false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
Debate Rounds (5)
"false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now" is a sort of vague philosophical statement which can be a bit tough to respond to. The topic brings into question the nature of truth and what defines true and false.
True: Something that is known, proven, and explainable by natural means and empirical evidence. Things such as gravity, the speed of light, and our own existence would fall under this category.
False: Something that is not true, that is to say anything that is not proven, falsifiable, or able to be explained through natural means. Astrology, psychics, and supernatural beings would fall under this if I understand the instigators topic sentence correctly.
Now, knowledge is quite simply that which is known. So by that definition anything that is not known is not knowledge. However there are such things that are called known unknowns, things that we know we do not know (it's gonna get a tad tricky here try to stay with me), there are also things such as unknown knowns, things we think we know but that we do not (however we do not know that we do not know), and finally there are unknown, unknowns, thing's undiscovered that are inconceivable to us. Using this model of knowledge we can argue that knowledge in itself is a human construct as anything that we do not know already is not knowledge, at least until we can talk to animals or meet extraterrestrials. Now this being said now we can actually delve into the instigators topic and discuss.
Using the model of knowledge we previously discussed the instigator argues that anything outside of what he has experienced physically up until now is false. This simply does not make any sense whatsoever. See whereas you may have not experienced something yet does not make it "false" or unproven. It only makes it unproven within your limited view of what you have experienced thus far. Even though I as a person have not seen a panda physically does not mean that pandas are "false" or do not exist and are unproven to exist. If I claimed that simply because I haven't seen Guardians of The Galaxy yet then that means that the movie is "false" or not proven to exist, I would be justifiably declared crazy! This argument the instigator has proposed simply does not hold up under basic logical scrutiny.
know=physical experience of now
physical experience only happens now
knowledge=memory of now
only know is true, and belief is false as i have to imagine it, and imagination is false
false exist, lies exist
Well, Vi, you answer is extremely hard to understand as you don't write in full sentences but rather cryptic fragments, but I'll do my best. I'm glad you defined your terms of "know" and "knowledge" however your definitions themselves are very flawed and lacking a greater sense of collective knowledge.
"know= physical experience of now" This actually isn't true. To know is simply to realize and understand beyond the shadow of a doubt. As I said before just because I have never experienced being shot does not mean that I know that it doesn't hurt. I know this not through physical experience but through indirect learning and shared knowledge which I'll get to later. See I learn and come to "know" things by using, for example, a doctors knowledge of the body. I know that if I get shot tissues in my body will suffer severe trauma and I will start to bleed profusely. I know that when this happens my pain receptors will start firing off like crazy. I know this not because I have actually been shot but because others have not "now" but in the past and others that are smarter than I have made discoveries because of them.
"knowledge=memory of now" This in itself is not possible as you cannot have a memory of what is happening right at that moment. That would be called physical experience and once that passes it would be converted to a memory by your brain. This definition in itself doesn't even hold up
"only know is true" This I agree with you, however you are stating that you only know that which you physically experience which simply is not true. Please refer to 2 paragraphs up as I do not wish to be redundant.
"belief is false as i have to imagine it, and imagination is false" While I still wonder what you mean by "false" this statement still isn't inherently true. See beliefs aren't necessarily false. Beliefs in themselves are a precursor to knowledge and beliefs, or hypothesis, form and once tested become knowledge. Imagination is false is essentially, in the context you're putting it in, the same thing as saying "belief is false" which is inherently untrue.
i know the absolutes because they are true, but there is no know without physical experience, no now
there is no shared knowledge.. i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it
now=reality loop 1 second or less
imagination is false, future, and truth is in the past
Now for your claim on "there is no know without physical experience" this is some rather flawed logic here. Humans know many things that we may not have actually experienced ourselves. For instance we know that the Sun is too hot for humans to get near let alone touch. We know these things because of evidence and testing, which brings me to your other claim of "there is no shared knowledge.. i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it". Well from a sort of pragmatic philosophical standpoint all knowledge is shared knowledge simple because one did not come up with it originally. You did not figure out algebra, geometry, or calculus all on your own. No, rather you learned it from someone who had learned it from someone else and so on and so forth. All knowledge would technically be shared knowledge to all those except for the person to originally come up with the idea. You also don't have to imagine what people teach you. so long as it is backed up with empirical evidence. Evidence is the line drawn between what is real and not real, or "true" and "false" as you like to say.
