Jubatus Posted June 27, 2003 Author Share Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Occam's razor relative to explanations says: "do not complicate explanations beyond necessity". because if they do, the unnecessary complications remain themselves unexplained. It goes with solipsism like this: solipsism introduces itself through another theory, - and this is a complication and circuraity because theory of solipsism that world is a one person's dream, but it looks like reality (commonly understood) in everything. And I already explained how solipsist is not solipsist by definition. It is folly to simply label it 'unnecessary complications', when those complications might actually be the road to enlightenment that could set us free; maybe the decided ignorance towards thse unnecessary complications is what is keeping us trapped, if we are trapped. And please direct me to where you refuted solipsism. Originally posted by Homuncul Unknowable truth introduces itself through another theory of subjective reality which says that truth can be discribed accurately, and therefore unknowable truth is unneeded complication. We need not take unknowable truth in account because it doesn't by definition give any explanation, but we do use it's kick back to our senses to discribe reality through explanations. And when you have fully described your reality will you then concede uncertainty? Originally posted by Homuncul And importance of truth in understanding of case in which an observer of an illusion render illusion is unnecessary complication. Becase it's proved that we can discribe truth accurately (through kick back) and call it our reality. And of course it doesn't matter how much "illusion of the illusion... of the illusion" we put. This is unneede complication. I don't investigate here how accurate we at the present moment discribe truth, I just say that in principle it can be discribed accurately. And wait, so you can't imagine that something can be explained so closely to what truely is that it would become almost perfect explanation for it? I cannot ever, for I cannot with certainty be convinced of its reality. Originally posted by Homuncul This is just so arrogant, i thought you were for uncertainty. You don't consider that someday you'll gonna read some book accidentalyy on induction and know yourself to be wrong. You know, our world view is so much dependent on our expirience. And our world view can even be measured: "in thousandth of millimetre (the separation of nerve fibres in the optic nerve) and in hundredth of of a volt (the change in the electric potencial in our nerves that makes the difference between our perceiving one thing and perceiving another)" It is because I am for uncertainty that you can never convince me nor can any book nor any godlike revelation. Originally posted by Homuncul Why is that, oh fate keeper? You don't even bother to explain Because I already have. Originally posted by Homuncul Gladly if that is the only cure for you. Name time and place, I'll be there... Monday June 30, Noon GMT+1, on the small hill at the stadium across from the Q8 station in Soender Felding, Jutland, Denmark. Make it quick and painless if you so care to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Well, I guess the debate is over. And perhaps in another decade, I'll deal with you. Let's summorize... You observe, contemplate and believe in uncertainty (which f course has nothing to do with science). Truth is unknowable and it's reflection (reality) is too uncertain for us to know anything trully. By the same mistake of induction you believe in fate which can not be disproved with logic and can't be disproved by me with better explanation of reality without fate (still it all comes and goes and I'll make you understand this ). Also due to uncertainty of your position your world view is based on "holding no true beliefs and being proud of it". Did I miss something? I don't exclude uncertainty. I don't say truth is unknowable. I say that we have an ability in principle to discribe truth (call it real) with any accuracy we need. This is the perfect point and by itself being static it presents a problem of stagnation. So probably we won't ever know causality implicitly (but it's irrelevant). And that still doesn't mean we can't discribe reality accurately. My strong relyance on all that is "uncertain" (but real) makes it easy for you stubborness always to present a counter argument just stating: "everything is uncertain, so don't bother". Reality is an everlasting upgrade as classical universe would think. But as we know now that time doesn't flow we just say that reality is always only present moment. We can remember what reality was 100 years ago and can't know what it'll be (for now) and .In the end I say that we can trust anything "uncertain" if it gives better explanations and is proved. Monday June 30, Noon GMT+1, on the small hill at the stadium across from the Q8 station in Soender Felding, Jutland, Denmark. Make it quick and painless if you so care to. Damn it, I missed the train. Let's make it some other time. P.S. I know it was a bit aggressive, it's all done with best intentions Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul You observe, contemplate and believe in uncertainty (which f course has nothing to do with science). Truth is unknowable and it's reflection (reality) is too uncertain for us to know anything trully. By the same mistake of induction you believe in fate which can not be disproved with logic and can't be disproved by me with better explanation of reality without fate (still it all comes and goes and I'll make you understand this ). Also due to uncertainty of your position your world view is based on "holding no true beliefs and being proud of it". Did I miss something? Never said I was proud of it; I'm not. Besides, I've said over and over that I truly believe