
Metaphysics as an Error
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
I'd much rather discuss your obsession with arses, blowing and fucking. I don't see the point in going beyond this realm, as - apparently - you don't know how to say or think about anything without relating it to said concepts. A bit of psychoanalysis might do your metaphysical outlook the world of good.Surendra Darathy wrote:Evidently, you are satisfied with blowing the assertion of whatever you want to "show" out of some hole or other. Do some fucking work on this, James, or go back to your fucking psych module.
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. I address the difference in the piece that you quoted. I said originally said treeness instead of 'are there trees'. I said information about trees instead of 'are there trees'. You still refuse to answer the question.jamest wrote:Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?SpeedOfSound wrote:I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?
Let the mods take note that I prefer not to be called a dork.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Ignoring direct questions. I see.jamest wrote:Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. I address the difference in the piece that you quoted. I said originally said treeness instead of 'are there trees'. I said information about trees instead of 'are there trees'. You still refuse to answer the question.jamest wrote:Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?SpeedOfSound wrote:I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?
Let the mods take note that I prefer not to be called a dork.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.
Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.
Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Is it relevant to talk about empirical data? In light of your posts and claims about empirical data I think it is. My treeness question is a direct question about empirical data.jamest wrote: Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
- Surendra Darathy
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
- About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
- Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?SpeedOfSound wrote: Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Some of the recent comments made in this thread are currently being discussed by the staff. For the last time, I'm asking you guys to tone it down with the personal attacks, however indirect or thinly veiled. If the discussion degenerates into nothing more than childish and stubborn bickering, there's no point in having it.
Update: No action will be taken. If you feel a post is in violation, please use the report button.
Update: No action will be taken. If you feel a post is in violation, please use the report button.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Well that was what he said not me. He claims it to be fact so I wanted to see how he got there.Surendra Darathy wrote:I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?SpeedOfSound wrote: Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.
I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."
- Surendra Darathy
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
- About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
- Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Of course, you know that "metaphysical facts" are simply statements exhaled by "Very wIse Persons". Online, there is no limit to what can be claimed. Apparently, there are only limits to impatience.SpeedOfSound wrote:Well that was what he said not me. He claims it to be fact so I wanted to see how he got there.Surendra Darathy wrote:I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?SpeedOfSound wrote: Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.
I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!
"Truth" be told, skepticism is simply an acceptance of a limited view of the fundamental essence of ANYTHING.SpeedOfSound wrote: Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.
Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.
Skepticism and Truth are simply different approaches to exhaling. In the former, you breathe easy. In the latter, you hold your breath. To be self-evident.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:39 am
- Contact:
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
It is metaphysically possible that Berkeleyian Idealism is absolutely true.Kenny Login wrote:And as James has been trying to get across in this thread, in order to explore empiricism and the 'error' of metaphysics, you have to get your hands dirty on what it is to 'observe'.
It is metaphysically possible that Lockean Empiricism is absolutely true.
It is metaphysically possible that Kantian Transcendental Idealism is absolutely true.
By what means should we determine which metaphycisal possibility is absolutely true of our actual world?
As I see it, the main problem with jamest's 'classical' understanding of the mind/experience is that it leaves any empirical event grossly underdetermined.
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.SpeedOfSound wrote:Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.
Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?jamest wrote:I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.SpeedOfSound wrote:Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.
Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Re: Metaphysics as an Error
What?GrahamH wrote:So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?jamest wrote:I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Emprical data is not complete, so what? Whether it is ultimately erroneous or not is not determinable, but we can say that it works.jamest wrote:What?GrahamH wrote:So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?jamest wrote:I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.
How do you propose to 'include this something in the definition of empirical data'?
You could make up an un-falsifiable story and claim it is 'the absolute truth of the something itself', but any number of other un-falsifiable stories will serve just as well. Why should any such story be taken as 'metaphysical truth'?
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
The continuous evasion and invitation for posters to get psychological advice is the only thing one can take out from jamest nowadays. This shows two things for me: his philosophical position is damaged beyond repair, his quixotic battle lost and confused, and that he should be ignored from now on. He does not understand that the "ex-rectum" references he's getting are metaphors for the lack of apparent criteria between a valuable "speech" and farting in Jamest's rantings.
At least, Kenny is attempting at a dialogue. Jamest is in the exercise of proving his own material which will be done just if everyone with a different opinion shuts up. Either that, or the willful dismissal of any controversy.
This is true when we see things like:

At least, Kenny is attempting at a dialogue. Jamest is in the exercise of proving his own material which will be done just if everyone with a different opinion shuts up. Either that, or the willful dismissal of any controversy.
This is true when we see things like:
... which underlines the unwillingness of being challenged. If one denies any challenges that one sees as a threat to our point of view, we do not end up wiser, we end up in an eco-chamber. Of course, what is he doing here, then? He answers:I also think that the question implies a defence of materialism,
We have shown by the evidence then that Jamest is behaving as a troll, and that if anyone else wants to know how to treat a troll, here's a clue:I'd much rather discuss your obsession with arses, blowing and fucking. I don't see the point in going beyond this realm, as - apparently - you don't know how to say or think about anything without relating it to said concepts. A bit of psychoanalysis might do your metaphysical outlook the world of good.

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests