The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.
have you yourself measured the atomic mass of Sodium ?
Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation. The definition is dependent on evidence not the other way around. It seems to me you are suggesting anything with a definition cannot be knowledge.
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.
Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation.
1 + 1 = 2is a tautologybecause it is true by definition
i could just as easily say something likeBREGRU + SENDROK = KRENDOand this could also be considered true by definition
Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.very good, just don't expect anyone else to believe you
faith is personal
I keep asking two questions:1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?2) Do you believe you are conscious?
think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to me
I keep asking two questions:1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?2) Do you believe you are conscious?1. Yes, You see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.2. Yes, I am conscious of Self and others.
--> @Sidewalkerthink of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to me
think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to meI was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.
you can't prove or disprove anyone is truly conscious unless you are able to quantify consciousnessyou can't prove or disprove anything is "external" to youso, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMSYou see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMSI guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.it sounds like you have FAITH in the modern priesthood
do you maybe have another example of "knowledge"perhaps something that doesn't require specialized equipment in order to verify ?
You give actual priests too much credit. Preists cannot justify their core beliefs or show them true. That is not true of, say, geologists.
think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claimwhy do you think this should be important to meI was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.you can't prove or disprove anyone is truly conscious unless you are able to quantify consciousnessyou can't prove or disprove anything is "external" to youso, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
I've provided 2 examples. One requires no specialized equipment.
No, I'm actually pointing out the fact that the BOP game that you BOPers play is meaningless, pay attention.
Since you don't even claim to be conscious, why would I ask you anything?
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMSI guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆
No, I'm actually pointing out the fact that the BOP game that you BOPers play is meaningless, pay attention.hold on, are you suggesting YOU are not asking for counter-evidence (which is shifting the burden of proof) ?
-> @Shilaso, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMSYou see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.of course, it is logically impossible to interact with or observe anything that is fundamentally separate from ustherefore, we are merely aspects of a much larger organismkinda like cells in a body
