Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cognitive ability/limitations

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 2:21:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I remember reading that dogs are actually incapable of knowing their name; in that they are incapable of grasping the concept of identity, but rather view (what we consider) their name as a command like 'hey you'. I'm not sure why i was disappointed to hear this, but i do understand this. I also think that the explanation is a bit overly simplistic, but is essentially true; they cannot comprehend self identity.

Also, when i was in college, developmental psychology, i remember hearing that, developmentally we comprehend things in stages. There was an experiment where you would take a child (I forget the exact age) that is just post verbal, able to count and identify objects. Sit the child down and present them with six squares and two triangles. You ask them to tell you how many squares there are then ask them how many triangles there are and then ask them how many shapes there are. - The child is unable to tell you how many shapes after the other two questions were asked. The child at this age is unable to comprehend subsets. If you were to simply ask the child how many shapes there were without the previously asked questions, the child should be able to say eight. I actually tried this out with a neighbors child and the neighbor was very upset that his daughter couldn't get it.

So my question would be, if there are such cognitive limitations in these examples, what if any limitations do we have? If we have these limitations would we even know it?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 2:44:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
How do we know we humans don't speak dog I could understand this principle with ants and bees but dogs do have a concept of self in the sole fact they are not 100% sociable they fend for themselves more than other dogs therefore having a concept of self.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:47:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 2:44:17 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
How do we know we humans don't speak dog I could understand this principle with ants and bees but dogs do have a concept of self in the sole fact they are not 100% sociable they fend for themselves more than other dogs therefore having a concept of self.

The concept of self is different than the concept of identity. Acknowledging your existence in the form of your needs is different than knowing who you are among others.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What does a square circle look like?

The assumption that something is impossible does not make it so. It may just be representative of a cognitive limitation.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:14:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
(so I'm guessing square circles don't either)

I'm kind of even more sure about that one :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:27:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:47:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/12/2010 2:44:17 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
How do we know we humans don't speak dog I could understand this principle with ants and bees but dogs do have a concept of self in the sole fact they are not 100% sociable they fend for themselves more than other dogs therefore having a concept of self.

The concept of self is different than the concept of identity. Acknowledging your existence in the form of your needs is different than knowing who you are among others.

Acknowledgment of your own existence is the concept of self, in accordance to this logic people don't have a concept of self for now you are making it something too abstract to be properly defined for concept of self is the same as the concept of identity.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 12:36:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
They don't? That's news to me...someone's gotta tell that to wheel manufacturers!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 1:57:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, according to Piaget's theory of cognitive development there's a whole buch of limitations and it's really cute to test it out on real children. I'm not sure if this is an answer to your question, but rather than limitations, I'd say adults have many cognitive errors/cognitive biases. I can't think of anything I might consider a limitation though, so hopefully someone else can chime in lol
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 2:01:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 1:57:09 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
Yeah, according to Piaget's theory of cognitive development there's a whole buch of limitations and it's really cute to test it out on real children. I'm not sure if this is an answer to your question, but rather than limitations, I'd say adults have many cognitive errors/cognitive biases. I can't think of anything I might consider a limitation though, so hopefully someone else can chime in lol

Let's say someone can't get algebra because they just can't they are limited in ability. They are actually incapable of grasping the concepts within the math. Then say there is someone who is the smartest of the human race and is able to comprehend all there is to comprehend within his limitations, what then is beyond his grasp, and would we even be able to know what that would be?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 2:09:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 2:01:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/12/2010 1:57:09 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
Yeah, according to Piaget's theory of cognitive development there's a whole buch of limitations and it's really cute to test it out on real children. I'm not sure if this is an answer to your question, but rather than limitations, I'd say adults have many cognitive errors/cognitive biases. I can't think of anything I might consider a limitation though, so hopefully someone else can chime in lol

Let's say someone can't get algebra because they just can't they are limited in ability. They are actually incapable of grasping the concepts within the math. Then say there is someone who is the smartest of the human race and is able to comprehend all there is to comprehend within his limitations, what then is beyond his grasp, and would we even be able to know what that would be?

That, I do not know the answer to...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 12:36:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
They don't? That's news to me...someone's gotta tell that to wheel manufacturers!

