17 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PhuzudakaWhat if there is a floating platform just outside the door of the jet liner? And is death from lack of oxygen really called an "injury"
If you jump out of a jetliner at an altitude of 10000m without a parachute you will injure yourself. I know that and a lot of other stuff for sure.
17 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadShow me a floating platform, and then we can talk.
What if there is a floating platform just outside the door of the jet liner? And is death from lack of oxygen really called an "injury"
I said "without a parachute", I didn't say "without an oxygen mask". Genius.
Ps: Ever heard of a fatal injury? Genius.
18 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIgnoramus. I said "without a parachute". That implies that the only thing the guy doesn't have to survive a jump from that altitude is a parachute.
You didn't say "with an oxygen mask" so your claim must hold for all cases.
Did I have to say that the guy had jocks on? Or did you assume he was jumping with his frog suit?
18 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's presupposition on the nature of 'I'. Self identity might also be an illusion, we'd have to accept that axiom that the self really exists before we could say whether or not it percieves.
It's self evident. "I" is defined as that which experiences.
My version of Descartes' famous line is "I perceive, therefore I am".
Also, perception is a process which requires the external world, something we have not yet established as existing when dealing with self-being. Descartes uses 'thinking' to establish a subjective state, whatever it may be and regardless of its interaction with anything else. He claims that he is a thinking thing so as to give himself an arena to begin with. Choosing to say a percieving thing is taking one step to far, since you are relying on both an external world and any apparatus/judgements required in the percieving process.
18 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaNo such thing was implied in your statement. But then arguing with you was always a waste of time because you are not sincere and simply say something stupid every time you are proved wrong.
Ignoramus. I said "without a parachute". That implies that the only thing the guy doesn't have to survive a jump from that altitude is a parachute.
18 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanYep thats what I was trying to say, I just don't have skill of putting it into words that you do.
That's presupposition on the nature of 'I'. Self identity might also be an illusion, we'd have to accept that axiom that the self really exists before we could say whether or not it percieves.
Also, perception is a process which requires the external world, something we have not yet established as existing when dealing with self-being. Descartes uses 't ...[text shortened]... on both an external world and any apparatus/judgements required in the percieving process.
I also think that once you establish that you are perceiving and you exist then you must be able to be sure of more than just the single fact that you exist, so the original claim that it is the only thing you can be sure of does not hold.
18 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually I think Descartes is wrong too. The presupposition of self-being exists in his argument too. Personally the only escape from the quandry of the real is to just accept a common sense view of existence. The world is, in at least a basic way, just the way I presume it to be. Subjectivity becomes objectivity for day to day perception of things, and philosopising on their nature to any further degree should probably be something purely for academic purposes.
Yep thats what I was trying to say, I just don't have skill of putting it into words that you do.
I also think that once you establish that you are perceiving and you exist then you must be able to be sure of more than just the single fact that you exist, so the original claim that it is the only thing you can be sure of does not hold.