something to exist. And as for the mistake of my inductive approach, the very point of my oppinion is exactly that I can never deductively arrive at a knowledge and be certain of it. Again, the major difference between us is your satisfaction with reality being explained subjectively, as where I always bear in mind the uncertainty. And your stubborn conviction that you've got the right end of the stick and that I'll come around to it at some point is disturbingly, though not surprisingly, arrogant. Originally posted by Homuncul P.S. I know it was a bit aggressive, it's all done with best intentions The best intentions by your subjective standards, no doubt, but not by mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 woah woah woah.... easy fellas! Well this is a thread that is beyond thought provoking, its borderline genius! I totally agree with Jub on almost all points here, there is sound logic in all points and as a man of logic (i hope) I can see that all of what has been said is entirely possible. I do however have issues with one or two points. If the universe is ultimately a huge mathematical equation (logic)which is basically what this philosophy boils down to then that takes emotion and throws it out of the window, I dont even "know" that emotion exists after reading this thread, but there certainly is nothing logical about emotion. Man has continually searched for the logic in emotion by mysticism shamanism and hell even psychology, but I fail to see where logic even comes in to play when dealing with feelings. Humans are not the only species to have emotions, i'm fairly certain that all living organisms must have emotion at some level albeit at a level that we can not understand. You've obviously been putting a great deal of thought into this for quite some time and I'm just playing catch up, so i'm gonna have a think and a spliff and I'll get back to you on this one. I dunno, its some funky old stuff you brought up jub! nice thread indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior woah woah woah.... easy fellas! Well this is a thread that is beyond thought provoking, its borderline genius! I totally agree with Jub on almost all points here, there is sound logic in all points and as a man of logic (i hope) I can see that all of what has been said is entirely possible. I do however have issues with one or two points. If the universe is ultimately a huge mathematical equation (logic)which is basically what this philosophy boils down to then that takes emotion and throws it out of the window, I dont even "know" that emotion exists after reading this thread, but there certainly is nothing logical about emotion. Man has continually searched for the logic in emotion by mysticism shamanism and hell even psychology, but I fail to see where logic even comes in to play when dealing with feelings. Humans are not the only species to have emotions, i'm fairly certain that all living organisms must have emotion at some level albeit at a level that we can not understand. You've obviously been putting a great deal of thought into this for quite some time and I'm just playing catch up, so i'm gonna have a think and a spliff and I'll get back to you on this one. I dunno, its some funky old stuff you brought up jub! nice thread indeed Emotion and Logic are one another's greatest adversaries. We live for the former yet (try to) explain life with the latter. Anyways, thanks for your comments, thanks for bringing new blood to this thread, and bloody nice to see ya again, old man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 You may shoot me down in flames here, but having had a little think and of course a little herbal inspiration i have come to the conclusion that logic and emotion rely on one another as a counterbalance to each other. Kind of the Ying & Yang ting (LOL) figuratively speaking of course. I look at it this way, logic without emotion or perhaps a deeper mystical/spiritual side becomes meaningless. I mean if there were no emotion or deeper side to things then whats the point in ANYTHING. Maybe there is no purpose, but without hope we would be in for a fairly miserable existence and as such hope is perhaps the most critical of all emotions/feelings. Hmmms time for a little more inspiration i will be back for more of this tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I guess agnosticism is in fashion nowadays... ... still another follower of this illusion aren't you Jah? I'd say intuition is not at all out of emotions, like in the example where some greek guy can't overrun the turtle. And logic is not an overwhelming criterion for reason., neither is intuition and common sense. That's the problem i think with agnosticism as it relys on intuitive logic solely. But about emotions you're probably right, hw else could we keep ourselves interested in such matters if not the emotions that keep the fire burning, accelerate intellectual movement and comfort us with hppiness if we succeed. But the same emotions can drive us away from not so obvious truths, like multiverse por ejemplo. And what's the problem with explanation, ah Jub? If not with latter humans can possibly use another languages in time, more complex, with larger explanious capacity. It's all the matter of time. And no unknowable truth is of any limitation to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul And what's the problem with explanation, ah Jub? If not with latter humans can possibly use another languages in time, more complex, with larger explanious capacity. It's all the matter of time. And no unknowable truth is of any limitation to us. Again, I speak of the unknowable truth. I can never know it's there, but I can accept it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior You may shoot me down in flames here, but having had a little think and of course a little herbal inspiration i have come to