They only attempt to emulate the idea of a circle. No wheel has its atoms arranged in an absolutely perfect circular shape.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:14:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:02:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 12:36:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
They don't? That's news to me...someone's gotta tell that to wheel manufacturers!

They only attempt to emulate the idea of a circle. No wheel has its atoms arranged in an absolutely perfect circular shape.

That's only because atoms are spherical-ish, and you can't put spheres into a straight line without having the microscopic indentations. Pragmatically speaking, they are circles. If they weren't, they wouldn't roll... Sorry, but Tboone is right
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:14:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:02:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 12:36:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
They don't? That's news to me...someone's gotta tell that to wheel manufacturers!

They only attempt to emulate the idea of a circle. No wheel has its atoms arranged in an absolutely perfect circular shape.

That's a different argument altogether and not what mattrodstrom stated.
(1) He stated "squares and circles don't exist." He NEVER specified as to what KIND of squares or circles he was referring to; ergo, I was free to choose.
(2) A wheel IS accurately a circle of specific precision (i.e. tolerances.)

Obviously a perfect circle is not going to exist physically; infinite precision is not possible. However, I made NO claims regarding perfect circles. I merely responded to mattrodstrom's smart@ss reply to Kleptin's comments.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:23:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:14:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 3:02:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 12:36:46 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)
They don't? That's news to me...someone's gotta tell that to wheel manufacturers!

They only attempt to emulate the idea of a circle. No wheel has its atoms arranged in an absolutely perfect circular shape.

That's a different argument altogether and not what mattrodstrom stated.
(1) He stated "squares and circles don't exist." He NEVER specified as to what KIND of squares or circles he was referring to; ergo, I was free to choose.
(2) A wheel IS accurately a circle of specific precision (i.e. tolerances.)

Obviously a perfect circle is not going to exist physically; infinite precision is not possible. However, I made NO claims regarding perfect circles. I merely responded to mattrodstrom's smart@ss reply to Kleptin's comments.

Well sure, if you want to be sensible about defining a circle. My inner mathematician wants to punch you though.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:23:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 7:14:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
What does a square circle look like?

squares and circles don't exist! (so I'm guessing square circles don't either)

Who said anything about existence? We're talking about cognitive ability. We can visualize a square as well as a circle. Try to visualize a square circle.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:23:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Who said anything about existence?

You kind of, sort of, implied that square-circles Might exist DESPITE their being non-sensical:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
You Wrote:
What does a square circle look like?
Paired with the following:
The assumption that something is impossible does not make it so. It may just be representative of a cognitive limitation

This implication that square-circles might exist... is what I was refferring to.

We're talking about cognitive ability. We can visualize a square as well as a circle. Try to visualize a square circle.

I agree that putting the two concepts together makes no sense... and I agree that we may not be able to grasp certain things (IN FACT I believe we can't Fully understand Anything: )

BUT! My doubt of Conceptual Contradictions chances of Actual Existence is Great... Even Greater than my doubt of those "seeming" things that are my concepts.

There's not any such things as Square-circles... There's not even Regular Circles!

My idea of Circles is Derived from my Limited, Perspective based, manner of understanding...

The idea (or suggestion) of Square-circles are a product of those Perspective based concepts... those Limited Understandings...

AND being that those Initial Concepts (like Circles) are perspective based (and so, kind of Flawed by our limited manner of understanding things) in the first place... the chances of Square-circles existing is NIL.... as the two factors of that Exist only in the Mind.. AND are Incompatible... and as our Conceptual Things (like circles) don't actually exist (as they are supposed to be)... The incomprehensible combinations of them Certainly don't.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:33:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
BUT! My doubt of Conceptual Contradictions chances of Actual Existence is Great... Even Greater than my doubt of those "seeming" things that are my concepts.

not Really.. the level of Doubt is the same for both.

I just find those "seeming" things... those Conceptual things... Useful...

whereas I find those Conceptual Contradictions Useless.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:41:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 3:23:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Who said anything about existence?

You kind of, sort of, implied that square-circles Might exist DESPITE their being non-sensical:
At 10/12/2010 6:49:08 AM, Kleptin wrote:
You Wrote:
What does a square circle look like?
Paired with the following:
The assumption that something is impossible does not make it so. It may just be representative of a cognitive limitation

This implication that square-circles might exist... is what I was refferring to.

