From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, x wrote:   
      
   > 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   
      
   Nope. Science is a method for discovering the truth. I do not agree to any   
   other definition.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Universals do not exist. Only the material world exist. I have never seen   
   an empirical proof of universals.   
      
   > I am thinking that you have also not noticed that you have   
   > made this jump.   
      
   Probably bad use of language. I am not a native english speaker. Could you   
   please expand and I will probably revise.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   See previous reply. I think maybe we should consolidate?   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   True.   
      
   >>> 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)