The DnD Sanctuary

Well, the word "supernatural" itself leaves me to desire.  I'd use some' like "paranormal" or "quasinatural", because you know what? Define "Nature"! :right:FOR REAL!!:left:

i believe in  predictions , Hypotesis , n/or pseudoscience only if that's something makes a sense .

i believe in supernatural , if there is Evidence of it .

aka that's for real and usefull .

How do you test any given, observable phenomenon for 'supernaturality' again? :rolleyes:

I said - the term seems to me not very accurate. You - would you like to define "Nature" first?

According to materialism, all the listed  things and ideas are natural. Nerve synapses conjure stuff up and what else can it be than natural?

At last you touched "supernatural" - half-theLounge is 'supernatural', and this thread is its Prophet.
Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

Silly people! This photo from Alaska best describes the supernatural.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.uncyclomedia.co%2Funcyclopedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa1%2FSarah-palin-wonder-woman.jpg%2F180px-Sarah-palin-wonder-woman.jpg&hash=8877319622535edd20711e914027f07e" rel="cached" data-hash="8877319622535edd20711e914027f07e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/thumb/a/a1/Sarah-palin-wonder-woman.jpg/180px-Sarah-palin-wonder-woman.jpg)

Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

I have talked about it at length in the religion/atheism threads. To me things (anything) doesn't merit discussion without a definition. Definitions set out the discusser's way of thinking, their logic. It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence" when they fail to define reality and evidence. Usually atheists claim the scientific and rational high ground, but when it comes to talk about God, all science and rationality go immediately out of window and they become worse than kindergarten children.

You have a list of stuff that in the poll implies your definition of the supernatural. That's a good start. However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural. To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification. To begin verifying, first you need a definition to narrow down the problem, to see if there's a problem at all.

However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural.

Do you believe in "supernatural"? (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=272.msg14930#msg14930)

Well, the word "supernatural" itself leaves me to desire.  I'd use some' like "paranormal" or "quasinatural"...

To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification.

On what grounds?:D
"Rational" implies some frame of reference - which is..? :)

Quote from: ersi on 2014-03-31, 10:05:34

To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification.

On what grounds?:D
"Rational" implies some frame of reference - which is..? :)

State the premises, definitions and hypotheses. For example, when seeking to verify goblins, define what qualifies as a goblin, how it relates to non-goblins, etc. As a result you will find out the nature and purpose of goblins, or maybe you will find out they don't exist. This is the rational way.

Whereas it's irrational to merely insist "Goblins (don't) exist" when not saying what a goblin is and what it means to exist.

 :lol:

It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence"

It seems to me quite the opposite: theists claim God is real "without any evidence whatsoever".
@Josh: Yes, I know this is off topic and belongs to another thread. :rolleyes:

It seems to me quite the opposite: theists claim God is real "without any evidence whatsoever".

They have some.
Their "evidence" (or evidence) is their belief/feeling(s) - sorta perception.

I agree partially. Evidences are things you can present to anybody else - unlike feelings, perceptions.

Evidences are things you can present to anybody else...

Do you believe in anybody else?
:whistle:

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Why!? It's perfectly relevant to at least the question about definitions! :idea: :P

O'k.
In other words, you seem to state that the factual differs from mere perceptions in that the former's evidence can be shared with others? :)

I believe in both of you, at least to the extent of your existence.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/beer002.gif)

I believe in both of you, at least to the extent of your existence.

... being yourself a mere glitch on the Net, huh?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wildberries.ru%2Ftm%2Fnew%2F940000%2F943371-1.jpg&hash=9fbb18b87776aba608e640d456f74554" rel="cached" data-hash="9fbb18b87776aba608e640d456f74554" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img1.wildberries.ru/tm/new/940000/943371-1.jpg)

the question about definitions

Good luck!

Good luck!

So..?
:rolleyes:  <psst! Do you believe in luck, by the way?  Is it natural or supernatural? sst>

Quote from: Josh on 2014-03-31, 07:34:16

Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

I have talked about it at length in the religion/atheism threads. To me things (anything) doesn't merit discussion without a definition. Definitions set out the discusser's way of thinking, their logic. It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence" when they fail to define reality and evidence. Usually atheists claim the scientific and rational high ground, but when it comes to talk about God, all science and rationality go immediately out of window and they become worse than kindergarten children.