We're talking about cognitive ability. We can visualize a square as well as a circle. Try to visualize a square circle.

I agree that putting the two concepts together makes no sense... and I agree that we may not be able to grasp certain things (IN FACT I believe we can't Fully understand Anything: )

BUT! My doubt of Conceptual Contradictions chances of Actual Existence is Great... Even Greater than my doubt of those "seeming" things that are my concepts.

There's not any such things as Square-circles... There's not even Regular Circles!

My idea of Circles is Derived from my Limited, Perspective based, manner of understanding...

The idea (or suggestion) of Square-circles are a product of those Perspective based concepts... those Limited Understandings...

AND being that those Initial Concepts (like Circles) are perspective based (and so, kind of Flawed by our limited manner of understanding things) in the first place... the chances of Square-circles existing is NIL.... as the two factors of that Exist only in the Mind.. AND are Incompatible... and as our Conceptual Things (like circles) don't actually exist (as they are supposed to be)... The incomprehensible combinations of them Certainly don't.

I think I get what you're saying. Are you saying that it's a bad example because circles themselves are so absolute in definition that we can't really even understand them?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:51:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:41:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Are you saying that it's a bad example because circles themselves are so absolute in definition that we can't really even understand them?

I'm saying we understand the world in terms of Circles.. and stuff...

we work with our Concepts of Circles and the like... Naturally Understanding the world through them... We Naturally tend to care about certain of these "things" and it seems that Acting on some of them seems to lead to the beneficial Circumstances coming up.. so these natural concepts are apparently Useful.

HOWEVER... Circles don't actually exist...

their Seeming Existence is due to OUR nature.. Our manner of Understanding things... OUR perspective...

DESPITE their Apparent usefulness... They're Flawed.

Square-Circles are simply pairing together concepts... in such a way that they're not even Useful!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:00:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The only thing I was objecting/responding to regarding your post was the implication that square-circles might exist.

I think this is relevant to the thread In That in order to deny that possibility... I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:03:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:51:44 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:41:10 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Are you saying that it's a bad example because circles themselves are so absolute in definition that we can't really even understand them?

I'm saying we understand the world in terms of Circles.. and stuff...

we work with our Concepts of Circles and the like... Naturally Understanding the world through them... We Naturally tend to care about certain of these "things" and it seems that Acting on some of them seems to lead to the beneficial Circumstances coming up.. so these natural concepts are apparently Useful.

HOWEVER... Circles don't actually exist...

their Seeming Existence is due to OUR nature.. Our manner of Understanding things... OUR perspective...

DESPITE their Apparent usefulness... They're Flawed.

Square-Circles are simply pairing together concepts... in such a way that they're not even Useful!

I understand. I've been arguing the same point about agnosticism and how we assume things about the unnatural world based on our limited natural knowledge, how we try to apply the concepts we develop from the natural world outside their scope.

Circles and squares don't exist because they aren't things. They're descriptions of perfection. However, we can conceive of those two things, mentally. What we cannot do is cognitively visualize a square circle. We understand the properties of a square, we understand the properties of a circle. We can tell when something is square-shaped or circular. Cognitively, we can do no such thing about square circles.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 6:32:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
(IN FACT I believe we can't Fully understand Anything: )
What a wonderful contradiction!

...I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
Self-refuting argument. If all of our concepts are flawed, then so is this one. And if we don't have "access" to Reality, we can't even really claim that there IS such a Reality.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 8:13:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 6:32:52 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
(IN FACT I believe we can't Fully understand Anything: )
What a wonderful contradiction!

So they say... but they also can't Fully Explain anything!
(well, the "God Did It" people would say they do... but they really don't)

also... I'm quite content to work with plain old Understandings... not "Full" ones!
I don't know why it would be this way/what makes it this way.. but that's how it seems to be.

...I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
Self-refuting argument. If all of our concepts are flawed, then so is this one.
It certainly explains How I see it.

And if we don't have "access" to Reality, we can't even really claim that there IS such a Reality.

There certainly seems to be one! It's incomprehensible Why there would be one.. and Quite Incomprehensible to think there's not.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 9:21:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 8:13:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 6:32:52 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/12/2010 6:27:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
(IN FACT I believe we can't Fully understand Anything: )
What a wonderful contradiction!
So they say... but they also can't Fully Explain anything!
Depends on what you mean by fully. If it's another contradiction, then probably not; but then again, it wouldn't be a very useful definition of "fully explain."

