| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2006 11:17:59 PM |
| Object: |
Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
Reason is the ONLY tool of man's knowledge and yes bad tradesman always
blame their tools. Such people will say stupid things like "reason has
limitations, it doesn't.
The truth means, to conform to reality, reality has no contradictions
and to deny that requires the acceptance of it to do so, therefore it
makes perfect sense to have reality as the standard, as the meaning, as
the method to identify the truth.
Reason is the ONLY tool man has available to him to identify and
eliminate the contradictions between his ideas and the facts of reality
which has no contradictions.
Reason is the ONLY process man has to determine fact from fiction,
truth from untruth.
Reason has no faults, man's application of reason (thinking) can have
plenty of faults, e.g. check out chazlost's posts for absolute evidence
of a reason rejecting and the unthinking mind.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
16 Sep 2006 02:20:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Reason is the ONLY tool of man's knowledge and yes bad tradesman always
blame their tools. Such people will say stupid things like "reason has
limitations, it doesn't.
You can reason for practically any point of view through a seemingly
faultless logical reasoning. In the end it is up to every person's own
judgement what to support.
We humans are not perfect logical beings, we are not computers.
If we were we could make decision machines which would make discussions
superfluous, we could let a computer make all the important decisions.
When we discovered this the era of logic system builders was over.
Hegel is said to be the last great philosophical system builder.
Wittgenstein tried to create a logical system too but never got so far
as to include all known parts of human thinking.
The last remnants of the thinking based on logic reasoning alone is
what is called analytical philosophy. Their influence has decreased
steadily as we realize that humans are only animals, with brains that
work in many different ways, and logic reasoning is only one way to
think.
The truth means, to conform to reality, reality has no contradictions
There are not two persons in the world who can agree to 100% what the
reality is, and very few people can even understand what you mean with
contradictions in reality.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
16 Sep 2006 02:54:11 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
We humans are not perfect logical beings,
So that was not a perfectly logical opinion? Well thats true it wasn't,
because logic is an art, or a process of man of non-contradictory
identification and integration. Logic is never at fault, man's use of
it is.
e.g. try and breath under water unaided and you will find that that
action will contradict the fact you have lungs and a body which need to
get oxygen from air.
When we discovered this the era of logic system builders was over.
What did you or they discover that the process of logic couldn't solve?
Come of give a real example, i.e. an example not invented of man's
mind.
There are not two persons in the world who can agree to 100% what the
reality is,
Oh so, in the world, you are totally on your own, you agree ONLY with
yourself, when you claim that as being a fact of 100% reality?
Yes well I can understand why you would be on your own with that one
Roger.
and very few people can even understand what you mean with
contradictions in reality.
You can only speak for yourself, so dump the arrogance Roger.
Do YOU Roger, understand what is meant when it is said, there are no
contradictions in reality because what is real is real, when faced with
a contradiction check your premise/s because one of them is wrong?
Oh ok, let me repeat the above example, completely submerge your bare
head (no artificial breathing aparatus) in a huge tub of water and take
a huge deep breath of air, and bingo, two contradictions instantly
become obvious, one, man can not get the oxygen he needs to breath from
water, second, water is not air so you cant take a breath of air from
it.
Men do not walk in space outside of their space craft unless they are
dressed in a special suit which holds their body together, if they did
they would notice an instant contradiction of their actions against the
nature of the thing called the vacuum of space.
There are no contradictions in reality because what is real is real, to
deny that fact requires the acceptance of it to do so.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 03:01:10 PM |
|
|
Randroids' minds are purty darn limited.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dogluin" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
19 Sep 2006 01:59:56 AM |
|
|
Forsooth!
Bret Cahill wrote:
Randroids' minds are purty darn limited.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
16 Sep 2006 02:55:57 AM |
|
|
Reason cannot come up with its own axioms. It is incomplete and I am
not referring to Godel's theorum.
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Reason is the ONLY tool of man's knowledge and yes bad tradesman always
blame their tools. Such people will say stupid things like "reason has
limitations, it doesn't.
The truth means, to conform to reality, reality has no contradictions
and to deny that requires the acceptance of it to do so, therefore it
makes perfect sense to have reality as the standard, as the meaning, as
the method to identify the truth.
Reason is the ONLY tool man has available to him to identify and
eliminate the contradictions between his ideas and the facts of reality
which has no contradictions.
Reason is the ONLY process man has to determine fact from fiction,
truth from untruth.