You have a list of stuff that in the poll implies your definition of the supernatural. That's a good start. However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural. To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification. To begin verifying, first you need a definition to narrow down the problem, to see if there's a problem at all.

One's perception can be flawed no matter what definition you settle on. As usual you've took to mild insults to skew perceptions. Hardly reasonable or methodical. The mark of a weak point when you have to cast stones rather than present evidence. But then you based everything on your perception and that it is predominantly true. You would call me a materialist, tho I've seen no part of your definition that defines me. You hold to your own perception and push those to influence others to gather conclusions. By essence that is paranormal. And why such things as goblins and ghosts are perceived and passed to other's as well. There's a distinct possibly disproving goblins undermines your position.

The definition is understood well enough. What is natural and everything else is open-ended in science. There's plenty of room to accept anything all it has to do is be proven real thru a series of qualifications. There's little surprise people experience ghosts in a haunted house. Their perception is expecting any stray feeling they don't usually experience to be a ghost. Just as you find obvious flaws in religious doctrine yet want to believe your stray feeling have meaning.

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?

I like the discussion:up:
The way I understand the topic is generalising on all those Gross Posts Of Reality (which one actually is under question - i.e. should be [abbr=« »]quoted[/abbr] as being perceived and then understood by each and every particular observer).

Luck is a matter of subjective perception. It's a common perception for everyone. More common for some, less for others, so there's some debate. All this makes the concept of luck relevant, not irrelevant. Same with gods, goblins, supernatural, definitions, etc. It's all relevant. Barulheira simply doesn't like to sort things out rationally. It's too much work for him.

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?

There's lots of stuff happening before pregnancy that determines if pregnancy is to occur at all. Is the attraction or repulsion of the potential mating partners material or non-material?

Easy! Now "material" and not.  We need to define that in terms of reality.

Easy! Now "material" and not.  We need to define that in terms of reality.

My point easily shows that (arguably) non-material things are very much real. When you can't ignore it, it's real, even when there's no way to determine its materiality. I always bring this point up with topics like this.

For starters, I'm gonna argue that there's no such dichotomy as "material/immaterial" — but rather there's a more strict one: let's call one "mass" and the other "movement".
Roughly, all that exists as itself, by itself or something like that - will be mass, movements mean all kinds of processes with the former as participants. Thus, attractions and distractions mean processes (movements) involving high complexity interactions of - say - elements of our bodies.
How's that?

Don't tell me about soul, ok? By "mass" I don't mean "physical mass".
There's ONE MAIN dichotomy: something can damn exist - or not.

One more thing.
Let's distinct between objects — and their images.
As you call it, real objects can - not have, but - produce various number of images — depending on how many observers have an idea of them (they don't at all have to look at or in any other way perceive the objects "directly" - having A HINT at (or delusion) that something must be there is enough to form an image). Then we can presume, that there can exist images without [real] objects to produce them — take goblins?:) (Such ones can be considered images of ideas - the latter in turn being not the "mass" type objects but a product of perceiving certain sorts of movement(s):))

And yes, forming images falls itself under "movements":)

It's all relevant.

If you say so... :left:

What do you know about reality, Barul?

In context:
"Good luck" means: "Have a good luck debating such bullshit silliness philosophic stuff with somebody else." :right:

In context:
"Good luck" means: "Have a good luck debating such bullshit silliness philosophic stuff with somebody else." :right:

:o

Barulheira simply doesn't like to sort things out rationally. It's too much work for him.

Oh, you're doing that on purpose.  :doh:

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?

Quote from: ersi

There's lots of stuff happening before pregnancy that determines if pregnancy is to occur at all. Is the attraction or repulsion of the potential mating partners material or non-material?

Not so much an answer. But you're a feelings guy so that's perfect.

When you can't ignore it, it's real, even when there's no way to determine its materiality. I always bring this point up with topics like this.

