@KellyJay saidIt seems either an obvious or obstructive point, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.
I agree as we define our variable, be very clear about the tolerances, make sure we don’t create exceptions or ignore red flags that would show us errors, we can find our errors. Dealing with reality and its constraints what is weeded out are errors, but grand assumptions on key points may hide our short comings.
Of course we need to acknowledge caveats and assumptions but these are very different than red flags or errors. Assumptions are part of every argument.
Water is wet. This is obviously true from a practical point of view. But water is not wet, you say, I created an assumption. Water looks and feels wet, makes other things wet, but it itself does not have this property.
We can do the same for anything. Biden won the election. But I'll say he was president from 2021 to 2024 to avoid making the assumption that the election was not stolen.
These are silly semantic arguments that prevent any meaningful discussions of truth. Assumptions are good things.
@Suzianne saidI never go to the Spirituality forum and didn't see a religious point being made. I just thought he was saying truth is absolute (true) with way more words than necessary.
Oh, give him two seconds. The other shoe he'll drop next is that the ONLY 'reality' is God.
These religious arguments need to stay in Spirituality. If he can't get any comments there, then maybe he needs to change his agenda. Otherwise this becomes the Religion forum next. Him posting religious posts here reduces the value of religious posts that are actually posted w ...[text shortened]... Spirituality, now I have to be on the lookout for them in the Debates Forum? That's just not right.
@wildgrass saidAssumptions are acts of faith; they are beliefs that the object we are trusting in or hoping in is correct. The closer our target is, the safer we are, because being just a little off could still mean we are hitting the mark; however, if our target is quite a ways away, being just a little off becomes something far worse. If we were shooting an arrow at a shorter distance, being slightly off may still let us hit our target, but at a greater distance, no. Bad assumptions, if taken for granted as true, would still play out in our calculations, and unless some part of the calculations can highlight errors for what they are, we will get a result, and we can get it consistently, but it just may not mean what we think.
It seems either an obvious or obstructive point, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.
Of course we need to acknowledge caveats and assumptions but these are very different than red flags or errors. Assumptions are part of every argument.
Water is wet. This is obviously true from a practical point of view. But water is not wet, you say, I created an assumption. Water looks a ...[text shortened]... ly semantic arguments that prevent any meaningful discussions of truth. Assumptions are good things.
If cheating was done to help Biden win, it is moot; he was sworn in and served. If ICE agents are Nazi in the eyes of some, due to assumptions, can any of them clear their names, will the accusers ever even consider they may be wrong, and accuse people who have done no wrong as evil doers? Personal assumptions, if they are not filtered by the truth of reality’s constraints, mean all it takes is an opinion to call someone innocent, demonic, or a Nazi. What you want, if it is only an opinion, is all it takes; reality takes a back seat to the whims of the heart.
I promise you, if you were accused of something horrific, you’d want reality to show you were innocent, but if people ignore reality for what they want to be true, you’re toast.
@KellyJay saidI cant actually tell if you're joking or not. This entire post is ridiculous.
Assumptions are acts of faith; they are beliefs that the object we are trusting in or hoping in is correct. The closer our target is, the safer we are, because being just a little off could still mean we are hitting the mark; however, if our target is quite a ways away, being just a little off becomes something far worse. If we were shooting an arrow at a shorter distance, ...[text shortened]... to show you were innocent, but if people ignore reality for what they want to be true, you’re toast.
Reality itself requires assumptions. We assume the sun will rise and the grass will grow. Are we really debating those assumptions? To deny this is to paralyze and insulate yourself from debate or argument. You are not debating whether or not the arrow is close to the target. Without assumptions, you cannot tell if the arrow or the target are real, or whether the arrow is moving towards the target or vice versa. You cannot even purchase the equipment to run your analogy because money itself is an assumption. Everything breaks down and we don't have a society anymore.
Its only faulty assumptions that we need be afraid of. But without proof they are faulty it is useless to debate (again, unless we want to fall back into paralysis). Assumptions are humanity's fundamental building block for reasoning.
@KellyJay saidTalking to you is always, always, an exercise in futility.
If it is offensive to you that some topics fit in more than one place, why do you bother posting in them? It isn’t like you add anything to the discussion; you just keep complaining that it gets brought up. If you weren’t complaining, would you have anything to say at all?
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidHis entire point is that God's truth is absolute, and man's is not.
I never go to the Spirituality forum and didn't see a religious point being made. I just thought he was saying truth is absolute (true) with way more words than necessary.
We've had post after post after post about this in Spirituality. He's desperate for someone, anyone, to agree with him.
And now he's posting in the wrong forum to fish for agreement.
@Suzianne saidAh OK well that's dumb. Shutting up.
His entire point is that God's truth is absolute, and man's is not.
We've had post after post after post about this in Spirituality. He's desperate for someone, anyone, to agree with him.