Your next claim confused me quite a bit as I had absolutely no idea where this could have even come from. "now=reality loop 1 second or less" is a statement that is not only false but also makes no apparent sense. The present is a concept just as time is. The present is simply a point in time at the time we perceive it. It's hard to really describe what the present is as our brains have a hard time even comprehending such abstract concepts. One way to NOT describe the present is to call it a "reality loop" to say that it is a loop would be to suggest that it infinitely repeats itself. If the present were to infinitely repeat itself and if this loop WERE only 1 second long as you suggest then the world would be something like a much shorter version of the movie Groundhog Day. Nothing would ever change, no new discoveries would be made, no progress would happen.
The last sentence is again inherently untrue as I have explained before. "imagination is false" straight out of the gate and you rely on a false premise. Imagination is not inherently false. Imagination is simply ideas that have not been proven yet. If you were back in the ancient ages and imagined that the Earth orbited the Sun you most likely would be considered false. However that example of imagination would be absolutely correct as it was proven later on that the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun.
i can get information from tv, books, online and call it scientific evidence, so accepting information is allowing myself to be programmed, while my experience of now is real and true
there is no shared knowledge, you cant share your memories with me, i have to imagine it
imagination is false, and now is matter, 0 and 1
concepts are imaginary, not real, like the universe is an imaginary concept. to me a star is a light in the night sky and nothing beyond that, and the earth i know beneath me has no necessary shape
only the time of now is true, i am born now, today, as matter only happens now
matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now, just try make an apple nothing
changes can happen in a loop
ideas are imaginary, not real, show me 1 i can hold in my hand
imagination is a dead nation, there is no life in my imagination, just me and ghosts
While you can get information from such places and claim it as evidence what separates it from actual evidence is it's ability to hold up under logical scrutiny and/or scientific testing. I cannot take something so wildly untrue and claim it as evidence as that is not what true evidence really is. Accepting information is not allowing yourself to be "programmed" it's simply using your logic and reason to deduct that a certain input is factual or fake. Now, I may go off on a tad bit of a tangent here but please dare to stay with me. Claiming your experience of now is real and true in itself does not prove itself. There are a great many factors that would render your experience of now untrue or false in some way such as hallucinations, mental instability, or (and this is very far fetched) some sort of matrix-like "simulation". This enters a new and much deeper discussion in philosophy which is best saved for another time.
Actual I can share my memories with you. I can share them in the form of video, pictures, sound recordings, and other media. While these technically are not my "memories" they are snippets from what I would remember from those occasions. You do not have to imagine that my memories are true so long as I were to back them up with some sort of empirical evidence.
As we have discussed before imagination is not inherently false so I'm not going to repeat myself again. Please refer to my previous rebuttals.
While concepts are technically imaginary the universe is not an "imaginary concept". The universe is an undeniable fact and while it may not be the universe as we know it a universe would have to exist for us to even ponder about it in the first place.
This next sentence of "only the time of now is true" is so vague and incomprehensible that I don't feel it warrants a response nor could I even try to give one.
Matter is eternal however the state in which it exists is not. Even so I don't see how this has any relevance to the argument at hand.
While temporary changes COULD happen in this hypothetical time loop permanant changes could not. By default a loop is something that repeats over and over again infinitely starting at the same point every time and ending at the same parameter every time, in this case when one second has elapsed. Now knowing this we know that if when the loop starts I am at my computer then when the loop restarts I would be back at my computer no matter where I moved in that brief second before the loop stopped again. This is why your "Now is a reality loop" argument does not hold up.
Ideas are technically "imaginary" that does not mean they are not real in a sense. While they are not physically real neither is gravity and yet we all know that gravity is real as it has been proven, demonstrated, and is extremely evident.
In all honesty, without trying to be rude, I don't think you're fit to make this argument as you base all of your "points" off of very vague philosophical beliefs that only you seem to hold true.
a sunrise can be a joyfull sight and a light to bright can hurt my eyes
facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter
only know is true
in order for a simulation to exist there must be something to simulate
all i know on a screen is light
the opposite of real is imaginary
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I give grammar to Con because he wrote in full sentences. The most convincing arguments go to Con because Pro's claims were baseless and unsubstantiated. Con was able to give good arguments, but I did feel he missed a very important one. I give debate to Con.
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.