What I realized

Author: Tarik

Posts

Total: 449
Topic's author
#301
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Fair enough but what I take from that is 
the definition includes but it’s not limited to humans, perhaps I should’ve responded different to

There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS "existed" before humans.
There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS didn’t exist before humans there’s many subsets to the definition of fact you can’t just pick one and say no facts existed because of that one definition because it ignores the others that say nothing of the sort. Let me ask you a question the person or thing that created the human mind if it’s existence isn’t factual then what is it because you don’t seem to know the answer in regards to the creator so how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
#302
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Let me ask you a question the person or thing that created the human mind if it’s existence isn’t factual then what is it because you don’t seem to know the answer in regards to the creator so how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.

NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).

NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).

how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?
Topic's author
#303
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.
And how do you know this?

NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).

NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).
Since when was ignorance logically necessary?That’s a huge contradiction.

How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?
That’s what an opinion is.
#304
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.
And how do you know this?
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknown and may be unknowable.
Topic's author
#305
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you know this?
#306
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).

NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).
Since when was ignorance logically necessary?That’s a huge contradiction.
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.

To be human is to possess human limitations.
Topic's author
#307
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.
But you weren’t defining the human mind you were defining noumenon (whatever that is).

#308
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknown and may be unknowable.
How do you know this?
I know that I DO NOT KNOW THE HYPOTHETICAL "person or thing that created the human mind".

And I also know that the very concept of a "person or thing that created the human mind" is logically incoherent.

Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".
#309
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?
That’s what an opinion is.
FINALLY, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING.
#310
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.
But you weren’t defining the human mind you were defining noumenon (whatever that is).
The NOUMENON is verifiable by the human mind, by a reliable process of logical deduction.
Topic's author
#311
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".
What’s the known facts that made you presume it’s a process? Also isn’t a process a thing? For example intercourse is a process but it’s also a thing life forms engage in.

#312
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".
What’s the known facts that made you presume it’s a process?
#313
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Also isn’t a process a thing? For example intercourse is a process but it’s also a thing life forms engage in.
When you stated, "person or thing" were you intending to imply "person or process"?
#314
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Topic's author
#315
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Foxes and humans are related? I didn’t get the memo, but even if I accepted the comparison the narrative is the first human mind, the only way this comparison is somewhat fitting is if it deals with the first fox. Not to mention that it was the human species that was responsible for the breeding of the foxes if your example is fitting then another species is responsible for the first human mind, hence why I said something or someone.
#316
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?

"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
(IFF) you can't verify a claim (THEN) that claim CANNOT be considered a FACT.
Have fun while you wallow in what "we consider", when you wish to talk about "what is", let me know. 
#317
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
1. That's a truism.......Though it's possible to possess the relevant data.....Not dead men for sure.....That  was my point.

2. That which one possess...... From which we can deduce a fact or a conclusion....A wholly internal process.
Topic's author
#318
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Not dead men for sure
What? You’re not sure there’s dead men? If you have a point you’re not making it very clear.

That which one possess
The same guy that called me out for not explaining myself refuses to name the “one”, a comatose person cannot deduce facts that’s just a fact in itself, and the human brain isn’t a device (devices are along the lines of technology, the dictionary is free). I think you’ve dug yourself in enough of an ignorant hole and I’m gonna stop the bleeding by just telling you where your blatantly wrong, too bad I’m the only one that can give truisms here.
#319
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Deliberately misinterpreting figures of speech is poor argument......Your clutching at straws now Tarik.


And where did the comatose person suddenly appear from?

Though in terms of function, "comatose" is a generalisation anyway. 
Topic's author
#320
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Deliberately misinterpreting figures of speech is poor argument......Your clutching at straws now Tarik.
I didn’t misinterpret (wasn’t given the opportunity hence my confusion). I simply asked you to make yourself more clear and repeatedly gave you your chance to give your clear interpretation and you couldn’t answer the call.

And where did the comatose person suddenly appear from?
After you made that argument about fact deduction, I used that as an example proving you wrong.

Though in terms of function, "comatose" is a generalisation anyway.
Even if it was I don’t see the point of bringing that up.

#321
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You never mentioned a comatose person....Just an MND sufferer.

And I bring up points that clearly refute your argument.

MND sufferers usually die because of respiratory failure....Whether or not that is preceded by a comatose state, would depend upon  other factors. Such as palliative care or life support or how the disease progresses within the individual.

Nonetheless internal management in terms of brain and other systems, will continue to function ( within the limits afforded by their malfunction) until death.


Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.
Topic's author
#322
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You never mentioned a comatose person....Just an MND sufferer.
Correction I mentioned both, the latter first and the former second.

And I bring up points that clearly refute your argument.
If that’s what you believe then so be it.

Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.
Not all humans can that’s my point (my comatose example proves this). Like I said before facts is beyond us it isn’t something we created. Before humans existed there were no humans, that statement being a fact proves that.
#323
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
the only way this comparison is somewhat fitting is if it deals with the first fox.
FIRST DOG.
#324
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.
An infant is unable to verify and or validate a statement or claim of FACT.
#325
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?

"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Have fun dodging simple YES or NO questions.
#326
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Not to mention that it was the human species that was responsible for the breeding of the foxes
I hope we can agree that DOGS existed before 1959.
Topic's author
#327
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
What was the point of sending me those videos?
#328
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
What was the point of sending me those videos?
I'm comparing FIRST DOG to FIRST HUMAN.
#329
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
An infant is an infant...Still requires an internal data and systems management device though.
#330
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik