The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YoshiBoy13
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
YoshiBoy13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,122 times Debate No: 72141
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (91)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing

kNow=matter

only now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now
YoshiBoy13

Con

1: I am unsure as to how you can experience everything, and what the reflection of nothing actually means. We have enough rounds, you can strike up some more definitions.
2: Either you mean "to know" or "knowledge" is the same as matter.
2a: To know something does not mean it matters, or that you matter because you know it. Additionally, you cannot have a verb equate to a noun.
2b: Knowledge is not matter - at least, not directly. It is the state of neurons in the brain. Whether the neurons are active or inactive, they're still made of the same stuff. A neuron which is on, just like a bit, is physically exactly the same as a neuron which is off. A neuron which is on only has some extra electrical energy with it as well.
If knowledge is matter, it must be quantifiable, and how much you know cannot be truly and accurately quantified, due to some facts possibly being infinitesimally more valuable than others,
3: Using your definitions, now is knowledge, and you matter your experience of matter.
Anyone who thinks that everything matters probably lneeds to take a second look at their priorities.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

without senses i can not experience things(i would be dead, therfore sensory experience is life and life is true), without my imagination i can not experience false
i can at best imagine my neighbour right now, so i dont know if he is even alive, as i dont know is true, and i dont know is i have to imagine it
imagination is false
sure i strike some definitions:
belief=(is)imaginary=future=0
know=physical experience=now(true, matter, nature(not machine not supernature))=1
knowledge=memory of know=past=0
0=information=nothing
1=matter=something
now is the balancing point between future and past, future is the opposite of past, and now is the opposite of future and past, now is true, 0 and 1
the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now
to me a star is a light in the night sku and nothing beyond that
YoshiBoy13

Con

Without senses i can not experience things(i would be dead, therfore sensory experience is life and life is true
Sensory experience is just one of the several life process required to be classified as "alive", and by your definition, true. The others are movement, respiration, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. Because a thing cannot truly be alive if it does not have at least one of these properties, therefore, something cannot be alive if it just has sensory experiences. A CCTV camera is not alive.

i dont know is i have to imagine it / imagination is false
Not necessarily. If you have to imagine it, it means that according to your definitions, it cannot be proved to be true. That does not mean it is not true, and even it being not true doesn't mean it is entirely false. There's a grey zone between true and false, and that is where most definitions become hazy.

Going to the movement: false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now, I state that just because something cannot be proved to be true doesn't immediately show its falsehood. Just because you didn't know a fact before, but know it now, doesn't mean the fact wasn't true until you learnt it. It might not have been true to you, but it was true to those who already knew the fact.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

nature is life

a ctv camera, dosnt experience, its not alive

a blind man eyes are dead

imagination is false, not real

there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false, and you will die if you stop eating real food and imagine eating food instead, and i begin to call you call you corpsi

imagination is false, and only know is true, therfore only at the point i know is it true. if there is another possibility by default i dont know, and therfore the i dont know position is true
YoshiBoy13

Con

a ctv camera, dosnt experience, its not alive
Well, it sees. And according to your definitions, sense (of which seeing is a part of) is life, and therefore, the camera is alive. And what's to say it doesn't experience? Humans, especially in the evolutionism sense, aren't hard-wired to create CCTV cameras, but we still do it. CCTV cameras might not be hard-wired to experience what they see, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't doing it at all. There is a large difference between something not being able to be proved to be true, or something just being plain old false.

a blind man eyes are dead
Nope, not unless there was no supply to the cells and as such they expired. In fact, a large proportion of people who are classified as blind can still see. The main problem is that they cannot see well enough to be able to function normally without artificial help to improve sight or other senses, or giving up and bumping into everything. These peoples' eyes are not dead, firstly because they can still see. Even people who cannot see at all - their eyes are still alive: maybe not functional, but still living. They can still grow and repair - although not enough to restore/give sight, and complete all of the life processes (ref 1).

there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false, and you will die if you stop eating real food and imagine eating food instead, and i begin to call you call you corpsi
Firstly, the grammatical wording of that sentence implies that one can only be truly dead if you (and only you) call them a corpse. But that's beside the point. Secondly, there is a grey zone. For example, take a byte. It is comprised of eight digits, each of which can either be a 0 or a 1. 0 represents false ("not real"), and 1 represents true ("real"). If everything was either true or false, then the collection of one byte could only either be 00000000 (all false) or 11111111 (all true), instead of something like 10100010 (some true, most false), which would be invalid. Things in life and nature don't follow the strictness of two options of existence. Some flowers can be white, or red - or pink. Human eye colour can be blue, or brown - or green. Not everything is simply one way or another.