And now he's posting in the wrong forum to fish for agreement.
@Sleepyguy saidAre you saying your lived reality is the same as Donald Trump's?
You can't twist reality, which I think was the point of the OP.
An old saying says the wealthy are truly different. What's real for you and makes perfect sense probably doesn't hold water to the wealthy individual. The issue is when these wealthy people without any means to reference the difficulties faced by ordinary folk suggest that their methodology for escaping a situation can be implemented by anyone. Thats when they become truly annoying.
@KellyJay saidIt depends which sort of argumentation you use.
I’ve been thinking about truth, and how, as I believe it is constrained only by reality, not by our personal opinions of it. What I am talking about isn’t about you or me; the topic is whether a belief about anything can be true and not be part of reality itself. I am saying no: all truth is constrained by reality, not by my or your personal opinions of it or of each other ...[text shortened]... ble to show an error in what we think if we think all of our thoughts are true because we have them.
Very simply put:
Basically, you can argue apriori (thought alone) or a posteriori (based on measurable things).
God can only exist in apriori argumentation, for example.
Now what is reality?
Is reality that what you see? Or is that what you see already an interpretation?
Take, for instance, that internet picture of a dress. Some people think it’s blue and black, yet others think it’s white and gold.
(Google it, if you don’t know it).
So, there is an a posteriori argument to be made that everything we see is an interpretation. Which would lead us back to having to use apriori argumentation to work out what reality actually is.
But, if reality can only exist outside of experience (meaning it’s something only existing in discussion) how come when someone punches me, it hurts?
And so the discussion goes on… millenium after millenium.
@Suzianne saidStop talking to me. What is so hard about that? All you do is complain; you do not actually address issues or items of discussion. You just talk about people. I do not care one wit about what you think about anyone, myself or anyone else.
Talking to you is always, always, an exercise in futility.
2 edits
@shavixmir saidReality is true no matter what I think about it or you, if we cannot change it in how or what we think. We change, reality does not, and we can break and damage ourselves getting things wrong. I can fly can be a safe thing to think until I try to put it into practice and jump off a three-story building. Hating a large group of people because we feel they are all bad, due to one, or some, paints all the rest as innocent of any crimes as evil.
It depends which sort of argumentation you use.
Very simply put:
Basically, you can argue apriori (thought alone) or a posteriori (based on measurable things).
God can only exist in apriori argumentation, for example.
Now what is reality?
Is reality that what you see? Or is that what you see already an interpretation?
Take, for instance, that internet pictur ...[text shortened]... come when someone punches me, it hurts?
And so the discussion goes on… millenium after millenium.
You would want the truth in reality to come out if someone accused you of a crime you did not commit. If the truth is not considered, you could be condemned, and if the heart of one who hates is confronted by the truth, they can ignore it. Because you would be in a bad place right or wrong, and that is all the haters want, they are not interested in truth, just to be able to accuse.
We change when we ignore reality for our feelings, for our errors in how we look at things, for how history can be changed to make good guys the bad guys or the bad guys the good guys, altering a whole culture’s thoughts about anything. The truth can set you free, but you really have to humble yourself to look for it because it does not bend to suit our preferences, as our biases do.
@wildgrass saidOpinions require assumptions; reality is real, no matter what I think about it.
I cant actually tell if you're joking or not. This entire post is ridiculous.
Reality itself requires assumptions. We assume the sun will rise and the grass will grow. Are we really debating those assumptions? To deny this is to paralyze and insulate yourself from debate or argument. You are not debating whether or not the arrow is close to the target. Without assumption ...[text shortened]... t to fall back into paralysis). Assumptions are humanity's fundamental building block for reasoning.
@KellyJay saidWhat I’m pointing out is that reality is not an objective truth.
Reality is true no matter what I think about it or you, if we cannot change it in how or what we think. We change, reality does not, and we can break and damage ourselves getting things wrong. I can fly can be a safe thing to think until I try to put it into practice and jump off a three-story building. Hating a large group of people because we feel they are all bad, due ...[text shortened]... o humble yourself to look for it because it does not bend to suit our preferences, as our biases do.
Take that dress picture.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidReality is NOT true. A chair is NOT true. A tree is NOT true. Truth is a property of propositions ABOUT chairs and trees.
Reality is true no matter what I think about it or you, if we cannot change it in how or what we think. We change, reality does not, and we can break and damage ourselves getting things wrong. I can fly can be a safe thing to think until I try to put it into practice and jump off a three-story building. Hating a large group of people because we feel they are all bad, due ...[text shortened]... o humble yourself to look for it because it does not bend to suit our preferences, as our biases do.
You confuse the map for the territory. Over and over.
For Pete's sake, man, go to the local community college and take a course in Logic 101 ! Then come back and talk to us.