Technology?

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's worse than that, it's physics Jim...

Originally posted by Hotpoint
By the way, since I don't believe in "miracles", but do believe in the evidence of my own eyes, I seek scientifically plausible explanations... please continue to shoot them down as they come eventually I might find one that sticks

Hotpoint, far be it from me to agree with Manike on anything, but you can't quote Hegel / Neitzche in one breath and then deny science in the next.
One's own experience is mediated by many things, most of which have the ability to deceive, but Manike's points, are from what I can see, completely sound and rigorous.
Hardly the stuff to be ignored....well not unless you are an idiot and I don't think you are.
Robbo

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's worse than that, it's physics Jim...

Originally posted by Robbo


1) I think, therefore I am.
2) I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.
3) There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).
4) I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.
5) My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.
6) The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance (God).

Well for a start

6) The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance (God).

This presupposes that effect must necessarily have cause which is simply a viewpoint based upon our perception of reality.

In more concrete terms could not everything in our universe simply exist by random chance with no beginning and no end? Why not a steady-state or indeed a perpetual loop?

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by manike
I agree until point 3) and follow it all the way down to point 5) but then the jump to point 6) is astounding and based on a presumptuous point 3).
It's an extremely arrogant set of assumptions and definitions which are only correct if the person is correct in their ideas (not their belief of their ideas which we can not doubt). If their ideas are initially incorrent it all falls down like a house of cards.
It hangs on point 3) on which point my idea is that it's a mistaken point...
manike

OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!
Manike calling Descartes arrogant, ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!

The irony is sublime and so fitting.
Manike, do you realise the enormity of that own goal?

TJ Your degree (in you know what) may well prove invaluable at this point

Robbo

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's worse than that, it's physics Jim...

Originally posted by Robbo


Hotpoint, far be it from me to agree with Manike on anything, but you can't quote Hegel / Neitzche in one breath and then deny science in the next.

When did I do that? I don't deny anything Manike said I just think there may be more to it. I might be wrong but I'm still looking

Seeking explanations for observed phenomena must be the basis of science surely?

 

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's worse than that, it's physics Jim...

Originally posted by Hotpoint

Well for a start
6) The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance (God).
This presupposes that effect must necessarily have cause which is simply a viewpoint based upon our perception of reality.
In more concrete terms could not everything in our universe simply exist by random chance with no beginning and no end? Why not a steady-state or indeed a perpetual loop?

Hotpoint, now why didn't you just put your hands in the air and surrender ?
I mean, questioning 'cause and effect' is one thing but trying to substantiate your rebuttal with 'random' arguments and perpetual loop universes is just a tad bit embarrassing.
Leastwise in my universe it is
Robbo

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

My two cents (and a hurried reading of Meditations many years ago):

"Cogito ergo sum" provides an answer to Descartes method of doubt, but the only solid conclusion is "What am I? A thing which thinks"

The reasons that Descartes tries to establish a justified belief in the external world fall short of this elegant solution, victims of his own exhaustive test of scepticism. He is forced to conclude that the external world exists "more likely than not" and he is justified in that belief because God would not deceive him (and consequently have a world where there was no reason in believeing anything, for example causation!) Hardly conclusive reasoning, but common sense at least.

Anyway, let's not take philosophy too seriously - Descartes caught pneumonia and died getting up too early to give classes to some Princess. Lesson there for us all . . .

 

[TJ Lambini]

Hmmm

Some eminent thinkers have actually queried the cogito IIRC, and have reduced point one to: There is thinking going on...

Ooooh, look - tha worms are all getting outta tha can I just opened...

 

[manike]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's worse than that, it's physics Jim...

Eeeww you just lost all credability...

Originally posted by Hotpoint
By the way, since I don't believe in "miracles", but do believe in the evidence of my own eyes, I seek scientifically plausible explanations...

the human eye is the most innacurate method of measurement possible. It's taught to recognise patterns where there are none and to fill in the gaps. It's proven wrong by so many basic tests and examples... let me find one for you...

Go look at this and using your own eyes count the black dots for me...

http://eyetricks.com/0101.gif

or tell us if this one is a spiral...

http://eyetricks.com/0104.gif

or which centre dot is bigger...

http://eyetricks.com/0105.gif

Now tell me your eyes don't play tricks on themselves... and are forced to do so by your minds perception. When you pay £2000 for a marker your mind wants it to shoot farther and more accurately... so that's what you see...

If you want me to believe anything when it comes to paintball dynamics then you need to come up with a lot more proof than 'I saw it'...

manike

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
My two cents (and a hurried reading of Meditations many years ago):
"Cogito ergo sum" provides an answer to Descartes method of doubt, but the only solid conclusion is "What am I? A thing which thinks"
The reasons that Descartes tries to establish a justified belief in the external world fall short of this elegant solution, victims of his own exhaustive test of scepticism. He is forced to conclude that the external world exists "more likely than not" and he is justified in that belief because God would not deceive him (and consequently have a world where there was no reason in believeing anything, for example causation!) Hardly conclusive reasoning, but common sense at least.
Anyway, let's not take philosophy too seriously - Descartes caught pneumonia and died getting up too early to give classes to some Princess. Lesson there for us all . . .

Ahhh, common sense, such a virtue and author of so many truths

Damn, I just made that up, I must be a philosopher....especially now I can be quoted

 

[manike]

Originally posted by Robbo
OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!
Manike calling Descartes arrogant, ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!

The irony is sublime and so fitting.
Manike, do you realise the enormity of that own goal?

Nope not in the slightest I didn't study philosophy or ART so much of this stuff goes way over my head, but as ever I am willing to voice an opinion

Where can I learn more about this guy, and prey tell me what is so amusing?

manike