The Black Vault

DIss0n80r wrote:

chrisv25 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Everything will be groovy if we just stay within the boundaries agreed upon. We can be creative, just not too creative. It's better to be consistent than to take risks. So everyone behave and let's pretend we're putting our yack in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Because if we follow the rules and parrot the facts back and forth, we'll look all scientific and stuff, and that's all that really matters.

you have misunderstood the text.

Did you assume disagreement?

I was merely paraphrasing Einstein.

oh no no,

sorry i have problem with this interpersonal stuff, there was no disrespect.

I meant you have misunderstood the text, he meant that the road is treacherous on either side, Aristotelian or empirical and we must follow the middle road between 'empirical' and 'metaphysical'

DIss0n80r wrote:"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken."

that's very interesting. I'm reading "ideas and opinions" by Einstein right now, I had not realized he was a verbal about his opinions as he was.

chrisv25 wrote:oh no no,

sorry i have problem with this interpersonal stuff, there was no disrespect.

I meant you have misunderstood the text, he meant that the road is treacherous on either side, Aristotelian or empirical and we must follow the middle road between 'empirical' and 'metaphysical'

I understood that. I also understand the need for consensus meanings. We can hardly debate the nature of gommyfargalar.

I don't feel disrespected by you.

I just get irked occasionally by what seems to be a tone of conclusiveness that some people have (not referring to you, here). No one really knows for sure what's what, no matter how we rate our perceptions. I'm not even sure commonality is such a good thing to rely upon. Plus, while referring to consistent results has practical value, it still doesn't guarantee a certainty has been discovered.

chrisv25 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken."

that's very interesting. I'm reading "ideas and opinions" by Einstein right now, I had not realized he was a verbal about his opinions as he was.

Eh, it was from wikiquote. I have no idea if it's genuine or not, but it still makes a good point.

Smokingjoe-
It's not the same thing, if you require validation -aside from faith- than you will deny god on account of a lack of evidence, this makes you an atheist, if you are comfortable accepting a god without anything but faith, than you're a theist. An atheist does not require validation that a god doesn't exist, that's silly. I do not believe in unicorns, I do not believe in big foot etc. I do not require confirmation that these things do not exist, I can fairly logically assume that they are simply fairly tales and myths. Much the same with a god, no validation needed unless I where to believe in one.

I have personal experiences that changed my views from atheist to believer. Those experiences are enough evidence for me to know something exists after we leave this existence. Energy never dies. This is a scientific fact. We are energy. This is also a fact. The question that remains is this:

Does our conscious exist within that energy? My experiences tell me yes. There is absolutely no way to prove this to anyone else. Hence, my comment, I need no further validation.

Subjectivity is such a dirty word.

DIss0n80r wrote:Subjectivity is such a dirty word.

LOL. I couldn't agree with ya more. People presume to KNOW for themselves what my experiences amount to. Many fail to realize they are simply expressing their own perspective on a given subject, and not much about the subject itself. Those individuals simply close their minds and even refuse to consider the possibilities of the experiences being true as presented.

I faced that here, clearly, on one of the last occasions I chose to go into detail and answer another poster's questions about what changed my beliefs from agnostic to spiritual. He simply chose to define it as he saw it, and then proceeded to ridicule those aspects he assigned, arbitrarily, to my life's experiences.

His subjective conjectures had no relation to the objective thoughts originally shared.

So, yes, I am with you on that. Subjectivity is definitely a dirty word.

Which poster?? It wasn't me, was it? Could have been, cause I be trollin.

DIss0n80r wrote:Which poster?? It wasn't me, was it? Could have been, cause I be trollin.

Trollin'...trollin' ....trollin' on the river. I be trollin'...trollin'...trollin' on the river.

No, it wasn't you. And before EH chimes in, while he has done similar, I wasn't referring to him, either. The poster was phugun_gynus.

Phug apparently (eventually) got banned for something. What, I don't know. I wasn't around at the time. (or I was, and my memory is so shot, I just don't recall the reason. )

Oh.

That's a relief / disappointment.