PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

[Martin Dann]

In article <61pR2.14384$0m3.3...@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

I am sorry about the long delay in responding, and also that I may not
get round to answering all your other outstanding posts. No, I did not
fall off the end of the earth - thanks for asking - but I teetered on
the brink for a while. But the bad news is that here I am again! I've
done some snipping to try and shorten the post and keep the discussion
to philosophical issues. I know this sometimes offends you but hope
you'll understand.

>> >> My point is that we have no choice about the first language(s) we
>learn,
>> >> just as slaves have no choice about their predicament. We can't decide
>> >> *not* to agree to the language we learn. Slaves cannot decide not to be
>> >> slaves. Please explain the equivocation.
>
>> >I understood your point the first time, however as I indicated then, it
>does
>> >not apply. Humans can decide not to do almost anything they consciously
>> >decide not to do. (Autonomic responses aside) Language is a tool and
>humans
>> >use it to acquire not only more tools, but more relative knowledge. In
>the
>> >case of babies who begin to learn language, they imitate language long
>> >before they understand the objective relationship and eventually the
>desire
>> >for interaction submerges any other desire. The path of least resistance
>is
>> >to accept the language used in the common environmental and proceed. (If
>> >the baby only had signing as the environmental language, signing would be
>> >the language first learned.)
>
>> Of course. Which proves my point. Choice is not involved, therefore
>> agreement/consensus is not involved.
>
>Not exactly, Martin. It proves only that humans will choose to communicate
>in whatever style they are exposed to. The path of least resistance (common
>language) is still a choice whether or not you desire to acknowledge it.

Taking the "path of least resistance" implies more difficult paths which
could have been taken. What other paths, difficult or not, could a baby
realistically take? For example, I was brought up in England by English
speaking parents, in a totally English speaking environment. I do not
understand what other path than to speak English I could have chosen?
Even if there was another path, how could a pre-linguistic child make
that kind of choice?

[.....]

>> Why do they agree? How do they agree? What is it about a tree, or about
>> people observing a tree, that causes them to agree that they see a tree?
>
>The thought began thusly :"Reality is the accumulated mental representation
>of our perceptions. Many think of the accumulation of shared perceptions as
>reality, however the truth is that each have their own and no two are
>exactly alike."
>
>Perhaps this reiteration will remind us of the direction we pursue.

I think you mean the direction you pursue. I am trying to show you that
it leads nowhere! First "reality" is, by definition, opposed to the
concept of "mental representations of our perceptions". Reality is what
our perceptions are of. Second, the concept of a representation of
reality necessitates a reality which is represented. This much is
required if you meant it when you denied solipsism. Your second claim is
not evidently true. I suspect that if you ask people what they think of
reality, the vast majority will say something along the lines of, "that
which is opposed to illusion", "that which is fact or actual as opposed
to that which is fictional or imaginary". I very much doubt that many
will say "reality is accumulated shared perceptions". There are of
course people who believe that all is illusion, and perhaps some, apart
from you, who believe that all there is is the "accumulation of shared
perceptions". But these people will not make the mistake of calling this
reality. They will see that their claim entails that there is no
reality.

Further, it does not follow from your claim that "each have their own
[reality?] and no two are exactly alike" that their is no reality other
what we might think is real, and call "our reality". Even if our
perception of reality is personal, it is nevertheless a perception of
reality. Even if our perception of reality is illusory, it is our
perception that is an illusion, not reality. The fact that people have
different ideas about things does not entail that the things they have
the different ideas about are not real.

But you have said elsewhere that reality is illusion (you should really
stick to calling it "so-called reality" to avoid confusion) so it would
seem that your claims are not about perception at all, but about
imagination and subjectivity. I don't deny that these exist, but that
has nothing to do with the existence of an independent reality, or our
ability to perceive. That we know we sometimes see illusions entails
knowledge of the difference between reality and illusion, which in turn
entails knowledge of reality.
>
[......]
>
>I am sorry you translated my response in that manner, for it was not
>intended as you seem to perceive. I was merely attempting to steer our
>discourse back to the original line of thought which you seem to have
>misplaced. "Reality is the accumulated mental representation of our
>perceptions. Many think of the accumulation of shared perceptions as
>reality, however the truth is that each have their own and no two are
>exactly alike." Now, if you have some method or evidence this is not
>correct, I am sure I will refute it without a great deal of effort.

By your own admission elsewhere, this is not reality. It is what you
call "so-called" reality. And that is absolutely right - to claim that
"accumulated representations of our perceptions" has anything to do with
reality would be a nonsense. Reality is that which lies beyond any such
representation, and what it is a representation of. But see also my
discussion above.

[.....]
>
>> In what sense am I not part of reality? And I have been at pains to
>> point out that I do not accept as reality that which has been built be
>> me alone. That is not covered by the definition of reality. So what are
>> you talking about?
>
>In the sense that you are required to behold it, for it to exist as you
>behold it. A tautology of minor order and I know your love for tautology.
>Your acceptance or not of this tautology is the fulcrum for all subsequent
>observances and even your vaunted logic should be able to follow from there.
>Even the definition of the English word *reality* is a consensus and makes
>my point for me. We could call reality a
>*laiz'-du-faire*, but then you would not be in that consensus, or would you?

You say "....you are required to behold [reality], for it to exist as
you behold it". Ignoring the sarcasm, yes of course this is a tautology,
and yes of course I accept it. It is a straightforward trivial truth.
What would be more controversial would be to claim (with Berkeley) that
"I am required to behold it for it to exist". This I would deny. We
appear to be sailing past each other in the night here ONE. I have no
trouble with the fact that things for me depend on me for them to be
things for me - how could I have? But as with any tautology this makes
no point at all. As I pointed out about, and many times previously, I
deny that things which exist independently of my thoughts and ideas of
them, depend on me for their existence. I have provided an argument in
support of this elsewhere in this post.

I am not in any consensus. I know I have said this before, but... First,
I have absolutely no choice at this level but to converse with you in
the English which is natural to me - the English I had no choice but to
learn as a child. I can say "please" and "thank-you" in a few languages,
but this does not provide me with a choice - I am stuck with English.
Second, no agreement is asked or required from you or anybody in order
for me to express myself in the only language available to me. Third, of
course as I write, even in English, I have choices. Which word should I
use? How should I structure my reply? What line shall I take? None of
these things involve any more that my free will to make my own
decisions. I do not consent to anything nor do I ask you to consent to
anything. I simply use words as I have learned to use them. Perhaps
consensus would indeed be needed if, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in
Wonderland, we used words arbitrarily, making them mean whatever we want
them to mean. But this is not how language is used.

I can see a sense in which it *might* make sense to talk of consensus.
Wittgenstein talks of "language games". Thus, within the context in
which you are using language you will follow the rules of that
particular language game. The way the "game" is played in philosophical
debate, for example, differs from the way in which it would be played in
other circles, such as within the military, or in government. Thus it
might be argued that "playing a language game" involves consensus.
However, even here I doubt it could be called consensus. If, for
example, I wish to play a game of chess, it seems odd to me to suggest
that a consensus if required in order to do so. The rules of chess have
evolved to what they are today and I have no say in this. If I do not
accept the rules, then there is no point in me playing chess. But please
note that accepting something - the rules of the game for example - is
*not* what we mean by consensus, unless, as I say, we are to play
Humpty-Dumpty with the word.
>
>> >>, then removing a part from the whole, does not remove the whole, does
>it?
>
>> >In this particular case, the logic of math does not apply. Your
>perception
>> >of reality depends upon your senses to compile the data into the reality
>you
>> >know. Without you (and your senses) YOU will have no reality to compile.
>
>>I accept the reality exists whether I am here to observe it
>>or not. Indeed, that is part of the definition of reality - that it
>>lies beyond subjectivity.
>
>You do not not know this, and can never know this, and I do not share your
>opinion. I would care to see some evidence, however, this will not be
>forthcoming, of course. There is no part of reality, in truth, that is not
>part of subjectivism, although science has devised a method they find
>acceptably far removed from rampant subjectivism. Perhaps you refer to
>this, but still the interpretation (subjective)belongs to the individual,
>and reality is the consensus of those interpretations.

Either reality is that which lies beyond subjectivity (by definition),
or there is no reality. I don't think it is acceptable to invent your
own definition of the word. And it does not follow from the (debatable)
claim that "there is no part of reality, in truth, that is not part of
subjectivism..." that we cannot know reality. Indeed, your comment "in
truth" is a reality claim and raises an interesting paradox. You are, in
effect, claiming that the reality is that there is no reality. As you
said to me, "you do not know this and can never know this".
>
>> >> >After you no longer have any thoughts, you
>> >> >could not possibly know if she did or not for you are no longer part
>of
>> >that reality except by remembrance by others (representational theory).
>
>> >> My knowledge is irrelevant to the fact of whether she did or did not
>> >> collect the insurance (sensible theory).
>
>> >No, your knowledge is the reality you have constructed by means of your
>> >perceptions and is kin to the reality by the same manner. Without your
>> >knowledge, you can not say that her collection of the insurance is real,
>you
>> >can only surmise it will be.
>
>> Not at all. If she collects the insurance my surmise is irrelevant to
>> the fact that she has collected the insurance.
>
>The point here is that her collection is not, nor never will be real to YOU.

But that is exactly the point I am making. If (as I claim) reality is
that which exists independently of my subjective opinion, then it is
irrelevant that that which occurs after my death is not known by me. The
reality I am claiming has (by definition) nothing to do with my
awareness or ignorance of it.
>
>> >> >YOUR
>> >> >entire reality transpires with you. If you were never here at all,
>there
>> >> >would never be any reality for you to experience in the first place.
>
>> >> If I were never here in the first place, are you saying that there
>would
>> >> be no reality for *YOU* to experience?
>
>> >No, I say there will be no reality for YOU to experience.
>
>> You are making a fundamental mistake. "Reality" by definition, is that
>> which is independent of my experience of it. If I am here to experience
>> it, then I will. If not, I will not. That does not prevent you or anyone
>> else experiencing the reality. And if no-one is here to experience it,
>> then it still remains as a potential experience.
>
>There is no mistake, save that which you intend to attribute by ignorance.
>The mistake above intends that there is a reality of which, you are not a
>part. THAT is a mistake, by not made by myself. To assert if you are not
>here you will not experience reality proves more my point than yours.
>Potential is not in issue here but your *reality*, and the illusion it
>represents is.

Reality is that which is distinguished from my illusions, by definition.
Reality exists whether I am aware of it or not, by definition, and by
the argument I have presented elsewhere in this post. But as I thought
you had already agreed, when you talk of reality you mean no such thing
- you mean illusion (does this illusory reality include the illusion of
illusions, by the way? Just checking ;-)). This, of course, would
include all your claims about consensus, tangents, a creator and the
bible. All part of your illusion of reality.
>
>> >> I am not, nor have ever been, talking about *MY* reality.
>
>> >Then you can not discuss anything, for if we do not consider your
>reality,
>> >there will be no one here for you to discuss with.
>
>(No response noted, and completely understandable in light of the
>segmentation.)

I thought it was too silly a point to merit response - sorry. It does
not follow from the claim that reality is that which is real for
everyone, that there is no-one for me to discuss with.
>
>> >> I am talking about the reality that exists
>> >> independently of me, you, or anyone else.
>
>> >Then you are talking about non-sense for there is no such thing and can
>never
>> >be. There is nothing that is truly independent of anything else as all
>> >individual things are a part of the entirety of all things.
>
>> Rubbish. By that argument, if a flower dies we all die. Utter nonsense.
>> The life of an ant in Ulan Bator is entirely independent of your, or my,
>> knowledge of that ant's existence.
>
>Not really, but merely part of the reality (illusion) dies. Ulan Bator is
>now part of both of our reality (illusion) by your sharing this small
>portion. By the way, the ant is also by means of connectives which bind our
>universe, our solar system, and our world.

An illusion of a flower cannot die. The death of an illusory flower is
another illusion, so your first sentence has no meaning. Is Ulan Bator a
real place or not? My comment about Ulan Bator has nothing to do with
whether it exists or not. If you had not previously known that it was
the capital of Mongolia then you have learnt something. I fear I have
been unable to make any sense of your last sentence. Sorry.
>
>> >>The reality that means that if I were to die this instance you would
>> >continue to live and post to these newsgroups.
>
>> >How could you possibly know this? I can understand you could imagine it,
>I
>> >can readily see you could guess it to be the case, but if your were dead,
>it
>> >would never be part of your reality.
>
>> That is why I distinguish between *my* reality and "reality". Would the
>> ant in Ulan Bator that was never part of what you disingenuously call
>> "my reality" cease to exist if I did? I have seen the Mona Lisa in the
>> Louvre, in Paris. If I ceased to exist would that mean that no-one else
>> would ever be able to see it because it was no longer part of *my*
>> reality? That I would not know this is irrelevant to the fact that
>> others would.
>
>There is no reality outside of what you know because all reality is
>illusion. Even if a portion of the illusion becomes new to you and was
>known by everyone else, you can not say that it was always real, except by
>consensus.

But, ONE, reality is *by definition* opposed to illusion. What you are
saying is not that reality is illusion (which makes as much sense as
saying that "bachelors are not unmarried") but that there is no reality.
Nothing is real. You, me, God, the creation, your opinions, the
bible..... all illusion. Yes?
>
>> >Are you denying that?
>
>> >Yes, emphatically.
>
>(Another, fragment waving in the void of reason by means of segregation.)
>
>> >> >While
>> >> >you are here, the only reality you know (in a relative sense) is the
>one
>> >> >where you exist within it. Surely you can piece these three separate
>and
>> >> >distict situations together to form the framework of the idea, that
>> >reality depends upon your perception.
>
>> >> That is not the issue.
>
>> >Yes, it is pointedly at issue.
>
> >You keep saying "to you" and "your reality".
>
>I keep indicating it yes, for you must be here to have any knowledge of it.
>Without the you that is special to yourself, that *reality* (illusion you
>call real) can not exist.

You are quite right. Illusions I call real cannot exist without me. But
it is not my illusions of reality that I have been talking about. It is
reality itself, which, by definition, is independent of my illusions.
>
>> >I keep saying it, but you keep ignoring and insisting that without you
>there
>> >will continue to be the reality as you know it. (As you have often
>> >indicated, you can not possible know the reality as another knows it)
>This
>> >is not consistant and the truth is that without you, your reality (as you
>> >know it) will cease to be.
>
>> So you will cease to be if I do? Rubbish. Whatever ceases to be for me,
>> does not cease to be for you or anyone else. That is what I mean by
>> reality.
>
>We know what you mean, but you have no means to prove it. (Pun intended)

Your continued existence during my long absence provides adequate proof
that you continue to exist independently of me. You will hopefully have
to wait a little longer to be reassured of your independent existence
should I cease to be altogether!
>
>> >>I have always been claiming that there *must* be a reality independent
>of
>> >> me, and my perception of it, or you would not have existed before we
>> >> started conversing on usenet. Are you saying that?
>
>> >Your claim is non-sense in as much as you can not prove it while you are
>> >alive and maintain your representation of reality, nor can you prove it
>> >after your representation of reality is halted by death.
>
>> If I have a "representation of reality" it follows that there is a
>> reality of which I have a representation. If I cease to exist, then so
>> does my representation, but not the reality, of which you, or others, or
>> no-one might have a "representation". Right?
>
>No, it means there are contrasting stimuli you interpret as reference
>points, it does not mean your interpretation is the absolute reality. If
>those contrasting reference points, I call tangents, continue to be
>interpreted by others, that does not indicate a reality either, merely
>illusion, held together by consensus.

I would never claim that my "interpretation is the absolute reality". As
I have been trying to make clear, my interpretation is one thing,
reality is another, being the object of my interpretation. As for
"contrasting stimuli" and "reference points" I am not to sure what these
could be if not the result of perceiving objects in the real world.

I am not clear how your claim that "contrasting reference points...
[interpreted by me] continue to be interpreted by others" indicates mere
"illusion? Even if you are right that such "consensus" does not
guarantee reality then I do not see that it follows that illusion is
indicated. Consensus tells us nothing other than that there is
consensus. But my argument that we perceive a real world does not rely
on consensus. I do not require that others agree with me that I see a
tree. I do not need to, for they see it for themselves. What others can
provide is confirmation, which is not the same thing as consensus.
>
[....]
>
>> >> >This would seem to prove my point more than yours and thank you for
>it.
>> >> >What you have proved is a representational theory of reality. Those
>> >things you say you no longer perceive (by closing your eyes) still exist
>in your
>> >> >mental representation of reality (within your mental construct). The
>> >> >closing of eyes, is merely a temporary condition within that
>> >representation, induced by yourself and proves nothing more than in your
>representation of reality, you, closed your eyes.
>
>> >> Well tell me ONE, what happens when I am asleep?
>
>> >There is nothing you percieve which is real.
>
>> There is nothing I perceive at all. Perception involves sight, hearing,
>> touch, taste or smell. When I am asleep I have none of these means of
>> perception.
>
>You never dream?

Of course. And of course it is only by knowing that some perceptions
*are* real that we can know that there are perception, like dreams and
illusions, that are not real. When we dream of an apple, we are not
perceiving an apple - for there is no apple to perceive. We are
*dreaming* that we are perceiving an apple. No real perception is
involved. You are in extremely good company if you make the mistake that
we perceive thoughts, or "representations" in our minds - Socrates
(according to Plato), Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, Kant.... etc. Thoughts
(representations if you wish) can be the *result* of our perceptions,
but we do not then perceive them again - we already *have* them.

>> >Unconscious?
>
>> >Same thing as above, only this time it is not elective.
>
>> So nothing exists independently of me? The world ceases to exist for you
>> if I am unconscious?
>
>No, it ceases for you.

Indeed it does. But I note you now agree that it does not cease for you.
Thus, it would appear that you now agree with my claim that there is an
existent world independent me. Would it not be reasonable to assume that
the same applies to you - that when you are unconscious the world still
exists for me? And could we not say that this applies to each and every
existing person? Thus, must we not agree that things which exists do so
independently of you, or me, or Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair... and that
we could continue with this process until we had named every person in
the world? Now does it not follow from this that existence is
independent of all of us, for if I were the last person alive, the world
would still exist, yet we have agreed that its existence is not
dependent on me, so would continue to exist when I died? It is this
independent existence I call reality, for no matter how many different
interpretations, or representations, there are of it, or what consensus
might exist over those representations, it remains what it is. Reality
is that which is, and not the ideas about it.
>
>> >>If every
>> >> human being was spirited away from the face of the earth tomorrow,
>there
>> >> would still be a universe, bees would still collect honey from the
>> >> flowers, fish would still swim in the rivers....
>
>> >You might have a difficult time proving this theory. In fact, you could
>> >not.
>
>> I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that it cannot be so. It's
>> your theory.
>
>No, it is your theory, your assertion, that bees still collect nector, (not
>honey), but you can not prove it, only theorize it.

See my argument above.

>
>> >>etc etc. I would know
>> >> it *then* because I would not be here. But I know it now, and that's
>> >> enough.
>>
>> >YOU do not know it now, you would not know it then, and that is
>sufficient
>> >to prove your view of reality is faulty. This, of course, is enough.
>
>> Of course I know it now. Prove me wrong.
>
>It is your assertion that you know it, : "If every human being was spirited
>away from the face of the earth tomorrow, there would still be a universe,
>bees would still collect honey from the flowers, fish would still swim in
>the rivers"
>Now let us see your logic prove it.

See above.

>> >>Well, the interpretation of reality belongs to the
>> >> individual, for sure. That is enough to guarantee individuality.
>
>> >This is more like it. Then you agree that the perception of reality is
>> >illusion, and that without you to observe it, your reality does not
>exist.
>
>> No. You are making the naive mistake of confusing perception *of* X,
>> with perception *that* it is X.
>
>No, you seem to attribute error where none exist. I merely agreed with your
>statement that :"Well, the interpretation of reality belongs to the
>individual, for sure", and proceeded to the next logical placement.

Well, perhaps you proceed a little too swiftly, ONE. First, by agreeing
to my statement are you not agreeing to there being a reality to
interpret? Have you not previously denied that? But, the point I am
trying to make by distinguishing "perception *of* X" (which is the
process of perception) from "perception *that* it is X" (which is the
process of conception or cognition) is that the first is what I am
talking about when I claim that we perceive objects directly. The second
is a subsequent process, dependent on the first - that is, dependent on
our perception *of* the object. This conceptual process seems to be what
you are referring to when you talk of "contrasting points of reference".
Contrasting points of reference when talking non-cognitively can be
overcome - we can walk around the tree, view it from all angles, cut it
up and examine it if necessary. I have never denied that our
interpretation of that information is a personal process, and one,
therefore, which can result in error. But we can also be right. Our
belief that the object in front of us *is* a tree can be *true* belief -
and therefore knowledge.
>
[.....]
>
>> >What I meant to say is that there are perceptions which seem independent.
>
>> Why? What is it about a perception that makes us think it is
>> independent?
>
>It is interpreted by our mentality alone.

Such as illusions, dreams and hallucinations? You will have to explain.
Surely we interpret everything we perceive by "our mentality" - how else
do we interpret? Is this Berkeley again by any chance? Are those
independent "perceptions" (by which I presume you mean ideas or
concepts) put into our minds by God? I'd prefer you "came clean" if this
is what you mean! If not, how do they come to be there if not,
ultimately, as a result of our perceptions of the world around us?
>
>> >There is a certain duality that needs be observed if one is to exact not
>> >only his apparent position (current perception) in the universe but also
>his
>> >refined position (a projection of where one has been and is, toward where
>> >one will is likely to be.)
>
>> Give me an example.
>
>The now, as opposed to the past and present. And then the now, as in all
>time combined.

Did you mean to say "now as opposed to the past and future"? I'll assume
so, for "now" and "present" would appear to be synonymous. Before I
answer this point, though, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "all
time combined", for on the face of it, it appears to be an empty
concept.
>
>> > This duality extends itself into views that are
>> >notably dependent upon perception as well as seemingly independent when
>> >observed from an objective position.
>
>> Why should some views be "seemingly independent"? Why not accept that
>> they *are* independent? And what do you mean by an objective
>> perspective? How can there be such a thing in your universe?
>
>They belong to the individual. They are related, by the individual, thus
>they can graduate into no longer being independent but more consensus.
>Objective perspective, of the points of reference (tangents) They are
>illusions, but I must use the terms of consensus to communicate.

Again you are making a leap from the point that things are relative, to
an assumption that they must therefore be illusory. This does not
follow. It may well be that on occasion my interpretation of X is
relative to a particular time, and to my particular circumstances at
that time. But this does not mean that my interpretation of X in those
given circumstances is not unambiguously "right", and that the same
interpretation would not be made by anyone else in those circumstances.
This is what I would suggest is an objective interpretation. To say that
interpretation is subjective (in the sense that interpretations depend
on mental processes) is *not* to imply that a given interpretation is
arbitrarily personal, or that it cannot be an *objective*
interpretation.

What exactly are the "terms of consensus" you use to communicate, by the
way? I understand the concept of "conventions" of communication, but
that is a different concept altogether. Consensus implies consent, and
consent implies a conscious decision to agree with others about
something. I am not aware of having made any such decision. The way I
communicate was pretty much determined long before I had the concept of
consensus. It was determined by the nationality, language and possibly
status of my parents, and where I was born and brought up. I had no say
in that, and thus what I use to communicate was determined without my
consent.

Once again, my apologies for the long delay.
--
Martin

[Martin Dann]

In article <KPkT2.3454$oH.7...@news3.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

Some more late catching up... sorry again.

Martin:
>> Our senses are designed (either in an evolutionary or if you wish
>> creational sense) to detect "what is". Our eyes would not function
>> unless there was light. Therefore light is a "what is". Our ears would
>> detect nothing unless stimulated by vibrations in an atmosphere capable
>> of supporting such vibrations. Two more "what is's". We would feel
>> nothing unless there were something to feel, taste nothing if there was
>> nothing to taste, smell nothing if there were nothing to smell. This is
>> nothing to do with dismissing "unexpected results". If you dismiss
>> reality there *are* no results other than those you imagine.
>
>They, the senses, detect within the limitation built into them, only what is
>discernable to them. The eyes detect light only to the extent of the
>visible spectrum and *what is* is far more than that limited spectrum.
>Hearing, feeling, and the dual sense of taste/smell are similar in scope.
>The point here is that we can safely expect these senses to produce the
>tangents of so-called reality, but they can not reveal the real objects,
>entities, or situations which are beyond their scope. So called reality,
>common to most, and accurate reality are separated by the limitations of the
>senses.
>
Our senses are exactly what is required to give us the information we
need. They have developed in response to our environment and serve the
purpose required of them. The spectrum of light we detect is precisely
the spectrum of light we need to live our lives. Sure, bees, for
example, can apparently detect light into the ultra-violet, enabling
them to see colours and patterns on flowers that we cannot. But (1) we
don't need to for we don't need to know which flowers have the best
nectar, and (2) we can find out by other means (expose the flowers to
ultraviolet light and measure the resulting luminance etc). The fact
that the spectrum our senses detect is limited does not mean we cannot
know that there are real objects. It means that we see those aspects of
the real object that are within our limits. And knowing our limits, we
can make allowances for that and use our inventiveness to discover
aspects of reality that we may not initially observe. Thus we invent
spectroscopes, electron microscopes and the like. We accept that we do
not. and even possibly cannot know *everything* that there is to be
known about any particular object, but to infer from this that we can
therefore know nothing is patently false. You seem to be conflating
limitation with falsity or illusion. Not so. Limitation may mean that
there are some aspects of reality of which we have limited knowledge. It
may mean that there are some things we will never know. It does not mean
that we can have no knowledge of reality.

[....]
>
>> I am not sure why you should wish to conflate partial knowledge and
>> relative knowledge, but I have no problem with the concept that we do
>> not, and cannot know everything, this our knowledge of many things is
>> partial. Nor do I have a problem with the concept that what *I* know,
>> because of my different experiences, might differ from what *you* know.
>> If this is relative knowledge, fine. And I have no problem with your
>> comment about the arrogance of those who lay claim to knowledge they do
>> not properly have. But I note you have nothing to say about the
>> equivocation I suspect you are making between senses of knowledge which
>> are indeed genuinely relative (the kinds of non-propositional knowledge
>> I mentioned) and propositional knowledge, which, by definition, has an
>> objective truth value independent of the proposer.
>
>Conflation of the two seems quite expected to myself, due to the
>similarities of the two, as they seem almost interchangeable if not
>inseparable. Partial knowledge is relative to all other so called
>knowledge, as relative knowledge is only partial and dependent upon support
>from other adjacent areas of awareness. Please excuse my lack of comment
>concerning your separations of non-propositional and propositional
>knowledge. These terms, in concept, could very well segregate the accepted
>state of knowledge, between any two individuals, but to the individual, it
>seems to me that all knowledge is non-propositional (except when it is
>viewed as belonging to another and different from our own). The terms
>become useful only when we compare what we detect in our own reality to
>another's. I had presumed (perhaps erroneously) that we had passed this
>stage in our converse.

First, it does not follow that relative knowledge is partial. I might
know all the plants in my garden - a piece of knowledge relative to me -
and thus I would have relative knowledge that is not partial. That I do
not, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this
knowledge is relative to me. It is because the birds pull the labels out
and my memory is not perfect. Second, it does not follow that partial
knowledge is relative. What is a part of something is not relative to it
- or if it is, the relativity has nothing to do with the fact that it is
partial. You are confusing your concepts.

I don't recall us having discussed equivocation of different senses of
knowledge before. I certainly would have noticed if you had said
something as obviously wrong as that all knowledge is non-propositional.
Can you really not see the difference between saying, "I know John
Smith" and, "This person is called John Smith"?
>
>
>The more I consider the term "propositional knowledge", the more I recognize
>your/it's conflation with the term "objective", and thereby your projected
>limitations upon this type of knowledge. To the master builder,
>non-propositional knowledge is the only material suitable for use in pyramid
>building, but we have not discussed the process of taking the raw
>propositional state of knowledge through the various *firing* processes
>which perform the transformation, nor have we discussed the methods used to
>test the final product for fitness.

To conflate "propositional knowledge" with the term "objective" would be
a very strange thing to do. Propositions are neither subjective or
objective. They may be about abstract concepts - mathematics for
example. Your analogy shows that you have not really grasped the concept
of propositional and non-propositional knowledge. The "master builder"
requires both kinds of knowledge for use in pyramid building otherwise
he would not know that it was a pyramid he was building.

I am not sure what you mean by "raw" propositional knowledge, and to
what you think it is transformed. Propositional knowledge is knowledge
*that* something is so. Non propositional knowledge is knowledge *of*
something - such as knowledge by acquaintance or by direct awareness.

So when you talk of "firing" and "transformation" are you perhaps
referring to the method by which belief becomes knowledge? Or is it
connected with your scepticism, and you are looking for a process that
imbues "raw knowledge" with Cartesian certainty? I am not sure how a
discussion about "transformation" would differ from a discussion about
"the method used to test the final product for fitness". The way we come
to knowledge *is* the test for fitness.

Assuming that your implicit question is "how do we know that our
proposition is true" - ie, that it is knowledge - let us consider the
two examples of propositional knowledge. How do we know that 3-2=1 is a
true proposition? Well if you take mathematics as a priori knowledge,
then you would simply point out that the equation follows the eternal
rules of mathematics - a priori knowledge does not require empirical
proof. However, if (as you agree below) mathematical knowledge is
empirical, then you can confirm the truth of the proposition by the very
means by which you came by this knowledge in the first place. Lay out 3
apples, remove two, and count the number remaining. Is that product now
fit?

