quote:

---

Matter you are unware of exists(the tree in my yard, the house I live in etc.) even though you are unaware of it. Correct?

---

quote:

---

You have already agreed that it's objective existence does not depend on any quantity of observers for it to be so(or are you changing your mind here?).

---

quote:

---

We both AGREEE that there can be no "meaning" understood(for ANY words) without things capable of such(abstract thinkers/minds) which is a seperate issue from whether matter exists.

---

quote:

---

2)You do not deny that matter exists independently of our observation but your cointention is with whether we can say "That exists" when we do not exist. Since we already AGREE on this point, i cannot see why you would still harp on it?!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, to me, the statement "The planet Earth existed 1 billion years ago" is true now, but the statement "The planet Earth exists now" was NOT true 1 billion years ago.

---

You are not making the LEAST bit of sense. Did the planet exist or not?

---

quote:

---

I am not asking whether WE could have SAID "The planet exists".

---

quote:

---

AGAIN and I REPEAT: I AM NOT asking whether we could have assigned, spoken, evaluated, appreciated ANY statemetns or meanings.
Answer THE ABOVE question.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

See, I don't think a physical effect alone is an appreciable effect. Nothing is appreciable without an appreciator.

---

Make up your mind. Does matter exist independently or does it pop into existence as we observe it?

---

quote:

---

I am asking you a past-tense question: Did the planet Earth exist(as we can indirectly observe it's past existence) one billion years ago or not?

---

quote:

---

Please answer THIS question and not some other question about meanings and assignments and truth values.

---

quote:

---

Don't we all think everyone should hold the same things important as we do? Look at the arguments people start over things as minor as not liking the same music. I'm not trying or expecting to convince you of anything anyway (and I hope you're not either); I'm just arguing for fun and for practice.

quote:

---

That is fine but you are doging the point again.

---

---

quote:

---

The whole point of materialism is that matter is the primary stuff from which the non-material is emergent. The only POSSIBLE counter you can have to this is to say that matter is not there prior to our observing iut. That is *poofs* into being as we become aware, which is complete nonsense.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The importance of my point about the mind not being a formal system is that these assumptions are NOT axioms in the strict sense, and are therefore not immune to change or challenge.[/qb]

---

Call them whatever you want to! Call them "first principles", "base assumptions"...whatever! IT does not matter that we can change them! I could become an idealist tomorrow(hypothetically) but that does not change the fact that there is a point at which we are forced to chose some assumption that is not subject to the methods that follow from that base.

---

quote:

---

So what?!? Your options are to become a solopsist because of your despair over this (largely)semantic dillema

---

quote:

---

Again, you are mixing up "observation" and "imagining" which are two different things. We have already been over that. Observation IS at the forefront of the liberal scientific method, like it or not(take it up with the scientists you will be working with). Unless you know of someone who exists in a sensory deprivation chamber who is still doing science, sans observation, then you have no counter-argument to this.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Before I tackle this, I'm going to ask one simple question:

What do you believe is the purpose of having a scientific method?

---

Because without an(for the most part) objective method by which we account for fallacies such as personal bias, then all we have is people screaming at each other that "Unicorns are real!" and "No they aren't but the gremlins are going to mess with your car's brakes!" with no way of settling the matter. We cannot teach ANYTHING to ANYONE in ANY SCHOOLS because we have no reason to say ANYTHING is true.
The scientific method gives us a means to distinguish jackalopes from jackrabbits and genies from genes.

---

quote:

---

A little experiement: Define "bad" for me right here(a much simpler word than "thought" no?). After you do so, I will come by and show you how incomplete your definition is since it will not include all possible definitions applicable to every possible speaker, audience, context and usage.

---

quote:

---

If you are simply wanting to hold a more extraneous adn mystical definition of "consciousness" then that is your right but it does not make my "simple" one wrong.

---

quote:

---

Consciousness = thought/brain activity. Things without brains have no consciousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Creator:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, to me, the statement "The planet Earth existed 1 billion years ago" is true now, but the statement "The planet Earth exists now" was NOT true 1 billion years ago.