Reason has no faults, man's application of reason (thinking) can have
plenty of faults, e.g. check out chazlost's posts for absolute evidence
of a reason rejecting and the unthinking mind.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
16 Sep 2006 03:36:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Reason cannot come up with its own axioms.
That doesn't make sense, the axiom of reason is existence, why? Because
you cant disprove existence without a contradiction, what are you
claiming doesn't exist? To deny existence is to say that something
doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence
exists.
The onus of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.
You can only identify that which exists without contradiction, because
it does exist without contradiction, non-contradictory identificationa
and integration, is, the other foot of reason, in a word *logic*.
Reason requires
Sensory input data (eyes ears nose feel touch) and logic (the
identifcation and integration of that information).
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dogluin" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 02:00:14 AM |
|
|
The truth means, to conform to reality, reality has no contradictions
I'm a Cosmic Shmuck.
I'm going to propose the notion that there is no concrete "reality"
apart from our experience of it. Our experience is completely
alterable. To suggest there exists an comprehensible reality
independent of our preception of it is a bold statement, if indeed that
is what your remarks imply. If so, I'd really like to hear its founding
assertions.
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:
roastfreesteel@yahoo.com wrote:
Reason cannot come up with its own axioms.
That doesn't make sense, the axiom of reason is existence, why? Because
you cant disprove existence without a contradiction, what are you
claiming doesn't exist? To deny existence is to say that something
doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence
exists.
The onus of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.
You can only identify that which exists without contradiction, because
it does exist without contradiction, non-contradictory identificationa
and integration, is, the other foot of reason, in a word *logic*.
Reason requires
Sensory input data (eyes ears nose feel touch) and logic (the
identifcation and integration of that information).
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 02:24:06 AM |
|
|
Dogluin wrote:
I'm going to propose the notion that there is no concrete "reality"
apart from our experience of it.
How about that statement? Is it based on reality, or just an example of
unexperienced imagination, hogwash in other words?
Our experience is completely
alterable.
Including therefore my experience of that? Thank ***** for that, because
my experience of that is, what silly crap.
To suggest there exists an comprehensible reality
independent of our preception of it is a bold statement, if indeed that
is what your remarks imply. If so, I'd really like to hear its founding
assertions.
To deny it is to accept it as the axiom to do so.
Reality is real, what is real has no contradictions and to claim that
position is not true, therefore claiming there are contradictons in
reality as being being true, requires the acceptance of the idea that
there are no contradictions in reality to claim your position as
correct.
Both positions cant both be true.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dogluin" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 02:45:11 AM |
|
|
"Reality" = Perception -(i.e. the faculty of human senses, awareness,
conciousness, etc.)
Perception = Alterable (How, you say? Take the effects of using
marijuana, for example.)
Therefore, "Reality" is changeable.
I think this is the last of my engagement in this petty quibble.
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Dogluin wrote:
I'm going to propose the notion that there is no concrete "reality"
apart from our experience of it.
How about that statement? Is it based on reality, or just an example of
unexperienced imagination, hogwash in other words?
Our experience is completely
alterable.
Including therefore my experience of that? Thank ***** for that, because
my experience of that is, what silly crap.
To suggest there exists an comprehensible reality
independent of our preception of it is a bold statement, if indeed that
is what your remarks imply. If so, I'd really like to hear its founding
assertions.
To deny it is to accept it as the axiom to do so.
Reality is real, what is real has no contradictions and to claim that
position is not true, therefore claiming there are contradictons in
reality as being being true, requires the acceptance of the idea that
there are no contradictions in reality to claim your position as
correct.
Both positions cant both be true.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 02:53:00 AM |
|
|
Dogluin wrote:
"Reality" = Perception -
Oh so thats not real statement of fact, its only a perception of it?
Therefore, "Reality" is changeable.
Into what?
I think this is the last of my engagement in this petty quibble.
Yes well that doesn't surprise me, need another puff huh?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 03:22:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Dogluin wrote:
I'm going to propose the notion that there is no concrete "reality"
apart from our experience of it.
Reality is real, what is real has no contradictions and to claim that
position is not true, therefore claiming there are contradictons in
reality as being being true, requires the acceptance of the idea that
there are no contradictions in reality to claim your position as
correct.
Both positions cant both be true.
No, but both can be false, and that is the case here.
None of us can know with 100% certainty how reality is, because we have
only the individual subjective experiences of the reality.
We cannot even be 100% sure there is a reality, but it seems very very
likely that there is a reality.
So Gordge is wrong in claiming that he knows exactly what the reality
is like, and Dogluin is wrong when he says that reality does not exist.