No one is a 100% accurate observer all the time and when you add in the probability of coincidence and the consequences of belief or perception you end up with a meaningful chance you've been duped by your own feelings.     

No one is a 100% accurate observer all the time and when you add in the probability of coincidence and the consequences of belief or perception you end up with a meaningful chance you've been duped by your own feelings.     

So, you think you are duped and you go through life aimlessly? Such as using the word "feelings" without definition in a place where it doesn't belong. Granted.

I operate differently. I always make sure to eliminate any errors. There are methods for that, did you know? For example, it's good to know the difference of feelings and thoughts. It will help you a lot.

What's that difference? I don't feel you dig right here at all - "feelings" may be considered a simplified term for perception.

What's that difference? I don't feel you dig right here at all - "feelings" may be considered a simplified term for perception.

If you have any feelings at all, you should have noticed what Ensbb did. He replaced the term I had used and reasoned out with his own term without reasoning it out. This means that he is not just blind to comprehension, but also unwilling to comprehend.

Anyway, the difference between feelings and thoughts is the same as the difference between reaction (as in Newtonian mechanics) and reflection (as in a mirror). Pretty crucial difference in some contexts, certainly when discussing the modes of perception.

"Thought" implies complex and not directly relative to those primary concepts "goings-on". IF someone meant those "psychic objects" which can or can not be images of those real ones, then I prefer you use the term "idea". (I don't feel it implies much thinking, huh?;))

For rational beings, the barely detectable and potentially unreal things require much more thinking. Namely, they must think how those things can make sense.

I believe you're just piling up "entities": "sense", "detectability", "potentiality"... Those are highly complex movements as opposed to the core things from which we seem to have started. If you're gonna morph complexities, it's proper 1) to strictly determine the elements we're having now, and 2) not to skip steps (each next complexity must be an immediate derivate from the determined).

...it's proper 1) to strictly determine the elements we're having now, and 2) not to skip steps (each next complexity must be an immediate derivate from the determined).

If you complain I skipped any step, identify the step I skipped. Otherwise the complaint does not apply.

I made a basic distinction: feelings versus thoughts. I also said that this distinction has the same nature as the distinction of reaction versus reflection. This distinction contributes a lot to the understanding of what it means to perceive and what determines the reality of percepts. The distinction also provides some insight into our relationship with "entities".

It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.

I made a basic distinction: feelings versus thoughts.

In their common sense, they're highly superficial to what we took as the basics now. Let alone their relationships;)

This distinction contributes a lot to the understanding of what it means to perceive and what determines the reality of percepts.

"What it means" in terms of what?
"Percepts"? Explain - do you mean ideas or images?

It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.

You wasn't determining anything directly related to the basics.
And that's not okay! Applying to concepts/constructs which at the moment are outside our current frame/model is not o'k.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-01, 07:24:17

It's important to analyse epistemology when determining ontologies. I was sure I was proceeding slowly and carefully enough, but it's already over your head. Okay then.

You wasn't determining anything directly related to the basics.
And that's not okay! Applying to concepts/constructs which at the moment are outside our current frame/model is not o'k.

Metaphysics is the basics. You have to be open to yourself about your premises. Otherwise there's no analysis and no meaning.

I see you are very eager to build a model, but the model has to have a purpose, not only a structure. What is the purpose of your images versus ideas distinction? Is it not the same as my feelings versus thoughts? Can you say anything about the ontological status or nature of images and ideas? Their relationship with objects? If not, you are not doing it properly.

I'll expand: at a moment you rushed into arguing with Brian about something which neither originated from nor had any disambiguous connections to what was actually discussed. Thus creating an "ontological" Frankenstein.

Metaphysics is the basics.

That animal is a developed construct - which was developed not here and not by us.

You have to be open to yourself about your premises.

MY premises are mine - and I suggested them to y'all here as the starting point. If you then disagreed - I couldn't see/read that here.

but the model has to have a purpose

Utter and ultimate bullshit.
"Purpose" is a highly likely delusional anthropomorphism, deriving from such movements as religion and fear of unknown.
The "animal" is MIRACULOUSLY redundant in any model which is not yet HIGHLY developed.

What is the purpose of your images versus ideas distinction?