---

That's whacked out, man. Do you seriously believe that, or do you simply adopt that viewpoint for the heck of it? I can see that being fun, because hey, it's impossible to disprove.

That kind of concept seems quite Terry Pratchett-ish to me.

---

quote:

---

The point is that matter exists REGARDLESS of whether we are around to assign subjective meanings to it's existence or create means of communicating ideas to one another about the whole thing.

---

quote:

---

See this is the point I don't think we can possibly resolve or come to agreement on since this sounds like complete nonsense to ME(unless you are being evasively ambiguous in how you define "fact"). Did matter exist before minds/observers or not? If you conclude that it DID then you are agreeing with me and quibbling over what YOU mean by "fact" and what I mean by the same word is a pointless endeavor.

---

quote:

---

I am using "fact"(for lack of a better word) in the sense of something being literally true, regardless of subjective evaluatiuons and assigned meanings. I am NOT arguing about whether the word "fact" can have any meaning without abstract-thinking observers. Two different issues.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It has everything to do with my positions. Essentially, I define "existing" as "being observable or having observable consequences", because it's the only definition I've ever seen that doesn't involve ontological handwaving. How do you define it?

---

Speaking of ontological handwaving... :)

So the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, does not exist and never existed unless someone stumbles upon it adn even then it only popped into existence as a fallen tree/log?

---

quote:

---

Exist v. 1)To have actual being: Be real.

---

quote:

---

I define existence as above and having an appreciable(physical) effect on other existent things, regardless of whether anyone is around to apprecite it or to even use words like "exists".

---

quote:

---

I agree. We each do not see the same importance in the same issues. It is just that everytime I point this out adn confess that I do not see any way we can resolve this since it is simple, subjective difference of opinions, you fire back with some challegne to my positions that is based on the idea that I SHOULD hold the same things "important" as you do.

---

quote:

---

The moon will go on being, even after we are extinct.

I find THAT important.

---

quote:

---

Certain "assumptions" are completely necessary and there is no way to escape them. Regardless of how "formal" you are in your reasoning ability, you have two options basically:

1)Wheel-spinning solipsism in which you can do naught but sit around asking circular questions in an infinite cycle of "What is *this*?" and "I cannot say *that*!"(really this involves making a useless, but necessary assumption as well).

or

2)At the very root/base of your entire thinking process/line of reasoning you have an assumption.

---

quote:

---

By YOUR argument, everyone is doing science at all times of day if what they are doing could conceivably inspire someone to practice science. That is just ridiculous from my perspective.

---

quote:

---

Are you pursuing a career in science or are you seeking to attack science to legitimise something else like parapsychology or therapeutic touch or somesuch? I only ask because I have not met any scientists who argue AGAINST scientific method!?

---

quote:

---

But just for ****s and grins, i will play your baby game and give you an off the cuff and oversimplified description of the scientific method just to see what you do with it:

1)Observation.
2)Hypothesis.
3)testing.
4)Falsification.
5)Theory(include predictive aspects and decriptive mechanisms).
6)More testing & falsififcation attempts.
7)Peer review.
8)Revisiting/re-examining the phenomenom for which the theory is proposed to explain as well as the theory itself.
9)Revision according to new data.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You'll notice that the definition of "thought" there effectively includes the concept of consciousness as well as the brain. Now we're getting somewhere.

---

Was there some point when the definition did NOT include such? What is your point??

---

quote:

---

An opinion we share...but again, irrelvant to this discussion. You requested these definitions and seemed to have problems understanding mine, so I grabbed the above which made my case just as eloquently(if not more so).

---

quote:

---

ANd why do you draw the above conclusion about how I define thinking? It does not follow from what i have posted on the matter.

---

quote:

---

Assigning subjective evaluations to things is most certainly part of thinking adn I have consistently argued this.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by SkeleTony:

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

SkeleTony, that was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. You can't handle the general case. Why don't you just admit that the concept of god is not inherently self-contradictory?

---

I will take this as a concession then. If you cannot answer my points/arguments then be a bigger man/woman(I do not know your gender) and say so but to withdraw shouting "cop out" and the like is chiken-s#!t.