The best approximation we have to reality is what most scientists agree
about, after a lot of critical thinking and testing, communication
between each other and agreement on many facts. They say, for example,
that the earth rotates around the sun. That is very likely a correct
description of the reality we live in.
In the modern secular world there is no absolute truth.
Logic and math are theoretical models which can be applied to reality
sometimes, in certain ways, and they can give fairly good results
within certain limits.
For example Ohm's law, U=I*R is applicable in certain situations and
within certain limits. It gives results which have a certain level of
precision.
When there is a difference between the map and reality it is reality
that really counts.
We have no absolutely perfect models and no absolutely perfect logic.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 04:02:22 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
No, but both can be false, and that is the case here.
Oh so you are accepting the idea that there are no contradictions in
reality as the standard to claim your position is true?
None of us can know with 100% certainty how reality is, because we have
only the individual subjective experiences of the reality.
Oh so thats only your nonsensical imagined whimsical unobjective
therefore silly irrational subjective view, therefore the rational mind
treats it as it deserves, laughs a lot at it.
We cannot even be 100% sure there is a reality,
You can only speak for you and obviously you are.
So Gordge is wrong
No he's not, because you are using non-contradictory identifiocation to
claim your position as true, A is A and not even silly ol you can
escape that fact, oh and its Mr Gordge to ewe.
in claiming that he knows exactly what the reality
is like, and Dogluin is wrong when he says that reality does not exist.
And you are right to say you talk a whole lot of subjective silly
nonsensical crap.
The best approximation we have to reality is what most scientists agree
about,
Dumb bugger, even science knows to look for contradictions because they
know that reality has none.
We have no absolutely perfect models and no absolutely perfect logic.
Therefore that is not based on perfect logic, thats true its not.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 05:30:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You can only speak for you and obviously you are.
In that message I described the current position in the fields of
science and the philosophy of science.
If you can prove I am wrong in anything I wrote in that message you
will get a Nobel prize for it. Because that has been the common view in
the scientific community for hundreds of years, and it is not expected
to change anytime soon.
If you can change anything in that view of knowledge as we know it
today you will change the whole basis for all science, and for all
knowledge in general, and that would be a world sensation bigger than
everything Einstein ever produced.
Instead of spewing out a lot of anger and foul language you should read
my articles carefully, and learn from them, because I know a lot more
than you will ever know.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 06:02:00 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
In that message I described the current position in the fields of
science and the philosophy of science.
Well if that is true, and its not, then all the more reason then for
human beings all over the planet to be very very affraid.
Lets just deal with your opening regurgitation from the bible I mean,
from *science and the philosophy of science" which sets the context and
the standard for everything else you claim as being "the current
position in the fields of science and the philosophy of science." quote
unquote
Quote
"None of us can know with 100% certainty how reality is, because we
have
only the individual subjective experiences of the reality." quote
unquote
Obvious Question:
Is that a subjective or objective observtion of the reality of "the
current position in the fields of science and the philosophy of
science."?
Dont worry that's a rhetorical question, because the statement itself
says it is a subjective observation of reality.
Now, show me the meaning that "the current position in the fields of
science and the philosophy of science" use for *subjective* and how it
differs from objective.
And then go on to explain the meaning that "the current position in the
fields of science and the philosophy of science" use for *objective*
and then, if you can which you cant, explain how you can do so without
contradicting "the current position in the fields of science and the
philosophy of science." that everything they know is determined
subjectively?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 10:05:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In that message I described the current position in the fields of
science and the philosophy of science.
Lets just deal with your opening regurgitation from the bible I mean,
from *science and the philosophy of science" which sets the context and
the standard for everything else you claim as being "the current
position in the fields of science and the philosophy of science." quote
unquote
Quote
"None of us can know with 100% certainty how reality is, because we
have
only the individual subjective experiences of the reality." quote
unquote
Obvious Question:
Is that a subjective or objective observtion of the reality of "the
current position in the fields of science and the philosophy of
science."?
When I say: The earth rotates around the sun I communicate to you a
fact which I have subjectively experienced through communication that
most scientists agree upon.
What I said above is of the same quality, most scientists and
philosophers of science agree upon what I told you, but, of course this
agreement has gone through my subjective ways to understand it. And it
has gone through my personal way of describing it in that message
before it reached your eyes.
As long as scientists use real world terms which are difficult to
misunderstand the communication between them is as clear as we can make
it, and it is very difficult for an individual scientist to
misunderstand what is communicated.
I did not use the word objective, because I had no use for it.
There is no "objective" way to experience communication or the real
world we experience through our senses.