Amen! :doh:
There's no purpose except for making a distinction.

Can you say anything about the ontological status or nature of images and ideas?

They are here proposed constructs - which ones I, the proposer, has directly defined here.

...the ontological status or nature of images and ideas? Their relationship with objects?

I tried to outline them - but I haven't elaborated on that. So -- you're here being one of participants - why not to try that yourself!huh?
:lol:

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-01, 07:42:01

... say anything about the ontological status or nature of images and ideas?

They are here proposed constructs - which ones I, the proposer, has directly defined here.

These two concepts - or VERY similar ones - are QUITE MUCH used in general linguistics and cognitology -- but please note that I DIDN'T try to employ any "ready-made" concepts from those nor any other discipline -- including physics - which I prefer to apply to everything usually.:sherlock:
I don't try -- not that: I TRY NOT TO drag ANYTHING developed outside THIS DISCUSSION, "ready-made" here to use ingenuously. "Frankensteins" are no-good.

If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.

That's WHY there are (if) "real objects", there are perceptions, and there are images --- all that separately.
Feelings and emotions are complex movements involving such other complex movements/systems as our body chemistry, our psyche, etc.

Josh hijacked his own thread!  :jester:

Josh hijacked his own thread!  :jester:

Now someone needs to hijack Josh and bitch about it :right:

No, I don't believe in the supernatural, but I do believe in
http://www.yelp.com/biz/souper-natural-liverpool (http://www.yelp.com/biz/souper-natural-liverpool)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com%2Fbphoto%2FlcWMH3RwwCQvLuXRZeHKnw%2Fls.jpg&hash=be7a10b75437d961376fa900581dfc6b" rel="cached" data-hash="be7a10b75437d961376fa900581dfc6b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/lcWMH3RwwCQvLuXRZeHKnw/ls.jpg)

If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.  [controlled]

Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there. This is why ersi's psycho babble sounds religious to me. Only he's adopted a perception of 'one' rather than safety in numbers. The tactics remain the same; Hook, redirect questions that undermine, use suggestive language to evoke feeling and confuse the rest. It's a loop tactic that avoids anything they're unwilling to accept. Before he'll engage a question he can't answer he'll call you too dumb to understand and quit responding in an attempt to hold superiority. (From his perspective. Which is all that matters to him and the fundamental fault in his reasoning.) And also why everything is "this or that" or "His side vs the opposition". Spending too much time debunking theories the wrong way requires a distaste for science you don't wanna understand. The perception is that it's false so unworthy. But, theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right... Thus ersi's problem.

So, why are emotions precognitive and at times faulty? They are the basis for instinct and the driving force for beings without the higher reasoning to react otherwise. Not only does this become apparent in animals but also in human mental disorders. This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment. And another thing that can affect mental awareness is electromagnetic or gravimetric... hell any force. (Why do you think there's more than one pilot on a commercial airliner?) Some of the feelings generated by these exterior forces can be perceived in the cognitive context that some social stimulus has replaced. Why do more people die in a tsunami than wild animals? The animals may not of replaced the emotional response generated by the change in force created. People may feel it too but associate it as part of common stress. Now consider a simple misfire of emotion. People can shiver without a breeze. Mere thoughts can alter moods. Day dreams. Chemicals... The variables are so many when considering the higher cognitive responses and things that affect it, that a convergence of false readings can materialize and even perpetuate thru coincidence and depending on a case by case measure these feelings are either justified or reasoned away.

 ::)

Such sheer hypocrisy from the OP.


/Gripes at me in my thread about Scotland's Independence, claiming that the "What's going on in the UK" thread was enough

/OP turns around and creates another thread about Gods/Demons/Spirits, etc



The troll is strong with the OP.   :troll:

Quote from: Mandi on 2014-04-01, 08:09:16

If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.

Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there.

You are generally on the right track. Where you go off track is that you are completely missing the vital distinction of thoughts from feelings, of intellectual activity from emotional content.

You see, when you analyse the meaning of perceptions the way you skillfully do here, you are engaged in intellectual activity, not emotional. And - get this - this is the same thing that I do. I do not decide or conclude anything on perceptions. I analyse the perceptions, then decide. Exactly the way you do. This is important so that nobody can use any feeling or emotional stimulus to sway me towards any religion or supernatural.

