Debate Rounds (5)
existence is in contrast with experience, so true existence is my physical experience
with no one to experience it there is no one to verify that it exist
to worms, the beauty of rainbows dosnt exist
As for the comment about worms, a rainbow is visually unique to each and every person viewing it because of how the sunlight reflects off and refracts through water droplets. It could be argued that the perceived beauty of a rainbow exists in each individual's mind and so the worm is to the rainbow what humanity is to the depths of the universe.
if a tree falls in reality it makes a sound, but only know is true
rainbows are physical, not mental, but i agree the worm example reflects my own limitation
Rainbows are physical, yes, but the perception of their beauty is a mental construct.
Can you also explain what you mean by "life=true experience" and how it suports the title of the debate please?
beauty isnt a mental construct
only now is true
All I can see here is really simplistic deductive reasoning. What does "now is true" and "kNow=physical experience" mean?
"Reality=nature+experience" - this really doesn"t follow. Reality exists and continues whether you are there to experience it or not. I can"t experience what is happening 1,000 light years away. Does that mean reality is suspended there?
"Existence=nature+life+experience" - but the title says existence=reality+experience" I"ve already shown you that experience does not determine the existence of something, but it is an observation or perception of what is already existing in reality (nature and life).
Therefore existence=reality. I appear to have solved your simultaneous philosophical equation for you!
a rainbow is not beautiful if you have no eyes
know is physical experience, if i say i know you have 3 fingers on your left hand, is my claim true?
truth is an experience
'know is physical experience', you mean knowledge? Not always. I know that 1+1=2 but it isn"t a physical thing that I can experience. I know that I don"t know if my neighbour is in. Again, there is no physical experience to speak of but I still have knowledge, do I not?
You"re going back to the same statement but you"re not providing an argument to support it. Nor have you provided a counter argument to mine. You have one more opportunity left, vi_spex.
no beauty is clearly determine by my eyes..
a rainbow is an object, without it the beauti goes away.
know is the opposite of knowledge..
you have not been con so far
Sure, you"d need to use you brain as well as your eyes, or your ears if it"s a beautiful piece of music.
"a rainbow is an object, without it the beauti goes away."
A rainbow isn"t an object, it"s an optical illusion. I could say that rainbows are beautiful in my opinion but not be referring to a specific rainbow that I saw in the past"
Yes, it"s a concept which you can"t experience physically.
"know is the opposite of knowledge.."
"you have not been con so far"
I don"t know what either of these mean. To conclude, you haven"t demonstrated why existence=reality+experience because the ability to experience something does not necessitate it"s existence in the world. If human experience determines if something in nature exists, all the stars and planets outside of the observable would not be able to exist as a result.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.