the conclusion that logic and emotion rely on one another as a counterbalance to each other. Kind of the Ying & Yang ting (LOL) figuratively speaking of course. I look at it this way, logic without emotion or perhaps a deeper mystical/spiritual side becomes meaningless. I mean if there were no emotion or deeper side to things then whats the point in ANYTHING. Maybe there is no purpose, but without hope we would be in for a fairly miserable existence and as such hope is perhaps the most critical of all emotions/feelings. Hmmms time for a little more inspiration i will be back for more of this tomorrow. Agreed, yet hoping for the wrong thing(s) can prove hurtful. Havn't got time to elaborate just know - the mane needs trimming ...Hoping I get that nice girl giving those wonderful head massages...ummm, a feeling worth living for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Again, I speak of the unknowable truth. I can never know it's there, but I can accept it might be. Then why accepting, why allowing a thought of it if there's no way you can perceive it? Why not throw it away? Isn't it complicated to have something you can't perceive? Why are you saying:"I guess fate is there, it's my intuition"? It might be anything, but is it so important to you that it affects your rational mind so terribly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Then why accepting, why allowing a thought of it if there's no way you can perceive it? Why not throw it away? Isn't it complicated to have something you can't perceive? Why are you saying:"I guess fate is there, it's my intuition"? It might be anything, but is it so important to you that it affects your rational mind so terribly? You shouldn't mingle my observation of the unknowable with the fate thing. And yet again, observing the unknowable doesn't complicate things for me in the least; it's merely an admittance that I'm not 'all that'. Fate is undeniably real to me as what happens happens, nothing irrational in that. The notion that for every 'crossroad of choice' a new universe springs up for every possible outcome from that event is to me some infantile desire to not miss a thing. What happens happens and the notion of a free will to freely choose any direction is to me simply ignoring the vast, complex system of causality. Look, through all these posts back and forth I've really said nothing new. All my answers to your arguments are in my original post. As I perceive it, this has long ago turned into some stubborn ping-pong where neither of us will yield the last word to the other. Now, I would have let it all rest at that, with neither of us having changed our views one single iota, but since Jah has entered the debate I wanna press on, for I am very curious about his views on the matters at hand. And this is not because he initially starts out with agreeing with me, but because I've discussed with him in the past, he's a friend of mine (as much as people can be friends solely over the web) and finally, because I welcome new blood to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well Jub Jub, The only problem with your argumant from my point of view is that its somewhat bleak. Heres my example. You walk down the street one day you see an old lady being set upon by a gang of ruffnecks, do you A:- Help the lady hoping that you can stop her being attacked thus saving her from certain injury and perhaps even death. or do you B:- Think to yourself - well this is gonna happen anyway and ultimately leave her to be taklen care of by her own fate? Albeit an extreme example in some ways but entirely possible, the problem is; in a universe where everything is pre-ordained then really whats the point in giving a f--k? personally I will not take the chance that fate is gonna look after the woman. If the fatalist approach is correct then doing nothing is inconsequential, however we can not prove one way or another thus, its irresponsible to simply walk on by. Your philosophy is water-tight in that it negates the non-fatalist argument in its very existence. The non-fatalist philosophy is somewhat less so, never the less both are entirely possible and there is no way of proving or disproving either. i can see this thread moving in the direction of morality and maybe its slightly off the point, but none the less the fatalist take on life does make morality null and void, so i guess they are inter-twined yet again. Touching back on the logic subject, I find that for logic to be all powerful and all-encompassing then it becomes the absolute and all things found within this logical universe must be able to be reduced to to a level of logic. In my mind there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is a lot more to existence besides logic. I'm not really with or against your philosophy Jub, its just that it seems to take a lot of the things that create the core of existence and consciousness and pretty much sidesteps them. (thats sounds harsh - not intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Nothing in my view of fatalism says you shouldn't take any action, only that it might be ultimately futile. The example with the old lady set upon by a gang is a lesser matter than the fate of mankind and for that matter all of Creation, though it could through the immense system of causality be all-important. It could be your fate to help her out, and it could not; it's a matter of causality. Fatalism does not prevent us from taking on any course of action, why should it? It only deals with the concept that whatever we do might be ultimately pointless. The view of you and Homuncul on fatalism is the classical one. Fatalism does not exclude subjectivity. You're going to have to elaborate on 'the things that create the core of existence and consciousness' before I can comment on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Point taken, 'the things that