When we got this clear - that there's intellectual activity in addition to emotional stimulus and you individually choose your priority among the two and follow that - what remains is the way we express our conclusions. You think I am deceived and deceiving. If so, the deception can be pointed out - intellectually as a logical argument, not emotionally as a plain statement that, without context around it, without premises and ordered facts, can be true or false with equal success.

What I would like you to do is this:

...theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right...

However, my hope for a reasoned discussion is not very realistic, because I see you answered affirmatively to Mandi, according to whom you believe that "no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation." If this is so, then the distinction of intellect and emotions is pretty much impossible and what you are doing in your entire post is emotional outpouring, not a reasoned argument for anything. If you take the quoted belief too radically, then you are hopeless.

One point in the rest of your post that I noted:

This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment.

Interesting qualification there - "usually falls back to the more primitive functions", i.e. not always. As we both know, removing parts of brain *usually* relocates the cognitive functions, even though often imperfectly and slowly, so there's usually some damage anyway, and when you remove too much, it will be beyond repair. However, the fact that cognitive functions relocate this way indicates that the there are no true cognitive centres. This fact implies that any particular cognition can, in principle, be centred anywhere in the brain. If particular cognitions were hard-wired to their cognitive centres in the brain, the relocation should not happen.

Note that I am not calling the relocating cognition "soul". The more appropriate term is the mind. And I am not calling it non-material either. But it's definitely not material in the atomic sense. These are some direct conclusions from facts beyond perception.

You are generally on the right track. Where you go off track is that you are completely missing the vital distinction of thoughts from feelings...

Ah, you seem to discuss something entirely different from what I thought/introduced, so...
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/shootsign.gif)(Smiley, you have lots of duplicates and lack some vital things.)

Ah, you seem to discuss something entirely different from what I thought/introduced, so...

In the opening post you wanted to define nature. You have had several opportunities now to do it with your distinction of image and ideas and whatever other people have contributed, but instead you keep joshing your own thread.

In the opening post you wanted to define nature.

Do you read English? Or do you only speak it?
Try rereading that, will ya..?

 You seem, guys, just "spiritualising" on everything - while I tried to deduce "nature" to some "atomic" elements to proceed developing our understanding up back again.  You won't seem to... :zzz: 

Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there. This is why ersi's psycho babble sounds religious to me. Only he's adopted a perception of 'one' rather than safety in numbers. The tactics remain the same; Hook, redirect questions that undermine, use suggestive language to evoke feeling and confuse the rest. It's a loop tactic that avoids anything they're unwilling to accept. Before he'll engage a question he can't answer he'll call you too dumb to understand and quit responding in an attempt to hold superiority. (From his perspective. Which is all that matters to him and the fundamental fault in his reasoning.) And also why everything is "this or that" or "His side vs the opposition". Spending too much time debunking theories the wrong way requires a distaste for science you don't wanna understand. The perception is that it's false so unworthy. But, theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right... Thus ersi's problem.

So, why are emotions precognitive and at times faulty? They are the basis for instinct and the driving force for beings without the higher reasoning to react otherwise. Not only does this become apparent in animals but also in human mental disorders. This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment. And another thing that can affect mental awareness is electromagnetic or gravimetric... hell any force. (Why do you think there's more than one pilot on a commercial airliner?) Some of the feelings generated by these exterior forces can be perceived in the cognitive context that some social stimulus has replaced. Why do more people die in a tsunami than wild animals? The animals may not of replaced the emotional response generated by the change in force created. People may feel it too but associate it as part of common stress. Now consider a simple misfire of emotion. People can shiver without a breeze. Mere thoughts can alter moods. Day dreams. Chemicals... The variables are so many when considering the higher cognitive responses and things that affect it, that a convergence of false readings can materialize and even perpetuate thru coincidence and depending on a case by case measure these feelings are either justified or reasoned away.