To take a less abstract example, let us say I claim that the animal on
my windowsill is a cat. If you doubted the truth of my proposition, the
easiest way would be for you to see it for yourself (that is what
empirical knowledge is all about). If you were sceptical that what you
also saw was a cat then consideration of the taxonomy of felis
domesticus, would enable us to confirm the characteristics that define
this creature from other animals. What further would you require to
accept my proposition that the object I refer to is a cat?

[.....]
>
>> >So...you do not know an illusion. You do not know the difference between
>an
>> >illusion of something real and the reality of something. An example is
>your
>> >belief that a candle you observe in a dark room is a real candle when it
>is
>> >only a hologram. This can be taken several levels higher to where we can
>> >illustrate your observance of what you believe to be a flame and observe
>as
>> >a flame on what you believe to be the real candle from which the hologram
>> >was projected, but is only an illusion performed by theatrics. This
>would,
>> >I trust, adequately illustrate your inability to *know* the difference
>based
>> >upon sight alone. If this demonstation can be perfomed with sight, the
>> >other senses are equally subject to illusion.
>
>> Oh but I do know the difference between illusion and reality. The candle
>> hologram is a poor example. Will I burn my finger if I stick it in the
>> flame of the hologram? Will the hologram feel waxy? Will I smell the
>> smoke from the wick? Will I be able to carry the candle to another room?
>> If I switch off the lasers generating the image, will it remain? If I
>> switch on the lights, or draw back the curtains in the room will the
>> candle be clearly visible still? I can check all of these things with a
>> real candle. And if you say that my limited senses might deceive me, I
>> will reply that it is enough that my limited senses will pick the real
>> candle from the image every time without fail. The only way you could be
>> sure of fooling me would be to create an image that was exactly like a
>> real candle in every way - but something that is exactly like a real
>> candle in every way, is a real candle!
>
>We could construct a stage where you were convinced of a real candle where
>there was not one, but with certain limitations. The point being and
>centered upon the limitations of the senses, and not the illusion itself.
>Of secondary but immediate concern is that what you might think of as a real
>candle, has many properties you are not immediately aware of, thus
>emphasizing the point that so called reality is exactly what you expect.

This doesn't seem to address any of the points I made. Why can I not
make use of all my senses, my experience, and my previous knowledge of
the possibility and nature of illusion in order to test the reality of
that which appears to me to be a candle? The undoubted fact that it is
possible to create an illusion does not entail that all is illusion. I
agree that we can be fooled - and thus it is unarguable that there is
such a thing as illusion. But if there is a concept of illusion, what is
this contrasted with? Can you not see the paradox of your claim? You
claim that everything is illusion, yet you are talking of convincing me
that there is a *real* candle where there is not one. What *real*
candle? According to you there is no real candle, only the illusion of a
candle, so what is it you are trying to get me to see? The illusion of
an illusion? As you have demonstrated in the first sentence of your last
paragraph, talk of the illusion is meaningless without reference to
reality - and in order to refer meaningfully to reality we must have
experienced it.

Your second point, that the candle has properties of which I am not
immediately aware, is true, but implies that there are properties of the
candle of which I *am* immediately aware. These properties are of
necessity sufficient for me to identify it as a candle - if they weren't
I would have no concept of candle. Because there are further properties
(the chemical composition, molecular structure etc) not necessary for
our identification of the object as a candle, it does not follow that we
cannot know that it is a real candle based on the properties that *are*
immediately available to us. And I am not sure why you should think
immediacy is an issue. If the properties I am immediately aware of are
not sufficient to provide me with knowledge, I can find out the rest at
my leisure. If the only way I can be sure the X is in fact X is by
carrying out a chemical analysis, then so be it. I'll wait for that
before making any claim to knowledge.
>
[....]

>> >You have a partial control, but not a total control, thus you have again,
>> >the illusion of control, just as you have the illsuion of a reality you
>> >represent by means of the representational reality you hold as *real*.
>
>> Again you seem to think that "partial" means "illusory". It does not. I
>> know full well the limits of my control, just as I know full well the
>> limits of my senses. When I claim partial control, or partial knowledge
>> I am not claiming full control or full knowledge, therefore why say it
>> is an illusion? And when I make a proposition about reality, I am not
>> making a proposition about something in my head, I am making a
>> proposition about something external to me, whether or not I have a
>> "representation" of that reality.
>
>Yes, I deem partial as illusory, just as we know the elephant is not like a
>rope even when the portion that we are able to examine at the moment feels
>like one. When you make the proposition that the elephant is like a rope,
>it is simply because you can not detect the ways it is not like a rope. In
>other words, an illusion and a representation of reality as you behold it,
>no matter it's being external or not.

Not so. Why should I claim that an elephant feels like a rope when all I
have felt is a part of the elephant? That is not illusion, that is false
judgement. If, after feeling the rest of the elephant I claim it still
feels like a rope, I probably am suffering from some kind of delusion,
for under normal circumstances, no-one would make such a claim. People
make mistakes, make false claims, and hasty judgements based on
insufficient evidence, but this does not mean that all judgements are
illusory, or that all representations are not as we behold them. One
might more correctly say that an elephant's tail feels like a rope. That
would be an observation about a "partial" elephant yet would not be an
illusion, surely?

[.....]

>> I'm sure we've had the discussion of evil and good before, but you seem
>> to have changed your position somewhat. I seem to remember you claiming
>> that there was a continuum between good and evil with what counted as
>> good or evil being temporally relative in some way. I disagree, though,
>> about evil merely being lack of good. Lack of good is neutral. Things
>> can be neither good nor evil. An evil act is as positive an act as a
>> good act, one being positively bad and the other positively good. One
>> can fail to be good without being evil.
>
>Neutrality represents a balance of evil and good, more than it represents
>good without evil. To be good without any evil at all, we simply term
>*good*. The valuation twixt good and evil is assigned all things I am aware
>of, but perhaps you have some illustration in mind. Actions seem to fall in
>a category by result, although there are many other variables to consider.

You are talking about two different concepts. There may well be actions
of which we might say that the good and evil balance out, but that is
not the same as saying that they are neutral. Activities which are
morally neutral are neither good nor evil. That is quite a different
thing from saying good *and* bad.

Further, if as you say evil is merely the lack of good, and there is no
such thing as a neutral action (in my sense), then it follows that an
action which is *not* evil must be good (you say as much yourself). And
an action which has no evil in it whatsoever must be the ultimate good.
Now I suggest that my saying "Martin" when answering the question, "what
is your given name" is an action containing no evil whatsoever, and thus
(according to your definition) is an act of ultimate goodness (this is
not to say that *I* contain no evil, but that my particular action does
not). I suggest that morally neutral acts such as answering with my
name, scratching my head, or performing bodily functions are not neutral
because they contain good and evil in balance, but because they are
actions to which it is inappropriate to ascribe moral values.

I would also suggest that when we judge something good, we are not
making a negative judgement about the lack of evil, we are making a
positive judgement about the extent to which virtue is being displayed.
--
Martin

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

> I am sorry about the long delay in responding, and also that I may not
> get round to answering all your other outstanding posts. No, I did not
> fall off the end of the earth - thanks for asking - but I teetered on
> the brink for a while. But the bad news is that here I am again! I've
> done some snipping to try and shorten the post and keep the discussion
> to philosophical issues. I know this sometimes offends you but hope
> you'll understand.

We are most pleased you have returned as the level of intelligence and
replies by those who remained have not seen your equal. We wish you balance
and strength as you retrurn from the brink.

The choices at that level of development are slim but not non-existant. Not
speaking at all is also a choice, though few there are who make that choice
as desires are better communicated than left unpublished. Choice made later
in life, are greater and the selection (choice) to speak in a given tongue
are once again more a given than a choice, however still there are choices.

> [.....]

There is the reality of the common man, or so-called reality and then there
is the reality which is beyond mankind's ability to perceive, or true
reality. From the perspective of one who can senses all the things that
humans can not, plus all the things that humans can perceive, the so-called
reality that humans can grasp is surely an illusion. Now, that said, we can
venture further into your theory that any representation is conditional upon
a reality that does exist. I agree there is a foundational reality that
must be for there to be a representation, however that foundation is not
seen or sensed accurately by the limited perceptions of humans, thus it is
not a true reality to them. So then , what is reality? It depends more
upon which size frog in which size pond, it is viewed from. The absolute
truth where there is absolute knowledge is true reality, and anything
(perception) below that must be considered not real by means of the wider
scope.

> Further, it does not follow from your claim that "each have their own
> [reality?] and no two are exactly alike" that their is no reality other
> what we might think is real, and call "our reality". Even if our
> perception of reality is personal, it is nevertheless a perception of
> reality. Even if our perception of reality is illusory, it is our
> perception that is an illusion, not reality. The fact that people have
> different ideas about things does not entail that the things they have
> the different ideas about are not real.

Again, the various degrees of cognizance, awareness, knowledge and
intuition, defines, if not constructs, corresponding degrees of so-called
reality.
The absolute reality is the goal, and relative knowledge the only path.

> But you have said elsewhere that reality is illusion (you should really
> stick to calling it "so-called reality" to avoid confusion) so it would
> seem that your claims are not about perception at all, but about
> imagination and subjectivity. I don't deny that these exist, but that
> has nothing to do with the existence of an independent reality, or our
> ability to perceive. That we know we sometimes see illusions entails
> knowledge of the difference between reality and illusion, which in turn
> entails knowledge of reality.

I think they have much to do with reality as they flavour and colour our
perceptions to the point we define much of oour universe by means of these.
Surely you will agree that in the absolute reality, there are included
emotions, colours and all the various subjective feelings that limited
humans manitain as well as the stark contrast of absolute light and dark.

> [......]

> >I am sorry you translated my response in that manner, for it was not
> >intended as you seem to perceive. I was merely attempting to steer our
> >discourse back to the original line of thought which you seem to have
> >misplaced. "Reality is the accumulated mental representation of our
> >perceptions. Many think of the accumulation of shared perceptions as
> >reality, however the truth is that each have their own and no two are
> >exactly alike." Now, if you have some method or evidence this is not
> >correct, I am sure I will refute it without a great deal of effort.

> By your own admission elsewhere, this is not reality. It is what you
> call "so-called" reality. And that is absolutely right - to claim that
> "accumulated representations of our perceptions" has anything to do with
> reality would be a nonsense. Reality is that which lies beyond any such
> representation, and what it is a representation of. But see also my
> discussion above.

Absolute reality, as known by absolute knowledge, is reality. Less than
that, in any venue may be called reality but falls short. Thus my use of
the term "so-called" reality for many refer to the concrete as reality over
the abstract.

> [.....]

You are not independent of anything thus your denial is meaningless. All
humans and all things in this universe are connected, and while you may find
it difficult to fully grasp, the universe fairly cries this out in all
quadrants of experience. Once this fact is acknowledged, the connectivety
decrees you are required to be part of it, in the time segment that is you,
thus it can truly be said that for the universe to exist (as it is) you must
be.

> I am not in any consensus. I know I have said this before, but... First,
> I have absolutely no choice at this level but to converse with you in
> the English which is natural to me - the English I had no choice but to
> learn as a child. I can say "please" and "thank-you" in a few languages,
> but this does not provide me with a choice - I am stuck with English.
> Second, no agreement is asked or required from you or anybody in order
> for me to express myself in the only language available to me. Third, of
> course as I write, even in English, I have choices. Which word should I
> use? How should I structure my reply? What line shall I take? None of
> these things involve any more that my free will to make my own
> decisions. I do not consent to anything nor do I ask you to consent to
> anything. I simply use words as I have learned to use them. Perhaps
> consensus would indeed be needed if, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in
> Wonderland, we used words arbitrarily, making them mean whatever we want
> them to mean. But this is not how language is used.

Exactly my point. A word in a language is used to mean what the consensus
agrees thats it means.

> I can see a sense in which it *might* make sense to talk of consensus.
> Wittgenstein talks of "language games". Thus, within the context in
> which you are using language you will follow the rules of that
> particular language game. The way the "game" is played in philosophical
> debate, for example, differs from the way in which it would be played in
> other circles, such as within the military, or in government. Thus it
> might be argued that "playing a language game" involves consensus.
> However, even here I doubt it could be called consensus. If, for
> example, I wish to play a game of chess, it seems odd to me to suggest
> that a consensus if required in order to do so. The rules of chess have
> evolved to what they are today and I have no say in this. If I do not
> accept the rules, then there is no point in me playing chess. But please
> note that accepting something - the rules of the game for example - is
> *not* what we mean by consensus, unless, as I say, we are to play
> Humpty-Dumpty with the word.

There are certain conventions used in political, military, scientific,
religious, circles as well as many more, and we may refer to these as
language specific to those respective circels, however, my point concerning
consensus was more the manner in which a word is defined by the majority
within a language group.

Yes, perhaps I did invent a viewpoint if not a new definition, however it
does appear to me that the word reality, is oft misused. If we can assume
that absolute reality is the condition of absolute knowledge then we have a
common frame of reference and a point from which we can observe all other
realities as lacking.

> >> >> >After you no longer have any thoughts, you
> >> >> >could not possibly know if she did or not for you are no longer
part
> >of that reality except by remembrance by others (representational
theory).

> >> >> My knowledge is irrelevant to the fact of whether she did or did not
> >> >> collect the insurance (sensible theory).

> >> >No, your knowledge is the reality you have constructed by means of
your
> >> >perceptions and is kin to the reality by the same manner. Without
your
> >> >knowledge, you can not say that her collection of the insurance is
real,
> >you can only surmise it will be.

> >> Not at all. If she collects the insurance my surmise is irrelevant to
> >> the fact that she has collected the insurance.

> >The point here is that her collection is not, nor never will be real to
YOU.

> But that is exactly the point I am making. If (as I claim) reality is
> that which exists independently of my subjective opinion, then it is
> irrelevant that that which occurs after my death is not known by me. The
> reality I am claiming has (by definition) nothing to do with my
> awareness or ignorance of it.

That would not be reality at the nonce, but mere conjecture.

> >> >> >YOUR entire reality transpires with you. If you were never here at
all,
> >there would never be any reality for you to experience in the first
place.

> >> >> If I were never here in the first place, are you saying that there
> >would be no reality for *YOU* to experience?

> >> >No, I say there will be no reality for YOU to experience.

> >> You are making a fundamental mistake. "Reality" by definition, is that
> >> which is independent of my experience of it. If I am here to experience
> >> it, then I will. If not, I will not. That does not prevent you or
anyone
> >> else experiencing the reality. And if no-one is here to experience it,
> >> then it still remains as a potential experience.

> >There is no mistake, save that which you intend to attribute by
ignorance.
> >The mistake above intends that there is a reality of which, you are not a
> >part. THAT is a mistake, by not made by myself. To assert if you are
not
> >here you will not experience reality proves more my point than yours.
> >Potential is not in issue here but your *reality*, and the illusion it
> >represents is.

> Reality is that which is distinguished from my illusions, by definition.

In the grand scale of absolute reality, what you distinguish is illusion.
In the relative reality that is so-called, I am sure you have a case.

> Reality exists whether I am aware of it or not, by definition, and by
> the argument I have presented elsewhere in this post. But as I thought
> you had already agreed, when you talk of reality you mean no such thing
> - you mean illusion (does this illusory reality include the illusion of
> illusions, by the way? Just checking ;-)). This, of course, would
> include all your claims about consensus, tangents, a creator and the
> bible. All part of your illusion of reality.

All part of the illusion we behold and oft times refer to as reality, yes.

> >> >> I am not, nor have ever been, talking about *MY* reality.

> >> >Then you can not discuss anything, for if we do not consider your
> >reality, there will be no one here for you to discuss with.

> >(No response noted, and completely understandable in light of the
> >segmentation.)

> I thought it was too silly a point to merit response - sorry. It does
> not follow from the claim that reality is that which is real for
> everyone, that there is no-one for me to discuss with.

It follows that for the discussion to exists it must be part of YOUR
reality, thus my assertion remains cogent.

> >> >> I am talking about the reality that exists
> >> >> independently of me, you, or anyone else.

> >> >Then you are talking about non-sense for there is no such thing and
can
> >never be. There is nothing that is truly independent of anything else as
all
> >> >individual things are a part of the entirety of all things.

> >> Rubbish. By that argument, if a flower dies we all die. Utter nonsense.
> >> The life of an ant in Ulan Bator is entirely independent of your, or
my,
> >> knowledge of that ant's existence.

> >Not really, but merely part of the reality (illusion) dies. Ulan Bator
is
> >now part of both of our reality (illusion) by your sharing this small
> >portion. By the way, the ant is also by means of connectives which bind
our
> >universe, our solar system, and our world.

> An illusion of a flower cannot die. The death of an illusory flower is
> another illusion, so your first sentence has no meaning. Is Ulan Bator a
> real place or not? My comment about Ulan Bator has nothing to do with
> whether it exists or not. If you had not previously known that it was
> the capital of Mongolia then you have learnt something. I fear I have
> been unable to make any sense of your last sentence. Sorry.

Mere words do not create nor destroy, and illusions, become both greater and
smaller as we progress through our chains of perceptive awareness. You seem
to be aware of the separation twixt the concrete reality and the mentally
fabricated but do you realize the sphere of reality that includes them both?
I was merely trying to establish the undeniable connection of all things by
that last sentence.

> >> >>The reality that means that if I were to die this instance you would
> >> >continue to live and post to these newsgroups.

> >> >How could you possibly know this? I can understand you could imagine
it,
> >I can readily see you could guess it to be the case, but if your were
dead,
> >it would never be part of your reality.

> >> That is why I distinguish between *my* reality and "reality". Would the
> >> ant in Ulan Bator that was never part of what you disingenuously call
> >> "my reality" cease to exist if I did? I have seen the Mona Lisa in the
> >> Louvre, in Paris. If I ceased to exist would that mean that no-one else
> >> would ever be able to see it because it was no longer part of *my*
> >> reality? That I would not know this is irrelevant to the fact that
> >> others would.

> >There is no reality outside of what you know because all reality is
> >illusion. Even if a portion of the illusion becomes new to you and was
> >known by everyone else, you can not say that it was always real, except
by
> >consensus.

> But, ONE, reality is *by definition* opposed to illusion. What you are
> saying is not that reality is illusion (which makes as much sense as
> saying that "bachelors are not unmarried") but that there is no reality.
> Nothing is real. You, me, God, the creation, your opinions, the
> bible..... all illusion. Yes?

Yes, Martin and that definition is limited to the perceptions (limited)
common to mankind. We must work past the common view if we are to expand
our knowledge to include the austere.

> >> >Are you denying that?

> >> >Yes, emphatically.

> >(Another, fragment waving in the void of reason by means of segregation.)

> >> >> >While you are here, the only reality you know (in a relative sense)
is the
> >one where you exist within it. Surely you can piece these three separate
> >and distict situations together to form the framework of the idea, that
> >> >reality depends upon your perception.

> >> >> That is not the issue.

> >> >Yes, it is pointedly at issue.

> > >You keep saying "to you" and "your reality".

> >I keep indicating it yes, for you must be here to have any knowledge of
it.
> >Without the you that is special to yourself, that *reality* (illusion you
> >call real) can not exist.

> You are quite right. Illusions I call real cannot exist without me. But
> it is not my illusions of reality that I have been talking about. It is
> reality itself, which, by definition, is independent of my illusions.

Reality itself, you do not know, thus your referral to it is as nebulous as
the reality you believe you perceive. The result is that any reference to
reality is void.

> >> >I keep saying it, but you keep ignoring and insisting that without you
> >there will continue to be the reality as you know it. (As you have often
> >> >indicated, you can not possible know the reality as another knows it)
> >This is not consistant and the truth is that without you, your reality
(as you
> >> >know it) will cease to be.

> >> So you will cease to be if I do? Rubbish. Whatever ceases to be for me,
> >> does not cease to be for you or anyone else. That is what I mean by
> >> reality.

> >We know what you mean, but you have no means to prove it. (Pun intended)

> Your continued existence during my long absence provides adequate proof
> that you continue to exist independently of me. You will hopefully have
> to wait a little longer to be reassured of your independent existence
> should I cease to be altogether!

Not at all, I was a mere shadow of myself in your absense. <smile>

> >> >>I have always been claiming that there *must* be a reality
independent
> >of me, and my perception of it, or you would not have existed before we
> >> >> started conversing on usenet. Are you saying that?

> >> >Your claim is non-sense in as much as you can not prove it while you
are
> >> >alive and maintain your representation of reality, nor can you prove
it
> >> >after your representation of reality is halted by death.

> >> If I have a "representation of reality" it follows that there is a
> >> reality of which I have a representation. If I cease to exist, then so
> >> does my representation, but not the reality, of which you, or others,
or
> >> no-one might have a "representation". Right?

> >No, it means there are contrasting stimuli you interpret as reference
> >points, it does not mean your interpretation is the absolute reality. If
> >those contrasting reference points, I call tangents, continue to be
> >interpreted by others, that does not indicate a reality either, merely
> >illusion, held together by consensus.

> I would never claim that my "interpretation is the absolute reality". As
> I have been trying to make clear, my interpretation is one thing,
> reality is another, being the object of my interpretation. As for
> "contrasting stimuli" and "reference points" I am not to sure what these
> could be if not the result of perceiving objects in the real world.

Again, you do not know the absolute reality, and thus know only a small
portion and then only your representation of it. They are the result of
your limited perceptions of objects in the world you call real.

> I am not clear how your claim that "contrasting reference points...
> [interpreted by me] continue to be interpreted by others" indicates mere
> "illusion? Even if you are right that such "consensus" does not
> guarantee reality then I do not see that it follows that illusion is
> indicated. Consensus tells us nothing other than that there is
> consensus. But my argument that we perceive a real world does not rely
> on consensus. I do not require that others agree with me that I see a
> tree. I do not need to, for they see it for themselves. What others can
> provide is confirmation, which is not the same thing as consensus.

Your argument is only consensus alone. You require the words agreed upon by
the consensus to mean what the consensus agrees they mean in order to arrive
at your argument. You must perceive all things that you perceive and refer
to them as does the consensus for those perceptions to relate. Confirmation
is merely another form of consensus.

> [....]

> >You never dream?

Exactly! Quite right! The dreamed apple tastes just as sweet and it is not
until you "remember" the fact that you dreamed it, that it became anything
less than real to you. Thank you once more for proving my point.

> >> >Unconscious?

> >> >Same thing as above, only this time it is not elective.

> >> So nothing exists independently of me? The world ceases to exist for
you
> >> if I am unconscious?

> >No, it ceases for you.

> Indeed it does. But I note you now agree that it does not cease for you.
> Thus, it would appear that you now agree with my claim that there is an
> existent world independent me. Would it not be reasonable to assume that
> the same applies to you - that when you are unconscious the world still
> exists for me? And could we not say that this applies to each and every
> existing person? Thus, must we not agree that things which exists do so
> independently of you, or me, or Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair... and that
> we could continue with this process until we had named every person in
> the world? Now does it not follow from this that existence is
> independent of all of us, for if I were the last person alive, the world
> would still exist, yet we have agreed that its existence is not
> dependent on me, so would continue to exist when I died? It is this
> independent existence I call reality, for no matter how many different
> interpretations, or representations, there are of it, or what consensus
> might exist over those representations, it remains what it is. Reality
> is that which is, and not the ideas about it.

Correct, however it is YOUR reality we were discussing.

> >> >>If every
> >> >> human being was spirited away from the face of the earth tomorrow,
> >there would still be a universe, bees would still collect honey from the
> >> >> flowers, fish would still swim in the rivers....

> >> >You might have a difficult time proving this theory. In fact, you
could
> >> >not.

> >> I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that it cannot be so. It's
> >> your theory.

> >No, it is your theory, your assertion, that bees still collect nector,
(not
> >honey), but you can not prove it, only theorize it.

> See my argument above.

OK

> >> >>etc etc. I would know
> >> >> it *then* because I would not be here. But I know it now, and that's
> >> >> enough.

> >> >YOU do not know it now, you would not know it then, and that is
> >sufficient to prove your view of reality is faulty. This, of course, is
enough.

> >> Of course I know it now. Prove me wrong.

> >It is your assertion that you know it, : "If every human being was
spirited
> >away from the face of the earth tomorrow, there would still be a
universe,
> >bees would still collect honey from the flowers, fish would still swim in
> >the rivers"
> >Now let us see your logic prove it.
>
> See above.

OK

There is an absolute reality, that I know must exist although I am want to
discover it.
There is the illusion of so-called reality that is apparent and I am found
within it.

> [.....]

> >> >What I meant to say is that there are perceptions which seem
independent.

> >> Why? What is it about a perception that makes us think it is
> >> independent?

> >It is interpreted by our mentality alone.

> Such as illusions, dreams and hallucinations? You will have to explain.
> Surely we interpret everything we perceive by "our mentality" - how else
> do we interpret? Is this Berkeley again by any chance? Are those
> independent "perceptions" (by which I presume you mean ideas or
> concepts) put into our minds by God? I'd prefer you "came clean" if this
> is what you mean! If not, how do they come to be there if not,
> ultimately, as a result of our perceptions of the world around us?

I am not sure of your question, thus I am unsure of what answer you require.

> >> >There is a certain duality that needs be observed if one is to exact
not
> >> >only his apparent position (current perception) in the universe but
also
> >his refined position (a projection of where one has been and is, toward
where
> >> >one will is likely to be.)

> >> Give me an example.

> >The now, as opposed to the past and present. And then the now, as in all
> >time combined.

> Did you mean to say "now as opposed to the past and future"? I'll assume
> so, for "now" and "present" would appear to be synonymous. Before I
> answer this point, though, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "all
> time combined", for on the face of it, it appears to be an empty
> concept.

Yes I meant to say what I said, the now is not the same as the present. The
present is considered to be those things that flow along in time with our
perception of it and my use of the "now" includes all time past and present
and future. I realize your dislike for private language however it is
justified in this case.

> >> > This duality extends itself into views that are
> >> >notably dependent upon perception as well as seemingly independent
when
> >> >observed from an objective position.

> >> Why should some views be "seemingly independent"? Why not accept that
> >> they *are* independent? And what do you mean by an objective
> >> perspective? How can there be such a thing in your universe?
> >
> >They belong to the individual. They are related, by the individual, thus
> >they can graduate into no longer being independent but more consensus.
> >Objective perspective, of the points of reference (tangents) They are
> >illusions, but I must use the terms of consensus to communicate.

> Again you are making a leap from the point that things are relative, to
> an assumption that they must therefore be illusory. This does not
> follow. It may well be that on occasion my interpretation of X is
> relative to a particular time, and to my particular circumstances at
> that time. But this does not mean that my interpretation of X in those
> given circumstances is not unambiguously "right", and that the same
> interpretation would not be made by anyone else in those circumstances.
> This is what I would suggest is an objective interpretation. To say that
> interpretation is subjective (in the sense that interpretations depend
> on mental processes) is *not* to imply that a given interpretation is
> arbitrarily personal, or that it cannot be an *objective*
> interpretation.

What is correct, in the perspective of the present always changes when
considered from the viewpoint of the future. Thus we may assume that what
is currently percieved as correct (when the whole is considered) is not.

> What exactly are the "terms of consensus" you use to communicate, by the
> way? I understand the concept of "conventions" of communication, but
> that is a different concept altogether. Consensus implies consent, and
> consent implies a conscious decision to agree with others about
> something. I am not aware of having made any such decision. The way I
> communicate was pretty much determined long before I had the concept of
> consensus. It was determined by the nationality, language and possibly
> status of my parents, and where I was born and brought up. I had no say
> in that, and thus what I use to communicate was determined without my
> consent.

I believe this point is covered elswhere in the post.

> Once again, my apologies for the long delay.

We are very glad you have returned. <smile>

ONE

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

> Some more late catching up... sorry again.

No apology needed, most of us do have lives apart from the detailed efforts
witnessed in these newsgroups.

Yes, the senses give us a remarkable array of "what we need" yet they do not
give us the ability to discern the spirit in an objective fashion. I
suspect this lack was by design as it requires spirit developement within
the individual to acquire spiritual discernment. We invent many mechanicals
to detect and measure what we as humans can not, however those devices fall
severely short when it comes to anything of spirit nature. Thus, so-called
reality, as measured by these methods falls short of the reality that is
absolute and too our knowledge of that absolute reality. If there is indeed
conflation, on my part, it is not intended to confuse however may be an
neccessary *evil* considering the extent of ignorance that must exist in our
state of relative knowledge.

> [....]

I am in apology for not recognizing your position in this matter, however it
is confusing to myself. Any part (of or relating to the whole) of any
knowledge is relative (part of a specified quantity as opposed to the entire
magnitude) to any other part by accepted defintion, and relative knowledge
merely means it is not absolute.

> I don't recall us having discussed equivocation of different senses of
> knowledge before. I certainly would have noticed if you had said
> something as obviously wrong as that all knowledge is non-propositional.
> Can you really not see the difference between saying, "I know John
> Smith" and, "This person is called John Smith"?

If one states: "This person is called John Smith"? then it follows that one
knows the person is called John Smith. If one also calls the person John
Smith, the it follows that one knows John Smith. You can see that there is
similarity, however I suspect you wish to quibble over the miniscule in this
regard and really, I do not see much point in that.

Yes, it appears we talk in similar veins of thought in this.

> Assuming that your implicit question is "how do we know that our
> proposition is true" - ie, that it is knowledge - let us consider the
> two examples of propositional knowledge. How do we know that 3-2=1 is a
> true proposition? Well if you take mathematics as a priori knowledge,
> then you would simply point out that the equation follows the eternal
> rules of mathematics - a priori knowledge does not require empirical
> proof. However, if (as you agree below) mathematical knowledge is
> empirical, then you can confirm the truth of the proposition by the very
> means by which you came by this knowledge in the first place. Lay out 3
> apples, remove two, and count the number remaining. Is that product now
> fit?

