Die Hard Christians:

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “yeh… …perceive it.”

Yes, the word “tomato” is just the mapping of the reality as we subjectively and biased by our 6 senses perceive it;



Edit: “you keep saying that subjectivity is anything perceived through our senses and yet you still claim you understand my definition of objectivity. i don't think you do.”

Why you think I don’t? ...[text shortened]... g to know, the most our reality is changing -therefore objectivity is a task impossible
😵

questioning everything without proof is as josephian as "taking everything as is"

don't you see? your hole point of view is based on an incorrect understanding of what subjectivity, bias means, on a faulty and illogical use of language, and on a belief that has no base. you believe that anything is subjective without any proof and joseph believes in jesus without proof. jesus though is based on a rumor, at least. a hystorical rumor, maybe even fact. all you have is some poorly constructed philosophical idea.

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, the word “tomato” is just the mapping of the reality as we subjectively and biased by our 6 senses perceive it;

Six senses? Now you are not objective.
Count again, objectively this time.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, you are making a very logical point. how could i miss the irrefutable argument "i am right, you are wrong, and someday you will see things my way".

I am convinced!

Whoever said my way, I am working to SHOW this way, yes, then shall I express they ARE my way indeed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Six senses? Now you are not objective.
Count again, objectively this time.

😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
questioning everything without proof is as josephian as "taking everything as is"

don't you see? your hole point of view is based on an incorrect understanding of what subjectivity, bias means, on a faulty and illogical use of language, and on a belief that has no base. you believe that anything is subjective without any proof and joseph believes in jesu ...[text shortened]... storical rumor, maybe even fact. all you have is some poorly constructed philosophical idea.

What exact belief of mine is baseless?

Kindly please show me a single “objective” reality that is not strictly related to a specific mode or stage of our cognizance! I argue that any kind of reality is existent solely in full dependence/ relation to a specific mode/ stage of the cognizance/ mind. This is the reason why reality is empty/ relative. And this is the reason why there are as many realities as sentient beings. You want more proofs, no problem, I will give you more proofs🙂

Is a rainbow real? How could you ever argue that it is an object per se that moves as you are moving? If we are located in different points, the same rainbow is not merely different to each one of us due to the fact that its two bases are located elsewhere, but it is actually a mental object made up out of our own apparatus of cognizance alone. The sun, the raindrops (ie specific observers of our physical world) and your mind interacted in a perfectly subjective way and, there, your mind created "reality" out of this interaction! Where is your “objectivity” now? I argue that, thanks to this subjectively real “rainbow” of yours, you are aware of your purely subjective “rainbow” that is not identical to my own subjective “rainbow” although the sunshine and the raindrops remained the same. This means solely that the nature of the rainbow is imputational.

Another proof that shows perfectly that the reality as we perceive it is not objective but subjective, is our Immortal Game itself: each individual evaluates a given position differently, and each evaluation is closely related to the stage of the mind of the individual. Mind you, the various evaluations are taking place in the context that we all agree regarding the objects “chessmen” and “chessboard”, therefore this context is purely mind-only and subjective too since both the chessmen and the chessboard, along with the rules of the Immortal Game, are nothing but an invention of our mind. The individuals who agree in full regarding a specific evaluation, they always share and reproduce the same factual reality whilst the ones who evaluate it otherways they share and reproduce a different factual reality. Both factual realities are real. This means that the nature of the evaluation of the position is imputational.

Another proof that shows perfectly that the reality as we perceive it is not objective but subjective/ mind-only and fully dependent to a specific stage of the mind, is the following: when you are sleeping, you remain the same person you were when you don’t sleep. When you are dreaming, you remain the same person you were before you start dreaming, and whatever you are dreaming is not different than yourself the same way your actions and your thoughts when you are not dreaming are not different than yourself. So, when you are dreaming, your body you are dreaming is your real body -and this real body is your mind alone. Your subjective reality when you are dreaming is as real as your subjective reality when you are not dreaming. Once more, this means that the nature of the reality you are experiencing is imputational.


Your approach is Platonist, my approach is based on constructivism. I have no blind beliefs. I would be thankful if you could show me I 'm wrong
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
😵

You thought I was kidding?
No, I just demonstrated that when you thought you were objective, you were in fact subjective.
Can you really define the sixth sense objectively? I don't think you can.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You thought I was kidding?
No, I just demonstrated that when you thought you were objective, you were in fact subjective.
Can you really define the sixth sense objectively? I don't think you can.