If somebody uses a term like "the objective reality" he means the
agreed upon view of the world as he subjectively experiences it through
communication with other scientists.
Dont worry that's a rhetorical question, because the statement itself
says it is a subjective observation of reality.
Don't worry about confusing me, because I have been playing these word
games which you can see scientific and philosophical discussions as, if
you like, for longer than you have lived. I know exactly what I am
saying, and I can back up every word of it.
If you can understand it or not, is another issue.
Now, show me the meaning that "the current position in the fields of
science and the philosophy of science" use for *subjective* and how it
differs from objective.
The subjective is the way each individual receives communication and
stimuli from outside his mind, and we all do that in slightly different
ways, we all have our individual filter which we receive the outside
world through. The scientists, and serious philosophers, use very
precisely defined real world terms to reduce the disturbing effect of
each person's subjective way to receive information as much as
possible.
In the sentence: "The earth rotates around the sun" every term is
precisely defined and practically impossible to misunderstand. That is
the way to communicate so that most scientists will understand the
sentence in the same way. Through such precisely defined communication
we can come to an agreement about a certain fact, and the risk is
practically nil that any of us has misunderstood what it means, in
spite of the fact that we all receive information in a uniquely
subjective way.
And then go on to explain the meaning that "the current position in the
fields of science and the philosophy of science" use for *objective*
The word objective is not used by serious philosophers of science who
want to be very precise in their communication, because there is no
objective way to receive information. The expression "the objective
reality" has been used to describe the real world we assume exists. Our
communication of the sentence "the earth rotates around the sun", for
example, has given us a model for how the planetary system works. This
model has been tested by millions of scientists and they all agree that
this model is very likely correct.
It is a view of the world we have agreed upon, and some call it the
objective reality, which is a sloppy way to express it from the
perspective of a strict philosopher of science. A more correct way to
express it is to say that this is the model we have agreed upon, built
on each scientists subjective view and communicated in a language which
is precise enough to avoid misunderstandings.
and then, if you can which you cant, explain how you can do so without
contradicting "the current position in the fields of science and the
philosophy of science." that everything they know is determined
subjectively?
I just did that.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 05:03:13 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
When I say: The earth rotates around the sun I communicate to you a
fact which I have subjectively experienced through communication that
most scientists agree upon.
There are three main problems with your nonsense Roger, you are
equating epistemology with metaphysics, you are claiming the state of
consciousness as the primary requirement for man's knowledge and you
are giving a false and nonsensical meaning to subjective and objective.
Metaphysics is what exists and what we know.
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, it is the process man uses to
know what he knows.
Man's consciousness NOT the primary of man's knowledge, existence is.
There has to be something existing for man's mind to be conscious of,
the conscious mind can not be conscious of nothing.
You use words like agreement and yet that is what I call starting the
argument at the *tenth floor*
WHAT is being agreed about is the foundation of the process of gaining
knowledge and HOW is that agreement is reached is, the process used and
BOTH MUST be in place first, before there can be any agreement about
anything.
There can be no rational agreement in the presense of blatant
contradiction and I'm certain Roger, that if you asked the members of
your bogus higher authority, they would albeit accidentally agree with
me there.
They would agree with me because they know absolutely that there are no
contradictions in reality, indeed Roger you have to use that as the
standard to disagree with me.
Contrary to your silly assertions, to be subjective does NOT mean to be
applying the process of non-contradictory identification and integation
of man's sense data.
To be subjective means the exact opposite, it means to deliberately
reject non-contradictory identification and integration of sense data
as the ONLY means to man's knowledge.
The objective mind of reason is the mind holding objective sensory
reality / sensory evidence as the primary of all of his knowledge ALONG
WITH AND NOT TO BE LEFT OUT the process of, non-contradictory
identification and integration of that sense data is called, logic.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 04:10:01 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
but, of course this
agreement...
*agreement*
*The reaching or sharing of the same opinion that somebody or others
hold*
So *what* is being agreed about? Wouldn't be existing sensory evidence
of the matter of reality, which exists without contradiction, would it
Roger?
So HOW do you go about getting others to *agree* with your opinions, if
not with the use of non-contradictory identification and integration of
the matter of sensory evidence?
Surely non-contradiction plays an extemely important role Roger? But
non-contradiction of *what* surely is just as important Roger.
Indeed Roger, you have resorted to precisley that, to validate your
albeit silly claim, e.g. you have appealed and presented as sensory
evidence an existent *higher authority*, "the current position in the
fields of science and the philosophy of science"
Why should anyone agree with that mob of fools, if everything they
believe is subjective anyway?
