Dirty little monkey. You paid me 5 bucks last time to urinate on you. Can I get the same deal?
Where does sight occur? In the eye? At the external object? In the brain? Somewhere in the middle? A fucking tree in the forest with no one there to hear it?
A hallucination. Big deal. Our senses do not reflect reality 100 percent of the time.
However to even produce the illusion, the eye and the imagination were required. You haven’t invented a new perception.
I watched a video about a girl with tourettes that nearly moved me to tears. Was that a false impression too? Certainly we can say it was subjective. Not all people would react with sadness.
The point? Sadness relies on my eyes, my ears, and a tactile inner sensation in my heart.
Still no new perceptual faculties invented. Same old six.
Why don’t you just quote me the entirety of “The Critique of Pure Reason”?
Wipe that shmagma off your foreskin you damn, dirty ape.
Hey, you two, don’t look now, but I think I just saw Whitefire storm into the room. She had Barney in one hand and a rolling pin in the other. And I didn’t see a jar of lube ANYWHERE! By the way, I’ll be over in the corner watching behind a ballistic riot shield if anybody needs me.
They’re not mutually exclusive, if you define a horse you see as a unicorn, then the definition contains an inherent claim. Your claim was woo woo. And this is being borne out by how much time and effort you’ve wasted attacking my post, rather than offering objective evidence for your claim.
Your lack of concern is not news, nor does it have any relevance. This is a DEBATE FORUM. one day you may grasp that.
So you keep saying, in response after response. However you haven’t actually resdponded to my post, as I never posted that claim you’re assigning me, straw man or not, it isn’t mine. Now what do we call it when someone offers a different argument to the one offered, often one that is easier to defend than the original, oh yeah it’s a straw man fallacy. Sigh…
Try addressing your appeal to authority fallacy with something tangible and rational, rather than doubling down with an argument from assertion fallacy.
I never made any such claim, so another tedious straw man fallacy. Calm down and actually read what I’m posting, your angry disjointed rants have no relevance to my post.
I never mentioned Pythagoras, you did, and your claim about his theorem, that you laughably called a theory, was firstly wrong, and secondly irrelevant. Yet you rehash this red herring a third time.
Still waiting for you to even acknowledge your claims, let alone demonstrate objective evidence for them. You have the dishonest zeal of a theist, but in this forum bare assertions for woo woo magic won’t wash.
Its similar to how the sonar
of a submarine works, bats, whales and dolphins emit sounds and their brains analyse the returning echo. What does this have to do your woo woo claim that humans have a sixth sense? Do you think you’re a bat, whale or dolphin now?
Where did I mention being psychic? Calm down and read slowly and carefully. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support that claim?
So far all you’ve offered are argument from assertion fallacies, so I think we’re due one of your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies as well.
Which bit of public debate forum is beyond your intellect. Why do you always turn into such an aggressive keyboard warrior when your superstitious guff is challenged? If you don’t like your woo woo being debated then don’t post in here.
Pathetic Ad hominem fallacy.
Bear, not bare, and I dont care whether you respond or run away in an angry sulk, I’ll keep asking for objective evidence whenever religious apologists make unevidenced woo woo claims.
Goal post shifting, you claimed we had a sixth sense.
I asked for objective evidence, quoting Buddha just goes straight back to your appeal authority fallacy. Why should anyone care what Buddha thought? As I already asked, have the claims you’re assigning him been validated with objective evidence? If so demonstrate it…
If you can demonstrate no objective evidence to support those claims, and are only offering the unevidenced assertions of Buddha, then it is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy. How are you not understanding this simple premise?
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
Not sure how many times this needs explaining. Christians claim their “experience” of Jesus is evidence he is a deity, they claim this is further evidenced by the ways they claim this relationship has altered them.
Like your claim, all I see are subjective assertions, albeit dressed up in rhetoric to give it the appearance that something profound is being offered.
Still no objective evidence though, just bare claims. Is it possible you don’t understand the difference?
Exactly as all theists claim, but it is nonetheless a subjective assertion, unless you can demonstrate some objectivecevidence for it, and so far, as in previous instances, you cannot.
I don’t need objective evidence. We are defining the senses as six in number so that we can make further assertions. It is a theory of suffering. In order to prove certain axioms about the theory of suffering we require six faculties.
If you don’t like it, complain to someone else. I didn’t invent it. The ancient people of the subcontinent of India did. It’s an ancient theory. No more ancient than the Greek theory of five senses.
No one has gone out of their way to prove that there are five senses. For shits sake. I’ve got a monkey telling me there’s 52. Accept it as self evident and we’ll move on. Or don’t. It doesn’t matter. Theory arrives at the same conclusion with five senses.
Look in the mirror. Pull the log out of your own eye before you attempt to pull the speck out of mine.
So, you did not offer the opinion that you would rather hold on to certain emotions as opposed to ending certain types of suffering? Interesting.
What do we call it when someone says something at one time and then denies it at another. We call it “lying”. We call it “intellectual dishonesty”.
What is your criterion for knowledge, Sheldon?
Is that a rhetorical question? Do you tend to ask rhetorical questions during a DEBATE?
I will supply you with the argument. It uses definitions and logic. Since you are using Philosophical fallacies to label me, I’m sure you can at least follow the if, ands, or buts of a logical argument.
