A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

@Fil Albuquerque,

Of course we all operate with temporary (relative) is-ness. So what. That can be accounted for by being beguiled by the abstract permanence of "words". Philosophers can go beyond language games to game theory itself.

BTW What specifically do you mean by "the latest scientific paradigms" ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

fresco wrote:

Don't worry RL. Fil can't operate without "absolutes". He tends to ignore Godel's implication that axioms are at best temporary devices which work in particular contexts. Debate for him is futile so he resorts to his preferred ultimate worldview which might be called "objective informatics"...an oxymoron if ever there was one ! For me, debate is about "what works" (pragmatism) as opposed to what "is" (realism).

You continually seam incapable to grasp that "what works" as opposed to what "is" can only work if IT IS working (operating in peoples minds as a "holder", that is, something MUST hold !)...a five year old could see the contradiction !
Your line of thought it is not much different from the Carny fellow trolling the forums...that shitty talk that "nothing is and all is appearance", as if appearance itself wasn't anything...the problem with you Fresco is that you want to re invent a new language but can't escape the actual meaning of words...without "is-ness" there is no criticism you CAN actually do on any subject as criticism itself requires pointing to something and more importantly BE something !
(your arguments core doesn't take more then 5 minutes to be de-constructed)

...by the way the view is not mine although I share it...you ought to stay in tune with latest science paradigms before you throw up these little pearls of wisdom of yours...

Fresco wants to stick with his argument about "words" and the "inadequacy of words", Fil.

And in way, I think we all agree that words are inadequate to the job of reasonably discussing REALITY.

But there is no real reason to focus on the words...when the concepts are available.

The concept that "whatever IS...IS"...truly does not need to be a problem of vocabulary.

The concept being conveyed is easy enough to grasp...to grok.

But Fresco has an agenda...just as CM does. And since the concept of the (what is essentially) a tautology plays havoc with that agenda...it has to be dealt with in the only way possible...to disparage the words being used.

The non-dualist Bible requires all the stuff that Fresco and CM regularly dish out. And for the most part, their posts actually reinforce their theme...there is nothing there in the posts!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The only "agenda" I have is to de-bunk naive realism in the footsteps of Kant.
You on the other hand have this single stupid obsession with the word "religion" which you idiotically apply not to a belief system but to the antithesis of a belief in naive realism. It conforms to your naive agnosticism which ridiculously holds atheism to be "a belief". Ironically you are the most religious of posters here as you never shift from your droning mystical hymn about "whatever is... is". You say that more often than the average Christian chants "the Lord's Prayer". If you made the effort to read something about constructivism, or the philosophy of language ,you might have a chance of being taken seriously. But that's not going to happen is it Frank ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The only "agenda" I have is to de-bunk naive realism in the footsteps of Kant.

But you kant do that, old boy. Kant kant either. He’s dead.

Quote:

You on the other hand have this single stupid obsession with the word "religion" which you idiotically apply not to a belief system but to the antithesis of a belief in naive realism.

I do???

When did I done that? Confused

But in all seriousness, Fresco…I do not have one single stupid obsession. I have many.

And really..."idiotic" was a bit much...don't you think? As was "stupid."

Quote:

It conforms to your naive agnosticism which ridiculously holds atheism to be "a belief".

I do not hold atheism to be “a belief”, Fresco…not in any way.

I DO hold that a person (who may or may not identify him/herself as an atheist) who asserts “I believe there are no gods”…is expressing a “belief.”

Quote:

Ironically you are the most religious of posters here as you never shift from your droning mystical hymn about "whatever is... is".

Oh…that would be ironic…if I were the most religious of posters here.

I'm not! But I understand the pressures you are facing...so....

You sound stressed…not your usual methodical and totally incomprehensible self.

Heat getting to ya?

Quote:

You say that more often than the average Christian chants "the Lord's Prayer".

Well…what IS…IS. So why would you have trouble with me saying it often?