What other evidence, besides your bizarre appeal to the higher
authority, are you using to substaniate your claim that your opinion is
something I ought agree with?
For example
What ultimate and primary standard are you using to get e.g. *me* to
agree with *you* that everything in reality is subjectively determined?
I ask that obviously because there is NO, got that NO, agreement
between us at all. And I ask that because I *know* absolutely that
there are no, absolutely no contradictions in reality, because what is
real is real. To deny that Roger requires you to use it as the axiom,
you do understand that dont you? Because you keep avoiding it.
e.g. are you claiming I am wrong because you have found something which
contradicts the non-contradicting truth / reality of your claim, other
than that higher authority nonsense of course?
**What** specifically do you think the first types of agreements
between man were about?
Dont you think that it is possible that it HAD to be about something
which existed which HAD to be identified without contradiction?
You see Roger you are very confusing, because the ONLY proof you have
offered for your silly nonsense, so far has been, your totally
unsubstaniated regurgitation that "the current position in the fields
of science and the philosophy of science" is the validation / evidence
that you are expecting anyone to *agree* with you.
And it
has gone through my personal way of describing it in that message
before it reached your eyes.
Which explains why it is so confusing and nonsensical.
If somebody uses a term like "the objective reality" he means the
agreed upon view of the world as he subjectively experiences it through
communication with other scientists.
Oh so now there IS something which HAS to exist (the world) for there
to be any *agreement* about? Yes I told you that.
So what *process* does *each* of these scientists use BEFORE they agree
with each other?
You see, in objective reality Roger, YOU can NOT have MY agreement for
me without MY permission.
This process to determine *agreement* Roger, it wouldn't by any chance
be the objective reality that, "contradictions do not exist in
reality", therefore contradictions of their perceptions of the sensory
existing evidence which is being identified, ALL of the contradictions
MUST be identified and eliminated BEFORE one scentist would agee with
another?
Tell me Roger, HOW do scientists go about having an agreement about
nothing which exists?
world through. The scientists, and serious philosophers, use very
precisely defined real world terms...
So you are neither a scientist nor a serious philosopher then?
In the sentence: "The earth rotates around the sun" every term is
precisely defined and practically impossible to misunderstand.
And that is ONLY because it can be demonstrated vividly and proven
absolutely without any contradiction what so ever, e.g. via man's sense
capacity, e.g. space ships and via the use of say a spinning beach
ball.
The word objective is not used by serious philosophers of science who
want to be very precise in their communication, because there is no
objective way to receive information.
What utter stupidity, tell that to the next brain damaged boxer you
meet.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 06:27:39 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
Instead of spewing out a lot of anger and foul language
Look you arrogant ignorant fucked up useless unthinking twit (note I
shall stop short of calling you a *commie ****** because at least you
have the courage of your convictions, as stupid as they are), but be
advised Roger I will speak exactly as I like to speak and a commie
money hating Castro arse licking envy ridden fuckwit like you, aint
going to change me, got that?
Now, do yourself a favour and stick to the subject if you dare and stop
being a fucking commie.
If you are lookng for an excuse not to defend your fucking stupidty
then there it is, and you're very welcome, because I certainly can
understand why you would want to run away from it.
you should read
my articles carefully, and learn from them, because I know a lot more
than you will ever know.
Roger, look, it is you who should THINK before you write, why? Because
you can NOT claim your position as being true which means, you can not
claim it as a position corresponding to reality, UNLESS you also use
*non-contradictory identiication and integration* as the standard to do
so, why? Because there are no contradictions in reality and you can NOT
deny that as being a fact of reality, without using *non-contradiction*
as the standard to do so.
I can NOT make that any clearer and it has been clear enough for people
like Brian Fletcher.
You can NOT say that *all knowledge is subjectively determined* and
then claim that position as being ojectively true, why?
Because what is true is true regardless of what you say it is, what is
true is real, what is real contains no contradictions, and what is real
is not imagined.
Subjective means something imagined, reality is NOT imagined.
Yes man thinks, uses a process of the mind to determne the reality of
what his senses perceive, but that is a totally different subject Roger
called metaphysics.
The problem with your POC ilk IS you equate epistemology with
metaphysics.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 06:38:49 AM |
|
|
"Reality is for people who can't take drugs."
-- head shop bumper sticker version of Nietzsche's "inversion of all
values."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dogluin" |
|
| Title: Re: Reason's Limitations = Man's Mind Alone |
18 Sep 2006 07:56:16 AM |
|
|
Hilarious.
Just for the record though, I don't deny "reality."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