This knowledge applies very well to apples, but is less suited for things of
spiritual concern.

> To take a less abstract example, let us say I claim that the animal on
> my windowsill is a cat. If you doubted the truth of my proposition, the
> easiest way would be for you to see it for yourself (that is what
> empirical knowledge is all about). If you were sceptical that what you
> also saw was a cat then consideration of the taxonomy of felis
> domesticus, would enable us to confirm the characteristics that define
> this creature from other animals. What further would you require to
> accept my proposition that the object I refer to is a cat?

I understand your proposition and the subsequent test, however I do not see
how it applies where your physical senses are not able to make the test
against those things of spirit order, thus I detect a bit of seclusion from
reality in favour of the so-called reality in regard to knowledge as
defined.

> [.....]

Illusion has many levels and some of them are called reality by those who
*test* them by the means of measurement available to them. What most humans
mean when they report something is real, is that is appears to have the
properties that are consistant with things concrete rather than abstract.
In emotions however, what is real is usually deemed so by observed (more
concrete) actions than words, ideas, or claims but the emotion could very
well be real without any action available for review whatsoever. I suspect
another might term this latter emotion then an illusion, however once again
the ambiguity of language rears it's ugly head.

> Your second point, that the candle has properties of which I am not
> immediately aware, is true, but implies that there are properties of the
> candle of which I *am* immediately aware. These properties are of
> necessity sufficient for me to identify it as a candle - if they weren't
> I would have no concept of candle. Because there are further properties
> (the chemical composition, molecular structure etc) not necessary for
> our identification of the object as a candle, it does not follow that we
> cannot know that it is a real candle based on the properties that *are*
> immediately available to us. And I am not sure why you should think
> immediacy is an issue. If the properties I am immediately aware of are
> not sufficient to provide me with knowledge, I can find out the rest at
> my leisure. If the only way I can be sure the X is in fact X is by
> carrying out a chemical analysis, then so be it. I'll wait for that
> before making any claim to knowledge.

The fact remains that it may be a candle, by having all the properties
sufficient for one to define it as a candle, but it may have other
properties which seem to define it as a paperweight, or a doorstop, or any
other number of things. Here we fall into the black hole of time and
reasoning where usage determines the definition if not the reality where the
usage occurs. Reality you say? I say illusion.

> [....]

It is illusion, although you favour mincing words for your point's sake.
For years many suffered the illusion of a flat earth and created a myriad of
implications to support it as well as those who advanced the earth was the
center of the universe.
We have discovered the error in such a way as to dispel the illusion, or
error (if you choose) however the facts bear out the position. A mistake,
yes, but also an illusion that it was so thus we see how partial knowledge
can be and often is illusory. My contention to bring us into focus, is that
we have mere partial knowledge concerning our universe, and that at some
point our current thoughts concerning it's nature will also be found
illusory, or if you would rather, in error.

> [.....]

> >> I'm sure we've had the discussion of evil and good before, but you seem
> >> to have changed your position somewhat. I seem to remember you claiming
> >> that there was a continuum between good and evil with what counted as
> >> good or evil being temporally relative in some way. I disagree, though,
> >> about evil merely being lack of good. Lack of good is neutral. Things
> >> can be neither good nor evil. An evil act is as positive an act as a
> >> good act, one being positively bad and the other positively good. One
> >> can fail to be good without being evil.

> >Neutrality represents a balance of evil and good, more than it represents
> >good without evil. To be good without any evil at all, we simply term
> >*good*. The valuation twixt good and evil is assigned all things I am
aware
> >of, but perhaps you have some illustration in mind. Actions seem to fall
in
> >a category by result, although there are many other variables to
consider.

> You are talking about two different concepts. There may well be actions
> of which we might say that the good and evil balance out, but that is
> not the same as saying that they are neutral. Activities which are
> morally neutral are neither good nor evil. That is quite a different
> thing from saying good *and* bad.

My point was then and still remains that there is a sliding scale of
valuation concerning what is good, or evil and that which is neutral falls
between them.

> Further, if as you say evil is merely the lack of good, and there is no
> such thing as a neutral action (in my sense), then it follows that an
> action which is *not* evil must be good (you say as much yourself). And
> an action which has no evil in it whatsoever must be the ultimate good.
> Now I suggest that my saying "Martin" when answering the question, "what
> is your given name" is an action containing no evil whatsoever, and thus
> (according to your definition) is an act of ultimate goodness (this is
> not to say that *I* contain no evil, but that my particular action does
> not). I suggest that morally neutral acts such as answering with my
> name, scratching my head, or performing bodily functions are not neutral
> because they contain good and evil in balance, but because they are
> actions to which it is inappropriate to ascribe moral values.

Questions, or answers in themselves pose no valuation (not even neutral) in
the context, but it is the motive behind them that is valued as good or
evil. We do not usually attribute a stone as either good or evil until it
is acted upon in some manner.

> I would also suggest that when we judge something good, we are not
> making a negative judgement about the lack of evil, we are making a
> positive judgement about the extent to which virtue is being displayed.

Relative terms apply in a relative manner, and so too does our use of the
terms of good and evil. When we say something is good, we really mean it is
more good than it is evil.

ONE

[Martin Dann]

In article <SpA_2.14149$Fw3.4...@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

>
>
>
>We are most pleased you have returned as the level of intelligence and
>replies by those who remained have not seen your equal. We wish you balance
>and strength as you retrurn from the brink.

Thank-you. With luck I shall eventually be my old self again, but
whether this is a good thing or not is debatable!

[....]

>> >> Of course. Which proves my point. Choice is not involved, therefore
>> >> agreement/consensus is not involved.

>> >Not exactly, Martin. It proves only that humans will choose to
>> >communicate in whatever style they are exposed to. The path of
>> >least resistance (common language) is still a choice whether or not
>> >you desire to acknowledge it.

>> Taking the "path of least resistance" implies more difficult paths which
>> could have been taken. What other paths, difficult or not, could a baby
>> realistically take? For example, I was brought up in England by English
>> speaking parents, in a totally English speaking environment. I do not
>> understand what other path than to speak English I could have chosen?
>> Even if there was another path, how could a pre-linguistic child make
>> that kind of choice?

>The choices at that level of development are slim but not non-existant. Not
>speaking at all is also a choice, though few there are who make that choice
>as desires are better communicated than left unpublished. Choice made later
>in life, are greater and the selection (choice) to speak in a given tongue
>are once again more a given than a choice, however still there are choices.

We are left with a simple disagreement - I see no choice, you see slim
choice, although you do not explain how that could be, or what other
choice I, for example, might have had. Could I, at the age of a few
months, have made a decision which would have relied on the concept of
language, and the understanding of alternative path? How many people do
you know of, not being psychologically or physically damaged, who chose
not to learn any language as a child? Or chose never to speak? It is
part of human nature to communicate. That's the kind of creatures we
are. We have no more choice about language than we do about eating and
sleeping. Your slim choice is no choice in reality. Certainly not enough
on which to base your philosophy of consensus.
>
>> [.....]

"Reality" which is beyond mankind's ability to perceive is fantasy. It
is irrelevant, for if it is beyond our ability to perceive it can never
have a place in our lives - seeking it is a waste of time. It is quite
wrong to claim that because some hypothetical all seeing entity could
see more that us, that what we see is illusion. That is an illegal step.
When I look at a drop of pond water under a microscope I see that it is
filled with microscopic creatures, whereas when I look at it with the
naked eye it is just a drop of water. That does not mean that the drop
of water is an illusion. It is not. It is a real drop of water about
which more can be discovered if we look more closely.

>> Further, it does not follow from your claim that "each have their own
>> [reality?] and no two are exactly alike" that their is no reality other
>> what we might think is real, and call "our reality". Even if our
>> perception of reality is personal, it is nevertheless a perception of
>> reality. Even if our perception of reality is illusory, it is our
>> perception that is an illusion, not reality. The fact that people have
>> different ideas about things does not entail that the things they have
>> the different ideas about are not real.
>
>Again, the various degrees of cognizance, awareness, knowledge and
>intuition, defines, if not constructs, corresponding degrees of so-called
>reality.
>The absolute reality is the goal, and relative knowledge the only path.

The various degrees of cognisance, awareness, and knowledge define the
extent of our knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality precedes
our knowledge of it and cannot therefore be defined by our knowledge, as
you recognise by your last sentence. I would rephrase that as "complete
knowledge is the goal, and partial knowledge the path by which we build
to that goal".

>
>> But you have said elsewhere that reality is illusion (you should really
>> stick to calling it "so-called reality" to avoid confusion) so it would
>> seem that your claims are not about perception at all, but about
>> imagination and subjectivity. I don't deny that these exist, but that
>> has nothing to do with the existence of an independent reality, or our
>> ability to perceive. That we know we sometimes see illusions entails
>> knowledge of the difference between reality and illusion, which in turn
>> entails knowledge of reality.
>
>I think they have much to do with reality as they flavour and colour our
>perceptions to the point we define much of oour universe by means of these.
>Surely you will agree that in the absolute reality, there are included
>emotions, colours and all the various subjective feelings that limited
>humans manitain as well as the stark contrast of absolute light and dark.

Emotions, imagination and subjectivity are real enough, but we should be
careful not to equivocate on senses of "real" and "reality". It is a
fact that humans imagine, but *what* they imagine is not reality.

>> [......]
>
>> >I am sorry you translated my response in that manner, for it was not
>> >intended as you seem to perceive. I was merely attempting to steer our
>> >discourse back to the original line of thought which you seem to have
>> >misplaced. "Reality is the accumulated mental representation of our
>> >perceptions. Many think of the accumulation of shared perceptions as
>> >reality, however the truth is that each have their own and no two are
>> >exactly alike." Now, if you have some method or evidence this is not
>> >correct, I am sure I will refute it without a great deal of effort.
>
>> By your own admission elsewhere, this is not reality. It is what you
>> call "so-called" reality. And that is absolutely right - to claim that
>> "accumulated representations of our perceptions" has anything to do with
>> reality would be a nonsense. Reality is that which lies beyond any such
>> representation, and what it is a representation of. But see also my
>> discussion above.
>
>Absolute reality, as known by absolute knowledge, is reality. Less than
>that, in any venue may be called reality but falls short. Thus my use of
>the term "so-called" reality for many refer to the concrete as reality over
>the abstract.

Well no, "reality" is reality, "absolute reality" is a metaphysical
idealistic concept which bears little resemblance to reality. In my
view, it is for people who wish to apply special meanings to words like
"reality" and "knowledge" to indicate that when they use the words, and
accept that there is a perfectly sound and unadulterated sense of those
words in common usage. In other words it is not for me to add "so
called" to reality, but for you to add "absolute" or "special" to them,
showing that you are not using the words in their usual or proper sense.

>> You say "....you are required to behold [reality], for it to exist as
>> you behold it". Ignoring the sarcasm, yes of course this is a tautology,
>> and yes of course I accept it. It is a straightforward trivial truth.
>> What would be more controversial would be to claim (with Berkeley) that
>> "I am required to behold it for it to exist". This I would deny. We
>> appear to be sailing past each other in the night here ONE. I have no
>> trouble with the fact that things for me depend on me for them to be
>> things for me - how could I have? But as with any tautology this makes
>> no point at all. As I pointed out about, and many times previously, I
>> deny that things which exist independently of my thoughts and ideas of
>> them, depend on me for their existence. I have provided an argument in
>> support of this elsewhere in this post.
>
>You are not independent of anything thus your denial is meaningless. All
>humans and all things in this universe are connected, and while you may find
>it difficult to fully grasp, the universe fairly cries this out in all
>quadrants of experience. Once this fact is acknowledged, the connectivety
>decrees you are required to be part of it, in the time segment that is you,
>thus it can truly be said that for the universe to exist (as it is) you must
>be.

My denial that I am required to behold something for it to exist has
nothing to do with my dependence or independence. From the fact that I
am a part of the universe as it exists at the moment it does not follow
that the universe is dependent on my existence. The universe is not a
fixed, unchangeable thing, it is a dynamic, constantly changing thing.
My part, your part, anyone's part in it is contingent, not necessary,
thus it follows that my existence is not necessary for the continued
existence of the universe.

>> I am not in any consensus. I know I have said this before, but... First,
>> I have absolutely no choice at this level but to converse with you in
>> the English which is natural to me - the English I had no choice but to
>> learn as a child. I can say "please" and "thank-you" in a few languages,
>> but this does not provide me with a choice - I am stuck with English.
>> Second, no agreement is asked or required from you or anybody in order
>> for me to express myself in the only language available to me. Third, of
>> course as I write, even in English, I have choices. Which word should I
>> use? How should I structure my reply? What line shall I take? None of
>> these things involve any more that my free will to make my own
>> decisions. I do not consent to anything nor do I ask you to consent to
>> anything. I simply use words as I have learned to use them. Perhaps
>> consensus would indeed be needed if, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in
>> Wonderland, we used words arbitrarily, making them mean whatever we want
>> them to mean. But this is not how language is used.

>Exactly my point. A word in a language is used to mean what the consensus
>agrees thats it means.

If it is your point that we have no choice about the language we use,
and that this language precedes our existence and use of it, then yes, I
am making your point. If you wish to call this consensus, then Humpty-
Dumpty would be proud of you.

>> I can see a sense in which it *might* make sense to talk of consensus.
>> Wittgenstein talks of "language games". Thus, within the context in
>> which you are using language you will follow the rules of that
>> particular language game. The way the "game" is played in philosophical
>> debate, for example, differs from the way in which it would be played in
>> other circles, such as within the military, or in government. Thus it
>> might be argued that "playing a language game" involves consensus.
>> However, even here I doubt it could be called consensus. If, for
>> example, I wish to play a game of chess, it seems odd to me to suggest
>> that a consensus if required in order to do so. The rules of chess have
>> evolved to what they are today and I have no say in this. If I do not
>> accept the rules, then there is no point in me playing chess. But please
>> note that accepting something - the rules of the game for example - is
>> *not* what we mean by consensus, unless, as I say, we are to play
>> Humpty-Dumpty with the word.
>
>There are certain conventions used in political, military, scientific,
>religious, circles as well as many more, and we may refer to these as
>language specific to those respective circels, however, my point concerning
>consensus was more the manner in which a word is defined by the majority
>within a language group.

I'm not sure that we disagree about the way the words we use have
meaning. It is just your inappropriate use of the word "consensus" I
object to. The meaning of a word is in its use. People use words not by
agreement or consensus, but by habit, custom or convention. These are
not the same as agreement and consensus. Consensus entails consent.
Habits, customs and conventions are followed.

[....]

>> Either reality is that which lies beyond subjectivity (by definition),
>> or there is no reality. I don't think it is acceptable to invent your
>> own definition of the word. And it does not follow from the (debatable)
>> claim that "there is no part of reality, in truth, that is not part of
>> subjectivism..." that we cannot know reality. Indeed, your comment "in
>> truth" is a reality claim and raises an interesting paradox. You are, in
>> effect, claiming that the reality is that there is no reality. As you
>> said to me, "you do not know this and can never know this".
>
>Yes, perhaps I did invent a viewpoint if not a new definition, however it
>does appear to me that the word reality, is oft misused. If we can assume
>that absolute reality is the condition of absolute knowledge then we have a
>common frame of reference and a point from which we can observe all other
>realities as lacking.

ONE, there is no "absolute reality". There is no "absolute knowledge".
These are hypothetical concepts, idealistic inventions of human minds.
There is a reality of which we have at first little knowledge, then
partial knowledge, and if we are lucky, perhaps complete knowledge. But
even if complete knowledge is not possible, it does not follow that the
knowledge we have is illusory.

[....]

>> But that is exactly the point I am making. If (as I claim) reality is
>> that which exists independently of my subjective opinion, then it is
>> irrelevant that that which occurs after my death is not known by me. The
>> reality I am claiming has (by definition) nothing to do with my
>> awareness or ignorance of it.
>
>That would not be reality at the nonce, but mere conjecture.

No, conjecture (by me) relies of my existence. Reality does not.

[....]

>> Reality is that which is distinguished from my illusions, by definition.
>
>In the grand scale of absolute reality, what you distinguish is illusion.
>In the relative reality that is so-called, I am sure you have a case.

"The grand scale of absolute reality" is a hypothetical construct which
has no relevance to the distinction between reality and illusion. The
idea of "absolute reality" adds nothing to our understanding of what is
real and what is imaginary (used in their normal senses) and is a prime
candidate for Mr Occam's razor.

>> Reality exists whether I am aware of it or not, by definition, and by
>> the argument I have presented elsewhere in this post. But as I thought
>> you had already agreed, when you talk of reality you mean no such thing
>> - you mean illusion (does this illusory reality include the illusion of
>> illusions, by the way? Just checking ;-)). This, of course, would
>> include all your claims about consensus, tangents, a creator and the
>> bible. All part of your illusion of reality.
>
>All part of the illusion we behold and oft times refer to as reality, yes.

I am relieved to hear that you now accept your position on the creator
as illusory. I am sure our old friend Wen-King would be interested to
hear that, after all the effort he put in to getting you to recognise
the possibility of illusion!

>> >> >> I am not, nor have ever been, talking about *MY* reality.
>
>> >> >Then you can not discuss anything, for if we do not consider your
>> >reality, there will be no one here for you to discuss with.
>
>> >(No response noted, and completely understandable in light of the
>> >segmentation.)
>
>> I thought it was too silly a point to merit response - sorry. It does
>> not follow from the claim that reality is that which is real for
>> everyone, that there is no-one for me to discuss with.
>
>It follows that for the discussion to exists it must be part of YOUR
>reality, thus my assertion remains cogent.

I don't understand. While I exist of course reality is real for me. Why
should you think that a claim that reality is not dependent upon me
entails that I can have no part in reality?

>> >> The life of an ant in Ulan Bator is entirely independent of your,
>> >>or my, knowledge of that ant's existence.

>> >Not really, but merely part of the reality (illusion) dies. Ulan
>> >Bator is now part of both of our reality (illusion) by your sharing
>> >this small portion. By the way, the ant is also by means of
>> >connectives which bind our universe, our solar system, and our
>> >world.

>> An illusion of a flower cannot die. The death of an illusory flower is
>> another illusion, so your first sentence has no meaning. Is Ulan Bator a
>> real place or not? My comment about Ulan Bator has nothing to do with
>> whether it exists or not. If you had not previously known that it was
>> the capital of Mongolia then you have learnt something. I fear I have
>> been unable to make any sense of your last sentence. Sorry.

>Mere words do not create nor destroy, and illusions, become both greater and
>smaller as we progress through our chains of perceptive awareness. You seem
>to be aware of the separation twixt the concrete reality and the mentally
>fabricated but do you realize the sphere of reality that includes them both?
>I was merely trying to establish the undeniable connection of all things by
>that last sentence.

But I do indeed deny the "undeniable connection of all things". The ant
in Ulan Bator has no connection with the pelagic plankton of the north
Atlantic ocean. To say that they are connected because they happen,
contingently, to be part of the universe at a specific moment does not
establish the kind of connection you require.

>> >> That is why I distinguish between *my* reality and "reality". Would the
>> >> ant in Ulan Bator that was never part of what you disingenuously call
>> >> "my reality" cease to exist if I did? I have seen the Mona Lisa in the
>> >> Louvre, in Paris. If I ceased to exist would that mean that no-one else
>> >> would ever be able to see it because it was no longer part of *my*
>> >> reality? That I would not know this is irrelevant to the fact that
>> >> others would.

>> >There is no reality outside of what you know because all reality is
>> >illusion. Even if a portion of the illusion becomes new to you and was
>> >known by everyone else, you can not say that it was always real, except
>by
>> >consensus.

>> But, ONE, reality is *by definition* opposed to illusion. What you are
>> saying is not that reality is illusion (which makes as much sense as
>> saying that "bachelors are not unmarried") but that there is no reality.
>> Nothing is real. You, me, God, the creation, your opinions, the
>> bible..... all illusion. Yes?
>
>Yes, Martin and that definition is limited to the perceptions (limited)
>common to mankind. We must work past the common view if we are to expand
>our knowledge to include the austere.

How? You have insisted that our limitations do not allow this. If you
are suggesting that there are ways we *can* get past our limitations,
you will have to explain why that does not apply in the case of our
knowledge of the world about us - and you will have to explain how
exactly we come by knowledge not available to our "limited" senses.

[...]

>> >Without the you that is special to yourself, that *reality* (illusion you
>> >call real) can not exist.

>> You are quite right. Illusions I call real cannot exist without me. But
>> it is not my illusions of reality that I have been talking about. It is
>> reality itself, which, by definition, is independent of my illusions.

>Reality itself, you do not know, thus your referral to it is as nebulous as
>the reality you believe you perceive. The result is that any reference to
>reality is void.

You tell me I do not know reality. You imply by that, that you do know
reality (for how else can you refer to it?). How? Or is your reference
to it equally void?

[....]

>> Your continued existence during my long absence provides adequate proof
>> that you continue to exist independently of me. You will hopefully have
>> to wait a little longer to be reassured of your independent existence
>> should I cease to be altogether!
>
>Not at all, I was a mere shadow of myself in your absense. <smile>

<chuckle> I doubt it!

[.....]

>> >> If I have a "representation of reality" it follows that there is a
>> >> reality of which I have a representation. If I cease to exist, then so
>> >> does my representation, but not the reality, of which you, or others,
>or
>> >> no-one might have a "representation". Right?

>> >No, it means there are contrasting stimuli you interpret as reference
>> >points, it does not mean your interpretation is the absolute reality. If
>> >those contrasting reference points, I call tangents, continue to be
>> >interpreted by others, that does not indicate a reality either, merely
>> >illusion, held together by consensus.

>> I would never claim that my "interpretation is the absolute reality". As
>> I have been trying to make clear, my interpretation is one thing,
>> reality is another, being the object of my interpretation. As for
>> "contrasting stimuli" and "reference points" I am not to sure what these
>> could be if not the result of perceiving objects in the real world.

>Again, you do not know the absolute reality, and thus know only a small
>portion and then only your representation of it. They are the result of
>your limited perceptions of objects in the world you call real.

OK, but it does not follow from this that what I do perceive is
illusion. It is part of reality, and the longer and harder I look, the
closer to complete knowledge I will become.

>> I am not clear how your claim that "contrasting reference points...
>> [interpreted by me] continue to be interpreted by others" indicates mere
>> "illusion? Even if you are right that such "consensus" does not
>> guarantee reality then I do not see that it follows that illusion is
>> indicated. Consensus tells us nothing other than that there is
>> consensus. But my argument that we perceive a real world does not rely
>> on consensus. I do not require that others agree with me that I see a
>> tree. I do not need to, for they see it for themselves. What others can
>> provide is confirmation, which is not the same thing as consensus.

>Your argument is only consensus alone. You require the words agreed upon by
>the consensus to mean what the consensus agrees they mean in order to arrive
>at your argument. You must perceive all things that you perceive and refer
>to them as does the consensus for those perceptions to relate. Confirmation
>is merely another form of consensus.

Well no, it isn't. When you confirm that your usenet handle is ONE, you
are agreeing to nothing, and are part of no consensus. Different
concepts. And even if you were right about my argument consisting of
words agreed on by consensus, that has no bearing on the validity of the
argument.

>> >> >> Well tell me ONE, what happens when I am asleep?

>> >> >There is nothing you percieve which is real.

>> >> There is nothing I perceive at all. Perception involves sight, hearing,
>> >> touch, taste or smell. When I am asleep I have none of these means of
>> >> perception.

>> >You never dream?

>> Of course. And of course it is only by knowing that some perceptions
>> *are* real that we can know that there are perception, like dreams and
>> illusions, that are not real. When we dream of an apple, we are not
>> perceiving an apple - for there is no apple to perceive. We are
>> *dreaming* that we are perceiving an apple. No real perception is
>> involved. You are in extremely good company if you make the mistake that
>> we perceive thoughts, or "representations" in our minds - Socrates
>> (according to Plato), Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, Kant.... etc. Thoughts
>> (representations if you wish) can be the *result* of our perceptions,
>> but we do not then perceive them again - we already *have* them.

>Exactly! Quite right! The dreamed apple tastes just as sweet and it is not
>until you "remember" the fact that you dreamed it, that it became anything
>less than real to you. Thank you once more for proving my point.

If your point is that it is a mistake to talk of perceiving
"representations" then I am pleased to make it for you. Or perhaps your
point is that the concept of dreams and illusions is dependent on a
concept of reality with which to compare such dreams and illusions? In
which case I am again happy to make this point for you. I should be
surprised, however, for I thought you rejected reality as being "so-
called" and no more than illusion. Perhaps you are beginning to stumble
into the light out of the darkness of your cave of scepticism?

>> >> >Unconscious?

>> >> >Same thing as above, only this time it is not elective.

>> >> So nothing exists independently of me? The world ceases to exist for
>you
>> >> if I am unconscious?

>> >No, it ceases for you.

>> Indeed it does. But I note you now agree that it does not cease for you.
>> Thus, it would appear that you now agree with my claim that there is an
>> existent world independent me. Would it not be reasonable to assume that
>> the same applies to you - that when you are unconscious the world still
>> exists for me? And could we not say that this applies to each and every
>> existing person? Thus, must we not agree that things which exists do so
>> independently of you, or me, or Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair... and that
>> we could continue with this process until we had named every person in
>> the world? Now does it not follow from this that existence is
>> independent of all of us, for if I were the last person alive, the world
>> would still exist, yet we have agreed that its existence is not
>> dependent on me, so would continue to exist when I died? It is this
>> independent existence I call reality, for no matter how many different
>> interpretations, or representations, there are of it, or what consensus
>> might exist over those representations, it remains what it is. Reality
>> is that which is, and not the ideas about it.

>Correct, however it is YOUR reality we were discussing.

No we weren't. We were discussing reality. I have made this clear on a
number of occasions. However, if you agree with the above then you agree
that reality has nothing to do with my personal ideas of it, so the
concept of *my* reality, or *your* reality makes no sense. This much you
must agree if you accept that the above argument is "correct".

This is just an unsupported assertion of your position. I am
disappointed that you made no attempt to deal with my argument, which is
a direct contradiction to your position. In other words, you need to do
a little analysis and show where my argument above is wrong. Then you
need to support your own position with arguments to show why you hold it
to be true, for it is not obviously so.

>> [.....]

>> >> >What I meant to say is that there are perceptions which seem
>independent.

>> >> Why? What is it about a perception that makes us think it is
>> >> independent?

>> >It is interpreted by our mentality alone.

>> Such as illusions, dreams and hallucinations? You will have to explain.
>> Surely we interpret everything we perceive by "our mentality" - how else
>> do we interpret? Is this Berkeley again by any chance? Are those
>> independent "perceptions" (by which I presume you mean ideas or
>> concepts) put into our minds by God? I'd prefer you "came clean" if this
>> is what you mean! If not, how do they come to be there if not,
>> ultimately, as a result of our perceptions of the world around us?
>
>I am not sure of your question, thus I am unsure of what answer you require.

I try to keep it simple but don't always succeed. My apologies. Your
point about perceptions which seem independent, and your further
response that they are "interpreted by our mentality alone" raises the
question of where these perceptions come from. I was reminded of
Berkeley's claims that some ideas are placed in us by God and wondered
if this would be your explanation? Otherwise, how do you account for
them?

>
>> >> >There is a certain duality that needs be observed if one is to exact
>not
>> >> >only his apparent position (current perception) in the universe but
>also
>> >his refined position (a projection of where one has been and is, toward
>where
>> >> >one will is likely to be.)
>
>> >> Give me an example.
>
>> >The now, as opposed to the past and present. And then the now, as in all
>> >time combined.
>
>> Did you mean to say "now as opposed to the past and future"? I'll assume
>> so, for "now" and "present" would appear to be synonymous. Before I
>> answer this point, though, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "all
>> time combined", for on the face of it, it appears to be an empty
>> concept.
>
>Yes I meant to say what I said, the now is not the same as the present. The
>present is considered to be those things that flow along in time with our
>perception of it and my use of the "now" includes all time past and present
>and future. I realize your dislike for private language however it is
>justified in this case.

Yes, Humpty-Dumpty strikes again. Your use of "now", being private, has
no shared usage, and is therefore meaningless in communication with
anyone but yourself. That's the problem with private languages.

No, that is not logical. It is not necessary that a fact we can know now
must always remain a fact if we are to claim knowledge of it now. I can
claim it as a fact that at noon today the sun was shining. I can claim
it as a fact that at midnight it is not. That it may be shining again
tomorrow does not invalidate my claim *now*. You exist now (normal
usage) but will not do so in 100 years - at least not in your present
corporeal form <smile>. This has no relevance for the claim that you
exist now. The viewpoint of the future is irrelevant. What we know now
we know now. What we will know then does not have to be the same thing -
indeed, it cannot.

[....]

Cheers,
--
Martin

[Jim Pierce]

Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n7r3XAAq...@j39to56.demon.co.uk...

> We are left with a simple disagreement - I see no choice, you see slim
> choice, although you do not explain how that could be, or what other
> choice I, for example, might have had. Could I, at the age of a few
> months, have made a decision which would have relied on the concept of
> language, and the understanding of alternative path? How many people do
> you know of, not being psychologically or physically damaged, who chose
> not to learn any language as a child? Or chose never to speak? It is
> part of human nature to communicate. That's the kind of creatures we
> are. We have no more choice about language than we do about eating and
> sleeping. Your slim choice is no choice in reality. Certainly not enough
> on which to base your philosophy of consensus.

