@Sheldon happier than a pig in shit 
1 Like
Second glass of wine, Chinese takeaway, roast duck fried rice and crispy beef in Peking sauce…
I couldn’t be happier if I was twins… 
1 Like
The issue of the concept not being the thing goes deeper than anticipated. We make numerous decisions and build our entire perception of reality around a representation that is inherently unreal.
Although it may appear insignificant, this is mainly due to our lifelong adaptation to this limitation. We are unaware of any alternative. However, there exist certain things that cannot be effectively communicated because they cannot be reduced to mere concepts or because the act of reducing them distorts their true understanding…
… and one example of this phenomenon is experience. When one goes through a war, a painful situation, or even a complex work scenario, it becomes impossible to convey the entirety of that experience through a literal description of events alone. Experience offers a profound understanding that surpasses the limitations of words. So, how do we attempt to communicate such experiences? We resort to metaphors. A metaphor employs language to reveal an underlying principle that may not be immediately evident from the mere occurrence of events. Nevertheless, this use of language is on the threshold of what language can effectively convey.
This realization demonstrates that there exist certain things that can hardly be communicated through language. It raises the possibility that we may be overlooking entire layers of reality simply because our language prevents us from perceiving things differently.
Regardless, in light of this debate, it becomes apparent that the limits of our knowledge today are deeply intertwined with the limitations of language itself.
1 Like
That sure reads like gibberish to me.
Whoa there, @Quim ! What in the wide, wide world of sports does this have to do with knowledge? Based on how you responded, it seem to be inferring that knowledge must be rendered into words to be knowledge.
I think you left out a couple of words: “…it becomes apparent to me that the limits….”
That is exactly what I took it to mean. It is going to require the creations of some rather controversial (and useless) definitions of knowledge and language.
1 Like
Dyslexic’s of the world UNTIE!
Those that have an understanding of many languages actually have more “brain power”
( 5 Fascinating Things That Happen to Your Brain When You Learn Another Language | by Ruth Matthews | Age of Awareness | Medium. ). BTW I only speak English
The idea that the Inuit have 50 words for snow 
is false - they have hundreds ( Do Inuits really have 50 words for snow? – Readable )
I think the use of specific words for descriptive meaning is useful - communicating ideas. However quibbling over a word can sometimes fall into stupid arguing - taking the time to repeat back what you understand is being communicated to you is often a better choice.
Answer this: is it possible that space is infinite?
I’m not here to argue about space travel. If you think it’s science fiction go ahead and think that. I’m here to talk about the implications of the logical argument regarding the epistemology of God.
I’m sure NASA has already looked into it.
Is it possible that space is infinite? Is it possible that space is finite? Is it possible that space is finite from top to bottom, but infinite around the edges?
Fair enough. Let me rephrase that in a way that doesn’t cause you to involuntarily squeeze your buttcheeks together so hard you go red in the face. Ahem. I don’t think you’re capable of understanding the logical argument that I made (ie. my argument; my logic)
Just so we’re straight here … I’m not talking about space travel. I’m taking about Russell’s Paradox and the logical argument I’ve made. You have as yet not addressed a single line of reasoning in that argument correctly.
You’ve (wrongly) concluded that I’ve violated the law of contradiction. In fact, I’ve used proof by contradiction to show that a set of all normal sets of knowledge violate logical consistency. Therefore, the only acceptable set of all sets is the set of all abnormal sets. Since this conclusion applies to knowledge of God, the knowledge of God must be complete or not exist at all. If it is complete, then we humans must have the capacity to be omniscient (since this is a quality ascribed to God by the faithful). Since that is impossible, it is also impossible to know anything about God. Ergo, being a “theist” is impracticable.
That is the only argument I’m interested in. So, please address the logic in that argument or don’t address me at all.
FYI: peer reviewed scientific journals don’t publish logical arguments about the epistemology of God.
No, it doesn’t. I could care less about space travel at this point. Though, obviously it is a possibility. If not, feel free to show me it is an “impossibility”. Assume I’m wrong and show that the opposite is true. Feel free.
Indifference. I don’t owe you anything. Though you assume yourself to be entitled to my time and effort.
Again, show that it is impossible. Assume the contrary to be true and give a simple explanation why. QED.
Non-sequitur. Google it.
Then stop making false and unevidenced claims about it in a debate forum. Oh and do you think I won’t notice you have moved the goal posts from interstellar travel to space travel, when did I ever fall for such duplicity?
Straw man fallacy, see goal post shifting duplicity of yours above. You claimed interstellar travel was possible, and that claim is science fiction.
Start a thread then, this one’s taken.
As am I, and that’s why I know you’re bullshitting when you claim interstellar travel by humans is possible.
Non-sequitur? Travelling to the moon was not possible for the people who lived before we knew how to fucking do it. Why on earth would you think otherwise?
If you actually read my posts you’d have known this when I initially responded.
You don’t get to make claims and arguments then insist people only address what you want, that’s not how debate works, you should now this by now.
I have from the start offered objective reasons why I don’t believe our species can achieve limitless knowledge, and you have argued against it with made up bs, now you say it is impossible anyway? I’m not angry, just disappointed I got on another of your merry-go-rounds. 
And I should care because???
Did I mention peer reviewed scientific journals? I am pretty sure I did not. However mathematical proofs can be submitted for peer review. FYI this thread is not about god, that was a segway you took, I suggest you start a thread on it if want to debate it.
