Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Utter shit talk.

This is the sort of response one often receives from the uneducated. Let's blame your school.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want to believe we live in the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit that's quite up to you. Don't expect anyone to start believing the completely discordant idea that none of this is real.

jamest wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote:
This is the sort of response one often receives from the uneducated. Let's blame your school.

Who do we blame for the posturing and grandiose notions included within your comments?

I'd blame the weather, since if it were a pleasant day I'd probably be outside.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Utter shit talk.

This is the sort of response one often receives from the uneducated. Let's blame your school.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want to believe we live in the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit that's quite up to you. Don't expect anyone to start believing the completely discordant idea that none of this is real.

Don't be a hypocrite. Stop asserting your beliefs when they are devoid of all evidence. And stop making judgements and pronouncements which you are evidently not qualified to make.

jamest wrote:
Don't be a hypocrite. Stop asserting your beliefs when they are devoid of all evidence.

jamest wrote: And stop making judgements and pronouncements which you are evidently not qualified to make.

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:
This is the sort of response one often receives from the uneducated. Let's blame your school.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want to believe we live in the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit that's quite up to you. Don't expect anyone to start believing the completely discordant idea that none of this is real.

Don't be a hypocrite. Stop asserting your beliefs when they are devoid of all evidence. And stop making judgements and pronouncements which you are evidently not qualified to make.

Lol. What qualifications do you think I need to tell a person who thinks we are nothing but cartoons that they are full of shite?

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want to believe we live in the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit that's quite up to you. Don't expect anyone to start believing the completely discordant idea that none of this is real.

Don't be a hypocrite. Stop asserting your beliefs when they are devoid of all evidence. And stop making judgements and pronouncements which you are evidently not qualified to make.

Lol. What qualifications do you think I need to tell a person who thinks we are nothing but cartoons that they are full of shite?

One in which you would comprehend that your observation/experience/knowledge of a world is ontologically equivalent to a cartoon, obviously. Or, at the very least, one in which you did not ontologically confuse your observations of a world with a world itself - something which the philosophically educated call naive realism. Then you would stop talking shit, finally.

Sendraks wrote:

jamest wrote:
Don't be a hypocrite. Stop asserting your beliefs when they are devoid of all evidence.

Blind counterfactual assertion coupled with loud noises.

jamest wrote: And stop making judgements and pronouncements which you are evidently not qualified to make.

Physician, heal thyself.
Ideally quietly.
Outside.

jamest wrote:Say something interesting, or at least try to be funny.

Weaver wrote:For fuck's sake, can't we keep the philosophowibble bullshit confined to the philosophowibble forum, where practitioners can masturbate to their hearts' content that "there is no reality" and "The real world is simply a figment of my imagination - preferably with huge fucking tits." and so forth?

Take the bullshit elsewhere - actual people are talking about the actual world, not some philosophowibble construct.

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:[
One in which you would comprehend that your observation/experience/knowledge of a world is ontologically equivalent to a cartoon, obviously. Or, at the very least, one in which you did not ontologically confuse your observations of a world with a world itself - something which the philosophically educated call naive realism. Then you would stop talking shit, finally.

Except I don't confuse my observations of the world with the world itself,

the only difference is I don't use this to then dismiss that there is a world at all.

Firstly the fact that there is an observation, even if it is an interpretation of data, suggests that there is something being interpreted.

Secondly, the fact that others can share my observation suggests something between this observer and the other which is being observed.

Lastly, there's a thing in science called "concordance" which makes the idea that nothing is real extremely unlikely.

jamest wrote:
That is evidently the case, repetitively so.

jamest wrote:But what is being interpreted is the phenomena occuring within the representational system itself.

jamest wrote:It suggests nothing other than a common experience, which suggests nothing other than a common type of experienceR, if not the same experienceR. It certainly does not suggest that the thing being experienced is [therefore] real.

jamest wrote:I haven't said anything which implies that nothing is real. Clearly, some 'thing' is real or this conversation wouldn't be happening.

jamest wrote:Secondly, as I've just explained, 'concordance' amounts to nothing other than common experience, and that suggests nothing other than (see above).

Weaver wrote:For fuck's sake, can't we keep the philosophowibble bullshit confined to the philosophowibble forum, where practitioners can masturbate to their hearts' content that "there is no reality" and "The real world is simply a figment of my imagination - preferably with huge fucking tits." and so forth?

Take the bullshit elsewhere - actual people are talking about the actual world, not some philosophowibble construct.

nunnington wrote:I didn't think that science is taught in schools with a leavening of 'naive realism'. Is it? It would certainly be difficult to combine the teaching of science, with a course in philosophy, which might introduce the topic of philosophical idealism.

jamest wrote:

Briton wrote:

jamest wrote:

Fallible wrote:As for the headteacher, sadly the British education system is full of ostensibly educated individuals who can't keep their beliefs out of the classroom.

Do you think the dictum "Life arose entirely via matter and physical processes" is not a belief?

As others have stated, no, it's not a belief; in any case, how 'life arose' is a different issue from (the) evolution (of species), for which there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from varying scientific disciplines.

Abiogenesis and evolution are coupled at the onset of life, and both are physical theories seeking to explain the origin and development of life without recourse to any other ontological explanation.

The reason why it's a belief is that there is ZERO evidence within observation/experience to claim that there is a physical reality with actual agency. Not many people seem to understand that our observations/experiences/knowledge are mere representations of things; and that representations-of-things are utterly devoid of any agency. Like Tom & Jerry, they merely have the illusory appearance of being agents. In actual fact, there is nothing but correlative order between represented entities - and the agency underpinning the whole shebang is actually the thing(s) fundamentally responsible for generating the representational system as a whole. Given that the identity/ontology of the reality underpinning experience/observation/knowledge is not a given, then the 'substance'/agency behind it all is (or should be) an open-ended issue... as opposed to a mere mud-slinging contest between Xians and materialists who think that science supports their biased yet unfounded metaphysics.

This false dichotomy, this primitive metaphysics, should not be perpetuated. The only way to achieve this is to teach philosophy to our kids. But philosophy is a danger to any status quo, including the founding principles underpinning any political entity and/or culture, not least the establishments thereof. This is why it will probably never happen. Whole nations filled with a populace able to question such values - heaven forbid!

jamest wrote: The issues here are entirely philosophical. If you want to pretend that your tribalism entitles you and your ilk from intellectual challenge, then think again. If you and your ilk are essentially talking philosophy - and you all are, even without knowing it - then be prepared for a storm.