Hello Martin! I thought I would butt in here... if I may. I think what is at
work is that there is the possibility that someone could have chosen not to
learn any language early on. Just what that sort of thing might "look like"
is beyond a Wittgensteinian like me! At least, the logical possibility is
there! Further, I think the above point goes part and parcel with the thesis
of Solipsism and the argument against having a "private language". The idea
being that if I happen to be the only mind, then is there really any
communication going on when I speak? Interestingly enough, should we count
any sort of "talking to oneself" as communication? Witty says "NO" in the
Investigations and for good reasons, I think. I also want to point out that
there may be a difference between what counts as "communication" and what
may be a "language". It is not the case that what is communication is
language, too. Some will not regard grunts, clicks, and whistles as language
but surely such can be used in communication. I think it smart here to be
careful of what we might mean by "language" don't you?

> "Reality" which is beyond mankind's ability to perceive is fantasy. It
> is irrelevant, for if it is beyond our ability to perceive it can never
> have a place in our lives - seeking it is a waste of time. It is quite
> wrong to claim that because some hypothetical all seeing entity could
> see more that us, that what we see is illusion. That is an illegal step.
> When I look at a drop of pond water under a microscope I see that it is
> filled with microscopic creatures, whereas when I look at it with the
> naked eye it is just a drop of water. That does not mean that the drop
> of water is an illusion. It is not. It is a real drop of water about
> which more can be discovered if we look more closely.

Here, here! But let's be careful, shall we! Neither you or Onestar have
defined "reality" beyond a few platitudes. Further, both of you seem to be
confusing what is real with what exists. Unicorns are real but don't exist.
What exists is necessarily real, but what is real may not exist. (Think
Unicorn!) To explain this further, a concept is real, but may not have an
instance (or, instantiation). So for example, we do have a concept of a
unicorn as a being having such and such features; but, there are no
instances of the concept in the world. Likewise, we have certain concepts of
God, but there are no reasons (AFAIK) to think there are any instances of
the concept! Indeed, the concept of God (the Judeo-Christian concept) is
incoherent. At any rate, it would be instructive if both you and Onestar
drag out a few definitions of "reality" and the like!

> The various degrees of cognisance, awareness, and knowledge define the
> extent of our knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality precedes
> our knowledge of it and cannot therefore be defined by our knowledge, as
> you recognise by your last sentence. I would rephrase that as "complete
> knowledge is the goal, and partial knowledge the path by which we build
> to that goal".

The above seems confused, imho. For example, how can we be in a position to
know that "reality precedes out knowledge" without pain of contradiction? If
we had such knowledge, then presumably we would know just what preceded out
knowledge. Of course, that is absurd!

>Well no, "reality" is reality, "absolute reality" is a metaphysical
> idealistic concept which bears little resemblance to reality. In my
> view, it is for people who wish to apply special meanings to words like
> "reality" and "knowledge" to indicate that when they use the words, and
> accept that there is a perfectly sound and unadulterated sense of those
> words in common usage. In other words it is not for me to add "so
> called" to reality, but for you to add "absolute" or "special" to them,
> showing that you are not using the words in their usual or proper sense.

Hmmm.... "absolute reality" is NOT a metaphysical idealistic concept.
Perhaps you could quote an idealistic philosopher in support of your
position? Recall that in Idealism there is no such thing as "absolute
reality" apart from some Berklian view of God. Then even here reality is
perspectival. Also, your appeal to commonsenism is applauded, but I don't
think it will go very far! Simply consider the average reading level in the
United States (for example) and I think you will at once see the need to
utilize philosophical jargon! What is "special" to an 8th grader may not
hold the same conotation we want to use in our philosophy.

I like the remainder of your response to Onestar. (Not that that should mean
anything!) I think I will end here. Cheers!

Jim

[Martin Dann]

In article <60m%2.14969$t7.42...@news2.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes
>
>Martin Dann

[....]

You have introduced a new element - spirit - but you do not say what
this is, and why it should be relevant to this discussion. You do not
show that spirit is a part of reality, ie that it *can* be discerned in
an "objective" fashion. I would suggest that if "reality" is perceived
only by a representation of reality in our minds, and (as you argue) can
only at best be "so-called" reality, then there is even less
justification to make claims about knowledge of anything of a "spirit
nature". Further, even if you could show the existence of this "spirit
nature" you would have to show how a non-corporeal spirit world could
have any logical or practical connection with the that which I would
call the "real" world. Otherwise you cannot claim that lack of ability
to perceive the spirit world has any effect on my claim that we can know
the real world.

>> [....]

No, I apologise to you, for I assumed that when you spoke of "relative"
knowledge you meant relative to the person having that knowledge. I got
this impression from your comment such as the above about comparing
"what we detect in our own reality to another's". In this sense, of
course, the knowledge which I have that is relative to me is not
necessarily partial, or if it is, not simply because it is relative to
me. However, you appear to be using the sense of "relative" which is
opposed to "absolute" - a different sense, so clearly we need to be
careful not to equivocate. In that event your earlier comment that we
have passed this stage of the discussion is right, although we are still
left with a fundamental disagreement a) that there is any such thing as
"absolute knowledge" and b) even if there is it does not follow that
knowledge which falls short of absolute knowledge is illusion.

>> I don't recall us having discussed equivocation of different senses of
>> knowledge before. I certainly would have noticed if you had said
>> something as obviously wrong as that all knowledge is non-propositional.
>> Can you really not see the difference between saying, "I know John
>> Smith" and, "This person is called John Smith"?
>
>If one states: "This person is called John Smith"? then it follows that one
>knows the person is called John Smith. If one also calls the person John
>Smith, the it follows that one knows John Smith. You can see that there is
>similarity, however I suspect you wish to quibble over the miniscule in this
>regard and really, I do not see much point in that.

I don't think you understand this yet. Your first sentence is simply
wrong. If I say "this person is called John Smith" I am making a claim
to (propositional) knowledge. It does not follow from this that the
person is called John Smith. If they *are* called John Smith then my
proposition is correct and I do have this piece of propositional
knowledge. This is why it is called propositional knowledge - because
the claim is in the form of a proposition which can be shown to be right
or wrong.

Your second sentence is also wrong, and demonstrates that you really do
not understand the distinction. Let us say you are at a convention, and
all the delegates are wearing labels with their names on. You see
someone you have never met before, or even heard of, with a label on
their lapel reading "John Smith". Would it follow that you now know John
Smith? Would you say to him, "Ah, John Smith, I know you!". Wouldn't
that rather surprise him? I think at least a few drinks together in the
bar would be required, and even then you wouldn't be able to claim that
you knew him very well!

I was trying to make a distinction between non-propositional knowledge,
which may well be relative, and propositional knowledge which is not. As
you are claiming that all knowledge is relative (in some sense or other
- I am now pretty confused), and appear to be ignoring or denying
propositional knowledge, I did not think it was a "quibble over the
minuscule".

>> To conflate "propositional knowledge" with the term "objective" would be
>> a very strange thing to do. Propositions are neither subjective or
>> objective. They may be about abstract concepts - mathematics for
>> example. Your analogy shows that you have not really grasped the concept
>> of propositional and non-propositional knowledge. The "master builder"
>> requires both kinds of knowledge for use in pyramid building otherwise
>> he would not know that it was a pyramid he was building.

>> I am not sure what you mean by "raw" propositional knowledge, and to
>> what you think it is transformed. Propositional knowledge is knowledge
>> *that* something is so. Non propositional knowledge is knowledge *of*
>> something - such as knowledge by acquaintance or by direct awareness.
>
>> So when you talk of "firing" and "transformation" are you perhaps
>> referring to the method by which belief becomes knowledge? Or is it
>> connected with your scepticism, and you are looking for a process that
>> imbues "raw knowledge" with Cartesian certainty? I am not sure how a
>> discussion about "transformation" would differ from a discussion about
>> "the method used to test the final product for fitness". The way we come
>> to knowledge *is* the test for fitness.
>
>Yes, it appears we talk in similar veins of thought in this.

Good. Do I take it that this applies to all three paragraphs above?

>
>> Assuming that your implicit question is "how do we know that our
>> proposition is true" - ie, that it is knowledge - let us consider the
>> two examples of propositional knowledge. How do we know that 3-2=1 is a
>> true proposition? Well if you take mathematics as a priori knowledge,
>> then you would simply point out that the equation follows the eternal
>> rules of mathematics - a priori knowledge does not require empirical
>> proof. However, if (as you agree below) mathematical knowledge is
>> empirical, then you can confirm the truth of the proposition by the very
>> means by which you came by this knowledge in the first place. Lay out 3
>> apples, remove two, and count the number remaining. Is that product now
>> fit?
>
>This knowledge applies very well to apples, but is less suited for things of
>spiritual concern.

I am glad that you accept now that I can have knowledge of the real
world - well, of apples anyway, but even that is a major step forward. I
have made no claims about what may be required for "spiritual concerns",
for they are of no relevance to any of the claims about knowledge I have
made. "Spiritual concerns" will not help me to know how many apples I
have.

>
>> To take a less abstract example, let us say I claim that the animal on
>> my windowsill is a cat. If you doubted the truth of my proposition, the
>> easiest way would be for you to see it for yourself (that is what
>> empirical knowledge is all about). If you were sceptical that what you
>> also saw was a cat then consideration of the taxonomy of felis
>> domesticus, would enable us to confirm the characteristics that define
>> this creature from other animals. What further would you require to
>> accept my proposition that the object I refer to is a cat?
>
>I understand your proposition and the subsequent test, however I do not see
>how it applies where your physical senses are not able to make the test
>against those things of spirit order, thus I detect a bit of seclusion from
>reality in favour of the so-called reality in regard to knowledge as
>defined.

Why do I need to make any "test against those things of spirit order"?
What has that got to do with my knowledge that it is a cat? Or the
knowledge I claim to have of the rest of the real world? What has the
spiritual got to do with reality? If you dismiss the real world as
illusory because our perception of it is "limited", then what must we
say of "things of spirit order"? Surely we have even less grounds for
any knowledge claims in that sphere!

[.....]

re the candle hologram illusion:

How do we distinguish between these levels of illusion? Remember, your
claim is that *all* we perceive is a representation in our mind, and
that you have agreed that we have no way of knowing that there is
anything that this representation represents. Thus all these many levels
of illusion are the result of our perception of a representation which
must be the same in all cases if the illusion is successful. But if you
are right that we can never see beyond this representation, we have no
possible means of ever knowing that the representation is an illusion,
or an illusion of an illusion, or a so-called reality.... and so on. In
fact, all talk of illusion is meaningless, for our perception is always
of the same thing (the representation). So the illusion of the candle is
as "real" as the "real" candle, for you can never know what the
identical representations are representations of (that one is a "real"
illusory candle, and the other is an illusion of an illusory candle). I
am more fortunate. I can tell a hologram from the real thing, because I
cut out the middle man <smile>.

>> Your second point, that the candle has properties of which I am not
>> immediately aware, is true, but implies that there are properties of the
>> candle of which I *am* immediately aware. These properties are of
>> necessity sufficient for me to identify it as a candle - if they weren't
>> I would have no concept of candle. Because there are further properties
>> (the chemical composition, molecular structure etc) not necessary for
>> our identification of the object as a candle, it does not follow that we
>> cannot know that it is a real candle based on the properties that *are*
>> immediately available to us. And I am not sure why you should think
>> immediacy is an issue. If the properties I am immediately aware of are
>> not sufficient to provide me with knowledge, I can find out the rest at
>> my leisure. If the only way I can be sure the X is in fact X is by
>> carrying out a chemical analysis, then so be it. I'll wait for that
>> before making any claim to knowledge.
>
>The fact remains that it may be a candle, by having all the properties
>sufficient for one to define it as a candle, but it may have other
>properties which seem to define it as a paperweight, or a doorstop, or any
>other number of things. Here we fall into the black hole of time and
>reasoning where usage determines the definition if not the reality where the
>usage occurs. Reality you say? I say illusion.

Because a candle might be used as a paperweight or a doorstop, it is an
illusion? ONE, if it has all the properties necessary to identify it as
a candle, then it is a candle - because that is what a candle is! If you
then place the candle on a bundle of papers and say, "Aha, you are
wrong, it is a paperweight, so the candle is an illusion", I would have
to smile sweetly at you, and point out as gently as I could that it was,
in fact, a candle you were using as a paperweight. No illusion. If,
however, it *was* a paperweight made of porcelain in the image of a
candle, then it would not have all the properties necessary to identify
it as a candle, would it?

You call it "mincing words for your point's sake", I call it argument to
make my point. Ho hum - whatever.

Yes, I would rather say "in error", because being in error is not the
same thing as illusion. However, while there is a difference between
mistaken belief and illusion, and belief that the earth is flat is the
former, let us for the sake of the point you are trying to make call it
illusion. And yes, I would say that in this sense people were under the
illusion that the earth was flat. They did not, however *know* this.
They wrongly believed it. If they claimed to know, it was a false claim.
(Don't forget that long before all the silliness in the middle-ages of
flat earths and geocentricism, not only had the ancient Greeks known
that the earth was not flat, but they had calculated its circumference
to a remarkable degree of accuracy.) It is an illegal move from saying
that people can be wrong, to saying that they can never be right.

Do you note the further paradox raised by your position, by the way? You
call belief that the earth was flat an illusion, implying that we now
know better. But how, if all knowledge is illusion, can we claim to know
better? According to you our concept of the earth as an oblate spheroid
must also be an illusion. So why single out flat earth belief, which you
cannot know to be any more or less of an illusion than spherical earth
belief? If you *do* know this, how?

Then you do not observe the judgements of your fellow man very closely -
unless you are saying that this is how things *should* be, regardless of
how things are?

>
>> Further, if as you say evil is merely the lack of good, and there is no
>> such thing as a neutral action (in my sense), then it follows that an
>> action which is *not* evil must be good (you say as much yourself). And
>> an action which has no evil in it whatsoever must be the ultimate good.
>> Now I suggest that my saying "Martin" when answering the question, "what
>> is your given name" is an action containing no evil whatsoever, and thus
>> (according to your definition) is an act of ultimate goodness (this is
>> not to say that *I* contain no evil, but that my particular action does
>> not). I suggest that morally neutral acts such as answering with my
>> name, scratching my head, or performing bodily functions are not neutral
>> because they contain good and evil in balance, but because they are
>> actions to which it is inappropriate to ascribe moral values.
>
>Questions, or answers in themselves pose no valuation (not even neutral) in
>the context, but it is the motive behind them that is valued as good or
>evil. We do not usually attribute a stone as either good or evil until it
>is acted upon in some manner.

It is the motive behind them I am talking about. The point is that in
the example above there is no evil motivation, and therefore it must be
all good. You have not addressed this. But I am pleased to see that you
are now acknowledging that your original claim that "The valuation twixt
good and evil is assigned all things I am aware of..." was a little
hasty.

>
>> I would also suggest that when we judge something good, we are not
>> making a negative judgement about the lack of evil, we are making a
>> positive judgement about the extent to which virtue is being displayed.
>
>Relative terms apply in a relative manner, and so too does our use of the
>terms of good and evil. When we say something is good, we really mean it is
>more good than it is evil.

We? I am always wary when people try to tell me what I "really mean" (I
note you continue to use the language of reality, by the way!). I
"really mean" no such thing when I say that something is good. Perhaps
you do. If so, I find it a very odd way of looking at things.

Cheers,
--
Martin

[ONEstar]

> Martin Dann
> Jim

Martin, your post did not appear upon my server, so I take the liberty of
responding by means of Jim's which replied to yours. Please excuse my
netiquet should this be found unappealing.

You are partially correct. Communication and language are general terms
which infer a general conveyance of information. There are specific regions
of the brain which convey information (gathered by means of sensory
stimulation) to other regions of the brain which collate the information
into a cohesive format ultimately understood by the collection of memories
called the mind. IN this manner, the individual does indeed, have a
language (communication) which is private, secret, and apart from all
others. Wittgenians unite and fight as they will, this fact remains. Shall
we argue the minutia ad nauseum?

> > "Reality" which is beyond mankind's ability to perceive is fantasy. It
> > is irrelevant, for if it is beyond our ability to perceive it can never
> > have a place in our lives - seeking it is a waste of time. It is quite
> > wrong to claim that because some hypothetical all seeing entity could
> > see more that us, that what we see is illusion. That is an illegal step.
> > When I look at a drop of pond water under a microscope I see that it is
> > filled with microscopic creatures, whereas when I look at it with the
> > naked eye it is just a drop of water. That does not mean that the drop
> > of water is an illusion. It is not. It is a real drop of water about
> > which more can be discovered if we look more closely.
>
> Here, here! But let's be careful, shall we! Neither you or Onestar have
> defined "reality" beyond a few platitudes. Further, both of you seem to be
> confusing what is real with what exists. Unicorns are real but don't
exist.
> What exists is necessarily real, but what is real may not exist. (Think
> Unicorn!) To explain this further, a concept is real, but may not have an
> instance (or, instantiation). So for example, we do have a concept of a
> unicorn as a being having such and such features; but, there are no
> instances of the concept in the world. Likewise, we have certain concepts
of
> God, but there are no reasons (AFAIK) to think there are any instances of
> the concept! Indeed, the concept of God (the Judeo-Christian concept) is
> incoherent. At any rate, it would be instructive if both you and Onestar
> drag out a few definitions of "reality" and the like!

Reality is fleeting and difficult to fixate due to it's dynamic nature, thus
I tend to such qualifiers as *so-called* and *absolute* to describe the
ambiguous and nebulous definition which describes things as "fixed"
"permanent" or "immovable" when in fact, they do not appear to be. (The
earth was not permanently flat, but transformed to a sphere, although a
"flat-earth" was, at one time, mankind's reality.) I realize that the
reality of the earth's surface did not change but mankind's representational
*reality* (so-called reality) concerning it, surely did.

> > The various degrees of cognisance, awareness, and knowledge define the
> > extent of our knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality precedes
> > our knowledge of it and cannot therefore be defined by our knowledge, as
> > you recognise by your last sentence. I would rephrase that as "complete
> > knowledge is the goal, and partial knowledge the path by which we build
> > to that goal".

> The above seems confused, imho. For example, how can we be in a position
to
> know that "reality precedes out knowledge" without pain of contradiction?
If
> we had such knowledge, then presumably we would know just what preceded
out
> knowledge. Of course, that is absurd!

Not exactly. We may discover a new system and adopt the knowledge into our
knowledge base. The truth is that the system may or may not have existed
prior to the given time-line of that particular knowledge base, however for
it to have been newly discovered, it must exist, and in that sense be real.
Martin's position is cogent.

> >Well no, "reality" is reality, "absolute reality" is a metaphysical
> > idealistic concept which bears little resemblance to reality. In my
> > view, it is for people who wish to apply special meanings to words like
> > "reality" and "knowledge" to indicate that when they use the words, and
> > accept that there is a perfectly sound and unadulterated sense of those
> > words in common usage. In other words it is not for me to add "so
> > called" to reality, but for you to add "absolute" or "special" to them,
> > showing that you are not using the words in their usual or proper sense.

> Hmmm.... "absolute reality" is NOT a metaphysical idealistic concept.
> Perhaps you could quote an idealistic philosopher in support of your
> position? Recall that in Idealism there is no such thing as "absolute
> reality" apart from some Berklian view of God. Then even here reality is
> perspectival. Also, your appeal to commonsenism is applauded, but I don't
> think it will go very far! Simply consider the average reading level in
the
> United States (for example) and I think you will at once see the need to
> utilize philosophical jargon! What is "special" to an 8th grader may not
> hold the same conotation we want to use in our philosophy.

Common sense is the consensus of reality, while absolute reality is not yet
beheld.
We may communicate in whatever convention is appropriate and understood in
order to appeal to our position.

> I like the remainder of your response to Onestar. (Not that that should
mean
> anything!) I think I will end here. Cheers!

Your views are noted, and we welcome further interaction.

ONE

[Martin Dann]

In article <8G603.157$XR1....@news.uswest.net>, Jim Pierce
<nospam/jpie...@uswest.net> writes

>
>Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:n7r3XAAq...@j39to56.demon.co.uk...
>
>> We are left with a simple disagreement - I see no choice, you see slim
>> choice, although you do not explain how that could be, or what other
>> choice I, for example, might have had. Could I, at the age of a few
>> months, have made a decision which would have relied on the concept of
>> language, and the understanding of alternative path? How many people do
>> you know of, not being psychologically or physically damaged, who chose
>> not to learn any language as a child? Or chose never to speak? It is
>> part of human nature to communicate. That's the kind of creatures we
>> are. We have no more choice about language than we do about eating and
>> sleeping. Your slim choice is no choice in reality. Certainly not enough
>> on which to base your philosophy of consensus.
>
>Hello Martin! I thought I would butt in here... if I may.

Hello Jim - you may indeed.

> I think what is at
>work is that there is the possibility that someone could have chosen not to
>learn any language early on. Just what that sort of thing might "look like"
>is beyond a Wittgensteinian like me! At least, the logical possibility is
>there! Further, I think the above point goes part and parcel with the thesis
>of Solipsism and the argument against having a "private language". The idea
>being that if I happen to be the only mind, then is there really any
>communication going on when I speak? Interestingly enough, should we count
>any sort of "talking to oneself" as communication? Witty says "NO" in the
>Investigations and for good reasons, I think. I also want to point out that
>there may be a difference between what counts as "communication" and what
>may be a "language". It is not the case that what is communication is
>language, too. Some will not regard grunts, clicks, and whistles as language
>but surely such can be used in communication. I think it smart here to be
>careful of what we might mean by "language" don't you?

If you are a good Wittgensteinian you will relate the meaning of the
word "language" to its usage within the particular language game being
played ;-). You will also understand that meanings of words cannot be
pinned down by dictionary type definitions, themselves collections of
more words which require definition. In the context of my discussion
with ONE, I guess we are more concerned with the collections of words
and sentences used to make propositions about the world. I personally
would not reject the idea of non-linguistic communication, although
whether one called this "language" would depend on how remote if was
from our normal usage of the word (but see Wittgenstein's discussion of
language and communication in "The Brown Book"). Although we talk, for
example, of "body language", we do so (I believe) in a metaphorical
sense. Certainly I would agree that there is no such thing as a private
language.

>
>> "Reality" which is beyond mankind's ability to perceive is fantasy. It
>> is irrelevant, for if it is beyond our ability to perceive it can never
>> have a place in our lives - seeking it is a waste of time. It is quite
>> wrong to claim that because some hypothetical all seeing entity could
>> see more that us, that what we see is illusion. That is an illegal step.
>> When I look at a drop of pond water under a microscope I see that it is
>> filled with microscopic creatures, whereas when I look at it with the
>> naked eye it is just a drop of water. That does not mean that the drop
>> of water is an illusion. It is not. It is a real drop of water about
>> which more can be discovered if we look more closely.
>
>Here, here! But let's be careful, shall we! Neither you or Onestar have
>defined "reality" beyond a few platitudes. Further, both of you seem to be
>confusing what is real with what exists. Unicorns are real but don't exist.
>What exists is necessarily real, but what is real may not exist. (Think
>Unicorn!) To explain this further, a concept is real, but may not have an
>instance (or, instantiation). So for example, we do have a concept of a
>unicorn as a being having such and such features; but, there are no
>instances of the concept in the world. Likewise, we have certain concepts of
>God, but there are no reasons (AFAIK) to think there are any instances of
>the concept! Indeed, the concept of God (the Judeo-Christian concept) is
>incoherent. At any rate, it would be instructive if both you and Onestar
>drag out a few definitions of "reality" and the like!

Well, over the many months, if not years that ONE and I have been
discussing these issues, I am sure we have considered what we mean by
reality, and have dragged out a few definitions, even if we have not
agreed on them. None of them as far as I remember entail "existence" in
the physical sense of existence you seem to imply above. However, I
cannot agree with your analysis. "Unicorns are real but don't exist",
you say. But this is clearly not so, unless you wish to conflate the
concept of a unicorn with a unicorn itself. It is not the unicorn that
is real, but the concept of it. The unicorn does not exist and thus is
not real. The concept of it does and thus is real. What if I said that I
have a concept of not only a real unicorn, but a real unicorn that
actually exists? Would that existence then be real? (You may recognise
this as the basis of the Anselm/Descartes ontological argument for the
existence of God, which makes exactly this illegal move).

My definition of reality? You may call it a platitude, but "how things
actually are" seems to cover it nicely. This, I believe, is standard
philosophical usage. Thus reality is contrasted with "that which is
not", "that which we think or imagine" and "that which appears to be".

>
>> The various degrees of cognisance, awareness, and knowledge define the
>> extent of our knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality precedes
>> our knowledge of it and cannot therefore be defined by our knowledge, as
>> you recognise by your last sentence. I would rephrase that as "complete
>> knowledge is the goal, and partial knowledge the path by which we build
>> to that goal".
>
>The above seems confused, imho. For example, how can we be in a position to
>know that "reality precedes out knowledge" without pain of contradiction? If
>we had such knowledge, then presumably we would know just what preceded out
>knowledge. Of course, that is absurd!

So what are you saying here - that nothing is real until it is known?
You are clearly a ONEstarian on this issue! He constantly insists that
what is real, is what is real *for me* (or him or you etc), whereas I
insist that reality, by definition, is independent of me or of my
knowledge of it. For example, the ninth planet in our solar system
existed (ie was real) in 1929. And in 1829. And indeed before humans
walked on the face of the earth. Yet the planet we now call Pluto was
not discovered (ie known) until 1930. Thus the reality of that
astronomical object preceded our knowledge of it. Are you saying that
Pluto only came into existence in 1930? I think that what you are doing
in your paragraph above, is taking my claim that "reality precedes our
knowledge of it" to be the same as saying "knowledge of reality precedes
our knowledge of it". It is not. That would be nonsense, but that is not
what I was saying. If you accept that that which exists is necessarily
real, and you accept that there are things which exist about which we
have no knowledge yet, then you must accept that reality precedes
knowledge.

>
>>Well no, "reality" is reality, "absolute reality" is a metaphysical
>> idealistic concept which bears little resemblance to reality. In my
>> view, it is for people who wish to apply special meanings to words like
>> "reality" and "knowledge" to indicate that when they use the words, and
>> accept that there is a perfectly sound and unadulterated sense of those
>> words in common usage. In other words it is not for me to add "so
>> called" to reality, but for you to add "absolute" or "special" to them,
>> showing that you are not using the words in their usual or proper sense.
>
>Hmmm.... "absolute reality" is NOT a metaphysical idealistic concept.
>Perhaps you could quote an idealistic philosopher in support of your
>position? Recall that in Idealism there is no such thing as "absolute
>reality" apart from some Berklian view of God.

On the contrary, "absolute" is a term used by idealists. It is "the one
independent reality of which all things are an expression". Kant
described "absolute grounds for understanding" as "ideals only".
However, closer to ONE's views, I suspect, is Hegel's definition of the
Absolute as "spirit"!
.

> Then even here reality is
>perspectival. Also, your appeal to commonsenism is applauded, but I don't
>think it will go very far! Simply consider the average reading level in the
>United States (for example) and I think you will at once see the need to
>utilize philosophical jargon! What is "special" to an 8th grader may not
>hold the same conotation we want to use in our philosophy.

I am not quite sure of your point here. I was not so much appealing to
common sense (although I have been known to do so - I do not reject, but
treat with caution philosophical views which fly in the face of common
sense: what seems ridiculous often is ridiculous) but to the use of
language, and in particular the equivocation between different sense of
a word. I would still argue that if you are going to use a word in a way
which is not common usage (within the language game you are playing)
then it is for the user to make that clear.

>
>I like the remainder of your response to Onestar. (Not that that should mean
>anything!) I think I will end here. Cheers!

Thank you.

And cheers to you.
--
Martin

[Jim Pierce]

Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:yqyiDCAz...@j39to56.demon.co.uk...

Thank you for the great response... moving forward...

> If you are a good Wittgensteinian you will relate the meaning of the
> word "language" to its usage within the particular language game being
> played ;-). You will also understand that meanings of words cannot be
> pinned down by dictionary type definitions, themselves collections of
> more words which require definition.

Ah, yes and there you are correct, I think. However, I think what is
interesting to note is that Wittgenstein (and you touch upon this later on
in this paragraph with mention of "The Blue and Brown Books") sees language
as proceeding along rules, but not rules as those found in a calculus.
*Usage* is important to meaning in so far as talk proceeds along a rule
which assures the "hearer" can understand the use of our word. An
interesting aside, in reading Witty I catch a glimmer of the idea that
language is the canon of successful communication. At any rate, I think
Witty would see a dictionary as containing the intension of a word, but
intensions are not to be taken as having the same sort of precision a math
construct does.

> In the context of my discussion
> with ONE, I guess we are more concerned with the collections of words
> and sentences used to make propositions about the world. I personally
> would not reject the idea of non-linguistic communication, although
> whether one called this "language" would depend on how remote if was
> from our normal usage of the word (but see Wittgenstein's discussion of
> language and communication in "The Brown Book"). Although we talk, for
> example, of "body language", we do so (I believe) in a metaphorical
> sense. Certainly I would agree that there is no such thing as a private
> language.

Interestingly enough, I wonder what a "proposition" is supposed to be. For
the most part I take the view that a proposition is the meaning of a
sentence. So, sentences are neither true or false, but meanings can be. I
think this helps somewhat with problems of reference (or extension), I, too,
do not reject wholesale the idea of non-linguistic communication and have
taken a step further to include such things as "non-verbal communications"
into the realm of language. I also agree that there is no such thing as a
private language... in fact, it seems rather odd, on the surface! How would
one communicate they have a "private language"? Once they taught some of
their language game it would cease to be "private"! Further, if Jones tells
me he has a "private language" how am I supposed to understand what is being
said to me? Am I to understand he has a personal gibberish he vocalizes
occasionally while under a stupor? That, perhaps, he utters words to himself
that only he can understand? Private language arguments aside, the sheer
lack of utility of such is enough to ask why we would want to count what
Jones does as language!