I know you were not joking my Gota enemy, I grinned cause we agree! As I said at my OP in the thread titled "It's only Us", methinks all phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined; and all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us.

How could I ever be objective?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I know you were not joking my Gota enemy, I grinned cause we agree! As I said at my OP in the thread titled "It's only Us", methinks all phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined; and all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us.

How could I ever be objective?
😵

So anyone saying that there are six senses is equally correct as another one saying there are five senses? Or four, eleven, or twentyseven senses? Because there are no objectivity? So everyting can be the truth about anything?

This waters out everything. Nothing will matter anymore.

Sorry, I'm not very fond of your opinions. They are too subjective yours.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So anyone saying that there are six senses is equally correct as another one saying there are five senses? Or four, eleven, or twentyseven senses? Because there are no objectivity? So everyting can be the truth about anything?

This waters out everything. Nothing will matter anymore.

Sorry, I'm not very fond of your opinions. They are too subjective yours.

Regarding the 6 senses approach I replied you in detail by means of my second post at the second page of the thread titled "No facts, only interpretations", as you may check at
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=134794&page=3



Edit: "So everyting can be the truth about anything?"

Yes, methinks everybody can hold her/ his personal truth regarding everything because the truth is always relevant. I Am The Truth. You Are The Truth. However, there are false "truths" and accurate "truths". Mind you, the accurate herenow "truths" can be proved false in the future, so we 'ld better stop talking about "truths" (and, of course, about the so called absolute truth) and start, instead, talking about ways and methods that would ease us to justify our assumptions in full🙂
This way, no thing waters out no thing. And whatever we do will matter even more, because we would always keep in mind that we are responsible in full for our own reality;

So Fabian, be sorry not; just kindly please show me where exactly your objectivity is located, so that I can see at last that rare bird of yours and stand corrected
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Regarding the 6 senses approach I replied you in detail by means of my second post at the second page of the thread titled "No facts, only interpretations", as you may check at
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=134794&page=3



Edit: "So everyting can be the truth about anything?"

Yes, methinks everybody can hold her/ his ...[text shortened]... located, so that I can see at last that rare bird of yours and stand corrected
😵

According to you - this is only your subjective opinion. Isn't worth much. There are 6 billion other opinions too. Which is better than the other?
According to you, that is. Not according to me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
According to you - this is only your subjective opinion. Isn't worth much. There are 6 billion other opinions too. Which is better than the other?
According to you, that is. Not according to me.

Not every opinion is accurate. An opinion is accurate solely if it is justified in full by science and philosophy. This way the fully justified by our scientific finds, our scientific evidence and our philosophy opinions are considered accurate, whilst the opinions that are not justified by science and philosophy are discarded as baseless assumptions😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Not every opinion is accurate. An opinion is accurate solely if it is justified in full by science and philosophy. This way the fully justified by our scientific finds, our scientific evidence and our philosophy opinions are considered accurate, whilst the opinions that are not justified by science and philosophy are discarded as baseless assumptions😵

"An opinion is accurate solely if it is justified in full by science and philosophy."

Only if both of those actually reflect reality, because people do tend to control both
of those too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"An opinion is accurate solely if it is justified in full by science and philosophy."

Only if both of those actually reflect reality, because people do tend to control both
of those too.
Kelly

Methinks that, for the time being, no tool at our disposal other than philosophy and science enables us to understand how exactly we are producing units of knowledge and how exactly can we evaluate in full the products of our interaction with the physical world, our inner world and the world of the ideas😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks that, for the time being, no tool at our disposal other than philosophy and science enables us to understand how exactly we are producing units of knowledge and how exactly can we evaluate in full the products of our interaction with the physical world, our inner world and the world of the ideas😵

Which paints them very well in my opinion, they are human tools, but they are
used by, "humans" and we know what buggers they can be from time to time. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
Not every opinion is accurate. An opinion is accurate solely if it is justified in full by science and philosophy. This way the fully justified by our scientific finds, our scientific evidence and our philosophy opinions are considered accurate, whilst the opinions that are not justified by science and philosophy are discarded as baseless assumptions😵

Every subjectiv fact is accurate for the individual having the fact. If it wasn't accurate for him, then why would he have it?

Not according to me, but according of what I've understood you of your writings. That's your subjectiv fact, not mine.

This subjective fact of yours that there in fact are no objective facts are not an accurate fact for anyone else but you. And that's a fact.