I will not be alluding to the authority of the Buddha. I have achieved Nirodha Samapatti on my own. I no longer require his specific logic to define Nirodha Samapatti in my own terms.
Pay attention. It is called “the cessation of perception and feeling”. Would you argue this state is achieved while under anaesthesia? Would you argue a knock out punch would give you this state? Would you argue that falling asleep should achieve this state?
This is a waking state where sense faculties do not make contact with their sense objects. A person in this state may have superlative vision and yet, in the presence of a wall, not perceive the wall. That’s the DEFINITION. The REASON (now this the good part where I explain cause and effect - you do believe in cause and effect don’t you - do I need a peer reviewed journal to establish the truth value of the idea that for every effect there is a cause???) gasp - the REASON is that sense consciousness has been eliminated from the mind and body.
It’s tedious enough being mislabeled by you in posts where I specifically speak to you. I don’t necessarily need it in others where I don’t. And hence I have every right to ignore them. Don’t act so offended.
Ancient East Indian logic tells Is we have a sixth sense. Argue with them if you don’t like it. I didn’t make it up.
I’m widening the goal posts because they were too narrow for you to put the puck in.
I’m not shifting the argument it self. I’m catering to your lack of faith in Indian logic.
And I have. Let’s focus on the argument, shall we?
You either get it or you don’t. We have sense faculties. We have sense objects. Do you deny this much?
When the two meet, we have sense consciousness.
If sense consciousness is removed, we have “the cessation of perception and feeling”.
Very, very simple. Not a lot to digest there. Nothing deep or profound being suggested.
Another straw man, since I never said YOU did. However you made your woo woo claim in a public debate forum, so I’m asking what objective evidence you can demonstrate for your claim?
Make me…
Another utterly irrelevant response. This is a debate forum, and you need to get over it.
I shan’t even feign surprise you misrepresented a claim of mine, and are now shifting back to the original, or the irony of you claiming I’m being dishonest for pointing it out.
It’s all a smokescreen to avoid addressing the fact you can’t evidence your woo woo nonsense.
Your arguments used known logical fallacies, pointed out multiple times, nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains or uses known logical fallacies.
You have already done so several times, so more dishonesty.
No it doesn’t, you might have fallen for that guff, but unless you can demonstrate objective evidence for the claim it has no validity to anyone capable of critical thinking.
Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. It is beyond moronic to imply India has it’s own logic.
No you haven’t, don’t be preposterous.
On that at least we can agree, no objective evidence either.
Did I even remotely claim he was? Straw man fallacy yet again. You really ought to calm down, you have such a chip on your shoulder whenever I post it makes your responses even more irrational.
We (as in humans) do understand the colors. The various wave lengths of light either being “absorbed” or dispersed … eg “white” light on a prism produces the range of spectrum we communicate to each other as certain colors
Now, the internal translation of “red” varies on the brain translating it and this cannot be measured… as, for example, the brain can mistranslated wavelengths and this particular person may have “color blindness”. This is decided by group agreement on what “red” is. This particular person can recognize that “red”
is different for others and they adapt to their environment (red means stop )
The fact that “red” can be measured ( Red light has longer waves, with wavelengths around 620 to 750 nm )…
Understanding “light” is what has opened up mankind to using it.
The “inner experience” of red is nobody’s business … as is “vibration” (reference Barney)
YES there is beauty in the vast array of smells, sounds, touch, and sight- - - BESIDES, blind folk experience “red” on a completely different level, if at all…
Actually, within quantum mechanics and the reference above to the double-split experiment - it is when the wave is “measured” …no consciousness necessary to have the wave “collapse” and behave as a particle. (Obviously, very brief explanation…but google real science not someone’s idea on YouTube of what the experiment means)
Wrong again, repetition doesn’t validate anything. That is a mathematical theorem as Nyarl pointed out to you already…dear oh dear…
You’re comparing apples to oranges, or more accurately you’re comparing mathematics to woo woo superstition.
Mathematical theorems have to be proved, a theorem is a non-self-evident statement that has been proven to be true, either on the basis of generally accepted statements such as axioms, or on the basis of previously established statements such as other theorems.
Please understand I’m not judging you in any form, just sharing my preference for my world view. You’re sharing yours, here on a debate forum, so everything is up for questioning. It’s good (I do it all the time to myself).
My preference is to understand the reality we live in now, not the “one to come” (no evidence of such) or a “higher mind” (no evidence of such). Mind you, no evidence of such does not mean it’s not “true”, just that it’s not convincing and I value “time”, here and now, so I make choices based on reality of what I want to do with this “time here now” to make the best of it. I respect science because the understanding of it is what has improved our lives here and increased well being for humans.
If, what you are saying is true (big “if”), no worries - I have a “fuck it/off” attitude. If I’m meeting the spirits in the afterlife that are scary and fearful its “fuck off”. And when I’m to be lured by the pleasures offered without balance “it’s fuck off” …and when I get to the higher mind, it’s “oh, it’s me???”, well, shit “fuck this” AND I’m back.
You don’t prove axioms (or theories for that matter)
eta:That is why it is important to choose axioms that are not controversial (pick ones that are unlikely to be rejected by other people, since you aren’t going to be able to prove them).
)
its “fuck off”. And when I’m to be lured by the pleasures offered without balance “it’s fuck off” …and when I get to the higher mind, it’s “oh, it’s me???”, well, shit “fuck this” AND I’m back.