(well, the "God Did It" people would say they do... but they really don't)
See above.

also... I'm quite content to work with plain old Understandings... not "Full" ones!
No idea what you mean.

I don't know why it would be this way/what makes it this way.. but that's how it seems to be.
Actually, because it IS a contradiction, it literally means that's actually "not this way." In other words, if it is a contradiction, then what you are saying is false.

...I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
Self-refuting argument. If all of our concepts are flawed, then so is this one.
It certainly explains How I see it.
What you "see" and how you interpret it, are 2 different things. It would simply mean that your interpretation is logically flawed.

And if we don't have "access" to Reality, we can't even really claim that there IS such a Reality.
There certainly seems to be one!
If there "seems" then we have access, and you are wrong. If we don't have "access" then we can't make claims, and you are wrong. No matter how you slice it, there's only one logically valid answer: you are wrong.

It's incomprehensible Why there would be one.. and Quite Incomprehensible to think there's not.
False dichotomy. There is one and it's the one that's commonly observed through science. Can there be more? Certainly, but without empirical evidence, it can range from pure speculation to an untested theory depending on the "science."

The only "seeming" being done here is PURE SPECULATION akin to magical unicorns. This of course, is ludicrous.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 9:51:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 9:21:39 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
also... I'm quite content to work with plain old Understandings... not "Full" ones!
No idea what you mean.

I'm ok with operating upon those concepts that naturally come to me... Shapes, and dimensions... people... sciences... etc...

So long as operating Based upon them Seems to be consistent and allow me to consistently seek and get to arrange things How I naturally care to have them... :) I'm quite content

I don't know why it would be this way/what makes it this way.. but that's how it seems to be.
Actually, because it IS a contradiction, it literally means that's actually "not this way." In other words, if it is a contradiction, then what you are saying is false.

It's NOT literally a contradiction...

I can have Some understanding.. some concept... some idea of something... W/O being able to Fully understand all the "Why's" of that thing... without Fully understanding how that "conceptual thing" is as an "Ultimate Thing" how it ties into Ultimate, Metaphysicalish, BEING.

I would suggest a "pragmatic" approach... and REJECT all claims to attaining any kind of Absolute. (beyond that SOMETHING exists... rejecting that one would seemingly be impossible to get your mind around)

...I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
Self-refuting argument. If all of our concepts are flawed, then so is this one.
It certainly explains How I see it.
What you "see" and how you interpret it, are 2 different things. It would simply mean that your interpretation is logically flawed.

no... they're not... Not in the way I meant it...

I mean My understanding.. Not my visual functions.

And if we don't have "access" to Reality, we can't even really claim that there IS such a Reality.
There certainly seems to be one!
If there "seems" then we have access, and you are wrong. If we don't have "access" then we can't make claims, and you are wrong. No matter how you slice it, there's only one logically valid answer: you are wrong.

I never said "access" You did... and it's a mischarecterization of what I said.

It's incomprehensible Why there would be one.. and Quite Incomprehensible to think there's not.
False dichotomy. There is one and it's the one that's commonly observed through science. Can there be more? Certainly, but without empirical evidence, it can range from pure speculation to an untested theory depending on the "science."

Firstly... I wasn't giving two sets to pick from...

and secondly, Nothing you've said above conflicts with Either of my two statements.

LOL... all your responses seem to show that you don't read/don't understand what I've said.

The only "seeming" being done here is PURE SPECULATION akin to magical unicorns. This of course, is ludicrous.

no... If I thought I saw a Unicorn... if it seemed as though it came up close to me.. and gave me a Rejuvinating Feel Good potion from it's tears... EVEN THOUGH I COULDN'T BE SURE that that apparent happening happened... or that the happening is best characterized as A Unicorn giving me tear potions... If I ever Seem to see a Unicorn again.. I'm gonna try to get me some Potion!

same with my Grandma's Apple Pie! :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 10:33:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 9:51:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 9:21:39 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
also... I'm quite content to work with plain old Understandings... not "Full" ones!
No idea what you mean.
I'm ok with operating upon those concepts that naturally come to me... Shapes, and dimensions... people... sciences... etc...
Who isn't?