> Well, over the many months, if not years that ONE and I have been
> discussing these issues, I am sure we have considered what we mean by
> reality, and have dragged out a few definitions, even if we have not
> agreed on them.

Yes, please pardon me. I was too hasty in my judgement. Of course, much of
being hasty is due to the limitations of reading "threads"! :)

> None of them as far as I remember entail "existence" in
> the physical sense of existence you seem to imply above.

Is there such a thing as non-physical existence? What would that look like?

> However, I
> cannot agree with your analysis. "Unicorns are real but don't exist",
> you say. But this is clearly not so, unless you wish to conflate the
> concept of a unicorn with a unicorn itself. It is not the unicorn that
> is real, but the concept of it. The unicorn does not exist and thus is
> not real. The concept of it does and thus is real. What if I said that I
> have a concept of not only a real unicorn, but a real unicorn that

> actually exists? Would that existence then be real? (You may recognize

> this as the basis of the Anselm/Descartes ontological argument for the
> existence of God, which makes exactly this illegal move).

I see your point. It resembles what Hume had to say about the ontological
argument. But, I am not really combining the concept with the thing itself.
What I am saying is that while concepts don't exist (I am a Nominalist by
night when I am not doing customer service by day!) they are real. To
illustrate my point there is nothing which suggests that there is a color we
speak of as "red" or any other color for that matter. We see color precisely
due to our construction. As it turns out in quantum mechanics (or at least
my misunderstanding of it!) the so-called "secondary and primary qualities"
of John Locke are products of perception. So, the tactile sensations we feel
of things which are solid are real enough, but the object we perceive is not
"solid" in itself. Basically, we have a concept of "color". Instances of the
concept are experienced through our sensory apparatus, but we can't point to
any single instance independent of a perspective. I'll have more to say
below when we start talking of the "ninth planet". The point here is that I
can (and have) experience instances of the concept Unicorn. All I need to do
is see a poster which has a "Unicorn" depicted on it. Or see the shape of a
Unicorn. Built into the concept of "Unicorn" is that none exist, but that
don't make them any less real! :) In a nut shell, (with many modifications
along the way) I will say that reality is defined as the realm of
perception. That which "exists" are those things which are not contingent
upon perception for their reality. Do we know of such things? Kant says no!
Hence the need for the Transcendental Idealism.

> My definition of reality? You may call it a platitude, but "how things
> actually are" seems to cover it nicely. This, I believe, is standard
> philosophical usage. Thus reality is contrasted with "that which is
> not", "that which we think or imagine" and "that which appears to be".

Well, no it really doesn't cover it nicely. I think the Cartesian legacy of
radical skepticism has born that much out all too well! As I point to above,
how things "actually are" is a matter of perspective. We shouldn't take this
too far, though. I firmly believe that what exists affects our perceptions;
otherwise we wouldn't have them. The point here is that things like "phantom
pains" and "seeing red" are perspectival, but no less real. I certainly do
not think that I will find an mind-independent instance of the concept red
anywhere and certainly the "phantom pain" an amputee experiences is real
enough but the body member no longer exists! How things actually are will be
a matter of what the community says is "real". I think it is the community
of language users. I suppose if I was Dr. Doolittle "how things are" would
have a sort of microscopic flavor to it when compared to what my peers
thought of as what things are.

> So what are you saying here - that nothing is real until it is known?

Yes.

> You are clearly a ONEstarian on this issue! He constantly insists that
> what is real, is what is real *for me* (or him or you etc), whereas I
> insist that reality, by definition, is independent of me or of my
> knowledge of it.

I would insist (if I could!) that what is *real* is a matter of perspective
and that we can judge for pragmatic purposes what is real based upon what
the community experiences. We cannot go far with, "This is real for One, and
real for Martin and what is real for Martin is not real for One and...." The
color you experience may very well be the same color I experience because
there is a composition you and I share as continuants (as beings who exist
independently of any perspective). What is interesting though, Martin, is
just what you would have named yourself if you had been the only existing
individual? Now, if you had named yourself "Martin" and mistakenly thought
you are the "Omega Man", then those individuals who watched you at night you
were unaware of would have gone completely by you! They exist, but are not
real from your perspective. Why? Because you have no knowledge of them.
Likewise, they call you "human" but "Martin" is not real for them, since
they have no knowledge of "Martin". We use many things to individuate
objects and only those objects which have been individuated are real.

>For example, the ninth planet in our solar system
> existed (ie was real) in 1929. And in 1829. And indeed before humans
> walked on the face of the earth. Yet the planet we now call Pluto was
> not discovered (ie known) until 1930. Thus the reality of that
> astronomical object preceded our knowledge of it. Are you saying that
> Pluto only came into existence in 1930? I think that what you are doing
> in your paragraph above, is taking my claim that "reality precedes our
> knowledge of it" to be the same as saying "knowledge of reality precedes
> our knowledge of it". It is not. That would be nonsense, but that is not
> what I was saying. If you accept that that which exists is necessarily
> real, and you accept that there are things which exist about which we
> have no knowledge yet, then you must accept that reality precedes
> knowledge.

A few things at work in the above. Prior to the discovery of the planet
"Pluto" it existed, but was not real. In other words an object which existed
(and still does!) spun around in an orbit and the individuals on the third
planet had not yet individuated it! It was not real to them. If there had
been an alien spacecraft flying circles around Pluto they would have
knowledge of Pluto, and the object would be real for them, but it certainly
wouldn't have been a reality for us. Indeed, if the basic construction of
the alien species differed dramatically from ours, then there perspective of
the object we call "Pluto" might be so far removed from our own that we
could not recognize it as "reality"! This goes to my earlier point. Given
what I have stated so far I am just being consistent when I say it is absurd
to think that knowledge precedes our knowledge of it. I think that what
exists precedes our knowledge of it. It certainly is not the case that if
what exists is necessarily real that "there are things which exist about
which we have no knowledge yet, then [...] reality precedes knowledge".
Surely, it is possible that some existent things are beyond the scope of our
knowledge (and hence reality), but other species have knowledge of them, so
they are "real". Indeed, if you lost a limb and experienced "phantom pains"
how could I say they are not "real" simply because you no longer have the
limb in place?

> On the contrary, "absolute" is a term used by idealists. It is "the one
> independent reality of which all things are an expression". Kant
> described "absolute grounds for understanding" as "ideals only".
> However, closer to ONE's views, I suspect, is Hegel's definition of the
> Absolute as "spirit"!

Hmmm... I think I covered my butt when I remarked upon the "Berklian view of
God"! ;) We agree. My point is that we should not take what the term
"absolute" means to the Realist as being the same as what it means to the
Idealist.

> I would still argue that if you are going to use a word in a way
> which is not common usage (within the language game you are playing)
> then it is for the user to make that clear.

Agreed. And I really do like ending on such positives!

Cheers!

Jim

[ONEstar]

Yes, I do not assert that spirit is part of your reality, as for it to be
part you would need to observe it, which I discern by means of your
inferrences, you do not. The nature of spirit phenomenon precludes
objective observation, thus your affection for the *practical* physical
reality. Representational reality allows many levels of interaction,
although for it to manifest itself to an individual, they must make room for
it. I do not think you intend now, nor shall allow room for it, thus your
reality remains as limited as you choose.

> >> [....]

A) If we agree there is relative (partial) knowledge, (and we must) then it
logically follows there is a greater knowledge which is comprised of all
knowledge that is knowable. Let us agree there is absolute knowledge.
B) If we recognize the limitations of our physical senses, then we may
correctly discern that advanced sensory techniques would yeild a more
accurate depiction not only in the physical, but the mental, emotional, and
spiritual aspects as well.

> >> I don't recall us having discussed equivocation of different senses of
> >> knowledge before. I certainly would have noticed if you had said
> >> something as obviously wrong as that all knowledge is
non-propositional.
> >> Can you really not see the difference between saying, "I know John
> >> Smith" and, "This person is called John Smith"?

> >If one states: "This person is called John Smith" then it follows that

one
> >knows the person is called John Smith. If one also calls the person John
> >Smith, the it follows that one knows John Smith. You can see that there
is
> >similarity, however I suspect you wish to quibble over the miniscule in
this
> >regard and really, I do not see much point in that.

> I don't think you understand this yet. Your first sentence is simply
> wrong. If I say "this person is called John Smith" I am making a claim
> to (propositional) knowledge. It does not follow from this that the
> person is called John Smith. If they *are* called John Smith then my
> proposition is correct and I do have this piece of propositional
> knowledge. This is why it is called propositional knowledge - because
> the claim is in the form of a proposition which can be shown to be right
> or wrong.

(Reply in cohesive format below.)

> Your second sentence is also wrong, and demonstrates that you really do
> not understand the distinction. Let us say you are at a convention, and
> all the delegates are wearing labels with their names on. You see
> someone you have never met before, or even heard of, with a label on
> their lapel reading "John Smith". Would it follow that you now know John
> Smith? Would you say to him, "Ah, John Smith, I know you!". Wouldn't
> that rather surprise him? I think at least a few drinks together in the
> bar would be required, and even then you wouldn't be able to claim that
> you knew him very well!

(Reply in cohesive format below)

> I was trying to make a distinction between non-propositional knowledge,
> which may well be relative, and propositional knowledge which is not. As
> you are claiming that all knowledge is relative (in some sense or other
> - I am now pretty confused), and appear to be ignoring or denying
> propositional knowledge, I did not think it was a "quibble over the
> minuscule".

I suspect you are conflating *propositional knowledge* which is commonly
presented and transmitted by information processes in the neural system of
men, with *phenomenal knowledge* ( the knowledge of qualia ) which appears
to transcend information processes in brain. The basis of knowledge is
either true or false which can only be discerned by justification, which is
not a constant, nor consistant. All propositional knowledge is relative for
it is merely partial and it is for that reason alone it can be said to
propose. (There is nothing mankind knows about in totality) In short,
mankind has no method for determining how much knowledge he does not have,
thus he must realize that all knowledge that he does have is relative to the
absolute.

> >> To conflate "propositional knowledge" with the term "objective" would
be
> >> a very strange thing to do. Propositions are neither subjective or
> >> objective. They may be about abstract concepts - mathematics for
> >> example. Your analogy shows that you have not really grasped the
concept
> >> of propositional and non-propositional knowledge. The "master builder"
> >> requires both kinds of knowledge for use in pyramid building otherwise
> >> he would not know that it was a pyramid he was building.

> >> I am not sure what you mean by "raw" propositional knowledge, and to
> >> what you think it is transformed. Propositional knowledge is knowledge
> >> *that* something is so. Non propositional knowledge is knowledge *of*
> >> something - such as knowledge by acquaintance or by direct awareness.

> >> So when you talk of "firing" and "transformation" are you perhaps
> >> referring to the method by which belief becomes knowledge? Or is it
> >> connected with your scepticism, and you are looking for a process that
> >> imbues "raw knowledge" with Cartesian certainty? I am not sure how a
> >> discussion about "transformation" would differ from a discussion about
> >> "the method used to test the final product for fitness". The way we
come
> >> to knowledge *is* the test for fitness.

> >Yes, it appears we talk in similar veins of thought in this.

> Good. Do I take it that this applies to all three paragraphs above?

No, for I suspect you have taken a tangent to the intent of our discourse,
into murky lanes where the converse often travels headlong into oncoming
traffic where fatality in disagreement occurs. To say that
non-propositional knowledge is merely knowledge *of* something, and opposed
to propositional knowledge which is that something is so, is like comparing
a mountain to a hill. They both rise from the surrounding landscape, but
the only real difference is that one is larger than the other. More
knowledge does not conflate to absolute knowledge but is merely the pathway
to achieve it. As you can clearly discern, I have no fondness for these
terms and feel they are meaningless and miniscule in the grand scale of
truth in the theory of knowledge

> >> Assuming that your implicit question is "how do we know that our
> >> proposition is true" - ie, that it is knowledge - let us consider the
> >> two examples of propositional knowledge. How do we know that 3-2=1 is a
> >> true proposition? Well if you take mathematics as a priori knowledge,
> >> then you would simply point out that the equation follows the eternal
> >> rules of mathematics - a priori knowledge does not require empirical
> >> proof. However, if (as you agree below) mathematical knowledge is
> >> empirical, then you can confirm the truth of the proposition by the
very
> >> means by which you came by this knowledge in the first place. Lay out 3
> >> apples, remove two, and count the number remaining. Is that product now
> >> fit?

> >This knowledge applies very well to apples, but is less suited for things
of
> >spiritual concern.

> I am glad that you accept now that I can have knowledge of the real
> world - well, of apples anyway, but even that is a major step forward. I
> have made no claims about what may be required for "spiritual concerns",
> for they are of no relevance to any of the claims about knowledge I have
> made. "Spiritual concerns" will not help me to know how many apples I
> have.

Allow me to correct the course here. You may quite possibly have relative
knowledge of apples, oranges or the world so-called as real, but do not have
absolute knowledge of anything. That relative knowledge, may bear the
labels of empirical, propositional, or a priori but remains relative none
the less. Your spiritual knowledge seems somewhat lacking, by your own
addmission so I shall refrain from comment upon it or even if you have
apples.

> >> To take a less abstract example, let us say I claim that the animal on
> >> my windowsill is a cat. If you doubted the truth of my proposition, the
> >> easiest way would be for you to see it for yourself (that is what
> >> empirical knowledge is all about). If you were sceptical that what you
> >> also saw was a cat then consideration of the taxonomy of felis
> >> domesticus, would enable us to confirm the characteristics that define
> >> this creature from other animals. What further would you require to
> >> accept my proposition that the object I refer to is a cat?

> >I understand your proposition and the subsequent test, however I do not
see
> >how it applies where your physical senses are not able to make the test
> >against those things of spirit order, thus I detect a bit of seclusion
from
> >reality in favour of the so-called reality in regard to knowledge as
> >defined.

> Why do I need to make any "test against those things of spirit order"?
> What has that got to do with my knowledge that it is a cat? Or the
> knowledge I claim to have of the rest of the real world? What has the
> spiritual got to do with reality? If you dismiss the real world as
> illusory because our perception of it is "limited", then what must we
> say of "things of spirit order"? Surely we have even less grounds for
> any knowledge claims in that sphere!

You fall into the trap of *concrete* thinking, and it was not of my design.
The proposal may read that all things are more of spirit than of matter, and
that matter is only a representation in the physical by means of resonance
in the spirit. Surely you can not be so limited as to discount these
solutions.

> [.....]

Representation becomes partially justified when it behaves consistantly in a
prescribed manner. The less consistant a representational reality becomes
the less justified mankind beholds that reality. While the scale of
representational knowledge is observable, said knowledge remains partial, or
relative. You have no power over your perceptions, thus you have no
knowledge that is absolute. Under certain conditions, you may indeed know a
hologram to be, in other conditions you would not and you would certainly
not if science could bestow the same physical properties to the hologram, as
to what you anticipate as real (so-called).

Only if the porcelain burned <smile> However, what if the porcelain
appeared as wax, with every one of the properties of wax, plus one property
you could not detect by means of your limited senses. The porcelain could
not be said to be wax, although it could be construed as wax-like, and
surely your delusion of identity, would then be an illusion. The same
process could be used with subsequent definitions for porcelain, wicks,
tapers and the like. I would not be smiling, at your deception, but maybe
explain so that your knowledge was greater.

> >> [....]

Ahhh, then we disagree about the condition where erroneous thought presents
illusion even in light of the conditions and illustration presented. I
suspect that if you actually understood the point, it would clarify
representational reality beyond your scepticism and we could not have that,
now, could we? As you are well aware, in your extensive studies, belief is
the basis of knowledge. Belief can be accurate or in error, and only when
greater truth is discerned can it be realised as either. By the by, Job
related the earth was round long before the Greeks repeated the news, quite
remarkable those Greeks to measure the distance to the horizon then
calculate the projected circumference. The Egyptians had been doing so for
years but not quite so accurately.

> Do you note the further paradox raised by your position, by the way? You
> call belief that the earth was flat an illusion, implying that we now
> know better. But how, if all knowledge is illusion, can we claim to know
> better? According to you our concept of the earth as an oblate spheroid
> must also be an illusion. So why single out flat earth belief, which you
> cannot know to be any more or less of an illusion than spherical earth
> belief? If you *do* know this, how?

The *how* is not important at this phase, but the illusion is so in all
human physical interaction. The distances of space are computed using
relative and sequential time in the mass/time constant of the planet,
however the speed of light and time is relative to gravity, thus the
distances computed can not be accurate. Just another illusion to add to the
many we *know* of.

> >> [.....]

No, I merely observe and report. My fellow man is free to report as well.
I assume there may some difference of opinion, but have found that is
generally due to an incomplete understanding of either the issue or the
relationship as presented.

It is the motivational aspect I was in reference with as well. For there to
be a valuation of good or evil, there must first be, said motivational
aspect. Nothing is valued as good, unless it first gives some reason for
that value to be attached. My position has not changed in this and the
valuation twixt good and evil is assigned all things I am aware of for all
things have some motivational aspect and evil is merely the lack of good.
The sun is good, when it makes the crops grow, but it is evil when
it burns them. Motivational values preclude the relative state of being.

> >> I would also suggest that when we judge something good, we are not
> >> making a negative judgement about the lack of evil, we are making a
> >> positive judgement about the extent to which virtue is being displayed.

> >Relative terms apply in a relative manner, and so too does our use of the
> >terms of good and evil. When we say something is good, we really mean it
is
> >more good than it is evil.

> We? I am always wary when people try to tell me what I "really mean" (I
> note you continue to use the language of reality, by the way!). I
> "really mean" no such thing when I say that something is good. Perhaps
> you do. If so, I find it a very odd way of looking at things.

I did not intend to include yourself in my outlook. I have learned from
your repeated negations our motives vary substantially, thus your valuation
shall surely differ. The *we* that was presented as so-called "*really*
meaning " was of a more intimate nature and we have oft times been referred
to as odd, which I warmly welcome considering what mankind often refers to
as *normal*.

ONE

[Martin Dann]

In article <0xw03.4892$pk.12...@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

>
>> Martin Dann
>> Jim
>
>Martin, your post did not appear upon my server, so I take the liberty of
>responding by means of Jim's which replied to yours. Please excuse my
>netiquet should this be found unappealing.

No problem - it's just a little difficult to tell whether you are
responding to me, Jim or both of us. I'll respond as though you are
addressing my points (as we have both responded to Jim separately)

>
>> > We are left with a simple disagreement - I see no choice, you see slim
>> > choice, although you do not explain how that could be, or what other
>> > choice I, for example, might have had. Could I, at the age of a few
>> > months, have made a decision which would have relied on the concept of
>> > language, and the understanding of alternative path? How many people do
>> > you know of, not being psychologically or physically damaged, who chose
>> > not to learn any language as a child? Or chose never to speak? It is
>> > part of human nature to communicate. That's the kind of creatures we
>> > are. We have no more choice about language than we do about eating and
>> > sleeping. Your slim choice is no choice in reality. Certainly not enough
>> > on which to base your philosophy of consensus.
>

[......]

>
>
>You are partially correct. Communication and language are general terms
>which infer a general conveyance of information. There are specific regions
>of the brain which convey information (gathered by means of sensory
>stimulation) to other regions of the brain which collate the information
>into a cohesive format ultimately understood by the collection of memories
>called the mind. IN this manner, the individual does indeed, have a
>language (communication) which is private, secret, and apart from all
>others. Wittgenians unite and fight as they will, this fact remains. Shall
>we argue the minutia ad nauseum?

Why change the habit of a lifetime? <smile>. We've argued this one
before, ONE, and got nowhere. In the kind of communication you are
talking about, one might talk of language, but in a metaphorical rather
than definitive sense. In much the same metaphorical way we speak of
computers "talking" to each other.

I have certainly never claimed that reality is "fixed", "permanent" or
"immovable". It is not. But why should you think that it is therefore
not real? Why should a dynamic reality have to be *so-called* or
*absolute*? There appears to be no connection.

You appear to be saying that the earth *was* in fact flat, and then was
"transformed into a sphere". Surely not? A flat earth may have been
falsely believed to be "reality", but that does not make it real. It now
seems as though what you mean by "so-called reality" is "unjustified
belief". That's fine, but the undoubted fact that belief is not
necessarily justified (or true), does not mean that it cannot be.

>
>> > The various degrees of cognisance, awareness, and knowledge define the
>> > extent of our knowledge and understanding of reality. Reality precedes
>> > our knowledge of it and cannot therefore be defined by our knowledge, as
>> > you recognise by your last sentence. I would rephrase that as "complete
>> > knowledge is the goal, and partial knowledge the path by which we build
>> > to that goal".
>
>> The above seems confused, imho. For example, how can we be in a position
>to
>> know that "reality precedes out knowledge" without pain of contradiction?
>If
>> we had such knowledge, then presumably we would know just what preceded
>out
>> knowledge. Of course, that is absurd!
>
>Not exactly. We may discover a new system and adopt the knowledge into our
>knowledge base. The truth is that the system may or may not have existed
>prior to the given time-line of that particular knowledge base, however for
>it to have been newly discovered, it must exist, and in that sense be real.
>Martin's position is cogent.

Thank you.

>
>> >Well no, "reality" is reality, "absolute reality" is a metaphysical
>> > idealistic concept which bears little resemblance to reality. In my
>> > view, it is for people who wish to apply special meanings to words like
>> > "reality" and "knowledge" to indicate that when they use the words, and
>> > accept that there is a perfectly sound and unadulterated sense of those
>> > words in common usage. In other words it is not for me to add "so
>> > called" to reality, but for you to add "absolute" or "special" to them,
>> > showing that you are not using the words in their usual or proper sense.
>
>> Hmmm.... "absolute reality" is NOT a metaphysical idealistic concept.
>> Perhaps you could quote an idealistic philosopher in support of your
>> position? Recall that in Idealism there is no such thing as "absolute
>> reality" apart from some Berklian view of God. Then even here reality is
>> perspectival. Also, your appeal to commonsenism is applauded, but I don't
>> think it will go very far! Simply consider the average reading level in
>the
>> United States (for example) and I think you will at once see the need to
>> utilize philosophical jargon! What is "special" to an 8th grader may not
>> hold the same conotation we want to use in our philosophy.
>
>Common sense is the consensus of reality, while absolute reality is not yet
>beheld.
>We may communicate in whatever convention is appropriate and understood in
>order to appeal to our position.

I would agree that "absolute reality" is not beheld, but would suggest
that the *absolute* is beyond the possibility of being beheld, as with
any other imaginary concept.

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Dave]

How about the original poster proves that god DOES exist. The burden of
proof is on you, as there is no physical evidence of his existence. And
PLEASE don't say that "the earth we walk on is our physical evidence!"
because that gets tiring and is a cop-out to the burden of proof argument...

[ONEstar]

Dave <

Hello Dave and Welcome here.
The original poster must not be very interested in identifying him/herself,
however, let me interject a response to your position. IN a post not so
long ago, in a galaxy not so far far away, it was determined any assertion
requires proof along with it's necessary burden of evidence. While evidence
in spirit based phenomenon is almost entirely subjective and requires a mind
capable of sight in the spiritual arena, there are a number of implications
which can be objectively discerned as a basis for true belief. An example
would be the design for the universe if not human beings which live within
it. Any number of a myriad of theories have been put forth, however none of
them seem cogent without an initial intelligence to design the physical laws
they work within.

ONE

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

> >Martin, your post did not appear upon my server, so I take the liberty of
> >responding by means of Jim's which replied to yours. Please excuse my
> >netiquet should this be found unappealing.

> No problem - it's just a little difficult to tell whether you are
> responding to me, Jim or both of us. I'll respond as though you are
> addressing my points (as we have both responded to Jim separately)

Yes, I agree, I do not understand why the newsgroup servers are so
consistantly inconsistant. <smile>

> [......]

Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality. Talk
is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is the
conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough for you.

Then you have obviously not reviewed the number one definition for the word
*real* (from the Middle English and Middle French era) which forms the base
for the English word reality. This response is surely strange, given your
penchant for definitive positions. I trust, however, this illustrates
connection enough for you as you can now clearly see the adjacent definition
which describes things as not artificial, fraudulent or illusory, even
though my position is to illustrate how they are.

> You appear to be saying that the earth *was* in fact flat, and then was
> "transformed into a sphere". Surely not? A flat earth may have been
> falsely believed to be "reality", but that does not make it real. It now
> seems as though what you mean by "so-called reality" is "unjustified
> belief". That's fine, but the undoubted fact that belief is not
> necessarily justified (or true), does not mean that it cannot be.

A flat earth was once very real, (an apparent contradiction) but only in the
minds (illusion) of men. At the time, dear Martin, they felt very justified
in their belief. Just as I am quite sure that men today are feeling quite
justified about a number of things they believe are real, but are not.
Absolute truth is the only truth that is complete and without illusion, just
as absolute reality the only reality which does not hold out unjustified
beliefs.

> Thank you.

We laud this brief respite from dissagreement. <smile>

Of course, as is infinity, the value of pi, or the future, which most humans
regard as real and not imaginary, except in the single sense it can not be
beheld.

ONE

[Martin Dann]

In article <6gf13.2099$e31.6...@news2.mia>, ONEstar

<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes
>
>Martin Dann
>> [....]

[....]

>> You have introduced a new element - spirit - but you do not say what
>> this is, and why it should be relevant to this discussion. You do not
>> show that spirit is a part of reality, ie that it *can* be discerned in
>> an "objective" fashion. I would suggest that if "reality" is perceived
>> only by a representation of reality in our minds, and (as you argue) can
>> only at best be "so-called" reality, then there is even less
>> justification to make claims about knowledge of anything of a "spirit
>> nature". Further, even if you could show the existence of this "spirit
>> nature" you would have to show how a non-corporeal spirit world could
>> have any logical or practical connection with the that which I would
>> call the "real" world. Otherwise you cannot claim that lack of ability
>> to perceive the spirit world has any effect on my claim that we can know
>> the real world.
>
>Yes, I do not assert that spirit is part of your reality, as for it to be
>part you would need to observe it, which I discern by means of your
>inferrences, you do not. The nature of spirit phenomenon precludes
>objective observation, thus your affection for the *practical* physical
>reality. Representational reality allows many levels of interaction,
>although for it to manifest itself to an individual, they must make room for
>it. I do not think you intend now, nor shall allow room for it, thus your
>reality remains as limited as you choose.

Well, you have made this kind of accusation before - that I am somehow
wilfully resisting, or ignoring some reality, or truth. A reality, or
truth, which is not objective, is therefore entirely subjective. But I
do not resist or limit subjective reality, I simply do not confuse it
with objective reality. Such realities are, by definition, real only for
the subject. Thus it is illogical for you to suggest that someone else
is "limited" because they do not share *your* subjective reality. If
spirit is part of your reality, fine, but while ever you insist that it
precludes "objective observation" you have no justification for making
the claim that my reality is limited because it does not include *your*
subjectivity.
>
[.....]

>
>> I assumed that when you spoke of "relative"
>> knowledge you meant relative to the person having that knowledge. I got
>> this impression from your comment such as the above about comparing
>> "what we detect in our own reality to another's". In this sense, of
>> course, the knowledge which I have that is relative to me is not
>> necessarily partial, or if it is, not simply because it is relative to
>> me. However, you appear to be using the sense of "relative" which is
>> opposed to "absolute" - a different sense, so clearly we need to be
>> careful not to equivocate. In that event your earlier comment that we
>> have passed this stage of the discussion is right, although we are still
>> left with a fundamental disagreement a) that there is any such thing as
>> "absolute knowledge" and b) even if there is it does not follow that
>> knowledge which falls short of absolute knowledge is illusion.
>
>A) If we agree there is relative (partial) knowledge, (and we must) then it
>logically follows there is a greater knowledge which is comprised of all
>knowledge that is knowable. Let us agree there is absolute knowledge.

If by "absolute knowledge" you mean no more than "all that is knowable",
I agree. That we do not know all there is to be known is a contingent
fact, not a necessary one. Thus if something is knowable, it is
(tautologically) possible for us to know it whatever the limitations of
our senses. Thus it does not seem to make sense to claim that partial
knowledge (ie knowledge which falls short of all that is knowable) is in
any way illusory. That we do not know the whole of reality does not
entail that we do not know that anything is real.

> B) If we recognize the limitations of our physical senses, then we may
>correctly discern that advanced sensory techniques would yeild a more
>accurate depiction not only in the physical, but the mental, emotional, and
>spiritual aspects as well.

You are assuming that we do not recognise the limitations of our
physical senses. I would say that we do. That's how we are able to make
allowance for those limitations. Being the innovative and inventive
creatures we are we continually devise ways of enhancing our limited
senses and will not doubt continue to do so. This my well give us
further insights into mental and emotional "aspects", which, after all,
are the result of physical processes in the brain. But by your
definition, the spiritual resides in the imagination, not in the
objective world and therefore would not be available to our physical
senses even if they were without limitation.

No, ONE, this has nothing to do with phenomenalism. This has to do with
different kinds of knowledge. Knowledge of, and knowledge how, and
knowledge that. Pretty basic epistemology. But I can see that you are
not going to get this point, so let's forget it and move on and see if
we can work round it.

> The basis of knowledge is
>either true or false which can only be discerned by justification, which is
>not a constant, nor consistant. All propositional knowledge is relative for
>it is merely partial and it is for that reason alone it can be said to
>propose. (There is nothing mankind knows about in totality) In short,
>mankind has no method for determining how much knowledge he does not have,
>thus he must realize that all knowledge that he does have is relative to the
>absolute.

1) The basis of knowledge is that our belief is justified, and is true.
There is no requirement, however, that what I know now has to be set in
concrete and true forever. I know now, for example, that it is 1854gmt
on a grey Saturday evening, but even as I write this, that knowledge
becomes redundant as time moves on, and a shaft of late sunshine pierces
the grey clouds. However, at the instant I made the knowledge claim it
was true, and was complete (not partial) knowledge of the time of day
and the weather over the leafy suburbs of south-west Sheffield.