I will take your word for it. You are better at observation than I. Plus, I didn't read every post in this thread. :whistle:

you keep joshing your own thread

I josh - Eu josho
You josh - Tu joshas
He joshes - Ele josha
We josh - Nós joshamos
You josh - Vós joshais
They josh - Eles josham
...

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-02, 06:22:03

you keep joshing your own thread

I josh - Eu josho
You josh - Tu joshas
He joshes - Ele josha
We josh - Nós joshamos
You josh - Vós joshais
They josh - Eles josham

...
Our Josh -Josh
================
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1421
Thinking... ??? ;)

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-02, 06:22:03

you keep joshing your own thread

I josh - Eu josho
You josh - Tu joshas
He joshes - Ele josha
We josh - Nós joshamos
You josh - Vós joshais
They josh - Eles josham
...

:yes:
I liked "2 joshes";)

However, my hope for a reasoned discussion is not very realistic

You see, paragraph one was geared toward emotion while paragraph two was meant to be more cognitive. Curious you chose to try and remove emotional inflection from very emotionally motivated quotes. I'll admit the word "primitive" was a slip on my part. I know it's antagonistic, especially to people who's feelings are of a spiritual nature, but it's part of my perception.


Tact is a poor guise for fairness. We do not reason the same and you continue to consider my reasoning invalid as shown by my quote. This negates everything you said before it. So now it's emotionally driven and unreasonable, from my perspective. I'll assume yours differs?


There's points about delusion and labeling I meant to conclude with but I've lost motivation for the word count. You skip around the meat of my posts anyway. And watching you denounce a neurologist's paper, in another thread, as if you just walked out of the operating room with the evidence that disproves conventional neurology gives me little hope you can see past your perspective on reasoning.

And watching you denounce a neurologist's paper, in another thread, as if you just walked out of the operating room with the evidence that disproves conventional neurology gives...

Neurologist who thinks he is disproving basic psychological notions is not doing conventional neurology. And this applies even stronger with neurologists who set forth illogical metaphysical propositions. Such neurology is far from uncontroversial.

I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)

I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)

May I suggest a Protestant, pro-Unionist, Scot, who also is a proud member of the Orange Order?   :right:

I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)

How about someone who actually believes that this could work :right:

Who-ho - an excellent suggestion there Colonel. As Romanism is mixed up with all sorts of Paganism and imported spiritual stuff from elsewhere I am sure that a Unionist Scot, great Protestant and embulliant Orangeman to boot can withstand any such machinations. Being a son of the Reformation he would laugh it off. Just imagine if such a person was say, me for thre sake of discussion, it would be warded off with no bother at all. After he got his fingers sore with the stabbing and stopped for a breather I would give him a replay of the Battle of the Boyne, battle of Enniskillen, Battle of Aughrim, Siege of Londonderry  and a picture of Martin Luther. He'd give up.  :hat: :D

Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ??? 

How about someone who actually believes that this could work

Your voice is feeling strange Macallan...
Difficulty to breathe? a little cough lately? feeling tired? maybe a small pain in the chest?
Good, don't worry just using small needles. :)

Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ???

su·pra·na·tion·al  (so̅o̅′prə-năsh′ə-nəl, -năsh′nəl)
adj.
Extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations: a supranational economy; supranational federations.

Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ??? 

The infranatural?

Try this.

su·pra·na·tion·al  (so̅o̅′prə-năsh′ə-nəl, -năsh′nəl)
adj.
Extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations: a supranational economy; supranational federations.

Quote from: Josh on 2014-04-07, 09:30:04

Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ??? 

The infranatural?

What's infra-?
See, how about subnatural, abnatural, hypernatural, übernatural, :left:natural and :right:natural?:idea:

Who-ho - an excellent suggestion there Colonel. As Romanism is mixed up with all sorts of Paganism and imported spiritual stuff from elsewhere I am sure that a Unionist Scot, great Protestant and embulliant Orangeman to boot can withstand any such machinations. Being a son of the Reformation he would laugh it off. Just imagine if such a person was say, me for thre sake of discussion, it would be warded off with no bother at all. After he got his fingers sore with the stabbing and stopped for a breather I would give him a replay of the Battle of the Boyne, battle of Enniskillen, Battle of Aughrim, Siege of Londonderry  and a picture of Martin Luther. He'd give up.  :hat: :D

Well played Mr. Howie! lol

I didn't know how you'd take that attempted rustle, but you responded well.