So long as operating Based upon them Seems to be consistent and allow me to consistently seek and get to arrange things How I naturally care to have them... :) I'm quite content
Not too self-centered.

I don't know why it would be this way/what makes it this way.. but that's how it seems to be.
Actually, because it IS a contradiction, it literally means that's actually "not this way." In other words, if it is a contradiction, then what you are saying is false.
It's NOT literally a contradiction...
Right. It's 1/2 literal a contradiction. *face palm*
Yes, but no, but yes, but no...

I can have Some understanding.. some concept... some idea of something... W/O being able to Fully understand all the "Why's" of that thing...without Fully understanding how that "conceptual thing" is as an "Ultimate Thing" how it ties into Ultimate, Metaphysicalish, BEING.
You can have limited understanding, sure. The problem comes in when you try to make statements of full understanding when there is only partial.

I would suggest a "pragmatic" approach... and REJECT all claims to attaining any kind of Absolute. (beyond that SOMETHING exists... rejecting that one would seemingly be impossible to get your mind around)
Which is in itself an absolute. Again, self-refuting. There is no need to reject all absolutes, not to mention the fact that it is impossible. There will always be at least one absolute. This isn't pragmatic at all. It's actually quite the opposite.

...I'm suggesting ALL of our concepts are Flawed... and no conceptual objects can be said to explain Reality :)... but only how We can see it.
Self-refuting argument. If all of our concepts are flawed, then so is this one.
It certainly explains How I see it.
What you "see" and how you interpret it, are 2 different things. It would simply mean that your interpretation is logically flawed.
no... they're not... Not in the way I meant it...
Are you going to hide behind that? No one knows how you "meant it" but we can clearly see how you "expressed it" and based on that, it IS logically flawed.

I mean My understanding.. Not my visual functions.
No idea what you mean.

And if we don't have "access" to Reality, we can't even really claim that there IS such a Reality.
There certainly seems to be one!
If there "seems" then we have access, and you are wrong. If we don't have "access" then we can't make claims, and you are wrong. No matter how you slice it, there's only one logically valid answer: you are wrong.
I never said "access" You did... and it's a mischarecterization of what I said.
Seems = Access. You did say seem, did you not?

It's incomprehensible Why there would be one.. and Quite Incomprehensible to think there's not.
False dichotomy. There is one and it's the one that's commonly observed through science. Can there be more? Certainly, but without empirical evidence, it can range from pure speculation to an untested theory depending on the "science."
Firstly... I wasn't giving two sets to pick from...
Sure looks like you are.

and secondly, Nothing you've said above conflicts with Either of my two statements.
Then why are you having to defend your statements?

LOL... all your responses seem to show that you don't read/don't understand what I've said.
LOL! Try again.

The only "seeming" being done here is PURE SPECULATION akin to magical unicorns. This of course, is ludicrous.
no... If I thought I saw a Unicorn... if it seemed as though it came up close to me.. and gave me a Rejuvinating Feel Good potion from it's tears... EVEN THOUGH I COULDN'T BE SURE that that apparent happening happened... or that the happening is best characterized as A Unicorn giving me tear potions... If I ever Seem to see a Unicorn again.. I'm gonna try to get me some Potion!
Why to side step the argument. The point is that one should not expect logical contradictions to be physically expressible.

same with my Grandma's Apple Pie! :)
Again, no idea what you are talking about.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 10:33:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Again, no idea what you are talking about.

I was going to AGAIN respond to all these evident misunderstandings you have of what was said (which, again, became obvious through your responses)...

but this seems like a never ending trend... which I'm good with ending here.

thanks!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 11:28:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 11:26:29 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 10:33:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Again, no idea what you are talking about.

I was going to AGAIN respond to all these evident misunderstandings you have of what was said (which, again, became obvious through your responses)...

but this seems like a never ending trend... which I'm good with ending here.

thanks!

Great! Now we can get to more substantive posts, instead of indefensible non-sense.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 11:35:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 11:28:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Great! Now we can get to more substantive posts, instead of indefensible non-sense.

I've noticed in your time here that so long as You pipe in on threads... silly misunderstandings are sure to abound!... so I'm sure wherever you're at will have quite it's fill of useless talk...

so, no worries now!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."