From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/11/25 14:35, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   I guess the word 'truth' in English is a set of   
   different symbols describing sounds in one language.   
      
   Perhaps the concept can be related to other symbol   
   patterns in other languages?   
      
   Could that relation of concept be an 'abstraction'   
   even though they might be different symbols or words?   
      
   Maybe a 'universal' could be an 'abstraction of an   
   abstraction'?  Maybe that could be just another   
   set of symbols, who knows?   
      
   >>> 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)