quote:

---

Originally written by m's provocation:

Well perhaps the dragon is chewing your car every day and shortening the life of the car(while not leaving any perceptible marks).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

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.

---

See, this is the sentence that just doesn't mean anything to me. What does it mean to say that something exists regardless of whether we are around?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Matter did exist before minds, but couldn't have existed in the absence of minds.

---

quote:

---

Part of the problem here is that my argument relies on the fact that in my view, existence requires a non-causal, retrospective assignation of existence by a conscious being, which I don't think your philosophy has any concept analogous to.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't see them as different issues. It can't be true to say that facts exist unless someone holds a definition of what a fact is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

Defining something with near-synonyms isn't very helpful.

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

quote:

---

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

I find THAT important.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Why is something important to you when you won't be around to see it?

---

quote:

---

People do make assumptions in order to get things done, but for most people this is done very much as an ad hoc process. Most people (perhaps even all people) end up holding a very large set of assumptions that contains some inconsistencies and would fall apart if they spent too much time analysing it.

---

quote:

---

That's not my argument. In fact, I was arguing the opposite; that whatever initially inspires someone to pursue a line of scientific thought, that inspiration should be considered to be outside the scientific method -- and therefore that "Observation" did not belong at the start of that list, because it is not a discrete step in the scientific method.

---

quote:

---

[b]

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!?

---

I assure you I have every intention of pursuing a career in mainstream science.

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.

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

There was some point when YOUR definition did not include such. My point is that you said, and I do believe these were your exact words, "thought is defined as brain activity", and that this is an incomplete definition precisely BECAUSE it does not mention consciousness.

---

quote:

---

I hope you're getting the point by now that your little "thought is defined as brain activity" throwaway line, as if all we needed to know about thought was that it was an activity of the brain, kinda got under my skin.

---

quote:

---

[b]Not when you said "thought is defined as brain activity", you didn't.

---

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:

---

AGAIN, you are dodging. I am NOT asking whether something can be SAID by YOU to exist FOR YOU. I am asking whether the tree is there, physically.

---

quote:

---

You seem unaware of what "objective" is. Things which are different for each individual are subjective. If it is your view that ALL things are subjective then fine, we are at an impasse(as I said LONG ago) and while it has(mostly) been fun, we cannot really squeeze much else out of this discussion.

---

quote:

---

I disagree completely but we are spinning our wheels again.I do not need to examine every automobile in existence at once to say that none of them are made entirely of gelatin or molasses. I can say this is objecttively true by virtue of having some knowledge of how things work. it is impossible to build a combustion engine out of molasses.

---

quote:

---

A statement that is not meaningful to YOU cannot be objectively true? That is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

The question is a simple one: Was there something that physically existed which preceeded OUR existence and led TO our developement in a linear chain of causation? Again, I am NOT asking whether youy or I could have found this meaningful sans our own existence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I answered by distinguishing two different kinds of past tense; the one obtained by conceptually reversing time for the event alone and the one obtained by conceptually reversing time for both the event and the observer. In the latter case, the observer thinks himself right out of the picture, so in order to make meaningful statements about the past we are dependent on things as they appear to us in the present.

---

Again, who cares? The point is that matter exists adn existed regardless of whether we had ever evolved. If no life had ever devloped on earth, this would not preclude a universe full of planets and stars from itself existing. It would only preclude anyone being able to appreciate, asses or evaluate such things.

---

quote:

---

So you are agreeing that matter itself exists, even prior to our own existence as a species?

---

quote:

---

Again, I understand adn agree with teh point that we cannot assign truth values or appreciate such concepts as existence adn non-existence unless we ourselves exist. THat is another issue and one we DO agree on so let's not dwell on this distraction. THe question I put before you is this:

Say an asteroid was moving through space, one billion years ago, and was due to intersect with the location we currently observe Earth to be. Would this asteroid hit something or not?

---

quote:

---

I repeat: I understand that we could not find any meaning in such an event if we are not aropund to do so. We already agree to that. NOW let's move on to MY question above. Pretend a non-sentient cam-corder was floating through space recording events but no life forms existed ANYWHERE. Would the camera record an asteroid impact with earth or would it record nothingness?

---

quote:

---

Again, I undersstand that, not existing ourselves, we could not SAY that the camera or the asteroid existed. That is not what I am asking.

---

quote:

---

Because you are treating these first principles as if they are arrived at in the same methodological process that we arrive at conclusions which follow from these base assumptions. We have NO CHOICE in whether we will accept such assumptions which are themselves not subject to validation by logic.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I was too subtle in making my point. I was objecting specifically to including observation as an initial, independent item in the scientific method, not to including observation in the scientific method in general.

---

What does THAT mean?!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So let me see if I understand you. The scientific method is intended to be a procedure for obtaining true propositions?

---

It is a process/method for understanding the limitations of our universe. For comprehendsing HOW the universe works/ behaves as we observe it to do so.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Okay. Now I'm no lexicographer, and ideally I'd like a few weeks to consult with people who are before attempting a definition, but here's my little attempt anyway.

Being "bad" is not a property of an object as such; something is "bad" for or to something. Something which is bad for a conscious being has properties which are, overall, contrary to the fulfilment of that being's desires. An individual property of an object may be bad for a being in isolation even if the object as a whole is not bad for that being (for example, a medicine's taste may be bad for a particular being, in that that beings desires to avoid experiencing such a taste, but the overall effect of exposure to the medicine may not be bad due to its overriding health benefits).

We can also say that something is "bad" for an inanimate object. When something is bad for an object, it is generally bad with respect to a conscious being's attitude toward that object. Something which is bad for an object with respect to a conscious being confers on that object properties which are undesirable to that being, or removes from it properties which are desirable to that being. For example, filling the fuel tank with sugar is bad for my car with respect to me, because it removes from it the property of being usable for transportation, which is a property that I desire of my car.

When we say that something is bad for an object without specifying who it is bad for that object for, we are usually implying that the object has a generally-accepted intended purpose and that the bad thing acts to prevent the fulfilment of that purpose (again, in this sense it can be said that filling the fuel tank with sugar is bad for a car, because it is generally accepted among car users that a car has an intended purpose of being used for transportation).

When we simply say that something is "bad", we usually mean that we are assessing it as being bad for ourselves, or in some cases for the audience we are addressing.

---

Your definition of "bad" is insufficient adn incomplete. It does not tell me anything worth knowing about Shaft's "badness". They say that Shaft is one BAD mother-(Shut yo' mouth!) adn "they" obviously do not mean any of what you said above.
"Bad" in the context of Shaft means "Someone so cool and tough that he is not to be trifled with. Someone so 'smoothe' with the ladies that if you walk into a singles bar, single, and Shaft is there, you will leave said bar... single.

---

quote:

---

until the next time I see Thuryl turn a philosophical discussion into a game where he molests the other participants with knives.

---