Finally, just because something cannot be proved to be true (i.e. you can't see it) doesn't mean it is necessarily therefore false (i.e. it doesn't exist at all). All that remains for you to do to prove its boolean value - whether it is true, or whether it is false - requires just one thing. Look at it. It wasn't false when you weren't looking at it, you just didn't know it was there. Say you imagine that thing, and then look at it. You imagined it, therefore it was false (according to your logic), yet when you looked at it, it was true.
Oh but wait.
there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false

(ref 1) Full list of life processes (with explanations): http://www.biotopics.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

a camera dosnt see.. seeing is an experiene

a camera has no sense, it dosnt sense

if you can see you are not blind..

i said you die, and i call you corpsi

future=belief=false=0
now=know=true=1
past=knowledge=truth=0

0=information=nothing=mental
1=matter=something=physical

lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one

its either true false or truth

unknown is imaginary, imagination is false

only know is true, and beyond what i know is what i dont know, belief is automaticly false, as belief is unknown

YoshiBoy13

Con

a camera dosnt see.. seeing is an experiene
a camera has no sense, it dosnt sense
But how can you prove that it can't see? All you can prove is that you can't sense them sensing. As I have said, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not necessarily mean it's false.

if you can see you are not blind...
Nope - in North America and the most part of Europe you can still see, just not very well. Legally, you have to have a visual acuity of 6/60 or less - meaning that a legally blind person would have to stand 6m from an object to see it - even with corrective lenses on - with the same clarity as a normally sighted person could from 60m. Only around 10% of those legally blind have no vision at all. And even then, their eyes are not dead, they can still grow and repair, just not to the degree that you can see through them.

...
Your next argument: true = 1, truth = 0. Please define the difference between true and truth, since they are clearly opposite. Additionally, truth = 0, and false = 0. So by your definition, truth and falsehood are the same thing? Please elaborate.

only know is true, and beyond what i know is what i dont know, belief is automaticly false, as belief is unknown
Just because you don't know what it is, it doesn't mean that it is false. Although you have to believe/imagine it, again, it is not necessarily false. It may still be true, and although you can't prove it true, you can't really prove it false either.

You have had no experience of me as a person. According to your logic, that means I don't exist. However, how can that be true when I'm the one debating you here? It is not possible for arguments to exist without the person who created the arguments and put them on this website existing as well. You cannot prove that I am "true", because you can't see me. However, I am true - at least to my senses.

Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

machine is the opposite of nature, nature is life

lol... i am talking about blind people. not what is generally accepted as blind at the age center downtown, which is also called partially blind...

a blind man... can not see, cause and effect... if everyone in the world call people that can see, blind people, then you are all clueless..

0=information=nothing=not physical experience

1=matter=something=not imaginaiton is and memory

;)

only know is true, so may is irrelvant as i dont know, and i dont know is a position i know, i am certain i dont know if my neigbhour is home right now

you could be a bot trying to make me think you are human, or a human trying to make me think you are a bot

false=imaginary

i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
YoshiBoy13

Con

lol... i am talking about blind people. not what is generally accepted as blind at the age center downtown, which is also called partially blind...
Even people who are completely blind (cannot see at all) still have eyes that aren't dead. Their eyes can still grow and repair - though not to the point of restoring/giving sight. Blood still flows to the cells which replenish themselves using the nutrients dissolved in the bloodstream. Just because you can't sense (see) using them, does not mean they are dead.

if everyone in the world call people that can see, blind people, then you are all clueless..
Actually, being sighted would then be known as being blind. The actual meaning of the word is based on the majority's opinion, which changes over time. For example, the word "naughty" used to mean law-breaking, instead of the petty squabbles it is used for now. Blind would then mean "can see".

you could be a bot trying to make me think you are human, or a human trying to make me think you are a bot
Well, I'm certainly not trying to make you think I'm a bot. Firstly, that's probably not allowed in one of the rules, and secondly, there wouldn't be any use in it. The fact of the matter is that I must exist to be able to present this argument to you. Even if I were a bot (which I am not, the last time I checked) the bot would still have to exist in order to present the argument. Something must have created the argument for it to exist. You experience the arguments, but not its creator. Therefore, something "beoyond my personal physical experience of now" is not necessarily false. I am "beoyond my personal physical experience of now", but I exist, because I'm the one creating the argument. You're not experiencing me, but you're experiencing the fruit of my labours.
Debate Round No. 5
91 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i am not a solipsist
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
"You're arguments and reasoning are displaying shades of Solipsism."
(from "god is information", http://www.debate.org...)
Posted by Turtlebro 2 years ago
Turtlebro
Oh god. One of these debates
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
my personal physical experience of now equals everyting, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
...
I meant elaborate on things, as opposed to the true bit.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
thing=not false
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
| Posted by vi_spex 27 seconds ago
| Things are true

Indeed.
Care to elaborate?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
Things are true
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
I'd just like to point out that the Burden of Proof was on vi_spex to prove that it was so for all possible things outside personal experience. He has not done so.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
experience is matter and information
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
vi_spexYoshiBoy13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't refute any of con's arguments. Spelling and grammar from pro was very bad, [especially all the ='s]. And con used the only sources.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
vi_spexYoshiBoy13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not attempt to rebut Con's points and did not fulfill their BoP. Pro's senses argument was adeptly rebutted by Con via. CCTV cameras. Pro made NO attempt at punctuation and kept stating weak arguments and analogies without refuting Con's rebuttals against Pro's analogies. Only 1 source was used in the debate. Six points to Con.