[Savage Clone]

Anyone's life experience can form a decent random sample of humanity to extrapolate from.
I would say 96% is a pretty good estimate, being kind.

[!@#$%!]

the concept of time is a human one, but it attempts to fit the changes that we perceive in the world. we have *several* concepts of time in operation, newtonian time being the predominant one. sure the concept only exists in the mind but something else happens "out there" that is pretty consistent, & when the appropriate concept is applied to our relation with "it" it makes engine tune-ups, mars landings & movie times possible.

in any case the mind is also "out there". we are not the ghosts in the machines, we ARE the machines (or to quote devo, "we are the robots". ha.)

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Anyone's life experience can form a decent random sample of humanity to extrapolate from.
I would say 96% is a pretty good estimate, being kind.

Where do these figures come from?Who is estimating them?Have we all got access to them?Explain.......

[Savage Clone]

Yeesh, I was just kidding around.
I don't have much faith in people in general, that's all.
In most of my personal experience, most people are a waste of time, that's all.
And yeah, living in a society, we all definitely have access to a random sampling of humanity.
Grocery stores and automobile license bureaus are a good place for a good sample of random irritating humanity.

[porkmarras]

I generally do so my estimate of the amount of arseholism that lays in the human race might be slightly different from yours but it doesn't mean it does not exist at all.I would be a complete fool to believe that!

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the concept of time is a human one, but it attempts to fit the changes that we perceive in the world. we have *several* concepts of time in operation, newtonian time being the predominant one. sure the concept only exists in the mind but something else happens "out there" that is pretty consistent, & when the appropriate concept is applied to our relation with "it" it makes engine tune-ups, mars landings & movie times possible.

in any case the mind is also "out there". we are not the ghosts in the machines, we ARE the machines (or to quote devo, "we are the robots". ha.)

You're ignoring the simple logic of the argument.

The ONLY understanding we have of any concept in the universe is through human perception and digestion. While one might maintain that gravity, planetary rotation, evolution, whatever the fuck you want to throw in the pot, occurs independent of human behavior or participation, they are as events only understood by the human definitions used to communicate their existence. Without human perception, our means of observing these phenomena, we would have NO WAY of knowing they exist. While you can reasonably infer that a light you've turned on stays lit when you leave the room, there is no way to be entirely certain of this.

I'm dumbing this down because, really, it seems like a relatively simple concept to me. Humans are arrogant fuckwads who assume that the rules of rationality they put in place govern all and create absolutes. These rules and concepts are infallible insofar as we wish them to be. They are, at best, a desperate attempt to maintain a tenuous hold on stability and logic that enables them to function as sentient beings.

The concept of reality is, in essence, mankind's secular faith in the unseen, a religion of logic. It can be just as easily deconstructed as any god, and is by far more dangerous.

[Savage Clone]

Oh yeah. It's all about the Frame Of Reference.
And Kraftwerk were the robots.

[!@#$%!]

yes but youre confusing the concepts with the reality they attempt to refer to. i would not be as foolish to claim reality exists as described by language/concepts/whatever. we only know minimal parts. but don't mix reality with communication.

[porkmarras]

A lot of good books have been written about Historical Materialism.They are easily available in your local Waterstones

[truncated]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Yeesh, I was just kidding around.
I don't have much faith in people in general, that's all.
In most of my personal experience, most people are a waste of time, that's all.
And yeah, living in a society, we all definitely have access to a random sampling of humanity.
Grocery stores and automobile license bureaus are a good place for a good sample of random irritating humanity.

Wise man. I second this heartily.

[porkmarras]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Anyone's life experience can form a decent random sample of humanity to extrapolate from.
I would say 96% is a pretty good estimate, being kind.

Different points of view i suppose.Anyone's life experience is quite a generic way to put it methinks......

[krastian]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Oh yeah. It's all about the Frame Of Reference.
And Kraftwerk were the robots.

That was good.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by truncated

You're ignoring the simple logic of the argument.

The ONLY understanding we have of any concept in the universe is through human perception and digestion. While one might maintain that gravity, planetary rotation, evolution, whatever the fuck you want to throw in the pot, occurs independent of human behavior or participation, they are as events only understood by the human definitions used to communicate their existence. Without human perception, our means of observing these phenomena, we would have NO WAY of knowing they exist. While you can reasonably infer that a light you've turned on stays lit when you leave the room, there is no way to be entirely certain of this.

I'm dumbing this down because, really, it seems like a relatively simple concept to me. Humans are arrogant fuckwads who assume that the rules of rationality they put in place govern all and create absolutes. These rules and concepts are infallible insofar as we wish them to be. They are, at best, a desperate attempt to maintain a tenuous hold on stability and logic that enables them to function as sentient beings.

The concept of reality is, in essence, mankind's secular faith in the unseen, a religion of logic. It can be just as easily deconstructed as any god, and is by far more dangerous.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to truncated again.

You know truncated, at first, I didn't like you, but I'm starting to think that you are one of the most awesome people on the board.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to truncated again.

You know truncated, at first, I didn't like you, but I'm starting to think that you are one of the most awesome people on the board.

you might be kinda slow

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you might be kinda slow

Only at cumming, but I'm pretty sure girls like a guy that can go for awhile. Well, to go with the whole Descartes thing, I think girls like it, so I will accept that they do, otherwise, I would be never sure what they liked and I could never find happiness.

[!@#$%!]

^^ ha ha, good answer, and you're getting repped for it, but no ball cupping, unless you're the one willing to do that part

(cumming claims aside, wasn't truncated obviously a star from the get go?)

---
ps--

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SpectralJulianIsNotDead again.
---
sorry man, i guess i did that before, but here goes your butt slap

 

[qprogeny79]

Originally Posted by truncated

To get a bit abstract, take the concept of time - time in and of itself does not exist, but is an organizational tool imposed by the human mind. It is a construct of the sentient mind that divides up the infinite for purposes of convenience and functionality. Time DOES NOT EXIST outside of the human brain.

ok, put down the kant and think about it. time is a measurement of change, right? and the ability to change is a property of things as they are in the world independent of our perception, right? (this premise it seems you would deny, but i shall argue for it later.) thus time is merely a measurement of certain capacities of elements of objective reality. now the measurements THEMSELVES (e.g., seconds, hours, millennia) may be products of our own imagination, but that does not negate the objective existence of time. think about this: you (hopefully, if you have any sense at all) would not say that because it is a matter of convenience that we divide up extended objects into inches, miles, and light-years, that nothing is extended and that space does not exist outside the human brain. (of course, if you're an idealist or kantian you would say just that.) let's go to further extremes: if i threw you naked into the chicago river at midnight on new year's day, would you deny the objective existence of temperature even though it was causing you excruciatingly real physiological detriment?

as for the idea that things exist independent of our perception, i shall use an adductive argument so as to best persuade you, but in actuality the idea REQUIRES no justification, as it is the foundation upon which all our knowledge, indeed much of our very existence, rests. hopefully you accept the validity of the senses (as above, any attempt to argue against the senses' validity shall employ the senses); all our (valid) sensory-perceptual evidence points to the existence of an objective reality. furthermore, the best explanation for this sensory-perceptual data is that what we perceive actually exists -- our minds simply are not intricate enough to create entire realities of their own. also, the idealist cannot account for similarities in the perceptual experiences of myriad people (berkeley tried to by asserting that this is possible because god perceives everything, but this is patently absurd). finally, the idealist may well be caught in a paradox: is the mind a product of the mind as well? how can the mind create itself?