Straw man, since I never claimed you cared, I said it summed up where we were.
Another straw man, you claimed interstellar travel was possible, now you’re dishonestly shifting the goal posts to something we do know is possible, do you really imagine I won’t notice?
I never claimed space travel wasn’t possible, I repudiated your claim that interstellar travel was possible. Also since the claim was yours the burden of proof is yours, and it is irrational to imply your claim is in any way valid because it cannot be disproved.
Straw man again, I never claimed you owed me anything, however debate requires reciprocity, if you don’t want it then that’s what the hub is for. What you owe is debate in a debate forum, and claims carry an epistemological burden of proof.
Ah so we are back to argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, I’ll indulge your irrationality this once:
“The speeds required for interstellar travel in a human lifetime far exceed what current methods of space travel can provide. Even with a hypothetically perfectly efficient propulsion system, the kinetic energy corresponding to those speeds is enormous by today’s standards of energy development.”
It might be technically possible to send probes into other solar systems, but not to travel there.
QED, you are funny, asserting your unevidenced claim is valid until someone disproves it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, QED indeed, fucking hilarious. What exactly did you “demonstrandum” by demanding someone disprove your unevidenced claim that interstellar travel is possible?
Here is the problem: language is a mechanism, and all mechanisms could fail under specific circumstances.
There is a well-known phenomenon in ants called a death spiral. It is a fatal failure of their communication mechanism that leads them to run in circles until they die. The more they run, the more the circular pattern is reinforced.
I believe that language could produce similar problems by generating ideas and reasoning that lead to a destructive path. The more you dwell on these ideas, the more you reinforce their patterns, ultimately resulting in destructive behavior.
Societies could succumb to these destructive ideas that spread from brain to brain, causing a massive failure of society.
Do you understand that a possibility has to be demonstrated before it can be considered? Do you have any kind of demonstration, that space is either finite or infinite? I would love to see your evidence.
1 Like
Like the pernicious superstition of religions, that cling to archaic notions of morality derived from patriarchal bronze age Bedouin societies, based on the damaging and unevidenced supersiton that a deity exists, and has communicated immutable moral absolutes to aforementioned Bedouins.
Though to be fair I think this is as much a result of our innate propensity to indulge irrational superstition and indoctrinate children with it, as it is about the limitations of language.
1 Like
Well, the problem lies not exactly in the ideas you believe, but in how you believe in these ideas.
For instance, when individuals believe that everything can be reduced to the principles they uphold, whether it’s a religious principle or a materialist principle, they become extremists. Regardless of the ideas you possess or how well-founded you consider them to be, this one-sided thinking always leads to negative outcomes.
Reasonable individuals do not oversimplify reality by adhering to a single principle merely to avoid complex questions.
Well those are not mutually exclusive of course, but the idea that a deity has communicated morality that is immutable, is in and of itself dangerous, since the epoch from which the superstition derives was one of extreme ignorance and superstition by contemporary standards. Of course not all theists believe their holy books are the immutable word of a deity that must be taken literally.
Well I’d need to see some objective evidence to support this, however if you start with the idea that the claims are immutable as they are divine in origin, then this is dangerous. Ideas ought really to be judged on merit, so ringfencing them from critical scrutiny is dangerous.
Well being closed minded is dangerous, and accepting the idea a deity has communicated immutable truths and morality is as closed minded an idea as I can imagine of course.
Well that seems to be a subjective opinion, for example reasonable would seem different to different people and cultures. I don’t think it dangerous to base ones beliefs and morality on principles one holds to be true, I do think it is dangerous to believe these principles immutable, and therefore not subject them to continual scrutiny.
There is no belief I won’t relinquish if the evidence demands it, and I withhold belief from all claims until sufficient objective evidence supports them. Though these criteria for belief are based on my subjective desire to believe only as many true things as I can.
You could argue there are things beyond current comprehension and most would agree.
Are there things we could never know? Who knows… AI may be able to unlock more doors in the future.
I spoke of ants 
in the other thread. Ants use pheromone trails to communicate within their colonies. Individual ants secrete pheromones, and other ants in their colonies have sensory organs that pick up the pheromone smell. Thus 
your death spiral.
Groups of humans have had delusions. The dancing plague ( Dancing plague of 1518 | Facts & Theories | Britannica ). Shared psychosis ( Shared Psychotic Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf. )
It can happen in small groups or larger ones ( Shared Psychotic Disorder: Symptoms, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Coping. )
I would argue that it isn’t words or language itself, but the failure of a human mind to set a standard of what to accept as a belief (or have confidence in).
A brain state can be self-created or induced.
3 Likes
There are several limits to knowledge built into nature, for starters.
Is that so? It’s possible I guess. Care to demonstrate your meaning with an example of how this is true? I don’t quite follow your logic.
Simple. There is a dead smashed rat on my doorstep. It’s brains are smeared all across the door mat. I don’t get to posit Santa Claus ran him over with his magical flying sleigh without first demonstrating there is a Santa, he does have a magical flying sleigh, he was in front of my house, and more. To do so would make me sound like you. That is the way the world works. If you going to assert the possibility of something you must have a demonstration that it is possible or you are just talking our your ass. (Something you do frequently and seem to know very little about.)
2 Likes