Have a free song, courtesy of me!

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1KggmYgHKY[/video]

This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone. Also, mirror and holograph are objectively observable phenomena.

"Holograph"?
Define "objectively observable". Is it the same as "of shared evidence"?

"Holograph"?

Sorry, hologram. English sucks. Not only mine, but English as such.

Define "objectively observable". Is it the same as "of shared evidence"?

The same as "studied in physics". For example a physicist called Newton has a treatise on optics. Refractions are not just cute geometric figures that you draw on paper, but phenomena of light that occur in nature and whose mechanics are a field of study in physics.

English sucks.

English rules! :yes:

The same as "studied in physics". For example a physicist called Newton has a treatise on optics. Refractions are not just cute geometric figures that you draw on paper, but phenomena of light that occur in nature and whose mechanics are a field of study in physics.

Do you believe that the existence of disambiguos natural laws is an indisputable fact?
You're again resorting to some complex constructs that you're used to taking for granted. There's always a possibility that something fundamental is a mere illusion - or maybe a misinterpreted set of steady coincidences. Think about it.:rolleyes:

Do you believe that the existence of disambiguos natural laws is an indisputable fact?

Yes, metaphysical fact. Laws of nature exist like mathematical entities do. It's often conceived as a Platonic realm.

There's always a possibility that something fundamental is a mere illusion - or maybe a misinterpreted set of steady coincidences. Think about it.:rolleyes:

What if pure coincidence and strict causality are the opposite ends of the same continuum. Think about it.

What is 'continuum'? Does it exist?
Any law needs STUFF to apply to. What if all that stuff you believe "objectively" exists is a mere fantasy of you "an observer"?
Your problem's that you readily take everything from without your OWN perceived, all that "ready-made", manufactured and processed by somebody else (providing that person existed) somewhere else in time (providing anybody has any idea of TIME), without a blink.
You should BLINK at least, you know.
"Laws of nature"? There ALREADY EXIST models and hypotheses suggesting that 1) there were times when such laws were different, 2) there are places where such laws can be different or not apply, 3) there CAN EXIST parts of our Universe - or variations or our Universe - where/when/whern our "laws" may not apply, or rather that place's own, independent "laws of nature" apply.
You say "think"? I do. I'm not suffering from conformism in this field at least.

What is 'continuum'? Does it exist?

Temperature is a continuum that embeds everything from cold to hot. Does it exist or not?

There ALREADY EXIST models and hypotheses suggesting that...

I'm not interested in hypotheses. I prefer certainties. Facts.

Temperature is a continuum that embeds everything from cold to hot. Does it exist or not?

What is temperature?

I'm not interested in hypotheses. I prefer certainties. Facts.

Do certainties exist?
What animals are facts? You're picking the "ready-made" again, huh?:)

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 17:31:01

Temperature is a continuum that embeds everything from cold to hot. Does it exist or not?

What is temperature?

Try to make up your mind about it rationally. Does cold exist? Does warm exist? If yes, how? When cold and warm exist, then temperature should also exist, but how do cold, warm, and temperature relate to each other? Rationally, there cannot be two things in the same place at the same time, so figure it out.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 17:31:01

I'm not interested in hypotheses. I prefer certainties. Facts.

Do certainties exist?
What animals are facts? You're picking the "ready-made" again, huh?:)

When you find out the answers to the questions above, you will know. This is metaphysics.

Does cold exist?

No.

Does warm exist?

No.

When you find out the answers to the questions above, you will know. This is metaphysics.

I don't care.
I was asking YOU -- the question if I know the answers is irrelevant... Or rather -- there are NO answers to those questions. BELIEVERS like yourself believe they know. Me? no-no.

However, no certainties can exist except for one single such one.
The term "fact" is a common juxtaposition when the precision would only allow for infinitesimally low possibilities of alternatives (a zero possibility for alternatives does not exist - except for one unique instance).

(Hm, I've just delivered a paradox, see? How can I be certain that certainties can not exist - when there are no certainties can exist?;) )

BELIEVERS like yourself believe they know. Me? no-no.

