The Moral Landscape does not make such a breech, and the Obama administration is not Humanist. I do not see where your argument ties in.
How could I prove that they were actual to others, or that others even exist, if they are not actual in my perception? Where did I do that? It will always be true no matter how much I explore because the same logic will always be applicable. The "I" is everything.
Ok, lets give it a go. Assuming you have this down, use your scientific objective approach to answer the following. 1. Is it moral for a society to allow genetically inferior people to reproduce? 2. Was it moral for the US to use the atomic bomb on Japan? Go!!
Has anyone asked you to perform the task of validating what someone else holds within their perception? Besides that; can you really PROVE (show PROOF) of anything? By admitting that there are parts of the universe that you have not explored.. ie... Neither you nor I are the center of the universe. By acknowledging (by communicating with me as an example) you are admitting that there are parts of the universe that you have not explored. Every man or woman you encounter is another part of that universe that you have not explored. Even in the use of that same logic, there is no evidence that your particular choice of logic is the exclusively perfect form of logic. So what does your statement above prove? NOTHING. So "I" can refer to anything that is encountered by me, and it (that thing encountered) can be referred to as "I"? That is illogical even by the standards used by the scientific community.
How can I know what someone else holds in his perception? I don't understand the question. Those parts of the universe are purely hypothetical until they have actually been explored. Prove it. So what kind of logic do you want me to use? Tarski's Theorem will be just as applicable to it. It's only illogical to those stuck in the false subject/object dichotomy. The true empiricist would say that only the relationship(sense-perception) between the subject and object exists, not the subject nor the object independent of each other. The "I" is the thing which is the simultaneously the subject and the object.
By listening to what they have to say with regard to what they are willing to disclose about what they hold in their perception. "can you really PROVE (show PROOF) of anything?" In other words can you accomplish that which esteemed scientists have not been able to do? Can you prove that they are "purely hypothetical"? "purely" is an absolute. Do you KNOW everything that there is to KNOW about me? Does it really make any difference what I want? That choice is yours to make. If you choose to live by theories made by other men, that is also your choice. I would have to agree with your misleading language. Why? Because the subject of a sense perception would be the object being sensed. You should also brush up on your grammar, as during the last two paragraphs, you goofed sentence structure.
How do I know they're not lying? What is "proof"? How can I have no evidence for something and have it be anything other than purely hypothetical? I know everything there is to know about everything. The only thing that proves logic to be true is the self-disproving nature of illogic. Unfortunately, logic is not self-proving. Where?
One of two different ways: 1: wait until the supposed lie can be proven to be a lie; 2: use spiritual discernment. (I suspect right now that you would probably rely upon method #1) What is truth. By limiting your evidence to a particular range of things you immediately reject that evidence which is outside that range. Within that range of evidence, right now you would say that there is no evidence, but if you were to broaden that range of evidence, then you would see more evidence being made available. Where did the number system come from? Two things here. 1: you just proved your statement regarding your quantity of knowledge to be in error. There is no such word as "illogic". 2: you have just proven that your choice of logic systems is in error. Here is one of those errors: "The "I" is the thing which is the simultaneously the subject and the object." "the simultaneously the subject".... Seems that you have some sort of hang up on the use of the word "the".
How would I prove that it is a lie? How does spiritual discernment work? Now I could nag you about your use of a period instead of a question mark and how therefore you must have some sort of hang up about incorrect punctuation, but I'm going to apply Ockham's Razor and say that you made a mistake. Truth is that which cannot be defined other than tautologically. What evidence do I have that there is anything outside of my current range of evidence? I don't know, but if I don't know something then obviously it can't be something that there is to know. Are you saying I didn't say it? Is there a logic system which isn't in error? Yep, it can't possibly be just a typo.
