Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational Archive  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational Archive > The Rat Ring > The Rat Ring Formal Debate Forum

Notices

The Rat Ring Formal Debate Forum Moderated forum for formal debates/discussions. If you would like to have a formal, moderated debate, make a proposal in the proposals forum.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-03-2010, 07:30 PM   #1208778  /  #26
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,320
TestyCalibrate
Default

Ok, trying to keep this as brief as possible, I'm going to focus on what I think are the salient points of either misunderstanding or disagreement.

A. I defined and limited the meaning of perfect truth to 'knowledge of what is, was and will be'. In doing so, I made a few assertions/assumptions.

  1. Knowledge is limited to spatial and temporal information. If this is contentious, I will defend that statement.
  2. Truth is limited to potential knowledge, which in turn is limited to potentially true statements about spatial or temporal information. If you want to contest that, I will defend it.
  3. Perfect truth is the total body of true statements that can be made about spatial and temporal information. That is a premise. My assertions require it as a definition. If you don't like the phrase, then we need to choose another that summarizes my assertions in (1) and (2). If you object on the grounds of Godel's incompleteness theorems, omega consistency, the halting problem, fractal geometry or even Santeria voodoo, to my use of the singular for the collection of all true statements about temporal or spatial information, then we should straighten that out. I presume that the limits are clear enough that we don't need to do that, but perhaps we do.
B. In the topic resolution, I asserted that perfect truth, the total body of spatial and temporal information, is beyond humanity's ability to attain. In that assertion there are a few implicit assertions.

  1. That knowledge is something we acquire. Again, if you contest that, I will try to defend it.
  2. That there are no theoretical limits to our ability to continuously acquire knowledge, and no theoretical barriers to our ability to acquire any individual bit of knowledge.
  3. That our ability to attain knowledge is limited physically by the spatial and temporal qualities of knowledge.
  4. That the physical limitation restrains our actual ability to ever acquire the total body, perfect truth.
Here are the objections I found relevant from your previous posts. If you think I missed any, that is probably a sign that I didn't understand them:
Quote:
Quote:
Whether nebulous or non, my assertion rests on the acceptance of the idea that knowledge can increase.
I can accept the idea that what we call knowledge changes over time, but it is by no means clear what "increase" means.
Increase is an addition of true statements we can make about spatial or temporal information. True statements are self consistent, so the paradigm of definitions determines the ability to determine the truth of a statement.


Quote:
If one theory is overturned by another, for example, has knowledge increased?
If the new theory allows us to make more true statements about temporal or spatial information, and we use it to do so, then knowledge has increased.
Quote:
Was the prior theory not knowledge, less knowledge?
The prior theory allowed us to make some true statements about temporal or spatial information. It also allowed us to make some false statements about temporal or spatial information. Since the aim of a theory is to make true statements, the false statements are the limits of a theory's ability to generate knowledge.
Quote:
Is the improvement in information gathering and the increase in data a necessary increase in knowledge?
Yes.

Quote:
What about understanding, is a better understanding "more knowledge"?
I think this is a circular question. How is 'a better understanding' different from 'the ability to make more true statements about temporal or spatial information'?

Quote:
Even if I grant that knowledge can increase it by no means follows that there is knowledge which cannot be obtained.
That is covered in B(3) and B(4). Our temporal condition limits our ability to obtain the set, though not necessarily any individual element of the set.


Quote:
. Aren't you the one who's saying there is a perfect truth we can't access? If so aren't you advancing the proposition that there are things what cannot theoretically be known in order to support your conclusion that there is this perfect truth.

Next you say "Just name something that can't theoretically be known about what is was or will be" is a pretty weird challenge for someone who claims there are things which "cannot theoretically be known about what is was and will be." (I mean, that's your theory right now right, that there are things we can't know: this perfect truth thing for example)?
My proposition is not that there are unknowable elements of the body of elements. If there are unknowable elements of that body, then I think there is no way to determine the body exists as defined. My proposition is that our spatial and temporal nature limits the quantity of elements we can acquire. My subtext is that what we call knowledge is entirely spatially and temporally oriented.

Quote:
How much psychedelic shit have you done in your life? Serious question.
lots.

Quote:
Quote:
Why does it need a mind of God?
Because you called it knowledge, and if it's already knowledge, then it must already be known, and to be known it needs a mind. That's being generous, if everything "can be theoretically known" is true as you are now saying, then everything must be already known. I gave you God as a way to get out.
If God is my only refuge in this discussion, I have failed to make a case. I do not understand how it logically follows that what is knowable must already be known. If I have made an error in that, then I am wrong in total here.

I apologize for the length of this post. I edited it down quite a bit and I hope I got rid of most of the superfluous crap. I really do value your take on this idea. If my proposition is wrong, then that's fine. I just don't see it yet. I would like to know where my error is if I'm wrong and am trying to be as objective as possible with your argument and mine. I also apologize if I offended you yesterday. None was intended, and in fact I highly appreciate your willingness to help me make sense of the ramblings that fall out of my head onto my keyboard. Really. Thank you.
__________________
Cabin fever.