2) To what, exactly, are you claiming that propositional knowledge is
relative? You may want to say that the knowledge I had a few minutes ago
about the time and weather here is relative to me. True, but any one of
the residents of this street had access to the same knowledge, and had
you been here, you too would have had access to that knowledge. So
relativity in that sense is contingent, rather than necessary. You might
also say that the particular knowledge I claimed was temporally
relative, and of course you would be right. This does not mean that all
knowledge is time-bound in this sense, or that such knowledge is not
*real* knowledge.

3) I agree that it is logically impossible for us to know how much we do
not know. It does not follow from this, however, that the knowledge we
do have is not real knowledge. You seem to assume that if we do not know
everything, that we cannot really know anything. That does not follow.
You also seem to think it a problem for knowledge that we "must realize
that all knowledge that [we do] have is relative to the absolute". Given
that your definition of absolute knowledge is everything that can be
known, why should realising that we do not know everything in any way
reduce the status of that which we do know?

These are standard definitions within epistemology. But if you insist on
playing by rules of your own invention, there is little chance of any
useful further discussion. It would have been interesting if you had
actually tackled the points I raised rather than simply ignoring them,
though.

But when have I ever claimed to have absolute knowledge of anything? As
you have said, absolute knowledge is all that is knowable. Why should I
need to know all that is knowable about apples in order to claim that
"this is an apple"? As for "spiritual knowledge" I am waiting for you to
explain why, if I can know nothing about the world which smacks me in
then face every day, I can know anything about a world which is the
product of your imagination?

I am also so limited that I do not believe in hobgoblins, tooth-fairies,
Santa Claus, banshees, werewolves, vampires, or people who claim they
can foretell my future from my astrological sign. If knowing tosh when I
see it is "limited", then "limited" sounds a good thing to be.

Behaves consistently with what? An illusion that is consistent with
another illusion is still an illusion. The only way you could claim that
a representation was "consistent in a prescribed manner" would be by
reference to something beyond the representation - otherwise you are
floating about in a meaningless sump of illusion. The only thing beyond
the representation that could provide the consistency you require is the
reality represented - but you deny the existence of any such reality.

I may have already said this, but the fact that we do not have absolute
knowledge (ie, knowledge of everything knowable) does not mean that we
do not know that which we do know.

If your hologram bestowed the same physical properties as a real candle,
then it would be reproducing a real candle. I thought I had already
dealt with this possibility. Logically, a reproduction of X which is
indistinguishable *in any way* from X, must be X. Think about it.

If you produced a candle which had all the properties necessary to
define it as a candle, then it would be a candle. If it had an
undetectable property then that would be irrelevant to its "candleness",
for all the properties required to define something as a candle are
detectable. But let us say that you successfully deceived me. "Yes, this
is a candle", I say. "Aha", you reply, "I fooled you, it is not a candle
at all". "How so?" I ask. Well? What are you to rely? Anything you point
to as distinguishing it from a candle is, necessarily, detectable, for
you would have to detect it in order to point it out to me. If it walks
like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes great roasted with honey and
soy sauce, the odds are it *is* (sorry, *was*) a duck.

No big deal, ONE. If you want to conflate error and illusion, be my
guest. But what understanding will I come to if I make the same mistake?
Oh, and my "extensive studies" have shown me that the basis of knowledge
is truth, what is real, or what is actual. Truth (reality) is
independent of our beliefs, and as you rightly say, belief can be in
error. Belief is in error when the object of that believe is not real.
And talk of "greater truth" is meaningless unless you say 1) greater
than what? and 2) how much greater?

>> Do you note the further paradox raised by your position, by the way? You
>> call belief that the earth was flat an illusion, implying that we now
>> know better. But how, if all knowledge is illusion, can we claim to know
>> better? According to you our concept of the earth as an oblate spheroid
>> must also be an illusion. So why single out flat earth belief, which you
>> cannot know to be any more or less of an illusion than spherical earth
>> belief? If you *do* know this, how?
>
>The *how* is not important at this phase, but the illusion is so in all
>human physical interaction. The distances of space are computed using
>relative and sequential time in the mass/time constant of the planet,
>however the speed of light and time is relative to gravity, thus the
>distances computed can not be accurate. Just another illusion to add to the
>many we *know* of.

You are ducking the question. I asked you to explain why belief in a
spherical earth was any less of an illusion that belief in a flat earth.
What has the speed of light got to do with it?

Ah yes. Those who disagree with you are free to do so but clearly have
incomplete understanding. Yes, I know the feeling, but I think we have
been here before <smile>.

You seem to be combining anthropomorphism with pathetic fallacy.
Goodness and evil require intent. Are you saying that the sun intends to
burn the crops?

>
>> >> I would also suggest that when we judge something good, we are not
>> >> making a negative judgement about the lack of evil, we are making a
>> >> positive judgement about the extent to which virtue is being displayed.
>
>> >Relative terms apply in a relative manner, and so too does our use of the
>> >terms of good and evil. When we say something is good, we really mean it
>is
>> >more good than it is evil.
>
>
>> We? I am always wary when people try to tell me what I "really mean" (I
>> note you continue to use the language of reality, by the way!). I
>> "really mean" no such thing when I say that something is good. Perhaps
>> you do. If so, I find it a very odd way of looking at things.
>
>
>I did not intend to include yourself in my outlook. I have learned from
>your repeated negations our motives vary substantially, thus your valuation
>shall surely differ. The *we* that was presented as so-called "*really*
>meaning " was of a more intimate nature and we have oft times been referred
>to as odd, which I warmly welcome considering what mankind often refers to
>as *normal*.

Good, because I think that what mankind considers as normal might well
provide the definition of normality. Unless you have other ideas?
Perhaps you believe that what you consider normal overrides all other
"normality"?

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Martin Dann]

In article <krv13.4262$K25....@news4.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

>> [......]
>
>
>> >You are partially correct. Communication and language are general terms
>> >which infer a general conveyance of information. There are specific
>regions
>> >of the brain which convey information (gathered by means of sensory
>> >stimulation) to other regions of the brain which collate the information
>> >into a cohesive format ultimately understood by the collection of
>memories
>> >called the mind. IN this manner, the individual does indeed, have a
>> >language (communication) which is private, secret, and apart from all
>> >others. Wittgenians unite and fight as they will, this fact remains.
>Shall
>> >we argue the minutia ad nauseum?
>
>> Why change the habit of a lifetime? <smile>. We've argued this one
>> before, ONE, and got nowhere. In the kind of communication you are
>> talking about, one might talk of language, but in a metaphorical rather
>> than definitive sense. In much the same metaphorical way we speak of
>> computers "talking" to each other.
>
>Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality. Talk
>is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is the
>conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough for you.

Indeed. Neatly put. We just need to remember what we mean by "subset",
yes? For example, we do not mean that language and communication are
interchangeable.

[....]

>> I have certainly never claimed that reality is "fixed", "permanent" or
>> "immovable". It is not. But why should you think that it is therefore
>> not real? Why should a dynamic reality have to be *so-called* or
>> *absolute*? There appears to be no connection.
>
>Then you have obviously not reviewed the number one definition for the word
>*real* (from the Middle English and Middle French era) which forms the base
>for the English word reality. This response is surely strange, given your
>penchant for definitive positions. I trust, however, this illustrates
>connection enough for you as you can now clearly see the adjacent definition
>which describes things as not artificial, fraudulent or illusory, even
>though my position is to illustrate how they are.

The basis of "real" is the Middle English "realis", which in turn is
from the Latin "res" (thing, matter). But while this is of interest, it
is the modern usage of the word with which we are concerned. And as you
well know, I have long been trying to get you to accept that "reality"
is opposed to "artificial", "fraudulent" and "illusory". So why are you
trying to deny that the definition of "real" is other than it actually
is? As I have said before, what your claim amounts to is not a denial
that reality means what it means, but that there is no such thing as
reality. Which is, of course, a nonsense.

>
>> You appear to be saying that the earth *was* in fact flat, and then was
>> "transformed into a sphere". Surely not? A flat earth may have been
>> falsely believed to be "reality", but that does not make it real. It now
>> seems as though what you mean by "so-called reality" is "unjustified
>> belief". That's fine, but the undoubted fact that belief is not
>> necessarily justified (or true), does not mean that it cannot be.
>
>A flat earth was once very real, (an apparent contradiction) but only in the
>minds (illusion) of men. At the time, dear Martin, they felt very justified
>in their belief. Just as I am quite sure that men today are feeling quite
>justified about a number of things they believe are real, but are not.
>Absolute truth is the only truth that is complete and without illusion, just
>as absolute reality the only reality which does not hold out unjustified
>beliefs.

No, ONE, a flat earth was never real - remember the definition of real?
Opposed to illusion? And I am quite sure that they felt justified in
their belief. But of course, their feeling justified does not mean that
they were justified, and even if they were, justified belief is not
knowledge.

I am sure you are right to claim that many people today feel justified
about things they believe are real but are not. Belief in God, or a
creator, may well come within that category. And I quite agree that what
is true is without illusion (that's what we mean by "true"), and that
unjustified beliefs are not necessarily reality (although they might be,
of course - guesses sometimes turn out right). I am not sure what point
you are making in that last paragraph, for you seem to be making mine
for me.

[....]

>> >Martin's position is cogent.
>
>> Thank you.
>
>We laud this brief respite from dissagreement. <smile>

Indeed, but what would be the interest in our correspondence here if it
was all agreement? :-)
>
[....]

>> I would agree that "absolute reality" is not beheld, but would suggest
>> that the *absolute* is beyond the possibility of being beheld, as with
>> any other imaginary concept.
>
>Of course, as is infinity, the value of pi, or the future, which most humans
>regard as real and not imaginary, except in the single sense it can not be
>beheld.
>

Do they? Then please do not include me in your category of "most
humans".

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Martin Dann]

Sorry this is late, but I'm not always able to reply as quickly as I
would like.

In article <af313.207$2t2....@news.uswest.net>, Jim Pierce
<nospam/jpie...@uswest.net> writes
>

>Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:yqyiDCAz...@j39to56.demon.co.uk...
>
>Thank you for the great response... moving forward...
>
>> If you are a good Wittgensteinian you will relate the meaning of the
>> word "language" to its usage within the particular language game being
>> played ;-). You will also understand that meanings of words cannot be
>> pinned down by dictionary type definitions, themselves collections of
>> more words which require definition.
>
>Ah, yes and there you are correct, I think. However, I think what is
>interesting to note is that Wittgenstein (and you touch upon this later on
>in this paragraph with mention of "The Blue and Brown Books") sees language
>as proceeding along rules, but not rules as those found in a calculus.
>*Usage* is important to meaning in so far as talk proceeds along a rule
>which assures the "hearer" can understand the use of our word. An
>interesting aside, in reading Witty I catch a glimmer of the idea that
>language is the canon of successful communication. At any rate, I think
>Witty would see a dictionary as containing the intension of a word, but
>intensions are not to be taken as having the same sort of precision a math
>construct does.

I suspect that your take on W's view on dictionaries would be relevant
to his early period (the _Tractatus_) rather that his later period
(_Investigations_, _Blue and Brown Books_ etc).

>
>> In the context of my discussion
>> with ONE, I guess we are more concerned with the collections of words
>> and sentences used to make propositions about the world. I personally
>> would not reject the idea of non-linguistic communication, although
>> whether one called this "language" would depend on how remote if was
>> from our normal usage of the word (but see Wittgenstein's discussion of
>> language and communication in "The Brown Book"). Although we talk, for
>> example, of "body language", we do so (I believe) in a metaphorical
>> sense. Certainly I would agree that there is no such thing as a private
>> language.
>
>Interestingly enough, I wonder what a "proposition" is supposed to be. For
>the most part I take the view that a proposition is the meaning of a
>sentence.

Well, no. In the sense in which I am using it here, a proposition is a
sentence which contains some particular claim or attitude which stands
in relation to some truth or fact independent of the claimant, and of
which a truth or falsity judgement can be made.

> So, sentences are neither true or false, but meanings can be.

Yes, I recognise this position, but think it is splitting hairs. If you
wish to say that sentences are neither true nor false, but the
propositions they contain are, fine. Personally I would not separate the
sentence from that which it expresses.

> I
>think this helps somewhat with problems of reference (or extension), I, too,
>do not reject wholesale the idea of non-linguistic communication and have
>taken a step further to include such things as "non-verbal communications"
>into the realm of language. I also agree that there is no such thing as a
>private language... in fact, it seems rather odd, on the surface! How would
>one communicate they have a "private language"? Once they taught some of
>their language game it would cease to be "private"! Further, if Jones tells
>me he has a "private language" how am I supposed to understand what is being
>said to me? Am I to understand he has a personal gibberish he vocalizes
>occasionally while under a stupor? That, perhaps, he utters words to himself
>that only he can understand? Private language arguments aside, the sheer
>lack of utility of such is enough to ask why we would want to count what
>Jones does as language!

We agree on the illogical nature of the concept of private languages.

[.....]

>Is there such a thing as non-physical existence? What would that look like?

If you are defining "existence" as "physical existence" then by
definition there is no such thing as "non-physical existence". But when
Descartes said, "I am" was he not making an existential claim about
something non-corporeal? If you wish to say that reality does not
necessarily exist, then fine, but I am not sure how much sense it makes.

>> However, I
>> cannot agree with your analysis. "Unicorns are real but don't exist",
>> you say. But this is clearly not so, unless you wish to conflate the
>> concept of a unicorn with a unicorn itself. It is not the unicorn that
>> is real, but the concept of it. The unicorn does not exist and thus is
>> not real. The concept of it does and thus is real. What if I said that I
>> have a concept of not only a real unicorn, but a real unicorn that
>> actually exists? Would that existence then be real? (You may recognize
>> this as the basis of the Anselm/Descartes ontological argument for the
>> existence of God, which makes exactly this illegal move).
>
>I see your point. It resembles what Hume had to say about the ontological
>argument.

I was thinking more of Kant than Hume. Was it not Kant who pointed out
that existence is not a predicate of things?

> But, I am not really combining the concept with the thing itself.
>What I am saying is that while concepts don't exist (I am a Nominalist by
>night when I am not doing customer service by day!) they are real.

I have a problem with a definition of real which excludes existence. But
as I say above, that which is (ie exists) is not necessarily physical. I
am happy to accept the existence of ideas and concepts.

> To
>illustrate my point there is nothing which suggests that there is a color we
>speak of as "red" or any other color for that matter. We see color precisely
>due to our construction. As it turns out in quantum mechanics (or at least
>my misunderstanding of it!) the so-called "secondary and primary qualities"
>of John Locke are products of perception. So, the tactile sensations we feel
>of things which are solid are real enough, but the object we perceive is not
>"solid" in itself. Basically, we have a concept of "color". Instances of the
>concept are experienced through our sensory apparatus, but we can't point to
>any single instance independent of a perspective. I'll have more to say
>below when we start talking of the "ninth planet".

But the object *is* solid. What would you think if your hand suddenly
went through a brick wall? We call a brick wall "solid" because it
shares characteristics with other objects that we have learnt to call
solid. That we can show at an atomic level that all objects consist
mainly of space between the atoms is irrelevant, for that is what solid
objects are. Liquids are similarly made up of atoms and a lot of space,
but we call them liquid because at some stage in our learning to speak
we have been shown, and felt, liquids and learned the word for objects
with "liquid" characteristics. I think you are in danger of abandoning
Wittgenstein for Russell!

> The point here is that I
>can (and have) experience instances of the concept Unicorn. All I need to do
>is see a poster which has a "Unicorn" depicted on it. Or see the shape of a
>Unicorn. Built into the concept of "Unicorn" is that none exist, but that
>don't make them any less real! :)

As I mentioned above, Kant (rightly in my view) argues that existence is
not a property, like having one horn, or hoofed feet. The concept of a
unicorn remains exactly the same whether it exists or not. Existence is
*not* part of the concept - existence (or non-existence) is a fact of
the world which is entirely independent of our concepts.

> In a nut shell, (with many modifications
>along the way) I will say that reality is defined as the realm of
>perception. That which "exists" are those things which are not contingent
>upon perception for their reality. Do we know of such things? Kant says no!
>Hence the need for the Transcendental Idealism.

Kant, I fear, perpetuates the mistake that what we perceive are ideas,
or sensations. This is patently not so. Ideas and sensations are things
we *have*. Perception is a process by which the senses apprehend our
environment. As I said in my last post, I concur with the standard
philosophical definition of reality as "how things actually are" or
even, as my dictionary puts it, "that which is independent of ideas
concerning it". I think that to try and force some other meaning onto to
the word is not only an illegal move, but would have poor old LW turning
in his grave! As I have said to ONE, if you deny this definition, you
are in effect saying that there is no such thing as reality (which ONE
is prepared to do - talking of "so-called" reality).

>
>> My definition of reality? You may call it a platitude, but "how things
>> actually are" seems to cover it nicely. This, I believe, is standard
>> philosophical usage. Thus reality is contrasted with "that which is
>> not", "that which we think or imagine" and "that which appears to be".
>
>Well, no it really doesn't cover it nicely. I think the Cartesian legacy of
>radical skepticism has born that much out all too well! As I point to above,
>how things "actually are" is a matter of perspective. We shouldn't take this
>too far, though. I firmly believe that what exists affects our perceptions;
>otherwise we wouldn't have them. The point here is that things like "phantom
>pains" and "seeing red" are perspectival, but no less real. I certainly do
>not think that I will find an mind-independent instance of the concept red
>anywhere and certainly the "phantom pain" an amputee experiences is real
>enough but the body member no longer exists! How things actually are will be
>a matter of what the community says is "real". I think it is the community
>of language users. I suppose if I was Dr. Doolittle "how things are" would
>have a sort of microscopic flavor to it when compared to what my peers
>thought of as what things are.

Several points here:

1) I am one of those who rejects radical scepticism (as of course did
Descartes) as a pointless and ultimately self destructive philosophy.
Thus for me, the standard philosophical definition of "reality" will
suffice.

2) There seems to be some equivocation going on here between different
meanings of "perception". The way you use it above seems to be
synonymous with "concept". I agree that "perception" is used in this
way, but rather sloppily, I feel. The way I have been using it is a
description of the process of "perceiving" by which we gather
information by our senses. The concepts (or "perceptions") which result
from this perceiving are the result of a further mental process, but the
concept is not of some picture in our head, but of the object we are
perceiving. If that were not true then your belief that "what exists
affects our perceptions otherwise we wouldn't have them" would be
without any foundation.

3) Well no, you will not find a mind independent concept of anything
anywhere. If you did it would not be a concept. Concepts are mind
dependent by definition. What you will of course find, assuming normal
conditions and eyesight, are lots of red objects. We don't call tomatoes
red because we have a perspectival impression of "redness" - if that
were the case then under normal conditions (full light, no colour
blindness, etc) there would be no guarantee that anyone other than you
would call it red. But (again assuming normal conditions) I suggest that
if it *is* red, you will find universal agreement. Note, by the way,
that what we see are red things, not "red". Some of the problems people
have with properties (whether primary or secondary) is because they talk
as though properties are things which can be perceived separately from
the object of which they are properties (cf Plato's forms). They are
not. "Redness" does not exist as a thing in itself, but red things
abound in the world. How do we know they are red? What does Wittgenstein
have to say about it? ;-)

4) Phantom pains are another thing altogether. They fall into the same
category as dreams, normal pains, and illusions. The important thing to
note is that *no* perception is taking place. Pain, illusion, dreams etc
are not things we perceive, they are things we have. And in that we do
*really* have them, they can be said to be real (to us). But they can,
of course be distinguished from that which is mind independent, and
therefore real for everyone. In the case of the phantom pain in a
missing limb, it can quickly be identified as such by the fact the limb
is missing! Similarly if we imagine we see a red tomato, that it is an
illusion can be established by the lack of the tomato.

5) Finally, we should not confuse how things are with how someone might
think they are. There are all kinds of reasons why people suppose things
to be as they are not, but it does not follow from this, that no-one
sees things as they are.

>
>> So what are you saying here - that nothing is real until it is known?
>
>Yes.
>
>> You are clearly a ONEstarian on this issue! He constantly insists that
>> what is real, is what is real *for me* (or him or you etc), whereas I
>> insist that reality, by definition, is independent of me or of my
>> knowledge of it.
>
>I would insist (if I could!) that what is *real* is a matter of perspective
>and that we can judge for pragmatic purposes what is real based upon what
>the community experiences.

We'll have to agree to differ. The only way you, ONE and I could have
different perspectives of something, is if there is something we have
different perspectives of. And what might that be? Why reality, of
course! What is it *you* say we have different perspectives of?

> We cannot go far with, "This is real for One, and
>real for Martin and what is real for Martin is not real for One and...." The
>color you experience may very well be the same color I experience because
>there is a composition you and I share as continuants (as beings who exist
>independently of any perspective).

How do you know that anything exists independently of any perspective? I
thought you were a Wittgenstinian: this is about as far from
Wittgenstein as you can get!

> What is interesting though, Martin, is
>just what you would have named yourself if you had been the only existing
>individual? Now, if you had named yourself "Martin" and mistakenly thought
>you are the "Omega Man", then those individuals who watched you at night you
>were unaware of would have gone completely by you! They exist, but are not
>real from your perspective. Why? Because you have no knowledge of them.
>Likewise, they call you "human" but "Martin" is not real for them, since
>they have no knowledge of "Martin". We use many things to individuate
>objects and only those objects which have been individuated are real.

Well, if I had been the only existing individual I would not have been
able to name myself anything. Quite apart from the fact that this would
have involved use of a private language, it would also involve use of a
concept I could not possibly have - that of the need to distinguish
myself from others of my kind by naming myself. But I feel I may be
missing the point, because I really can't unravel the rest of this
paragraph. I am not sure why naming something affects its existence, or
reality in any way.

>
>>For example, the ninth planet in our solar system
>> existed (ie was real) in 1929. And in 1829. And indeed before humans
>> walked on the face of the earth. Yet the planet we now call Pluto was
>> not discovered (ie known) until 1930. Thus the reality of that
>> astronomical object preceded our knowledge of it. Are you saying that
>> Pluto only came into existence in 1930? I think that what you are doing
>> in your paragraph above, is taking my claim that "reality precedes our
>> knowledge of it" to be the same as saying "knowledge of reality precedes
>> our knowledge of it". It is not. That would be nonsense, but that is not
>> what I was saying. If you accept that that which exists is necessarily
>> real, and you accept that there are things which exist about which we
>> have no knowledge yet, then you must accept that reality precedes
>> knowledge.
>
>A few things at work in the above. Prior to the discovery of the planet
>"Pluto" it existed, but was not real. In other words an object which existed
>(and still does!) spun around in an orbit and the individuals on the third
>planet had not yet individuated it! It was not real to them.

Ah, I see now - apologies for not getting this earlier. You seem to be
equating reality with the ability of humans to put a name to it - or
"knowledge", perhaps. But surely this is not right? Are you saying that
before I met my wife she was not a real person? Are you saying that the
world was not real when dinosaurs roamed it, because humans were not
around to know it? That dinosaurs were not real creatures that existed
before humans evolved? In what sense can you possibly say that the
planet we now call Pluto was not real before it was discovered? Because
there was no name for it? Because no-one knew of it? Would you say, for
example, that the world really was flat in the middle ages when everyone
thought they knew it was? As I have suggested earlier, I think you are
forcing the concept of "reality" into a very strange shape! Reality and
knowledge are related but different concepts. What is real is not
necessarily known, but what is known is real.

> If there had
>been an alien spacecraft flying circles around Pluto they would have
>knowledge of Pluto, and the object would be real for them, but it certainly
>wouldn't have been a reality for us. Indeed, if the basic construction of
>the alien species differed dramatically from ours, then there perspective of
>the object we call "Pluto" might be so far removed from our own that we
>could not recognize it as "reality"!

There you go again - "real for them"! By definition, reality, as I have
said above, is that which is independent of our ideas. If you insist
otherwise then it would seem that you are, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice
in Wonderland, insisting that words mean what you intend them to mean,
no more and no less. Reality is (sorry to labour the point) *by
definition* that which we have our different perspectives *of*. You seem
to be taking reality to be anything anyone takes to be real from their
perspective. If this were so, then the wildest thoughts of the most
deranged inhabitant of the asylum are real. But surely the whole point
is that such people have lost touch with reality? What they believe is
*not* real, but illusion, with which we can usefully contrast "reality".

> This goes to my earlier point. Given
>what I have stated so far I am just being consistent when I say it is absurd
>to think that knowledge precedes our knowledge of it. I think that what
>exists precedes our knowledge of it. It certainly is not the case that if
>what exists is necessarily real that "there are things which exist about
>which we have no knowledge yet, then [...] reality precedes knowledge".
>Surely, it is possible that some existent things are beyond the scope of our
>knowledge (and hence reality), but other species have knowledge of them, so
>they are "real". Indeed, if you lost a limb and experienced "phantom pains"
>how could I say they are not "real" simply because you no longer have the
>limb in place?

Again, this is conflating reality with knowledge. And I think your logic
has gone adrift. Let me put the argument another way - feel free to show
where this is wrong:

1. X is something that exists but precedes our knowledge of it;
2. something that exists is necessarily real;
3. therefore X is real
4. therefore something real precedes our knowledge of it.

Alternatively:

1. Existence precedes our knowledge of it (your words);
2. Some existent things are beyond the scope of our knowledge (your
words);
3. what exists is necessarily real (you agreed)
4. therefore there are some real things that are beyond the scope of our
knowledge (follows from 1, 2 and 3).

As for phantom pains, well, the point here is that they are *phantom*
pains. That is, the sensation of pain in the limb is real enough, but
(de facto) it is not real that the pain is in the missing limb. No more
than your appearance in a mirror means that you are really in the
mirror.

>
>> On the contrary, "absolute" is a term used by idealists. It is "the one
>> independent reality of which all things are an expression". Kant
>> described "absolute grounds for understanding" as "ideals only".
>> However, closer to ONE's views, I suspect, is Hegel's definition of the
>> Absolute as "spirit"!
>
>Hmmm... I think I covered my butt when I remarked upon the "Berklian view of
>God"! ;) We agree. My point is that we should not take what the term
>"absolute" means to the Realist as being the same as what it means to the
>Idealist.

OK.

>
>> I would still argue that if you are going to use a word in a way
>> which is not common usage (within the language game you are playing)
>> then it is for the user to make that clear.
>
>Agreed. And I really do like ending on such positives!
>

Your mission for today is to find another positive to end on :-).

Cheers!
--
Martin

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann > >> [......]

> >Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality.
Talk
> >is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is the
> >conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough for
you.

> Indeed. Neatly put. We just need to remember what we mean by "subset",
> yes? For example, we do not mean that language and communication are
> interchangeable.

Merci beaucoup mon ami. However, we will readily suggest that at all times
and instances where there is language there does exist some communication,
even while it is incomplete. The seclusion of a particular communication
into the subset of *language* seems quite the preference of the individual.

> [....]

> >Then you have obviously not reviewed the number one definition for the
word
> >*real* (from the Middle English and Middle French era) which forms the
base
> >for the English word reality. This response is surely strange, given
your
> >penchant for definitive positions. I trust, however, this illustrates
> >connection enough for you as you can now clearly see the adjacent
definition
> >which describes things as not artificial, fraudulent or illusory, even
> >though my position is to illustrate how they are.
>
> The basis of "real" is the Middle English "realis", which in turn is
> from the Latin "res" (thing, matter). But while this is of interest, it
> is the modern usage of the word with which we are concerned. And as you
> well know, I have long been trying to get you to accept that "reality"
> is opposed to "artificial", "fraudulent" and "illusory". So why are you
> trying to deny that the definition of "real" is other than it actually
> is? As I have said before, what your claim amounts to is not a denial
> that reality means what it means, but that there is no such thing as
> reality. Which is, of course, a nonsense.

From the aspect of absolute reality, or absolute truth, or absolute
knowledge, anything less is illusory. With this in mind, the human term
*real* does not describe reality, but merely a subset of the absolute
reality.

> >> You appear to be saying that the earth *was* in fact flat, and then was
> >> "transformed into a sphere". Surely not? A flat earth may have been
> >> falsely believed to be "reality", but that does not make it real. It
now
> >> seems as though what you mean by "so-called reality" is "unjustified
> >> belief". That's fine, but the undoubted fact that belief is not
> >> necessarily justified (or true), does not mean that it cannot be.

> >A flat earth was once very real, (an apparent contradiction) but only in
the
> >minds (illusion) of men. At the time, dear Martin, they felt very
justified
> >in their belief. Just as I am quite sure that men today are feeling
quite
> >justified about a number of things they believe are real, but are not.
> >Absolute truth is the only truth that is complete and without illusion,
just
> >as absolute reality the only reality which does not hold out unjustified
> >beliefs.

> No, ONE, a flat earth was never real - remember the definition of real?
> Opposed to illusion? And I am quite sure that they felt justified in
> their belief. But of course, their feeling justified does not mean that
> they were justified, and even if they were, justified belief is not
> knowledge.

You must apply the time coefficient to the statement for it to remain
accurate. The flat earth *was* very real in the human manner of thinking
existing at the time , and also as we have discovered, an illusion by
today's more accurate manner of thinking.

> I am sure you are right to claim that many people today feel justified
> about things they believe are real but are not. Belief in God, or a
> creator, may well come within that category. And I quite agree that what
> is true is without illusion (that's what we mean by "true"), and that
> unjustified beliefs are not necessarily reality (although they might be,
> of course - guesses sometimes turn out right). I am not sure what point
> you are making in that last paragraph, for you seem to be making mine
> for me.

