know it with full certainty to be true.

If this is the case, what kind of magic do you propose we should use to discover which claims are fact and which are not?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You are arbitrarily re-defining "fact" so that it comports with what you want to be true.

No. I am simply explaining to you the difference between a phenomenon and the description of that phenomenon. Do you agree that there is a difference?

Quote:
Whether or not the Earth circles the sun or the sun circles the Earth...is a fact.

Erm... I get the gist, but this is not entirely coherent.

What you are doing is equating 'fact' with 'reality'.
But that is not right. Reality is... REALITY.
Fact is true information about reality.
If you disagree, could you please explain the difference between 'fact' and 'reality', as you see it.

A fact is a component of REALITY.

A fact is something that actually IS.

REALITY is the totality of what IS.

If you want to keep going down that "description" road...do it. But doing so is not going to change the FACT that what IS...IS. And "what IS" IS the REALITY.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know