create the core of existence and consciousness' By that i mean the soul or the spirit, with the possible exception of george bush (j/k?) we all have a soul, dont we? I'm getting way in over my head now LOL. probably an easy one to pick apart:- With out soul you become a machine , albeit a machine composed of organic matter. At a slight tangent now, I saw minority report on Sunday and this also deals with fate (sort of) it raises the question of whether we have a choice, ie freewill. If the staggeringly complex way in which the mind is constructed can be worked out down to atomic level then surely it is possible to predict exactly what the person in question will or will not do. If fate is a real thing then surely every decision can in theory be mathematically predicted with no chance of error. Of course this brings probabilty into the mix and this is where things get mega-funky. bah brain overload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior By that i mean the soul or the spirit, with the possible exception of george bush (j/k?) we all have a soul, dont we? I'm getting way in over my head now LOL. probably an easy one to pick apart:- With out soul you become a machine , albeit a machine composed of organic matter. Never seen proof of any soul of the classical sense (that is of course not to say it isn't there), and I do believe we are an organic machine, and please notice that I do not say 'nothing more than' because I see no degradation of the human in that perception. The soul is to me nothing more than a romantic notion existing as an excuse for our inability to wholly fathom the intricate machinery that is a human. That being said, let it also be said I'm a romantic fool at heart. Originally posted by Jah Warrior .... If the staggeringly complex way in which the mind is constructed can be worked out down to atomic level then surely it is possible to predict exactly what the person in question will or will not do.... Remember that the influence of your surroundings must be included in these calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 exactly, if you can figure out where every atom is at a given point in time and can calculate the effect of each atom upon other atoms then you can predict where this atom will go and what it will do. (assuming the behaviour of atoms is understood) And quite rightly you say that the surroundings should be taken into account, by that i assume you mean the effect of other atoms universally. Until we can figure out the very nature of atomic cause and effect we cannot truly predict and yet again this comes back to mathematics and hence forth logic. maybe the human psyche is just a result of miscalculation or at the least a side effect, but then again miscalculations and side effects can be countered. Jub you old devil, I can foresee that I could very well lose sleep trying to figure this one out. Must admit you are one of only a few people that can argue for fatalism and make it plausible, and like i say I'm completely open on this topic, if anything i would say that I'm far more pro-fatalism than anti, yet i really do feel that emotion and spirituality cant be explained in terms of fatalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior exactly, if you can figure out where every atom is at a given point in time and can calculate the effect of each atom upon other atoms then you can predict where this atom will go and what it will do. (assuming the behaviour of atoms is understood) And quite rightly you say that the surroundings should be taken into account, by that i assume you mean the effect of other atoms universally. Until we can figure out the very nature of atomic cause and effect we cannot truly predict and yet again this comes back to mathematics and hence forth logic. maybe the human psyche is just a result of miscalculation or at the least a side effect, but then again miscalculations and side effects can be countered. Won't argue with you there Originally posted by Jah Warrior Jub you old devil, I can foresee that I could very well lose sleep trying to figure this one out. Must admit you are one of only a few people that can argue for fatalism and make it plausible, and like i say I'm completely open on this topic, if anything i would say that I'm far more pro-fatalism than anti, yet i really do feel that emotion and spirituality cant be explained in terms of fatalism. How about biochemistry? It's romantic to think emotions and passions above that, but since that works with the ladies, well hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Jah, I guess you stil didn't understand Jub the way I did. There is no way you can confuse him with calculating every cause and effect and not because it has some difficulties there, but just because every our action or observatioon is an act of subjectivity that Jub considers ultimately irrelevant against the power of unknowable truth. I would very much like to find a situation where his concept woud fail. Then I'll take dominion over him and consume his concept... Mhuahahahahah:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Jah, I guess you stil didn't understand Jub the way I did. There is no way you can confuse him with calculating every cause and effect and not because it has some difficulties there, but just because every our action or observatioon is an act of subjectivity that Jub considers ultimately irrelevant against the power of unknowable truth. And you're not understanding me in the way you ought to. Unknowable truth has no more power than what I administer it, to me it's but an observation. Originally posted by Homuncul I would very much like to find a situation where his concept woud fail. Then I'll take dominion over him and consume his concept... Mhuahahahahah You continiously fail to realize that you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Jub's right you know, his