---

quote:

---

The legs would exist whether they were walking or not. The walking would not exist without the legs.

One has a dependent existence and one has an independent existence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm sure you'd object rather strongly to being rendered permanently unconscious.

---

I would also object to being ear-raped by a tone-def accordianist but what does that have to do with the discussion?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If a fact doesn't have any meaning, I'm not sure how you can call it a fact.

---

No meaning TO YOU! Read that once more: TO YOU!

---

quote:

---

There was a time in the early goings of our universe when no consciousness existed(brained creatures had not evolved yet) adn still matter existed. Was this not important? Was it not a fact because you were not around to observe it?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

See, I'm not arguing that the rock doesn't exist in the absence of observation either. I'm saying that in the absence of observers, there's no way to assign any truth value at all to the rock's existence.

---

And again I ask you, what is the point of this? I have never argued any aspect of "truth value" or whether such can be had without evaluators/observers.

---

quote:

---

So? The point is that it still exists whether anyone could meaningfully say so or not.

---

quote:

---

Since WE DO exist and are having this diuscussion, your point is irrelevant. It is a somewhat nonsensical thing you are arguing. You object to my assertion that something cannot be 'A' and Not A' and the argument you give is that something cannot be 'A' and not A'(re:something cannot be evaluated without an evaluator)!?!? THis alone would be one thing but coupled with the fact that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my positions in the first place...!

---

quote:

---

Your premises:

1)Things cannot be assigned "meanings" without things capable of assigning meanings.(Correct)

2) Matter exists and some material things are capable of observation and evaluation(assigning meaning to things they observe).(Correct)

Your conclusion:

Both matter and things emergent from matter(actions) have a dependent existence.

---

quote:

---

Sure there is. 10 billion years ago the universe existed and we did not(yet). Turns out this was FAR different than no universe existing at all.

---

quote:

---

Maybe, but thus far this has not been demonstrated. SO far everyone adopts axioms in order to do even mundane things like get ready for work in the morning. They do not employ formalk reasoning or any such thing but the effect is the same.

---

quote:

---

So would you regard a discovery found through a hypothesis based on a lucky guess but proven by going through the rest of the scientific method as being a scientific discovery?

---

quote:

---

You asked two seperate questions there.

---

quote:

---

THe answer to the first question is "No. Lucky guesses are NOT part of doing science.". The answer to teh second question is "Yes. Working through the stages of testing, falsifiaction, etc. IS doing science."

---

quote:

---

Observations are not themselves necessarily scientific or not-scientific. But they ARE required to do science. There are no scientists called "Dragonologists" who study fire-breathing, cave dwelling, winged lizards because there is no (concurrent)observation of such things to exist.
When villages end up burned to the ground, Occam's razor shows that barbarians or insurgents or natural disasters are at work, not dragons.

---

quote:

---

I probably did not include a few things. I believe I DID include an "etc." did I not? In any case you keep harping on my "laundry list" as if it were meant to be the be all adn end all conclusive definition of scietific methodlogy or something.

---

quote:

---

Walk v. (1)To move or cause to move on foot at a pace slower than a run.

Think v. (1)To have or formulate in the mind.(2A) To Ponder. (2B) To Reason.

Mind n. (1)The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested esp. in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

Any questions? Good.

---

quote:

---

I am not trying to prove my case by pointing to the American Heritage Dictionary definitions BTW. It just seems you are having difficulties with my off-the-cuff summations, choosing to mitpick at side issues and such. SO these will be the definitions I am going by for my purposes here.

---

quote:

---

I get the same argument from creationists against evolution. It goes something like this:

"Evolution cannot tell us what created the universe, what my purpose in life is, where I am going(when I die) or why I should strive for...(Blah, blah, rant, rave)."

I usually answer this by saying "neither can plumbing. Therefore, when your faucet is leaky you should not call a plumber but instead consult the Bible."

---

quote:

---

Besides, it is arguable whether my definition of thinking tells us everything that is worth knowing about thinking or not. You have given us a groundless assertion here.

---