On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

Actually Graham, with respect, I got what I want, what I was after.
I only brought in Tarski and non-contingent truths to prove the point I have been arguing against for (seems like) weeks which was made by SD amongst others and defended by (seems like) virtually everyone summed up in the point "all weve got is empiricism"
...

Oh no Graham, you dont distract me that easily.
My point is made; There is at least one other way of aquiring real knowledge without empirical evidence. You are no longer able to say that a metaphysical statement is untrue because if lacks empirical evidence. You are no longer able to say absract reasoning is automatically in error because it does not have empirical evidence. Thats what I have got.
You keep Brothers Grimm, thank you.

Jesus christ. You brought Tarski in because you didn't understand him and it completely backfired by showing the exact opposite of what you tried to show. Worse yet he had a proof for the position against you.

Now you are blathering as usual about being right? Is there any end to this?

If you don't gather up a little intellectual honesty here I am going to have be done with this.

How do you have a conversation with someone who is proven wrong daily and keeps claiming victory?

[Little Idiot]

Actually Graham, with respect, I got what I want, what I was after.
I only brought in Tarski and non-contingent truths to prove the point I have been arguing against for (seems like) weeks which was made by SD amongst others and defended by (seems like) virtually everyone summed up in the point "all weve got is empiricism"
...

Oh no Graham, you dont distract me that easily.
My point is made; There is at least one other way of aquiring real knowledge without empirical evidence. You are no longer able to say that a metaphysical statement is untrue because if lacks empirical evidence. You are no longer able to say absract reasoning is automatically in error because it does not have empirical evidence. Thats what I have got.
You keep Brothers Grimm, thank you.

Jesus christ. You brought Tarski in because you didn't understand him and it completely backfired by showing the exact opposite of what you tried to show. Worse yet he had a proof for the position against you.

He does nothing of the sort.
What are you saying he proves which is the oposite of my position?
I will point out that I have, tonight confirmed the point I have been disputing for weeks(?) that 'all we've got is empiricism'
Thats the victory I am crowing about. And bloody hard work it was too!

Now you are blathering as usual about being right? Is there any end to this?

Link to the last post before today when I made such a claim. I refute you thus!

If you don't gather up a little intellectual honesty here I am going to have be done with this.

How do you have a conversation with someone who is proven wrong daily and keeps claiming victory?

I find patience and a thick skin help me to put up with it.

where was I proven wrong - apart from the maths proof which nobody else disproved until today?
If I am, as you say 'proven wrong daily', but 'blather about being right', then show me where these happened, it shouldnt take much searching. Do so that I may try to right my wrongs or at least be made aware of my errors.

[SpeedOfSound]

He does nothing of the sort.
What are you saying he proves which is the oposite of my position?
I will point out that I have, tonight confirmed the point I have been disputing for weeks(?) that 'all we've got is empiricism'
Thats the victory I am crowing about. And bloody hard work it was too!

...

Link to the last post before today when I made such a claim. I refute you thus!

where was I proven wrong - apart from the maths proof which nobody else disproved until today?
If I am, as you say 'proven wrong daily', but 'blather about being right', then show me where these happened, it shouldnt take much searching. Do so that I may try to right my wrongs or at least be made aware of my errors.

I have this problem when working with addicts. You really don't know do you? I apologize. It's so obvious I thought you were doing it on purpose.

What do you think Tarski proved for you? Show me where.

Did you understand the problem with you leaving out the quotes from the "P" and you making it a lower case p? Show me your understanding. And no I'm not looking for you to point out that if you did that it would be a meaningless tautology. That's DUH!

Tell me what the intent of that statement is in your understanding.

[SpeedOfSound]

that 'all we've got is empiricism'

And lets deal with this bullshit. CSG's point was not that all we know is from observation. He used the term 'empirical world' which is the same as my R1/R2. Lets use that form here forward.

Though most of what we know is from observation and all of it so based.

[SpeedOfSound]

I'll try and post a summary this evening. Right now I have to go explain to my fellow AA's why I'm always right.

[Surendra Darathy]

I'll try and post a summary this evening. Right now I have to go explain to my fellow AA's why I'm always right.

Tell 'em that you're on a mission from Atkins.

[SpeedOfSound]

I'll try and post a summary this evening. Right now I have to go explain to my fellow AA's why I'm always right.

Tell 'em that you're on a mission from Atkins.

It was awesome the other night. The topic was spiritual experience and two of them started in about seeing auras around each other. two more chimed in with my daddy the ghost who sat on my bed stories. The rest bar myself and two had god to say.

Came my turn. Last to speak. I said "I'm religiously impaired, Richard Dawkins is my personal savior". Two laughed and the breath went out of the room like someone opened the outer hatch...


I love my little religulous friends.

[SpeedOfSound]

It would be good at this point to label all of that up there the Tarskimetacolypse and and agree to disagree for now. Then we can get on to representations in the mind.

This will require both of us shutting the fuck up right now and letting the last word wait until another thread and time. I would not consider it a violation of this truce if we went over to other thread and took it up there. But here Armageddon!!! :pissed: :pissed:

Okay?

Yes ___
No __

without qualification.

[Little Idiot]

It would be good at this point to label all of that up there the Tarskimetacolypse and and agree to disagree for now. Then we can get on to representations in the mind.

This will require both of us shutting the fuck up right now and letting the last word wait until another thread and time. I would not consider it a violation of this truce if we went over to other thread and took it up there. But here Armageddon!!! :pissed: :pissed:

Okay?

Yes ___
No __

without qualification.

Yes, we can agree to disagree about Tarski for the time being.
Give you more time to read up on his work and understand him properly No I didnt say that, it wasnt me...
So I take it from our new found peace and tranquility I dont need to reply to the earlier posts, as I dont want to risk this:

[SpeedOfSound]

It would be good at this point to label all of that up there the Tarskimetacolypse and and agree to disagree for now. Then we can get on to representations in the mind.

This will require both of us shutting the fuck up right now and letting the last word wait until another thread and time. I would not consider it a violation of this truce if we went over to other thread and took it up there. But here Armageddon!!! :pissed: :pissed:

Okay?

Yes ___
No __

without qualification.

Yes, we can agree to disagree about Tarski for the time being.
Give you more time to read up on his work and understand him properly No I didnt say that, it wasnt me...
So I take it from our new found peace and tranquility I dont need to reply to the earlier posts, as I dont want to risk this:

There ain't no fucking earlier posts.

So I should be asleep. What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

[SpeedOfSound]

There is no observer.

[Little Idiot]

There is no observer.

Sorry, I have been busy and didnt reply yet. I did type a reply to the last post, but lost it before posting due to being an idiot.
Gimme 5 and i will reply

[Little Idiot]

There is no observer.

Wait! stop! Explain!

What do you mean?

[SpeedOfSound]

There is no observer.

Wait! stop! Explain!

What do you mean?

There is no place in the brain where things are processed, represented and presented. The fist two are okay it's the presented part that doesn't exist. Sort of. It isn't considered a presentation because it is the same stuff as the processing and the representation. It's all the same stuff.

[Little Idiot]

What can you tell me about this representation thing in the mind that seems to be one of your opening points?

If we have experience, then we know it by the action of our mind, regardless of what the mind is.
Our mind constructs a singular experience from separate senses, and sources such as memory of past experience, expectation and so on. This is an act of construction and a lot of information gatered by the senses and processed by the mind is not brought into the awareness of the experience. The experience of 'oak 1' when I gaze upon a tree is a representation constructed by my mind.