What is interesting, Fresco...is all the effort (and contortions) you are expending in trying to make that seem foolish. Interesting...and funny, ya know!

Quote:

If you made the effort to read something about constructivism, or the philosophy of language ,you might have a chance of being taken seriously. But that's not going to happen is it Frank ?

If someone…or a group of someone’s…want not to take me seriously…then I guess I will have to live with that.

But there are lots of people who do take me seriously. Some, perhaps, who take me more seriously than they take you seriously.

But there is no need for bad blood, Fresco. Continue to post your “beliefs”…and I will continue to enjoy listening to you do so. You have such an interesting way of muddling your thoughts!

I will, of course, continue to respond.

But I must acknowledge that I am enjoying seeing you allow yourself to come out from behind that reserved persona you normally adopt. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

What a long winded way of confirming its not going to happen.
Now isn't that a definite feature of what you would call "the true nature of reality"?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

What a long winded way of confirming its not going to happen.
Now isn't that a definite feature of what you would call "the true nature of reality"?

I responded to what you said, Fresco...and had a bit of fun with your constant pontificating. Your religion obviously is very important to you...and perhaps I should be more deferential toward it, but you do push it a bit too much to expect that.

All that "read up on it" nonsense is just a combination of "an appeal to authority" and what the theists do when they tell you to "just accept GOD and he will make himself know to you."

C'mon, Fresco. You are better than that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Ah, so attempting to educate the ignorant by suggesting unbiased summaries is "religion" is it Frank ? Where do you get this rubbish from ?
I have given simple references which are potentially critical of my position, but you are too scared to get out of your hole. No wonder you keep praying!

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Ah, so attempting to educate the ignorant by suggesting unbiased summaries is "religion" is it Frank ?

I thank you for attempting to educate the ignorant, Fresco. That is admirable.

But what you are peddling is a kind of religion.

Yup. It certainly is a "belief" system...a bunch of guesswork hocus pocus...which may or may not be accurate...but is being peddled as the truth.

Quote:

Where do you get this rubbish from ?

From you, Fresco...from you.

Quote:

I have given simple references which are potentially critical of my position, but you are too scared to get out of your hole. No wonder you keep praying!

Don't do any praying, Fresco. I do some hoping at times...but I always identify it as hoping.

As I noted...what you are doing is the equivalent of a theist saying, "Just accept GOD...and GOD will reveal himself to you."

Sure!

As I also said...you are better than this, Fresco. Why wallow in this slop?

0 Replies

@fresco,

So I take from your reply your criticism of "naive realism" is temporary, kind of a hobby...good to know. Cool

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco I understand why you refuse to accept reality for what it is and why you try defining words in YOUR (and your philosophical 'heros') terms to try to refute it. See I know that the reality I actually exist and live my life in, isn't a walk in the park. I know (as well as you) that we have to survive in order to even wonder about whatever the hell it is we may be thinking about. We want to keep living and even you have to agree to that. You've made that choice for as long as you've had that choice, otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you.

We all know what happens when someone dies. They're gone. It doesn't matter if they go somewhere else, the truth is, they aren't still showing up for Thanksgiving dinner every year or popping in at work. Maybe in thought, but never in person.

Yes it sucks and we all want there to be more. Life's not easy in the reality we happen to exist in, but we obviously exist in it. You, me, and everyone else. Trying to deny it by creating you own concept of reality changes nothing about reality. We still have to survive and deal with the crap. Sure, it'll make you feel better in life, but then again that's it's whole purpose.

This reality is absolute and can be studied and proven. That's the fault with philosophy, the answer has always been in front of our faces. And that's the thing philosophy and religion wants to refute. So try all you want, just remember, you still have to live to keep trying.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

Quote:

This reality is absolute and can be studied and proven.

