TeacherOfPhilosophy

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 133
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
A statement does not flicker back and forth between being factual and not being factual based on who is observing it. If you cannot understand the concept of a fact that you cannot personally verify, further conversing is fruitless. Please leave me alone. [**]
If "xbeliefs" are not logically-necessary, I'm not sure what "problem" they're trying to solve. The idea of "the world outside the mind" is a bit strange as an axiom, since we are necessarily trapped in the epistemological prison of the phaneron. In other words, anything strictly "incomprehensible" ("outside the mind") can safely be bundled up within the broad and nebulous category of the noumenon. Why would anyone bother themselves with an undetectable data set?

A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).

An OPINION must be personal, private, experiential, unfalsifiable, qualitative, indistinguishable from GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
#2
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).
No, facts exist independent of whether they can be empirically demonstrated, or even logically necessary. That we cannot devise a method to demonstrate some empirical evidence does not affect whether an unknown, or even a posit is true, or not. It merely remains unproven, but can still be true. If we accept that empiric evidence is demonstrated when it can be reliably repeated by use of our five known senses, one by one, or in combination, must we necessarily accept being limited only by those five senses and not more, such as other animals, and even plants demonstrate? What if there is evidence obtained by a sense humans do not recognize as a valid sense that can transmit the necessary evidence  needed to demonstrate fact? If a fact can be demonstrated by an unrecognized, yet extant sixth or seventh sense, or nth sense, is it an invalid detection, and, therefore, not a fact? No. Otherwise, one must distrust the evidence shown by senses 1 - 5, as well. Your yellow robot tells us that well enough.
#3
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
A fact by definition is evidence based (proven to be true).
What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified?
I don’t know why you’re so agitated. 
#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
A fact by definition is evidence based (proven to be true). 
What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified? 
I don’t know why you’re so agitated. 
Prior to the 16th century, "fact" said the universe was geocentric, and all the known evidence pointed to that condition as "fact." But it wasn't, was it? Heliocentrism became "fact." But that's not fact, either, now, is it? Therefore, your "fact by definition" is NOT correct, and that is not what my OED defines "fact" as, anyway.

Therefore, "fact" does not depend on verification, regardless of your claim, or we would still be in a mode of geocentric belief because eyes-only verification would still insist on proving geocentrism is the correct model of the universe. Facts exist regardless of our ability of verification. Otherwise, there woud be no unknowns, and that is clearly not the case, as your third statement reveals.

The point of a fact is that it is true. Is it dependent on our ability to detect it, demonstrate it, and , therefore, prove it? No.

Your lack of knowledge regarding my agitation is, therefore, merely yours, isn't it? But it does not make it a fact. Your observation is merely insufficient, like our former belief as fact that the universe is geocentric.
Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified?
100% THIS.
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
...as geocentric, and all the known evidence pointed to that condition as "fact." But it wasn't, was it? Heliocentrism became "fact." But that's not fa...
The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.

So, not exactly a FACT.
#7
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
A fact is an accumulation of data pointing towards a conclusion regardless of unknowns. 
But you’re saying unknowns also apply?

#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Unknowns must also apply because of Clausius' First Law of Thermodynamics which concludes, in one respect, that matter and energy have always existed, i.e. were not created, because matter and energy cannot be created, but merely transformed one to the other. Therefore, it is a "fact" they always existed, even if only in a form of chaos and not organized matter and energy. Their existence verified, or not, always was. They did not begin to exist only when Clausius understood the science behind his law, or, in other words, just because we were ignorant of the natural laws of thermodynamics did not mean those laws, and there effects, did not exist before they were discovered, which is why facts exist regardless of our understanding, perception, and proof of them. And Einstein's E=MC^2 was just further evidence of Clausius. Therefore, just because we do not have empirical proof of a fact does not negate it. We just do not see it, yet. Tell me, otherwise, how you have memories [energy, if you want to know the truth of their nature], of which you have not the slightest proof but to yourself. Are you going to deny your memories are facts?
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
That center may, in fact, be unknown. As I said, such an objective center may not be known by empirical verification, and may not be logically necessary, but that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant. See my reply to Reece101 in my #8.
#10
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Could you please give me an example of one of your counterintuitive facts?
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
...that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant.
NOBODY is making that claim.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Topic's author
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
...which concludes, in one respect, that matter and energy have always existed,
Not necessarily.

All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.

...i.e. were not created, because matter and energy cannot be created, but merely transformed one to the other.
Not necessarily.

It's a bit of an astronomical leap to say "not created" (especially for "people of faith").