philosophy by its very nature eliminates argument against it, which is why its so strong. find the flaw if it exists, as yet you aint done so, sorry. There is a flipside though, Jub's philosophy is not provable, indeed are any provable for that matter? i doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 So here's another follower of nothing!!! Another observer of fate doubting anything to be proof of anything but at the same time taking for granted everything he knows of subjective reality, playing himself games just because of no opportunity to justify his world-view. No, I got your point of view, there is no hidden place for me here, just it's too difficult for me to take it for faith. I'm no religious man, nor am I intuitioner. It's been a long time that I decide for myself that everything worthy to be called fundamental needs proof, and I believe anything true can be proved, and anything false can be disproved. And not only logic is relevant in these matters, furthermore sometimes logic can't help, but still things can be proved and disproved. I'm not claiming then that I can disprove your concept in common way, just say that everything I said before can be called disproof of the concept relative to what experience you possess. We all have different experience and of course we all put something ahead of something else, that's why we just don't want to look at each other's ideas. That I think only time can cure. And please don't be too offended (as I fear), I don't mean to and these are just chat. I only step in convesation with friends never with my foe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior Jub's right you know, his philosophy by its very nature eliminates argument against it, which is why its so strong. find the flaw if it exists, as yet you aint done so, sorry. There is a flipside though, Jub's philosophy is not provable, indeed are any provable for that matter? i doubt it. Your immediate understanding pleases me immensily Originally posted by Homuncul So here's another follower of nothing!!! Another observer of fate doubting anything to be proof of anything but at the same time taking for granted everything he knows of subjective reality, playing himself games just because of no opportunity to justify his world-view. Erm, I exactly do not take for granted everything I know of subjective reality, that's the point. Originally posted by Homuncul ....and I believe anything true can be proved, and anything false can be disproved.... This is where we differ, unless you mean subjectively, as you are warrant to. Originally posted by Homuncul ....that's why we just don't want to look at each other's ideas. That I think only time can cure. I have looked at your ideas, but see the sense in this: Just because I don't want to appear to not contemplate your view points does not dictate that I should agree with them. Originally posted by Homuncul And please don't be too offended (as I fear), I don't mean to and these are just chat. I only step in convesation with friends never with my foe. One should step into conversation with one's foe if and when ever the opportunity presents itself. Know thy enemy. Even through his hostility and unyielding lore of him can be divined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 This is where we differ, unless you mean subjectively, as you are warrant to. Of course subjective. How else could it be? Although proof is a physical process, it's result is only always subjetive. My point is that I rely on them. I have looked at your ideas, but see the sense in this: Just because I don't want to appear to not contemplate your view points does not dictate that I should agree with them. You shouldn't. But nothing lasts forever they say (again subjectively). I said before, give me time... you'll know One should step into conversation with one's foe if and when ever the opportunity presents itself. Know thy enemy. Even through his hostility and unyielding lore of him can be divined. An enemy is one who threatens you with capturing something that belongs to you (your life, your possesions, your worldview). I'm no enemy. The other thing is how to recognize friend from foe. I just tryed to look at your concept implicitly and if I could, convince you of mine. I couldn't but I didn't fail. By the way fine words, and very familiar too, who wrote them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Of course subjective. How else could it be? Although proof is a physical process, it's result is only always subjetive. My point is that I rely on them. Exactly, as we've both agreed upon early on in this debate. Originally posted by Homuncul You shouldn't. But nothing lasts forever they say (again subjectively). I said before, give me time... you'll know A bold statement, yet futile nonetheless. Originally posted by Homuncul An enemy is one who threatens you with capturing something that belongs to you (your life, your possesions, your worldview). I'm no enemy. The other thing is how to recognize friend from foe. I just tryed to look at your concept implicitly and if I could, convince you of mine. I couldn't but I didn't fail. Never stated you were my enemy; was saying that ignoring an opportunity to discuss with an enemy could prove fatal. Originally posted by Homuncul By the way fine words, and very familiar too, who wrote them? I assume you refer to 'Know thy enemy', which is taken from the bible, which despite its implausibility does contain wisdom. The rest of the words are mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I've been thinking for some time and made up some new questions here. First to Jub, others are to revive this thread: 1. Please remind me again how do you difine unknowable? 2. Ability to understand. What do you think? 3. Morals. Limitation or adaptation? 4. Creativity. What's its purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.