Last edited by TestyCalibrate; 12-04-2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason: added :)
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 12-04-2010, 12:15 PM   #1209280  /  #27
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,320
TestyCalibrate
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem for your dreams. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy's great insight
There's all this stuff right, and the amount we know about it can just keep going on growing forever and we'll still never get to the end, so that's like tons of stuff we could, like, learn but never will.
O/T but could I use this for my sig?
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 12-04-2010, 03:56 PM   #1209415  /  #28
Requiem
Dubstyle.
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: i forget
Posts: 23,616
Requiem
Default

Dude, I told you, this stupid debate is over. I ain't even reading that shit. I'm done. I mean what the fuck, you're posting drunk now. This whole thing is retarded. You wanted a debate, you keep going on about shit in practically every half decent philosophy thread that gets going and never making any sense, so I gave you a chance and you're taking the piss, wasting my time. That has fuck all to do with my ego and for you to ascribe ego just shows what a weaselly little dishonest misdirecting fucker you are.
Also re: your commment, what? I'm not here to "do good work and keep you honest", it's not about what I'm here for, you're the one with the supposed point you keep dribbling on about all over the board, it's about what the fuck you think you are talking about. You had your chance, you took the piss, this whole thing is retarded, and I'm not wasting any more time on it.
Requiem is offline   topbottom
Old 12-04-2010, 08:48 PM   #1209690  /  #29
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,320
TestyCalibrate
Default

I see. Well, up for a vote then I guess. Sorry I didn't perform up to snuff. You get what you pay for I guess. I don't think you ever really addressed my op with a supported criticism. I'm not blaming you or anything, I'm sure it's my fault. I'm aware that people have a hard time understanding me. I don't know where the fuck god came into the picture and I don't know what you think a good faith effort would look like. If it makes you mad that I didn't understand your criticisms then I can't help that. I told you I would defend whatever proposition we chose the best I could. I did. I don't even know what your counter-argument is. At all. Without knowing what the rebuttal was rebutting, it made it hard for me to know what to write.

Anyway, If I really did make an overstated claim, then I trust the poll to tell me. I think it should allow changing answers and show respondents user names.

I wish I did.
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 05:31 PM   #1211692  /  #30
Requiem
Dubstyle.
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: i forget
Posts: 23,616
Requiem
Default

dp

Last edited by Requiem; 12-06-2010 at 05:31 PM. Reason: dp
Requiem is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 05:31 PM   #1211693  /  #31
Requiem
Dubstyle.
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: i forget
Posts: 23,616
Requiem
Default

Dude, if that's all there is to "defending a proposition" then science must be as easy as saying stuff. You didn't say anything coherent. Insofar as I can make out where what you (think you) are arguing for goes to, then I can only address that. If you don't understand or cannot logically present your case then it's no surprise that people are going to be frustrated. I had fun stuff to do this past weekend, and am pretty busy in general at the moment, and so when it struck me you were just "stream of consciousness" dribbling on the keyboard it doesn't annoy me, it just tells me it will be a waste of time to continue, and that despite what you have said in PM you really don't have anything coherently put together already. That is of course, assuming you don't believe what you have presented here to be coherent, perhaps you really do.

Anyway, it was a mistake on my part to decide to go with it after chewing over your PMs. I know you think you've got some insight, but if you can't communicate it then it's just another meaningless claim to special knowledge and worthy of no greater regard.

W/e. Last word is mine in line with normal practice, so:
/Thread
Requiem is offline   topbottom
Old 12-06-2010, 05:39 PM   #1211715  /  #32
feelings
daddy horny, michael
 
feelings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,582
feelings
Default

you suck
__________________
"When you advocate high-carb diets, you advocate sickness and death Ė and you profit from this, too. Thatís horrible, and I donít know how people like you can live with yourselves. But hey, keeping people fat and sick helps put more money in your pocket. I totally understand that."
feelings is offline   topbottom
Old 01-16-2011, 09:01 PM   #1264357  /  #33
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,320
TestyCalibrate
Default

You do know I kicked your ass in this debate. Right?
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 04-15-2011, 06:15 PM   #1378490  /  #34
Requiem
Dubstyle.
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: i forget
Posts: 23,616
Requiem
Default

If the objective was to be the most successful at saying stuff nobody could make any sense of, yes, you buried me. I mean, if you didn't then there wouldn't be an infinity on the continuum would there?
Requiem is offline   topbottom
Old 04-15-2011, 06:44 PM   #1378522  /  #35
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,430
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TestyCalibrate View Post
You do know I kicked your ass in this debate. Right?
Being on the accurate side does not mean being on the winning side of a debate.
buttershug is offline   topbottom
 

  TalkRational Archive > The Rat Ring > The Rat Ring Formal Debate Forum

Tags
!let's dance, boring, hmmm, retarded ass debate, retarded ass thread, shit thread, stopper is the truth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2018, TalkRational.org