Gee whiz. Looks like you have found the dilemma of calling someone a liar. Like science, you can't PROVE that it is a lie. You could nag, but the period was placed there with intent and with applicability. You had asked "what is...." and I responded with my statement that gives meaning to your question of 'what is". Even Ockham's Razor is not always the perfect source for a solution. Gee whiz... looks like science has found another dead end on its capabilities. Other people that you have not met and which you KNOW nothing about. Yes, I would have to say that you are totally wrapped up in egomania. Did I say that you didn't say "it"? Not according to your egomania. Are you suggesting that your ego filled environment is subject to error? Are you suggesting that you do not have access to or the skills necessary to operate a 'grammar checker' on your computer? Are you saying that you did not KNOW that you had made a typo? Gee, that would mean that you don't KNOW all that there is to KNOW.
How do i know that other people have thoughts or feelings or perceptions? How do I know that they even exist? Do you have a definition of truth? Prove that they exist. Well, if I did say it then clearly it must exist. I can't say non-existent words. But what do you think? And maybe you don't understand what that statement really means.
Well, you can believe whatever you care to believe. But don't ever doubt that your wife and or girlfriend having thoughts or feelings or perceptions. At least don't tell her that she don't. How about this: "..I am the way, the truth, and the life.." That seems to ring a bell in my mind. Of course that may be more of an example than a definition, but I accept it as both. Walk down the street and open your eyes. Imposing restrictions on your own being is, IMHO, not a cool thing to do. That type of action can lead you to a position where you will not enjoy life to its fullest. I think many things, and space and or time on this internet will not accommodate such an undertaking as to make a complete listing. OH believe me, I trust that you have the capacity to render all sorts of rationalizations that would attempt to thwart any explanation which I would make... therefore, why bother? Arguing for the sake of arguing is futile.
You do realize that one set of possible beliefs would render your argument false, right? So if a statement is Jesus it is truth? How can a statement be Jesus? But then I would have met them. Tautologies would be like that if they weren't semantically null.
Only within the mind of those retaining such a set of beliefs. However, in the mind is not necessarily manifested in reality. First of all, you made another error in grammar, rendering your first question to be incomprehensible without correcting your error. Subsequently, your second question is contingent upon the corrected version of the first question, or a restatement of the entire scenario that you are attempting to represent. No! You would not have 'met them', you would have merely observed them. Please explain where a tautology has been implemented, and show the dynamics of that/those alleged tautologies which give credence to your claim that they are in fact tautologies.
Buddhism will be a more difficult path for you so it is your best choice. God is of no importance in Buddhism, it is simply one more thing you must let go of to reach enlightenment. Humanism is open to individual interpretation and thus has no structure. A humanist will cling to their personal truth and destroy it creating a spiritual void that can never be filled. Humanism is not a bad idea but it will leave its follower alone and empty as does all philosophy. Spirituality does not need god in my opinion (or Buddhas).
Then what is manifested in reality? Jesus said that he is the truth(don't quibble about the difference between "truth" and "the truth", since you gave this answer in response to a question about "truth"). Is that statement true? If it is, then if another statement was the truth it would be Jesus. How can a statement be Jesus? How would these other people show that there exists evidence which I do not have? A=A
You remind me of my 3 year old granddaughter. A million questions that any adult would know the answers to. How old did you say that you are? Anyway. Try observing what is around you. Will my response change the price of tea in China? In other words, I sense that you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Not for the purpose of any type of real enlightenment. Drink a glass of warm milk and go to bed. Not if the second statement is not reportedly from the mouth of Jesus and the statement is also not indicating that the speaker is the truth. By being there and you not investigating. You will never know if you don't make inquiry.
How would you know if a statement was from the mouth of Jesus? How do you know if a statement does or does not indicate if a speaker is the truth? How can a speaker be the truth? How do I know if they're there if I'm not investigating?
Spiritual testing. Define truth. Then don't believe your eyes. I care not. Good Night. It is now past my bedtime. Watch out for the boogie man... it might be in your closet.
How does that work? It is that which cannot be defined. It is not about what my eyes do see, but what they don't.
Figure it out. Use the science of your temporal world... it might help. Are you now suggesting that "it" cannot be defined when "it" is listed in every collegiate dictionary? Then perhaps you should invest in a seeing eye dog if you are intending to be on the streets. That would prevent you from bumping into a whole bunch of people and things that you don't see.
Then jump in there, do your job and make the world privy to the remainder of the definitions. Quit slacking ,,,, the whole world is waiting on you.