It would seem to be more accurate to say that any hypothetical "origin" (or non-origin) of this apparently indestructible energy is (currently) beyond our epistemological limits.
#13
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
 Are you going to deny your memories are facts?
First, there is the assumption that our identity is located in our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brain: if they could be copied and pasted into a computer or duplicated and implanted into a resurrected body or soul, we would be restored. But that is not how memory works. Memory is not like a DVR that can play back the past on a screen in your mind. Memory is a continually edited and fluid process that utterly depends on the neurons in your brain being functional. It is true that when you go to sleep and wake up the next morning or go under anesthesia for surgery and come back hours later, your memories return, as they do even after so-called profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest. Under this procedure, a patient's brain is cooled to as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which causes electrical activity in neurons to stop—suggesting that long-term memories are stored statically. But that cannot happen if your brain dies. That is why CPR has to be done so soon after a heart attack or drowning—because if the brain is starved of oxygen-rich blood, the neurons die, along with the memories stored therein.
Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Memory is a continually edited and fluid process...
It is impossible to recall a memory without changing it.
Topic's author
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you going to deny your memories are facts?
Some memories are FACTS.
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Could you please give me an example of one of your counterintuitive facts?
Counterintuitive? Re-read my #4. That's not counterintuitive, that's just plain facts. Geocentrism was a scientific belief prior to the 16th century. Heliocentrism was a scientific belief into the 19th century, but utterly faded in the 20th. Counterintuitive? Not bloody likely. Of course, you may still believe the flat earth for all I know.
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
NOBODY is making that claim.
Somebody is:

The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.

#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Not necessarily.

All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.
Do you want to read Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, which is accepted science, or maintain your jaded opinion? Try a little research.
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brain
That, my friend, is known fact. No presumption.

Memory is not like a DVR that can play back the past on a screen in your mind.
Oh, but they are. In fact, every recall of a memory creates a new neural path for it, strengthening the memory. Then there 's a process called the "objective correlative." That utterly refutes your comment that

long-term memories are stored statically. 

if the brain is starved of oxygen-rich blood, the neurons die, along with the memories stored therein.
"It was widely believed that brain cells undergo rapid—and irreversible—degeneration immediately after death. But a striking new study, published Wednesday in Nature, suggests that much functionality can be preserved or restored—even hours after death."
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to recall a memory without changing it.
Nope.  "The process that mediates this time-dependent stabilization of memory is known as consolidation.4 The duration and anatomy of the consolidation process still is not fully understood. Clinical studies of people who have had brain traumas, stroke, seizure, or even removal of brain tissue because of untreatable pathological conditions have revealed that memory consolidation takes weeks to years and occurs while the information is processed by the part of the brain known as the medial temporal lobe. However, once a memory has been consolidated, information storage seems to involve brain regions other than the temporal lobe, particularly cortical areas."

Your statement is more true with traumatic experience memory because we are wired to want to forget these experiences, and do. But it is not true with pleasant experiences as the referenced article goes on to explain.
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
...that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant.
I never claimed "there is no center".

NOBODY is making that claim.
Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Not necessarily.

All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.
Do you want to read Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, which is accepted science, or maintain your jaded opinion? Try a little research.
Are you going to continuously appeal-to-authority or are you going to make an appeal to LOGOS?
Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brain
That, my friend, is known fact. No presumption.
Have you ever forgotten anything?
Topic's author
#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Once our brain has a new version of a story, it forgets and erases the former versions. Even the most sophisticated MRI brain scans can't distinguish between truth and fiction when people believe what they're saying. [**]
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
#21: So, your disbelief in God is only because you cannot, by empiric proof, tell us where He is? See #22.

#22: Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion are cooperative, not combative. See #23.

#23: Ask me in one thousand years. See #24.

#24: The title of your reference: "We change our memories each time we recall them, but that doesn’t mean we’re lying"  See #21.

It is all one eternal round.
#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
I said one of your counterintuitive facts, not one of your plain facts.
Can you please give me an example of a fact that applies unknowns?

#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Your question assumes all unknowns are counterintuitive. Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false. How would you know about other unknowns unless they are not unknown? Unknown means, well, isn't it self-evident? Don't ask me. Ask Someone for whom there are no unknowns. I'll wager, however, that He will not be revealing just for the asking. You've got to demonstrate a purpose in knowing, and a surety that you will accept what you are told, or mysteries remain such. However, in the argument, you must still allow for them.
Topic's author
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
#21: So, your disbelief in God is only because you cannot, by empiric proof, tell us where He is? See #22.
I certainly believe a logically coherent "god" is possible (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata).

Just not a logically-necessary (or empirically demonstrable) FACT.
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
#22: Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion are cooperative, not combative. See #23.
Have you ever forgotten anything?
#30
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Memory is not like a DVR that can play back the past on a screen in your mind.
Oh, but they are. In fact, every recall of a memory creates a new neural path for it, strengthening the memory. Then there 's a process called the "objective correlative." That utterly refutes your comment that
During memory recall, there is a replaying of neural activity that was originally generated in the brain during a specific event. This echoes the brain’s perception of that specific event which is NOT COMPLETELY IDENTICAL TO THAT EVENT.  In this way, the brain remembers the information and details of the event. Memory recall is not just pulling things from the storage of memories, rather it is a process of creativity in which the relevant information is gathered from the scattered, jigsaw puzzle-like information in the brain.
So  you want to use objective correlative, the term coined around 1840 by painter and poet Washington Allston?