You're a fairly radical disbeliever. If cold doesn't exist, try walking around naked in winter. Don't be scared. I won't watch.

You've introduced three new entities: me, "naked", and winter. Assuming I know what they mean, we can define a frame in which a concept of cold will be capable of existing. Till then - "cold" is a mere contrivance of yours and means nothing but somebody's attitude to a certain perception of them.

Using such terms as "realities" has revealed your constrained mentality: you can ONLY operate within BORDERS that SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE SOME DAY "defined" for y.. Not even for you.

English sucks. Not only mine, but English as such.

Absolutely.
I've turned like Heidegger, mutatis mutantis, the only language one can Think is Portuguese.
Barulheira agrees with me even if he doesn't have the chance of benefiting of real genuine Portuguese.

Quote from: Josh on 2014-04-08, 18:11:45

BELIEVERS like yourself believe they know. Me? no-no.

You're a fairly radical disbeliever. If cold doesn't exist, try walking around naked in winter. Don't be scared. I won't watch.

Cold is simply a term used in this reality to describe differences in temperature between two material objects, most often our human body temperature.  Something with a lower temperature (heat energy), than our body we say is 'cold' (or some equivalent term), and a higher temperature we say is 'hot'.  By this definition a blast furnace is hot to us but quite cold compared to the core temperature of our sun.  'Cold' is only meaningful in comparison to something else, no material object is inherently cold or hot, it only becomes so in comparison to something else.  Absolute zero simply means the absence of mechanical movement within the atoms of something, it is not 'cold'.

Sure JS, I agree that cold and warm are relative points on the scale of temperature, but you see, Josh here thinks that temperature is supernatural - already cold and warm themselves are supernatural - and he doesn't believe in supernatural. Can you convince him otherwise?

I just don't see how a 'word' used to describe any real phenomena can itself somehow become a supernatural concept. 

Cold is not a meaningful concept until two material objects, specifically and only in this reality, are compared for degrees of thermodynamic energy.  However, cold is a real concept that pertains only to this reality.  Change the reality and 'cold' is only four twisted lines in the sand. 

I just don't see how a 'word' used to describe any real phenomena can itself somehow become a supernatural concept.

It's called idealism — you might've heard about it in relation to Plato. ersi subscribes to monistic idealism. The idea, the mental, the subjective, is primary and immaterial.

:doh:

The idea, the mental, the subjective, is primary and immaterial.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=272.97;msg=16650)

Course it is.

So, does any objective exist?:rolleyes:

So, does any objective exist?:rolleyes:

Here's the standard distinction of object and subject:

The world we see, being seen by the eye, is the object. The eye which sees it is the subject. But the eye, when perceived by the mind is the object and the mind which sees it is the subject. The mind with its thoughts perceived by the Self is the object and the Self is the subject. The Self cannot be the object, not being perceived by anything else.

The forms perceived are various, blue and yellow, gross and subtle, tall and short, and so on; but the eye that sees them remains one and the same. Similarly, the varying qualities of the eye, such as blindness, dullness and keenness and of the ears and other organs, are perceived by the mind singly. So, too, the various characteristics of the mind, such as desire, determination, doubt, faith, want of faith, courage, want of courage, fear, shyness, discrimination, good and bad, are all perceived by the Self singly. This Self neither rises nor sets, neither increases nor decays. It shines of its own luminosity. It illumines everything else without the need for aid from other sources.

This is from the standard Advaita Vedanta text Drik-Drisya-Viveka which means discernment of subject and object.

Well, it doesn't seem straight to the point, but interesting enough.

To summarise the text: In epistemology, discernment is everything. In ontology, the subject is everything.

Your question was about ontology of the object. The answer: The object exists inasmuch as discernible, but it has no ultimate existence in the final analysis.

In this philosophy, things have degrees of reality, degrees of existence. There's the distinction of relative existence and absolute existence. The objective world has relative existence.

Your question was about ontology of the object.

Was it?

discernible

Define.

The objective world has relative existence.

Agreeable.
Relative? Does it mean 'dependent'?