No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.
— John Harris
and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.
↪John Harris
So Logical positivism is not "real Positivism" now? :-}
You're starting to look like a bad joke, man.
This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:) — John Harris
i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.
so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.
This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)
— John Harris
I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.
And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods.
— John Harris
So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???
I don't have to show how something natural that might not be capable of being found could avoid being found, because I haven't claimed any such thing exists, merely that it might exist
So, don't ask for the impossible, and pretend that my inability to do so in any way supports your contentions. I am now not even sure what your position is, since you seem now to be inconsistently claiming that you allow for the same possibility that I do (which if it were true would make your initial disagreement with me totally senseless).
I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.
— John Harris
What are those if not mechanical extensions of the senses?
No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on. — John Harris
So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???
No, I didn't say that there at all. But thanks for proving you can't show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. — John Harris
the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found — John Harris
Don't you dare Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.
That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life. — Locks
No, deep like your nether regions...:) — John Harris
Undercover as what? — Locks
you show you're an angry, hostile person... — John Harris
Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. — John Harris
No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. — John Harris
I have a deep soul. — John Harris
I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question. — John Harris
What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. — John Harris
Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly.
— John Harris
They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.
No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory.
— John Harris
That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too.
I have a deep soul.
— John Harris
Evidence that you are lying.
I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.
— John Harris
I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question.
So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?
[What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated.
— John Harris
You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.
.I am having a hard time understanding how our experience of consciousness as an animal removes the possibility of a soul
.or how 'if then' factors interacting with each other disqualify the possibility.
.if you'd like to expand on them, go for it.
.If we were born to experience the same world without a soul like influence yet individualized
., then how did humanity become individuals to begin with?
.how did culture and artificiality arise
What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. — John Harris
You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical. — John Harris
What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it.
— John Harris
No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such.
Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age.
You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.
— John Harris
Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?
John Harris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.