I would say that belief in reality as opposed to absolute reality that
readily falls in the aforementioned category. REality, as man calls it
today will be proved an illusion for he sees it in such a limited fashion.

> [....]

> >> >Martin's position is cogent.

> >> Thank you.

> >We laud this brief respite from dissagreement. <smile>

> Indeed, but what would be the interest in our correspondence here if it
> was all agreement? :-)

Building a universe always depends upon a stable foundation, and the walls
must agree with that foundation for the subsequent building of a roof with
sufficient overhang, which keeps the rain of derision from eroding the load
bearing soil of understanding.

> [....]

> >> I would agree that "absolute reality" is not beheld, but would suggest
> >> that the *absolute* is beyond the possibility of being beheld, as with
> >> any other imaginary concept.

> >Of course, as is infinity, the value of pi, or the future, which most
humans
> >regard as real and not imaginary, except in the single sense it can not
be
> >beheld.

> Do they? Then please do not include me in your category of "most
> humans".

As you wish.

ONE

[Caesar Squitti of Thunder Bay]

If God were "nothing"....in the infinite ultimate sense, then God existed,
God exists and God will exist, yet God dosn't......

Caesar Squitti
--
RESEARCH ARTICLE
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~csquitti/gate.html

caesar j. b. a. squitti © 1998
ANTI+TRUTHS: Truths, Half-Truths & Lies.
"The Light....The Rainbow of Truth."

SPONSORED BY
SQUITTI'S
" A Beautiful Difference" © 1997
Fine Diamonds and Gold Jewelery
http://www.abeautifuldifference.com
&
The People of Thunder Bay
"Superior by Nature"

ONEstar <ONE...@galaxycorp.com> wrote in article
<aYS23.1741$nh4...@news1.mia>...

[jeff]

That came out like a cough and a sneeze. What does that mean?
jeff

[Martin Dann]

In article <01bea7a9$5bd2b600$2501d3d8@caesar>, Caesar Squitti
of Thunder Bay <csqu...@alumni.lakeheadu.ca> writes

>If God were "nothing"....in the infinite ultimate sense, then God existed,
>God exists and God will exist, yet God dosn't......

I wish I understood what you were talking about, Caesar. I don't suppose
you could expand this thought so that a poor dullard like me might
understand?

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Martin Dann]

In article <aYS23.1741$nh4...@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

>
>Martin Dann > >> [......]
>> >Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality.
>Talk
>> >is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is the
>> >conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough for
>you.
>
>> Indeed. Neatly put. We just need to remember what we mean by "subset",
>> yes? For example, we do not mean that language and communication are
>> interchangeable.
>
>Merci beaucoup mon ami. However, we will readily suggest that at all times
>and instances where there is language there does exist some communication,
>even while it is incomplete. The seclusion of a particular communication
>into the subset of *language* seems quite the preference of the individual.

I agree entirely. That is why I deny the logical possibility of a
private language, which by its nature denies communication (if we are to
understand private as being kept to oneself and not communicated
elsewhere).

You have defined "absolute knowledge" as being everything knowable. Can
you explain what exactly you mean by "absolute reality" and "absolute
truth" please? Do you mean "everything that is real" and "everything
that is true"? If so, I don't understand why all the countless
constituents of all that is real and all that is true must be illusory.
Why should this be? And why should knowledge of part of the whole be
illusion? No-one but an idiot would assume that partial knowledge is
complete knowledge, so why illusion? Why can you not accept that we can
know some things, but not everything?

Again you conflate what *is* real, with what is *thought to be* real.
You are quite right to say that the concept of a flat earth was "real"
to the people of the time - but the fact remains that the earth is not,
and was not ever, flat. Therefore the reality is that the earth, since
its formation, has always been spherical, and never flat.

>
>> I am sure you are right to claim that many people today feel justified
>> about things they believe are real but are not. Belief in God, or a
>> creator, may well come within that category. And I quite agree that what
>> is true is without illusion (that's what we mean by "true"), and that
>> unjustified beliefs are not necessarily reality (although they might be,
>> of course - guesses sometimes turn out right). I am not sure what point
>> you are making in that last paragraph, for you seem to be making mine
>> for me.
>
>I would say that belief in reality as opposed to absolute reality that
>readily falls in the aforementioned category. REality, as man calls it
>today will be proved an illusion for he sees it in such a limited fashion.

Man might well have illusions about what is real. But his illusions are
*not* real. Reality is independent of man's ideas of it, by definition.

>
>> [....]
>
>> >> >Martin's position is cogent.
>
>> >> Thank you.
>
>> >We laud this brief respite from dissagreement. <smile>
>
>> Indeed, but what would be the interest in our correspondence here if it
>> was all agreement? :-)
>
>Building a universe always depends upon a stable foundation, and the walls
>must agree with that foundation for the subsequent building of a roof with
>sufficient overhang, which keeps the rain of derision from eroding the load
>bearing soil of understanding.

But we are not building a universe, ONE, we are engaging in a little
light discussion, by way of mutual amusement and entertainment. Universe
building is not done on newsgroups. Not yet, anyway. Lighten up!

Cheers!
--
Martin

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

> >> >Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality.
> >Talk is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is
the
> >> >conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough
for
> >you.

> >> Indeed. Neatly put. We just need to remember what we mean by "subset",
> >> yes? For example, we do not mean that language and communication are
> >> interchangeable.

> >Merci beaucoup mon ami. However, we will readily suggest that at all
times
> >and instances where there is language there does exist some
communication,
> >even while it is incomplete. The seclusion of a particular communication
> >into the subset of *language* seems quite the preference of the
individual.

> I agree entirely. That is why I deny the logical possibility of a
> private language, which by its nature denies communication (if we are to
> understand private as being kept to oneself and not communicated
> elsewhere).

There is this sense stress case where you are correct and I suspect those
individuals with schizoid tendancies may not communicate much with thier
alter egos. <smile>

> >> [....]

Absolute reality would be the reality beheld by an individual who maintains
absolute knowledge. Absolute truth is that absolute knowledge in a
superlative degree of accuracy concerning the interlacing of knowledge and
reality. Any single constituent that humans observe (partial knowledge)
may, in fact, be accurate, however the human condition causes that partial
knowledge to be suspect by default. This fact, becomes especially evident
when we consider any part of human knowledge to be contingent upon and
necessarily based in the relative perspective of limited human sensory
capabilities. Illusion, in this sense is the appearence of attainable
reality as opposed to absolute reality, just as the elephant's tail is to
the elephant. I accept that we can know only partial knowledge about
anything and that anything more is an arrogant assumption.

Conflation is quite normal due to the time differential, and should not be
overly emphasized as error in this case. Reality, for those who were in
that time, was that the earth was flat. Current thinking upon our segment
of delineated time is endowed with a unique view unavailable to the denizens
of that previous time. Were your knowledge to be restricted to that epoch,
you also would entertain a flat world view of reality. Thusly, you may
understand the principle of illusional reality, where *real* means the
current view of things as they appear.

> >> I am sure you are right to claim that many people today feel justified
> >> about things they believe are real but are not. Belief in God, or a
> >> creator, may well come within that category. And I quite agree that
what
> >> is true is without illusion (that's what we mean by "true"), and that
> >> unjustified beliefs are not necessarily reality (although they might
be,
> >> of course - guesses sometimes turn out right). I am not sure what point
> >> you are making in that last paragraph, for you seem to be making mine
> >> for me.

> >I would say that belief in reality as opposed to absolute reality that
> >readily falls in the aforementioned category. REality, as man calls it
> >today will be proved an illusion for he sees it in such a limited
fashion.

> Man might well have illusions about what is real. But his illusions are
> *not* real. Reality is independent of man's ideas of it, by definition.

Yes, his illusions are not real, thus the word *reality* needs be refined or
qualified in order for our communications regarding it to be more accurate.
Yes, the word *real* implies a static truth that can not change and that
mankind currently does not behold save in part. This further indicates the
word *reality* is oft misused.

> >> [....]

> >> >> >Martin's position is cogent.

> >> >> Thank you.

> >> >We laud this brief respite from dissagreement. <smile>

> >> Indeed, but what would be the interest in our correspondence here if it
> >> was all agreement? :-)

> >Building a universe always depends upon a stable foundation, and the
walls
> >must agree with that foundation for the subsequent building of a roof
with
> >sufficient overhang, which keeps the rain of derision from eroding the
load
> >bearing soil of understanding.

> But we are not building a universe, ONE, we are engaging in a little
> light discussion, by way of mutual amusement and entertainment. Universe
> building is not done on newsgroups. Not yet, anyway. Lighten up!

Please excuse my construction efforts as we continue. <smile>

ONE

[Alex Van Starrex]

I appreciate the sentiment (not really, but anyway)...

Sorry, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Logic doesn't allow for
it.

http://homepages.tig.com.au/~avanstar

[ONEstar]

Alex Van Starrex

> I appreciate the sentiment (not really, but anyway)...

> Sorry, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Logic doesn't allow
for
> it.

We appreciate your input, however you may have gained the logical point and
missed the application.

ONE

[Martin Dann]

In article <HGO33.1929$yj2...@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

>
>Martin Dann
>
>> >> >Metaphors also seem to have various usages which overlap into reality.
>> >Talk is a subset of language which is a subset of communication, which is
>the
>> >> >conveyance of information. I should hope this is definitive enough
>for
>> >you.
>
>> >> Indeed. Neatly put. We just need to remember what we mean by "subset",
>> >> yes? For example, we do not mean that language and communication are
>> >> interchangeable.
>
>> >Merci beaucoup mon ami. However, we will readily suggest that at all
>times
>> >and instances where there is language there does exist some
>communication,
>> >even while it is incomplete. The seclusion of a particular communication
>> >into the subset of *language* seems quite the preference of the
>individual.
>
>> I agree entirely. That is why I deny the logical possibility of a
>> private language, which by its nature denies communication (if we are to
>> understand private as being kept to oneself and not communicated
>> elsewhere).
>
>There is this sense stress case where you are correct and I suspect those
>individuals with schizoid tendancies may not communicate much with thier
>alter egos. <smile>

My understanding is that they don't. My point was that if language
entails communication, and privacy excludes communication, then there is
no such thing as a private language. I am not sure how what you say
here answers that.

[...]

From your definitions above, it appears that you link both absolute
reality and absolute truth to the state of having absolute knowledge.
You have already defined absolute knowledge as being knowledge of
everything which can be known. But I can find nothing in what you say to
justify claims that you have made in the past that anything short of
this totality must necessarily be an illusion. Indeed, I see that you
now accept that partial knowledge may be "accurate" (=true or real?),
which is not at all the same thing as saying that partial knowledge is
illusion. But if you accept that partial knowledge may be accurate I
find it puzzling that you then claim that it is "suspect by default".
How can something that is accurate be suspect? Surely accuracy is the
antithesis of that which is suspect?

The rest of your argument does not seem to follow. That our senses are
limited does not entail that our knowledge is suspect. We *know* our
senses are limited, so we make the necessary allowances. We know, for
example, that solid objects consist mainly of inter-atomic space. Our
senses do not give us this directly, but our ingenuity enables us to
find ways round our limitations. And where there are things that we find
currently inaccessible, we accept that the best we can do is theorise -
not know. I quite agree that to presume more knowledge than is
accessible to our senses and our ingenuity in enhancing those senses
would indeed be arrogant assumption. But surely neither philosophers nor
scientists are making such assumptions? The only assumptions being made,
as far as I can see, are those by people who make claims of an
unsupported theistic or religious nature.

>
>> >> >> You appear to be saying that the earth *was* in fact flat

[...]

>> >> >A flat earth was once very real

[...]

>> >> No, ONE, a flat earth was never real - remember the definition of real?
>> >> Opposed to illusion? And I am quite sure that they felt justified in
>> >> their belief. But of course, their feeling justified does not mean that
>> >> they were justified, and even if they were, justified belief is not
>> >> knowledge.
>
>> >You must apply the time coefficient to the statement for it to remain
>> >accurate. The flat earth *was* very real in the human manner of thinking
>> >existing at the time , and also as we have discovered, an illusion by
>> >today's more accurate manner of thinking.
>
>> Again you conflate what *is* real, with what is *thought to be* real.
>> You are quite right to say that the concept of a flat earth was "real"
>> to the people of the time - but the fact remains that the earth is not,
>> and was not ever, flat. Therefore the reality is that the earth, since
>> its formation, has always been spherical, and never flat.
>
>Conflation is quite normal due to the time differential, and should not be
>overly emphasized as error in this case. Reality, for those who were in
>that time, was that the earth was flat. Current thinking upon our segment
>of delineated time is endowed with a unique view unavailable to the denizens
>of that previous time. Were your knowledge to be restricted to that epoch,
>you also would entertain a flat world view of reality. Thusly, you may
>understand the principle of illusional reality, where *real* means the
>current view of things as they appear.

Conflation of concepts which are not identical is an error. It must be
clear, surely, that what is real is not the same as what is thought to
be real, and therefore to conflate them is an error. What people in the
middle-ages took to be real was error. They were wrong to claim that the
earth was flat. If they were wrong, then it follows that the earth was
not flat when they believed it to be so. Therefore the *reality* is that
the world was not, and is not, flat. Were my knowledge to be restricted
to that era, I would quite possibly have held the false, unreal belief
that the world was flat. I would have been in error to do so, for the
earth never was "really" flat.

[...]

>> >I would say that belief in reality as opposed to absolute reality that
>> >readily falls in the aforementioned category. REality, as man calls it
>> >today will be proved an illusion for he sees it in such a limited
>fashion.
>
>> Man might well have illusions about what is real. But his illusions are
>> *not* real. Reality is independent of man's ideas of it, by definition.
>
>Yes, his illusions are not real, thus the word *reality* needs be refined or
>qualified in order for our communications regarding it to be more accurate.
>Yes, the word *real* implies a static truth that can not change and that
>mankind currently does not behold save in part. This further indicates the
>word *reality* is oft misused.

But surely the need to redefine "reality" arises only because of your
insistence on forcing an unnatural meaning onto the word? Real means
"that which is". That is a clear and distinct concept from "that which
we believe is". The whole point about the nature of knowledge is the
agreement between our belief of "what is", and the reality of "what is".
Thus there are two distinct and separate concepts involved. That a word
is "oft misused" is no reason to misuse it further. Let us instead
insist on its correct usage.
>
Cheers!
--
Martin

[Antonio Fanelli]

On Mon, 31 May 1999 18:23:10 +1000, "Alex Van Starrex"
<avan...@tig.com.au> wrote:

>Sorry, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Logic doesn't allow for
>it.

Why not?

--
起^ ciao
\ toto
aa # 1286
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5990

[Redneck Jedi]

Don't mean to infringe on your conversation but the fact that logic does not
allow to prove that something does not exist is false. We have proved many
things did not exist the past 1000's of 1000's of years.

As a matter of fact, the existence of God has been closer proved that he
does exist rather than he does not exist

[Robert J. Kolker]

Redneck Jedi wrote:

>
> As a matter of fact, the existence of God has been closer proved that he
> does exist rather than he does not exist

Actually, neither has been proven in a totally convincing manner.

Bob Kolker

[none]

Redneck Jedi wrote:

> Don't mean to infringe on your conversation but the fact that logic does not
> allow to prove that something does not exist is false. We have proved many
> things did not exist the past 1000's of 1000's of years.
>

> As a matter of fact, the existence of God has been closer proved that he
> does exist rather than he does not exist

Blind assertion, appeal to authority.....

I can't dance to this one at all, Dick. Is there a negative rating?

Geo
Atheist #15

[Redneck Jedi]

>That's the most absurd arguement I've ever heard.

Why is that so absurd? Just because it is hard for one person as yourself
to grasp the concept. This auguement is one of years and years. It
normally comes out when one has nothing more to fall on to battle the fact
that there is more scientific evidence that there is a God than there is
not. Many things in life defy the law of logic and is never questioned
until it comes to the question of the exsistance of God.

Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it must exist.

Your are right in some degree. The part that makes me beleave is that
scientist cannot disprove the facts that prove that there is one.

Can you disprove that my computer is God? No. Does that mean it's
therefore a deity? Of course not.

By the way I can disprove your computer is god. If I turn your computer
off it can not do a thing. If it was a "god" it would not matter weather
it could be turned off or not, it would continue to operate unconditionally.
As per the human definition of a god.

--
May the Force be with youall!!!

Go BIG T.....Undefeated in 98 will do it again in 99
98-99 National Champions - Tennessee Volunteers.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - GO GET EM SMOKEY

Redneck Jedi
ICQ #'s
775886-Redneck Jedi (For My Star War Friends)
7773934-Mavrick (Home)
422114-Dreamweaver (Waiting for computer)
1755352-SoulMate (Work)
12766393-Shadow (Just Another computer)

[Redneck Jedi]

This is true. Not sure how it would work or who did it but I did hear on
the Discovery Channel that a mathician did prove that God did exist with
math. Don't get me wrong. I DO NOT base my entire belief on someone whom
I don't even know or have not heard of since. But it was an interesting
thing that I heard.

Maybe as time goes on and as science advances we will get solid proof (in my
case) that there is a God. Until then I will go in faith and lean on the
father from above. Someday we all will see on way or another.

--
May the Force be with youall!!!

Go BIG T.....Undefeated in 98 will do it again in 99
98-99 National Champions - Tennessee Volunteers.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - GO GET EM SMOKEY

Redneck Jedi
ICQ #'s
775886-Redneck Jedi (For My Star War Friends)
7773934-Mavrick (Home)
422114-Dreamweaver (Waiting for computer)
1755352-SoulMate (Work)
12766393-Shadow (Just Another computer)

Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:37557862...@usa.net...

>
>
> Redneck Jedi wrote:
>
> >
> > As a matter of fact, the existence of God has been closer proved that he
> > does exist rather than he does not exist
>

[yang hu]

Redneck Jedi wrote:

> This is true. Not sure how it would work or who did it but I did hear on
> the Discovery Channel that a mathician did prove that God did exist with
> math.

*could* or *did*?

> Maybe as time goes on and as science advances we will get solid proof (in my
> case) that there is a God. Until then I will go in faith and lean on the
> father from above. Someday we all will see on way or another.

how do you know you're not leaning on the dark side?

--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin

"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
are true."

George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999

[jeff]

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Redneck Jedi wrote:

> >That's the most absurd arguement I've ever heard.
>
> Why is that so absurd? Just because it is hard for one person as yourself
> to grasp the concept. This auguement is one of years and years. It
> normally comes out when one has nothing more to fall on to battle the fact
> that there is more scientific evidence that there is a God than there is
> not.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
Not at all. So there can't be more.
jeff

[Redneck Jedi]

>Not sure how it would work or who did it but I did hear on
> the Discovery Channel that a mathician did prove that God did exist >with
math.
>
> *could* or *did*?

Well according to the commercial. I did not see the show. He did. Now
like I said and you left out is that I only found this interesting. Not say
it is true nor am I saying that it is not true. "This is true" was in
response to the previous post not for the statement that followed. Sorry I
should have but on a different line.

> how do you know you're not leaning on the dark side?

Your and every other belief could be asked the same question. How do I
know. I guess in a over all since there is no way of telling but in MY life
I have belief in the what the Bible tells me. I have faith in what I have
read. I agree with the teachings and live my life as such. That is how I
want to live and I choose to live.

--
May the Force be with youall!!!

Go BIG T.....Undefeated in 98 will do it again in 99
98-99 National Champions - Tennessee Volunteers.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - GO GET EM SMOKEY

Redneck Jedi
ICQ #'s
775886-Redneck Jedi (For My Star War Friends)
7773934-Mavrick (Home)
422114-Dreamweaver (Waiting for computer)
1755352-SoulMate (Work)
12766393-Shadow (Just Another computer)

yang hu <yangh@***uci***.edu.> wrote in message
news:7j48kv$b...@news.service.uci.edu...

[jeff]

It is hard to imagine that if someone proved gods existence, with math or
whatever, that the news would get buried on the Discovery channel.
jeff

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Redneck Jedi wrote:

> This is true. Not sure how it would work or who did it but I did hear on

> the Discovery Channel that a mathician did prove that God did exist with

> math. Don't get me wrong. I DO NOT base my entire belief on someone whom
> I don't even know or have not heard of since. But it was an interesting
> thing that I heard.
>

> Maybe as time goes on and as science advances we will get solid proof (in my
> case) that there is a God. Until then I will go in faith and lean on the
> father from above. Someday we all will see on way or another.
>

> --
> May the Force be with youall!!!
>
> Go BIG T.....Undefeated in 98 will do it again in 99
> 98-99 National Champions - Tennessee Volunteers.
> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - GO GET EM SMOKEY
>
> Redneck Jedi
> ICQ #'s
> 775886-Redneck Jedi (For My Star War Friends)
> 7773934-Mavrick (Home)
> 422114-Dreamweaver (Waiting for computer)
> 1755352-SoulMate (Work)
> 12766393-Shadow (Just Another computer)

[Damian Mann]

YES

[Damian Mann]

dumb question

[Redneck Jedi]

> There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
> Not at all. So there can't be more.
> jeff

Actually the proof is out there. I am not a scientist nor am I a bible
scholar so there for I will not be able to give dates, time, events.
However, there has been proof and if I am able to locate the documentation
that I read about the subject I will freely give it to you.

Like all other reports and proofs (i.e. Evolution) people have disputed and
found loopholes in the threoies and Hypothesis that have been developed.

But to get to the point to say that just cause one can't prove or disprove
something does not mean that it is not there and that was the whole point to
the previous post.

Jeff Moore

Please excuse all grammer mistakes. I am a computer geek and really suck at
writing

--
May the Force be with youall!!!

Go BIG T.....Undefeated in 98 will do it again in 99
98-99 National Champions - Tennessee Volunteers.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - GO GET EM SMOKEY

Redneck Jedi
ICQ #'s
775886-Redneck Jedi (For My Star War Friends)
7773934-Mavrick (Home)
422114-Dreamweaver (Waiting for computer)
1755352-SoulMate (Work)
12766393-Shadow (Just Another computer)

jeff <afn0...@afn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.A32.3.95.990603...@freenet2.afn.org...

[Eric Gunnerson]

Redneck Jedi <rednec...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7j6bcd$3...@news.icubed.com...

> But to get to the point to say that just cause one can't prove or disprove
> something does not mean that it is not there and that was the whole point
to
> the previous post.

Exactly. It just makes it stupid to believe that it *is* there.

[maff91]

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:29:36 -0400, "Redneck Jedi"
<rednec...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>> Not at all. So there can't be more.
>> jeff
>
>Actually the proof is out there. I am not a scientist nor am I a bible
>scholar so there for I will not be able to give dates, time, events.
>However, there has been proof and if I am able to locate the documentation
>that I read about the subject I will freely give it to you.
>
>Like all other reports and proofs (i.e. Evolution) people have disputed and
>found loopholes in the threoies and Hypothesis that have been developed.

What loopholes?

<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html

Science doesn't deal in proofs. That's the domain of Math. Science
develops approximate models which correspond to evidence.
http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm

"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/

>
>But to get to the point to say that just cause one can't prove or disprove
>something does not mean that it is not there and that was the whole point to
>the previous post.
>

[ONEstar]

If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the same
entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to said
entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure why you
find this particular concept difficult.

> [...]

The elephants tail gives the blind man certain responses the man interprets
as real. The man feels quite sure he is in possession of the truth. Later
when he gains more understanding he recognizes his previous understanding of
reality was not accurate by means of it's being merely partial. Because of
humankind's limited perception, and understanding, it follows this same
principle must apply to the reality currently beheld in this state of being.
Thus, accurately, we can say that mankind's reality is mere consensus, and
an illusion.

> The rest of your argument does not seem to follow. That our senses are
> limited does not entail that our knowledge is suspect. We *know* our
> senses are limited, so we make the necessary allowances. We know, for
> example, that solid objects consist mainly of inter-atomic space. Our
> senses do not give us this directly, but our ingenuity enables us to
> find ways round our limitations. And where there are things that we find
> currently inaccessible, we accept that the best we can do is theorise -
> not know. I quite agree that to presume more knowledge than is
> accessible to our senses and our ingenuity in enhancing those senses
> would indeed be arrogant assumption. But surely neither philosophers nor
> scientists are making such assumptions? The only assumptions being made,
> as far as I can see, are those by people who make claims of an
> unsupported theistic or religious nature.

You indicate solid as something you have faith in and with good reason. You
must recognize that every walk in life is by faith as faith is the
foundation upon which all other things rest. Unsupported claims find no
monopoly in the theistic or religious strands of the community, although
your tendancy to seclude those strands has been previously noted and
laminated here once more. Please recognize also that the spiritual and
emotional corners of mankind's pyramid, are not based in any of the three
acknowledged states of matter so any attempt to ascribe those qualities will
not succeed.

It is yourself who conflates the *reality* of yesteryear and not myself.
Error is the default when an answer is not totally correct, just as 3.14 is
not the correct value for pi. When one acceeds to faulty assumption, the
reality assumed is illusion.

> [...]

> >> >I would say that belief in reality as opposed to absolute reality that
> >> >readily falls in the aforementioned category. REality, as man calls
it
> >> >today will be proved an illusion for he sees it in such a limited
> >fashion.

> >> Man might well have illusions about what is real. But his illusions are
> >> *not* real. Reality is independent of man's ideas of it, by definition.

> >Yes, his illusions are not real, thus the word *reality* needs be refined
or
> >qualified in order for our communications regarding it to be more
accurate.
> >Yes, the word *real* implies a static truth that can not change and that
> >mankind currently does not behold save in part. This further indicates
the
> >word *reality* is oft misused.

> But surely the need to redefine "reality" arises only because of your
> insistence on forcing an unnatural meaning onto the word? Real means
> "that which is". That is a clear and distinct concept from "that which
> we believe is". The whole point about the nature of knowledge is the
> agreement between our belief of "what is", and the reality of "what is".
> Thus there are two distinct and separate concepts involved. That a word
> is "oft misused" is no reason to misuse it further. Let us instead
> insist on its correct usage.

Unnatural? <smile> I merely wish to be accurate. I do not like phrases,
words or positions based upon ignorance thus I strive to refine them. Let
us then use the word reality as it really is at this point in mankind's
tenure, an illusion.

ONE

[John Hattan]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>>Not at all. So there can't be more.
>

>Is the existence of Jesus a myth? No, it is not. Scientists have proofs
>that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed some 2000 years ago.

Scientists? Do they have names?

>His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
>today.

Just like Dianetics.

>Jesus is God Himself if you will believe it.

Similarly, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is God Himself if you will just
believe it.

>God manifested Himself in the
>person of Jesus. God is a spirit

Define "spirit".

>A simple proof that Jesus is God Himself is found in the Bible.

So the Bible is true because it is the word of God, and God is real
because the Bible says so?

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@bigfoot.com http://www.bitsmart.com/shatner

[jeff]

On 3 Jun 1999, maff91 wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:29:36 -0400, "Redneck Jedi"

> <rednec...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
> >> Not at all. So there can't be more.

> >> jeff
> >
> >Actually the proof is out there. I am not a scientist nor am I a bible
> >scholar so there for I will not be able to give dates, time, events.
> >However, there has been proof and if I am able to locate the documentation
> >that I read about the subject I will freely give it to you.

Please do.
jeff

[Virginia Maher]

While there is some fairly good evidence that there was someone named Jesus
who had a following approximately 2000 years ago--
all of the claims about his divinity and his miracles are without any
evidence.

As far as proving that god does not exist: I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't
exist either. Asking someone to prove a negative is absurd.

jeff wrote in message ...

[Peace Crusader]

My Dear Fellowmen

>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>Not at all. So there can't be more.
>jeff

Is the existence of Jesus a myth? No, it is not. Scientists have proofs
that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed some 2000 years ago.

His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
today.

Jesus is God Himself if you will believe it. God manifested Himself in the
person of Jesus. God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in a human
body who was named Jesus. Jesus was not an ordinary human being like you
and me. He is God that is why He was able to perform miracles that no human
being can ever do.

A simple proof that Jesus is God Himself is found in the Bible. The verses
are found in the first and last chapters of the Book of Revelation. In the
Good News Bible: Rev. 1:8 -- "I am the first and the last," says the Lord
God Almighty, who is, who was, and who is to come.

In Rev. 22:13, God repeated what He said in the first chapter. He said, "I
am the first and the last, the beginning and the end." In Rev. 22:16, God
revealed who He is. He said, "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to announce
these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of
David; I am the bright morning star."

So who is God? He is Jesus. Was Jesus in a human form this time? No, He
was not. He was a spirit. He was not Jesus as we know it as a human being.

God showed us the way to go to His kingdom. And the way is only through
Jesus. He said that no one goes to the Father except by Him. He taught us
good things. Did Jesus teach us to do evil things? No, He did not. So why
don't we follow His teachings? They are for our own good, aren't they?
Which one do we want to do -- to do good things or to do evil things?

Believing in God is by faith -- faith that He exists and believing in Jesus.
Jesus said that he who had not seen Him and believe in Him is better than he
who had seen Him and did not believe.

I invite you to visit my Web site to read recent prophecies of the Holy
Spirit. I welcome your comments. These prophecies will not happen if they
are not from God.

My Web page address is http://www.come.to/thewaytolife

Thank you and God bless us all.

Sincerely,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando

[Antonio Fanelli]

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:42:19 -0400, "Redneck Jedi"
<rednec...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>As a matter of fact, the existence of God has been closer proved that he
>does exist rather than he does not exist

How?
--
°_^ ciao

[Andrew Mulcahy]

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:44:50 -0600, "Virginia Maher"
<brianger...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>While there is some fairly good evidence that there was someone named Jesus
>who had a following approximately 2000 years ago--
>all of the claims about his divinity and his miracles are without any
>evidence.

