-->
@zedvictor4
An infant is an infant...Still requires an internal data and systems management device though.
Sure, but absolutely worthless when determining FACT from OPINION.
What I realized
Posts
Total:
449
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm comparing FIRST DOG to FIRST HUMAN.
The creation of the first dog is just as unknown to you as humans so what does that prove? It doesn’t prove that it wasn’t a person or thing. Also I’ve had it up to here with the random goose chases you’ve been sending me on so unless you explain how they’re relevant please don’t waste my time.
-->
@Tarik
The creation of the first dog is just as unknown to you as humans so what does that prove?
Organic selection based on aggressiveness leads to physiological changes.
A fox becomes a dog through a process (along with some ONTOLOGY).
The dog's parents were foxes and their parents were foxes and their parents were foxes.
At what point does it magically become a dog?
-->
@3RU7AL
You can’t apply whatever process goes into the creation of dogs and apply it to humans, we’re a completely different species dude.
-->
@Tarik
unless you explain how they’re relevant
Look, I'm just following your lead here.
You asked me, "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 [?]"
Did I bristle and demand you explain why you're asking?
I'm doing my level and sincere best to accommodate your steering of the conversation.
If you'd like to "reset" or "reframe" the discussion (or abandon it altogether) please feel free.
-->
@Tarik
You can’t apply whatever process goes into the creation of dogs and apply it to humans, we’re a completely different species dude.
Mammals, plants, and even fish change over time.
-->
@3RU7AL
Did I bristle and demand you explain why you're asking?
No but you have every right to especially if you feel the questioning isn’t relevant.
Mammals, plants, and even fish change over time.
What do mammals, plants, and fish have to do with humans?
-->
@Tarik
What do mammals, plants, and fish have to do with humans?
HUMAN = MAMMAL
-->
@3RU7AL
Pardon me, but when was them changing over time ever the narrative? The narrative is objective things don’t require a mind for its existence, well whatever created the human mind didn’t need a mind for its existence therefore it’s objective and objective things are factual and since that factual thing created a human mind it wasn’t dependent on a mind for its existence proving facts existed before humans. I know that was a bit redundant but hopefully you get the picture.
-->
@Tarik
Pardon me, but when was them changing over time ever the narrative?
Today.
The narrative is objective things don’t require a mind for its existence,
Objects are also a process. No object is eternal.
well whatever created the human mind didn’t need a mind for its existence
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.
therefore it’s objective and objective things are factual
Only ACTUAL objects (that are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary) can be proper FACTS.
and since that factual thing created a human mind it wasn’t dependent on a mind for its existence proving facts existed before humans.
Even (IFF) one supposes that unfalsifiable objects are "facts" (THEN) no human can make any statements or claims about such (supposed) objects unless those claims are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary
-->
@3RU7AL
Today.
A narrative you randomly chose not me.
Objects are also a process. No object is eternal.
No they aren’t, if anything a process is abstract because a process can mean anything depending on what your talking about.
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.
Like I said before you can’t just pick and choose a subset of a definition and expect it to crossover, facts includes but is not limited to identification.
Only ACTUAL objects (that are rigorously defined and empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary) can be proper FACTS.
My last response in this post applies to this too just swap out the word identification for objects.
Even (IFF) one supposes that unfalsifiable objects are "facts"
It’s not unfalsifiable if it happened, the fact that it happened is enough proof on its own, you don’t need humans to rationalize it for it to be fact, human ignorance is a separate issue.
-->
@Tarik
Whatever "created" (produced) the human mind still requires a human mind for its identification and verification.Like I said before you can’t just pick and choose a subset of a definition and expect it to crossover, facts includes but is not limited to identification.
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.
But that's fine.
An unverifiable "fact" is functionally indistinguishable from an OPINION.
-->
@Tarik
the fact that it happened is enough proof on its own
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
-->
@3RU7AL
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.But that's fine.
How so?
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Me answering this doesn’t answer how I view the definitions of both terms so I ask again what’s the point of this question?
-->
@3RU7AL
As I said...An infant is an infant.....Nonetheless an infant will possess knowledge of experience relative to it's age and upbringing.....We input and store more data in our formative years, than we will ever do as an adult.
-->
@Tarik
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."Me answering this doesn’t answer how I view the definitions of both terms so I ask again what’s the point of this question?
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
-->
@zedvictor4
As I said...An infant is an infant.....Nonetheless an infant will possess knowledge of experience relative to it's age and upbringing.....We input and store more data in our formative years, than we will ever do as an adult.
I agree.
However, an infant has no PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
-->
@Tarik
You're the one cherry-picking from the definition.But that's fine.How so?
Choose any definition of FACT (and or OBJECTIVE) you wish.
YOU seem to believe that certain specific fragments of that definition are MORE important than other specific fragments.
But that's fine.
-->
@3RU7AL
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.
I don’t know, now what?
YOU seem to believe that certain specific fragments of that definition are MORE important than other specific fragments.
How so? Your the one that’s limiting the definition to just humans when I asked you to support it you only reference one of many subsets.
-->
@Tarik
How so? Your the one that’s limiting the definition to just humans when I asked you to support it you only reference one of many subsets.
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.
-->
@Tarik
Answering this simple question demonstrates your PRACTICAL ability to distinguish FACT from OPINION.I don’t know, now what?
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?
-->
@3RU7AL
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.
I fail to see your point.
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?
What do you consider a tautological statement and why?
-->
@Tarik
What do you consider a good example of an "actual fact" (NOT SIMPLY A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT)?What do you consider a tautological statement and why?
1 + 1 = 2 is a tautological statement.
It is only "true" because it is defined as being "true".
For example (IFF) gromblegop = retelkimp (AND) swegmortok = gromblegop (THEN) retelkimp = swegmortok
The statement, "retelkimp = swegmortok" is "true" by definition (TAUTOLOGY).
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.
-->
@Tarik
ONLY HUMANS READ DICTIONARIES.I fail to see your point.
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?
-->
@3RU7AL
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.
Again, how do you know objectivity is limited to just objects?
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?
No, again I fail to see your point, please make it rather then point out the obvious.
-->
@Tarik
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.Again, how do you know objectivity is limited to just objects?
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.
-->
@Tarik
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?No, again I fail to see your point, please make it rather then point out the obvious.
Only humans use dictionaries.
Definitions are written for humans.
Only humans use definitions.
Claiming that definitions apply (somehow) regardless of whether human minds exist or not is INCOHERENT.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.
I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
Claiming that definitions apply (somehow) regardless of whether human minds exist or not is INCOHERENT.
Facts is more than its label, all humans did was put a label on something that was always there, that’s all.
-->
@Tarik
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
Are you suggesting that everything we can possibly speak about is strictly OPINION?
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that everything we can possibly speak about is strictly OPINION?
No, I’m suggesting that by definition objective things don’t require a mind for its existence and facts are objective. I don’t know why you’re disputing this by definition I’m correct I’ve supported this before do you need to see it again?