From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/11/25 02:40, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, oldernow wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2025-03-10, D  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> I agree! You are a wise man. Since our senses and minds   
   >>> are limited, we can never know 100% of reality.   
   >>   
   >> Senses/minds are sounding rather dubious in the faculties   
   >> department. Okay, "we can never know 100%", but could we   
   >> at least know what the actual percentage value is so we   
   >> can know whether we're wasting our time getting to know   
   >> reality via senses/minds?   
   >>   
   >>> This is the truth, and proven by science!   
   >>   
   >> And you know such to be the truth proven by science   
   >> via... senses/mind?   
   >   
   > You are making the error of mixing up two different uses here. I did not   
   > claim our senses and minds are unreliable and should not be trusted. I   
   > claimed they are limited, as in limited resolution. I cannot physically   
   > see an electron, therefore they are as far as we are concerned   
   > theoretical structures that fit within a theoretical framework that   
   > makes good predictions. Should replacing them with fnords result in   
   > better predictions we are entitled to include fnords instead of electrons.   
   >   
   > Science works because the world exists, and our senses do not deceive us   
   > about this. This is a fact, and I recommend Moores here's a hand proof,   
   > which is brilliant in its utter simplicity.   
      
   Hmm.  'Science' is an abstraction.  Whether it 'works' or not   
   is also an abstraction.  You've jumped out of a certain system   
   of logic and then started handwaving about theories of 'mind'   
   in a world of philosophy and more complete universals.   
      
   I am thinking that you have also not noticed that you have   
   made this jump.   
      
   > So when it comes to the external world, since it is the state you are   
   > in, you must falsify it. This has not been done in 2500 years of   
   > philosophy or science, which means currently, it is a fact.   
      
   Again I am thinking you have added the word 'interior' or   
   'exterior' to something that might not have specific dimension   
   in 'space'.  Whether we might or might not be obligated to   
   'falsify' it is not obvious.  Then we are somehow obligated   
   to ask Socrates or Plato about it?  Why?  Then you claim   
   it is a 'philosophic' 'ontological' or 'universal' fact?   
   What is this space or time situation in some type of   
   spatial or non-spatial 'universal'?  When you jump into   
   a sort of philosophic fact then that seems to me out of   
   it.  Should we be asking Wittgenstien?  That might be less   
   than a hundred years rather than several thousand.   
      
   > Should someone falsify the external world, we acknowlege that and update   
   > our models of the world.   
      
   Admittedly, there are other parts of usenet where jumping   
   between different versions of 'proof' or 'falsification'   
   is more clueless.   
      
   >> No wonder humans cherish circularity, what with it being   
   >> the tail-chasing shape of mind!   
   >   
   > No circularity at all, see above. =) Still waiting for the falsification   
   > of the world.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)