No. An alternative view is that "reality" is just a word which describes what is accepted in particular contexts/paradigms. "Proof" is about methods of justification.
You might understand this. Rorty describes the pragmatism which underpins my constructivist stance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

1 Reply

To ad the term "absolute" in front of a term like "reality", which does not ad a jot to its essence, is a clear demonstration of not understanding the very meaning of the word. But it could be worse...as for instance when people pseudo rationalize legitimate enquiry to go on concluding "reality is relative" in which case they very much fall in a contradiction as silly as to state that the sun is dark !

Reality, is the very simple, very same sum, of all possible states that happen to be, or have been, or will be, the case. There is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, to "construct" in reality which in essence is not already part of it.
The idea of construction cannot ad more reality to reality any more then adding water to water can make up wine.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

... all possible states that happen to be, or have been, or will be....

Construction is the human act of describing "the possible" and the nature of "being". You cannot get beyond that without dabbling in absolutes.

2 Replies

@fresco,

I am not dabbling in anything as I am not asserting anything to much specific.
I am just building a set, a collection of whatever is to be the case, which very much works like numbers work to infinity. Their nature as numbers doesn't change because numbers themselves change and ad up.

"Construction" is a timely bound term which places time itself at the centre of assertions about reality...its validity is thus relative to time which itself is left out of inquiry.

Now de-construct that Fresco I dare you ! Laughing

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
... all possible states that happen to be, or have been, or will be....

Construction is the human act of describing "the possible" and the nature of "being". You cannot get beyond that without dabbling in absolutes.

Yeah...the "human act of describing" what IS...can be a bitch. And it is even more a bitch for people like you who confuse WHAT IS...with what humans are able to describe or know about it.

Whatever actually IS, Fresco...IS what IS.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
This reality is absolute and can be studied and proven.

No. An alternative view is that "reality" is just a word which describes what is accepted in particular contexts/paradigms. "Proof" is about methods of justification.
You might understand this. Rorty describes the pragmatism which underpins my constructivist stance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Fresco your life has been the proof of an absolute truth. Your wordplay cannot change that. It only makes you feel better about life, which is then a false truth. No one lives a perfect life in this reality because the universe doesn't care what we want it to be. It just is and it will keep killing every living thing on this planet. Of course you can refute me if you can name one living creature on this planet that doesn't die. Good luck.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I take the Heideggerian approach that "time" is co-extensive with "being". There are no "beings" except for ephemeral constructions by observers. There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers.
(see the Rorty Clip pragmatists background to this).
The ontological status of mathematical entities like numbers may be a separate issue because unless such numbers are used to model descriptions of an "agreed word" their status is merely a function of the agreed combinatorial operations which can be applied to them as abstractions. Paul Cohen's work on the continuum hypothesis may be of some ontological significance to your views about "infinity" in this matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

BTW I'm still waiting for your citation of "recent developments" I need to be aware of.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I take the Heideggerian approach that "time" is co-extensive with "being".

Fine.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

A lot of people guess the way Heidegger guessed...and a lot of people guess that Heidegger was correct in his guess.

Quote:

There are no "beings" except for ephemeral constructions by observers.

I think the words "I guess" were inadvertently left out of that sentence, right, Fresco. Or are you actually making an assertion for which you will bear a burden of proof.

Quote:

There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers.

Yes, you have asserted that many times...and I think it is a fine guess.

But a guess nonetheless.

Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank, I've just noticed that anonymously99stwin, the self proclaimed "psychotic", guesses you are worth following. I guess you must be delighted !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Hey Frank, I've just noticed that anonymously99stwin, the self proclaimed "psychotic", guesses you are worth following. I guess you must be delighted !

I'm not really sure of what "following" means. I know that if you are "following" someone...their picture shows up on your home page...but that's about it. I pay about as much attention to that stuff as I do to all this "thumb up/thumb down" business...which is: Not at all.

Goddam snow all over the place right now. Golf seems to be a thing that will re-enter the picture in spring. I am not "delighted" about much.

But I am content.

0 Replies

A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know