Actually. a lot more information is now available
about Jesus since the Dead Sea Scrolls were finally released
to the public. Mind you, a lot of this has been known to
theologians for some centuries now, but has been considered
too 'complicated', shall we say, for the laity.
Check out:
http://magi.com~oblio/jesus.html
Cheers,
Andy
* * * * * * *
" It was Nietzche who told us God was dead, but he
would be laughing in his grave if he knew
how many are still heaving over the corpse,
frantically trying to revive it."

[Andrew Mulcahy]

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:48:32 -0700, "ONEstar"
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> wrote:

>
>Martin Dann

>> My understanding is that they don't. My point was that if language
>> entails communication, and privacy excludes communication, then there is
>> no such thing as a private language. I am not sure how what you say
>> here answers that.
>
>If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the same
>entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to said
>entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
>communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure why you
>find this particular concept difficult.

Like if the hand is talking to the foot, or the
brain is having a chat with the nose, perhaps?
What makes this concept difficult for intelligent
people to buy is that they need to have adequate evidence
that the components of the communication are capable of
sending and/or receiving information.
As for your problem with reality, let me suggest the
following :
Look on reality as the "Territory" and our view of
that reality as our "Map." We are indebted to Korzybski for
this( General Semantics) It takes all this cotton candy
crap about Truth and tosses it out the window, leaving our
brains free to function intelligently..
Cheers,
Andy
* * * * * * * *
"Spirits,souls,and gods are all make believe -
fairy tales for grown-ups, Bobby."

[John Hattan]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Dear John and my Fellowmen
>
>John Hattan wrote in message <375eefa1.74608693@news>...

>>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever.
>>>>None. Not at all. So there can't be more.
>>>

>>>Is the existence of Jesus a myth? No, it is not. Scientists have proofs
>>>that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed some 2000 years ago.
>>

>>Scientists? Do they have names?
>

>I am sorry I don't have their names. But I am sure that there are
>archeologists who have scientifically analyzed their findings and proved
>that such person as Emperor Augustus existed and who ordered a census to be
>taken in the whole of the Roman Empire. Because of this order, Mary and
>Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register and while there, Jesus was
>born. This event mentioned in the Bible is therefore verified.

Only in your mind. You have no names of these "scientists" that you
bandy about in your original post. Even if you do manage to dredge up a
name, saying that there was a guy named Yeshua Ben Yosef who lived 2,000
years ago is far from a proof of divinity.

>Historians (aren't they scientist as well?), in their analysis of documents
>and relics from that time, verified as well the authenticity of the
>existence of a man by the name of Jesus.

>
>>>His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
>>>today.
>>

>>Just like Dianetics.
>
>Which would you prefer to believe, the teachings of Jesus or Dianetics?
>About a billion people worldwide could not have been fooled to believe in
>the Bible and in Jesus. Even the billion Muslims also accept that Jesus
>existed.

That means that about (population of the planet - about a billion
people) do not believe that Jesus is a god. If you really think an
appeal to numbers is valid, you're on the losing side.

>How about Dianetics, how many people know about it and follow it?

Quite a few.

>>>Jesus is God Himself if you will believe it.
>

>>Similarly, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is God Himself if you will just
>>believe it.
>
>Who or what is this Invisible Pink Unicorn? What did he do to proclaim
>himself as god?

The IPU reveals her divine pinkness to all who open their hearts to her.
If you do not feel her divine pinkness, you are simply blind.

>Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
>wonders and miracles.

Such as?

>He even prophesies events that will happen in the
>future. And when He does that, they do happen because He is God to make
>them happen.

So let's hear one. Let's hear a prophesy for the future, so I can, in my
astonishment, become a believer when it happens.

>To God, nothing is impossible.

>
>>>God manifested Himself in the
>>>person of Jesus. God is a spirit
>>

>>Define "spirit".
>
>I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a
>human being who was called Jesus.
>This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
>which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
>move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
>breathes and the heart continues to pump.

So amoebas have a spirit.

[The Laughing Infidel]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:

>Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
>wonders and miracles.

I've read about these so-called miracles. They all have naturalistic
explanations. They only seem like miracles to the ignorant and to
those who desperately want to believe.

>I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a
>human being who was called Jesus.
>This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
>which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
>move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
>breathes and the heart continues to pump.

Wrong. The heart pumps because of a deterministic electro-chemical
process. There is no need for a spirit. There is no evidence that
anything other than the rules of physics and chemistry are at work in
our bodies. Your belief in a spirit is contrary to the evidence.

>God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus so that people will find the
>way to go to where God the Father is which is Heaven. That is His kingdom.
>That is where He resides. Jesus became the way in order to go to this
>place. That is in the spiritual world. Not in this physical world. But in
>the spiritual world, there is Heaven and there is Hell. Spirits live for
>eternity, forever. Spirits who are worthy to God can live with Him in His
>kingdom. Those who are not will be sent to Hell, the "lake of fire"
>mentioned in the Bible, to suffer there forever.

Upon what do you base these beliefs? I see no evidence of any of this
except the ancient claims of ignorant men.

And why would God create spirits who are not worthy to live with him
in Heaven? It makes no sense.

>Do you want your spirit to
>go to Hell and suffer there forever?

A moot question since there is no Hell.

>There is only one thing that we can take with us when we physically die.
>Only one thing! Do you know what it is? It is belief in the true God.

We can take nothing with us when we die because we cease to exist when
we die.

>If
>you do not know God, He will say to you when you go to the spiritual world
>that He does not know you. Is that fair enough? If you deny Him, He will
>deny you also.

Why should I believe any of these baseless claims? All you offer are
threats and fear.

>When we physically die, our body will return to the soil because it came
>from the soil. Water in our body will go back to like water. The air will
>return to air.

Your obvious ignorance of chemistry undermines your credibility.

>This is when we have our last breath which is exhaling. And
>our spirit will return to the One who gave that life into the body. And who
>gave that life, it is God. So we better know Him now before it is late.
>Accept God as the one who gave us our life. We owe our existence to God.
>We will not exist if it were not because of God who gave us the breath of
>life.

More baseless claims. Humans have made up hundreds of myths like this.
The reason you believe this one is because it's what you were taught
to believe as a child and it fulfills your psychological needs.

>Just imagine how thick the Bible is. It survived the test of time. It was
>written by various people who lived at different times and at different
>places. And yet they come into agreement.

No they don't. Many books have been written exposing the
contradictions within the Bible.

>Even the birth of Jesus was
>prophesied by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even
>born. Isn't that a wonder?

No, it isn't a wonder because the birth of Jesus was twisted by his
followers to fit those prophecies in order to trick people into
following Jesus.

>While there is still time, let us change our bad ways, our bad behavior, our
>wrong beliefs.

I agree. You should change your wrong beliefs. They cause great
suffering and waste.

>Our stay on this earth will not be long anymore because it
>is now harvest time. God is now harvesting the fruit of time. And that is
>us, the people of this world. When He harvests, He will harvest both the
>good and the bad, the good crop and the weeds. So let us be good and know
>Him and accept Him. This is our last chance. Remember, we cannot repent in
>the spiritual world anymore. Repentance can only be done while our spirit
>is still in our physical body.

More threats and fear. Religious believers have been threatening that
the world is coming to an end for thousands of years. They do this to
frighten ignorant people into converting.

>These things that I am imparting to you are not of my own thinking. These
>are things I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit who I have the privilege
>to communicate with.

So you hear voices in your head. Great. Lots of people have heard
voices in their heads. Many of them murdered a bunch of people. The
evidence indicates that such voices are generated by your own mind.
Seek help.

>I invite you to visit my Web site to know His prophecies and prove to
>yourself whether they have happened or not.

Sorry, I've seen plenty of examples of supposedly fulfilled
prophecies. Biblical prophecies are so vague that they can be
interpreted to fit many events. They're not evidence of anything.

>The Holy Spirit also reminds us
>to "Doubt first before you believe."

According to your Bible, Jesus said that those who believe without
seeing for themselves are "blessed." Yet another Biblical
contradiction.

[DupDup]

>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:
>
>>Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
>>wonders and miracles.

Where ? When How ? Why ?

>>I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a
>>human being who was called Jesus.
>>This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
>>which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
>>move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
>>breathes and the heart continues to pump.

So far , no evidence of a soul has been discovered , and if you don't
know how the heart works , go back to highschool .

>>God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus so that people will find the
>>way to go to where God the Father is which is Heaven. That is His kingdom.
>>That is where He resides. Jesus became the way in order to go to this
>>place. That is in the spiritual world. Not in this physical world. But in
>>the spiritual world, there is Heaven and there is Hell. Spirits live for
>>eternity, forever. Spirits who are worthy to God can live with Him in His
>>kingdom. Those who are not will be sent to Hell, the "lake of fire"
>>mentioned in the Bible, to suffer there forever.

>>Do you want your spirit to
>>go to Hell and suffer there forever?

See , even more evidence that God is a sadist ...

>>There is only one thing that we can take with us when we physically die.
>>Only one thing! Do you know what it is? It is belief in the true God.

>>If you do not know God, He will say to you when you go to the spiritual world
>>that He does not know you. Is that fair enough? If you deny Him, He will

>>deny you also. When we physically die, our body will return to the soil because it came

>>from the soil. Water in our body will go back to like water. The air will
>>return to air.

And who or what is the true god ? "The" God , Allah , Jaweh ?

>>This is when we have our last breath which is exhaling. And
>>our spirit will return to the One who gave that life into the body. And who
>>gave that life, it is God. So we better know Him now before it is late.
>>Accept God as the one who gave us our life. We owe our existence to God.

Um , did your parents ever have a certain talk with you when you where
about 12 years old ? Did you ever get biology at school ? 'Cause we
all know where babies come from ...

>>We will not exist if it were not because of God who gave us the breath of

>>life. Just imagine how thick the Bible is. It survived the test of time. It was

>>written by various people who lived at different times and at different

>>places. And yet they come into agreement. Even the birth of Jesus was

>>prophesied by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even
>>born. Isn't that a wonder?

Actually no , just read this :
"I predict that in the next 200 years someone will be born who'll
invent cold fusion ..."
anyone can make such predictions ...

>>While there is still time, let us change our bad ways,
>>our bad behavior, our wrong beliefs.

>>Our stay on this earth will not be long anymore because it
>>is now harvest time. God is now harvesting the fruit of time. And that is
>>us, the people of this world. When He harvests, He will harvest both the
>>good and the bad, the good crop and the weeds. So let us be good and know
>>Him and accept Him. This is our last chance. Remember, we cannot repent in
>>the spiritual world anymore. Repentance can only be done while our spirit
>>is still in our physical body.

Eeee , wrong again , the Tibetans already had their year 2000 more
than 50 years ago , did al the Tibetans dissapear ? The Islam won't
have It's yeear 2000 for the next 400 odd years and the Jews had
theirs almost 1500 years ago ... all those year 2000 predictions are
b*llsh*t .

>>These things that I am imparting to you are not of my own thinking. These
>>are things I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit who I have the privilege
>>to communicate with.

That's called schizoprenia , it can be treated nowadays ...

>>I invite you to visit my Web site to know His prophecies and prove to
>>yourself whether they have happened or not.

>>The Holy Spirit also reminds us
>>to "Doubt first before you believe."

So the holy spirit supports atheism ? Strange ...

--------------------
"God's a sadist" - Me ...

[ONEstar]

Andrew Mulcahy

> >> My understanding is that they don't. My point was that if language
> >> entails communication, and privacy excludes communication, then there
is
> >> no such thing as a private language. I am not sure how what you say
> >> here answers that.

> >If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the same
> >entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to said
> >entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
> >communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure why
you
> >find this particular concept difficult.

> Like if the hand is talking to the foot, or the
> brain is having a chat with the nose, perhaps?

Somewhat limited in concept, your above offering, for an entity need not be
a physical body, but perhaps a specific group of individuals who have a
private language. There are those who speak *pure* however I do not expect
you to have knowledge of this language as it is private.

> What makes this concept difficult for intelligent
> people to buy is that they need to have adequate evidence
> that the components of the communication are capable of
> sending and/or receiving information.

It is that exact lack of evidence that allows the language to be private.
<smile>

> As for your problem with reality, let me suggest the
> following :
> Look on reality as the "Territory" and our view of
> that reality as our "Map." We are indebted to Korzybski for
> this( General Semantics) It takes all this cotton candy
> crap about Truth and tosses it out the window, leaving our
> brains free to function intelligently..

Actually, I have found it leaves you with the illusion you have a map, when
in fact, all you have is a "flat earth". Pity, as I detect in you a desire
toward intelligence more than any publishing of consensual illusion and the
indebtedness that is subsequently inherited.

> "Spirits,souls,and gods are all make believe -
> fairy tales for grown-ups, Bobby."

Physical reality is merely the black and white rendering of a very colourful
world.
Please try more to enjoy the opportunities that are your gift.

ONE

[Peace Crusader]

Dear John and my Fellowmen

John Hattan wrote in message <375eefa1.74608693@news>...
>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever.
None.
>>>Not at all. So there can't be more.
>>
>>Is the existence of Jesus a myth? No, it is not. Scientists have proofs
>>that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed some 2000 years ago.
>
>Scientists? Do they have names?
>

I am sorry I don't have their names. But I am sure that there are
archeologists who have scientifically analyzed their findings and proved
that such person as Emperor Augustus existed and who ordered a census to be
taken in the whole of the Roman Empire. Because of this order, Mary and
Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register and while there, Jesus was
born. This event mentioned in the Bible is therefore verified.

Historians (aren't they scientist as well?), in their analysis of documents

and relics from that time, verified as well the authenticity of the
existence of a man by the name of Jesus.

>>His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
>>today.
>
>Just like Dianetics.
>

Which would you prefer to believe, the teachings of Jesus or Dianetics?
About a billion people worldwide could not have been fooled to believe in
the Bible and in Jesus. Even the billion Muslims also accept that Jesus

existed. How about Dianetics, how many people know about it and follow it?
.

>>Jesus is God Himself if you will believe it.

>
>Similarly, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is God Himself if you will just
>believe it.

>
Who or what is this Invisible Pink Unicorn? What did he do to proclaim

himself as god? Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
wonders and miracles. He even prophesies events that will happen in the

future. And when He does that, they do happen because He is God to make

them happen. To God, nothing is impossible.

>>God manifested Himself in the

>>person of Jesus. God is a spirit
>
>Define "spirit".
>

I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a

human being who was called Jesus.
This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
breathes and the heart continues to pump.

God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus so that people will find the
way to go to where God the Father is which is Heaven. That is His kingdom.
That is where He resides. Jesus became the way in order to go to this
place. That is in the spiritual world. Not in this physical world. But in
the spiritual world, there is Heaven and there is Hell. Spirits live for
eternity, forever. Spirits who are worthy to God can live with Him in His
kingdom. Those who are not will be sent to Hell, the "lake of fire"
mentioned in the Bible, to suffer there forever. Do you want your spirit to
go to Hell and suffer there forever?

There is only one thing that we can take with us when we physically die.

Only one thing! Do you know what it is? It is belief in the true God. If
you do not know God, He will say to you when you go to the spiritual world
that He does not know you. Is that fair enough? If you deny Him, He will
deny you also.

When we physically die, our body will return to the soil because it came
from the soil. Water in our body will go back to like water. The air will

return to air. This is when we have our last breath which is exhaling. And

our spirit will return to the One who gave that life into the body. And who
gave that life, it is God. So we better know Him now before it is late.
Accept God as the one who gave us our life. We owe our existence to God.

We will not exist if it were not because of God who gave us the breath of
life.

>>A simple proof that Jesus is God Himself is found in the Bible.
>

>So the Bible is true because it is the word of God, and God is real
>because the Bible says so?
>

You said so. I have cited the verses in the Bible -- Rev. 1:8, Rev.
22:13,16.

Just imagine how thick the Bible is. It survived the test of time. It was
written by various people who lived at different times and at different
places. And yet they come into agreement. Even the birth of Jesus was
prophesied by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even
born. Isn't that a wonder?

While there is still time, let us change our bad ways, our bad behavior, our

wrong beliefs. Our stay on this earth will not be long anymore because it
is now harvest time. God is now harvesting the fruit of time. And that is
us, the people of this world. When He harvests, He will harvest both the
good and the bad, the good crop and the weeds. So let us be good and know
Him and accept Him. This is our last chance. Remember, we cannot repent in
the spiritual world anymore. Repentance can only be done while our spirit
is still in our physical body.

These things that I am imparting to you are not of my own thinking. These

are things I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit who I have the privilege
to communicate with.

I invite you to visit my Web site to know His prophecies and prove to

yourself whether they have happened or not. The Holy Spirit also reminds us

to "Doubt first before you believe." My Web address is
http://www.come.to/thewaytolife

Thank you.

In Christ, with love,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando

[Martin Dann]

In article <3IR53.11542$eU6....@news2.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

[...]

>
>If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the same
>entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to said
>entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
>communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure why you
>find this particular concept difficult.

An interesting move, ONE! For the purposes of defining language you
split an "entity" into two separate entities. But for the purposes of
defining private, there is apparently only one entity. You can't have it
both ways - either there is one entity, in which case no communication
(and therefore no language) is involved, or there are two entities, in
which case the language is not private.

incorrectly believes to be real. The man mistakenly feels sure he is in
possession of the truth. This mistake can be rectified by further
research, when he will realise that his earlier judgement was hasty, and
he was wrong to believe it was a real rope. Now he has gained more
understanding he realises he is nearer to the truth, or reality. But of
course he can only reach this understanding in the knowledge that there
is a reality to be discovered. This could not be the case if reality is
no more than a "consensus and illusion". He knows there is a reality to
be discovered because he knows there are things that are real. His
blindness is irrelevant to the fact that there really is an elephant
there, and not just "consensus and illusion". Indeed, if the elephant is
consensus and illusion, then there would be no tail for him to mistake
for a rope. How could one mistake an illusion of an elephant's tail for
an illusion of a rope?

[...]

>> The rest of your argument does not seem to follow. That our senses are
>> limited does not entail that our knowledge is suspect. We *know* our
>> senses are limited, so we make the necessary allowances. We know, for
>> example, that solid objects consist mainly of inter-atomic space. Our
>> senses do not give us this directly, but our ingenuity enables us to
>> find ways round our limitations. And where there are things that we find
>> currently inaccessible, we accept that the best we can do is theorise -
>> not know. I quite agree that to presume more knowledge than is
>> accessible to our senses and our ingenuity in enhancing those senses
>> would indeed be arrogant assumption. But surely neither philosophers nor
>> scientists are making such assumptions? The only assumptions being made,
>> as far as I can see, are those by people who make claims of an
>> unsupported theistic or religious nature.
>
>You indicate solid as something you have faith in and with good reason. You
>must recognize that every walk in life is by faith as faith is the
>foundation upon which all other things rest. Unsupported claims find no
>monopoly in the theistic or religious strands of the community, although
>your tendancy to seclude those strands has been previously noted and
>laminated here once more. Please recognize also that the spiritual and
>emotional corners of mankind's pyramid, are not based in any of the three
>acknowledged states of matter so any attempt to ascribe those qualities will
>not succeed.

I am disappointed that you do not answer the points made in my last
paragraph. 1) It does not follow from a claim that our senses are
limited that our knowledge is suspect. 2) There is no evidence that we
make "arrogant assumptions" on the scale which would be necessary to
support your claim that everything is illusion. A third point I should
have added is that you have not shown that our senses, aided by our
ingenuity, are not adequate for knowledge.

No faith is required for me to know something is solid, and I certainly
have not suggested any such thing. Are you suggesting that if I did not
have such "faith" I would be able to walk through brick walls? When we
say something is solid we are not making claims of faith, or claims
about molecular structure - we are saying that it exhibits
characteristics which distinguish it from liquids and gases.

I quite agree that unsupported claims are not the monopoly of theists -
I should have made it clear that I was referring to this discussion
only. As for your last sentence, I do not understand its purpose, for I
have not attempted to ascribe a state of matter to anything other than
matter. There are those, of course, who would point out that emotion,
being a brain state, is indeed a state of matter.

This is again disappointing. I took some trouble to set out my argument
as simply as I could in the hope that you would deal with the points
made, but yet again you fail to do so. With what am I conflating "the
reality of yesteryear"? What relevance does your last sentence have
except to provide another example of conflation (error with illusion)?

Then you are in error in using the word reality at all. Neither you nor
I are in any position arbitrarily to redefine words to fit our own
personal philosophies. Whether the meaning of words is defined by
dictionaries, or by their use, or consensus, or by the particular
language game we are playing, then those are the rules, and the
consequences of making up your own rules is that you become
unintelligible. The word "reality" will continue to mean the opposite of
illusion whatever you decide. If you mean illusion, why not say
illusion? Leave meaning of the word "reality" to the way it is actually
used. Admit that what you are saying is not that "reality" means
"illusion" but that there is no reality; that nothing is real - you me,
your Creator, your claim that reality is illusion - nothing. Then we can
all have a good laugh and get on with our lives.

"Cela est bien dit, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin"

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Peace Crusader]

Dear John and my Fellowmen

John Hattan wrote in message <375935b7.612726@news>...
>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
>>wonders and miracles.
>

>Such as?

Prophesying and making them happen.

>
>>He even prophesies events that will happen in the
>>future. And when He does that, they do happen because He is God to make
>>them happen.
>

>So let's hear one. Let's hear a prophesy for the future, so I can, in my
>astonishment, become a believer when it happens.
>

I have just posted my reply to BRose under the subject "Recent Prophecies
From the Holy Spirit". Please read it and to see some of these prophecies
revealed in 1979. Almost 20 years have now passed. I believe you can prove
to yourself whether they have happened or not. For a complete listing of
these prophecies, please visit my Web site on
http://www.come.to/thewaytolife
I would like to mention that AIDS is one of them. The Holy Spirit called it
GOTACURAL. GOT = acquired; ACUR = without cure; AL = suffix meaning
characterized by. Would you agree that this is spot on? Only God can make
what He foretells to happen.

[genein]

alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Andrew Mulcahy wrote in message <

* * * * * *

>" It was Nietzche who told us God was dead, but he
> would be laughing in his grave if he knew
> how many are still heaving over the corpse,
> frantically trying to revive it."

i doubt it....nietzche never wished to wean the mass of humanity from
christianity or any other religion, he saw as a matter of fact a positive
necessity for such religions.........but he did wish to release the so called
"superman" from the restricting nature of all religions...further he denounced
those who he called "superficial atheists" who attempted to weaken the
foundations of any religion......"beyond good and evil"

[Peace Crusader]

The Laughing Infidel wrote in message
<37598ebe....@news3.newscene.com>...

>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:
>

>>I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a
>>human being who was called Jesus.
>>This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
>>which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
>>move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
>>breathes and the heart continues to pump.
>
>Wrong. The heart pumps because of a deterministic electro-chemical
>process. There is no need for a spirit. There is no evidence that
>anything other than the rules of physics and chemistry are at work in
>our bodies. Your belief in a spirit is contrary to the evidence.

Have you heard of a dead body in the morgue coming back to life? Or a
person in a coffin knocking to let him out? These happen because their
spirit returned to their body so the body become animated again.

>
>
>>God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus so that people will find the
>>way to go to where God the Father is which is Heaven. That is His
kingdom.
>>That is where He resides. Jesus became the way in order to go to this
>>place. That is in the spiritual world. Not in this physical world. But
in
>>the spiritual world, there is Heaven and there is Hell. Spirits live for
>>eternity, forever. Spirits who are worthy to God can live with Him in His
>>kingdom. Those who are not will be sent to Hell, the "lake of fire"
>>mentioned in the Bible, to suffer there forever.
>
>Upon what do you base these beliefs? I see no evidence of any of this
>except the ancient claims of ignorant men.

The Bible said so. The Holy Spirit that I communicate with (tape recorded
in fact) said so also. Remember, He is a spirit and He knows what is there
in the spiritual world.

>
>And why would God create spirits who are not worthy to live with him
>in Heaven? It makes no sense.
>

The spirit that came from God is good. However, while this spirit is in the
physical body, it let the body prevail or dominate it to do evil deeds even
though the spirit is reminding the body not to do such evil deeds. So the
spirit becomes unclean and God cannot accept it if it is unclean.
Therefore, we have to be strong to thwart temptation. Temptation can lead
us to sin which will make our spirit unclean, therefore, unworthy to God.
However, if we accept our sin and repent and ask God for forgiveness, He
will pardon us. But we should avoid repeating the same mistake.

>
>>Do you want your spirit to
>>go to Hell and suffer there forever?
>
>A moot question since there is no Hell.
>

The Bible describes a place called the "lake of fire" where evil spirits
will be sent to suffer there forever. This place is also confirmed by the
Holy Spirit I communicate with.

>>There is only one thing that we can take with us when we physically die.
>>Only one thing! Do you know what it is? It is belief in the true God.
>
>We can take nothing with us when we die because we cease to exist when
>we die.
>

Since our spirit came from God, it will return to God. If this spirit
denied God, He will deny this spirit also and send it to the "lake of fire"
to suffer forever.

>
>>If
>>you do not know God, He will say to you when you go to the spiritual world
>>that He does not know you. Is that fair enough? If you deny Him, He will
>>deny you also.
>
>Why should I believe any of these baseless claims? All you offer are
>threats and fear.
>

I am not threatening you or anybody. I am sharing with you what I heard and
learned from the Holy Spirit.

>>When we physically die, our body will return to the soil because it came
>>from the soil. Water in our body will go back to like water. The air
will
>>return to air.
>
>Your obvious ignorance of chemistry undermines your credibility.
>

Our body is composed by water, solids and air, plus the spirit from God. So
when we die, all these will return to their respective sources. Water to
water, solid to the soil, and air to the atmosphere. And our spirit which
made the body to be "alive" will go back to its source -- God.

>
>>This is when we have our last breath which is exhaling. And
>>our spirit will return to the One who gave that life into the body. And
who
>>gave that life, it is God. So we better know Him now before it is late.
>>Accept God as the one who gave us our life. We owe our existence to God.
>>We will not exist if it were not because of God who gave us the breath of
>>life.
>
>More baseless claims. Humans have made up hundreds of myths like this.
>The reason you believe this one is because it's what you were taught
>to believe as a child and it fulfills your psychological needs.
>

I am already an adult when I come in contact with the Holy Spirit. So what
I tell you are not myths which may have been taught to me as a child.

>
>>Just imagine how thick the Bible is. It survived the test of time. It
was
>>written by various people who lived at different times and at different
>>places. And yet they come into agreement.
>
>No they don't. Many books have been written exposing the
>contradictions within the Bible.
>

The Bible is the word of God. It tells us the way to go to the Kingdom of
God.

>
>>Even the birth of Jesus was
>>prophesied by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even
>>born. Isn't that a wonder?
>
>No, it isn't a wonder because the birth of Jesus was twisted by his
>followers to fit those prophecies in order to trick people into
>following Jesus.
>

The stories in the Bible are marvelous. How could so many people become
believers of Jesus? How could the apostles talk in languages that they did
not even know when they communicated with the foreigners who were in
Jerusalem to celebrate a festival?
Jesus even foretold about His sending of the Holy Spirit and what this Holy
Spirit will do. If you will believe it, the Holy Spirit that I communicate
with fulfills what Jesus promised. Please read my response to BRose under
the subject "Recent Prophecies From the Holy Spirit". Please scrutinize
those prophecies and tell the world that they did not happen or are not
happening.

>
>>While there is still time, let us change our bad ways, our bad behavior,
our
>>wrong beliefs.
>
>I agree. You should change your wrong beliefs. They cause great
>suffering and waste.
>

I am prepared to meet my Maker, my Creator. How about you?

>
>>Our stay on this earth will not be long anymore because it
>>is now harvest time. God is now harvesting the fruit of time. And that
is
>>us, the people of this world. When He harvests, He will harvest both the
>>good and the bad, the good crop and the weeds. So let us be good and know
>>Him and accept Him. This is our last chance. Remember, we cannot repent
in
>>the spiritual world anymore. Repentance can only be done while our spirit
>>is still in our physical body.
>
>More threats and fear. Religious believers have been threatening that
>the world is coming to an end for thousands of years. They do this to
>frighten ignorant people into converting.
>

There is a new prophecy that I heard from the Holy Spirit last March. And
this will happen very soon. I believe, after 2001. This will start from
the Philippines and spread worldwide. I will reveal what this is in the
very near future. When this prophecy happens, most people will be meeting
their end.

>
>>These things that I am imparting to you are not of my own thinking. These
>>are things I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit who I have the
privilege
>>to communicate with.
>
>So you hear voices in your head. Great. Lots of people have heard
>voices in their heads. Many of them murdered a bunch of people. The
>evidence indicates that such voices are generated by your own mind.
>Seek help.
>

If you will believe it, my communication with the Holy Spirit is tape
recorded. So that I can quote Him verbatim. This communication is heard by
other people also. Anyone of us can actually talk to Him.

>
>>I invite you to visit my Web site to know His prophecies and prove to
>>yourself whether they have happened or not.
>
>Sorry, I've seen plenty of examples of supposedly fulfilled
>prophecies. Biblical prophecies are so vague that they can be
>interpreted to fit many events. They're not evidence of anything.
>

Well, some of the prophecies are mentioned in my reply to BRose under the

subject "Recent Prophecies From the Holy Spirit."
>

>>The Holy Spirit also reminds us
>>to "Doubt first before you believe."
>
>According to your Bible, Jesus said that those who believe without
>seeing for themselves are "blessed." Yet another Biblical
>contradiction.

Before you believe what I say or what other people say, "Doubt first before
you believe." In this way, you can scrutinize what is being said and take
your time before you make your decision. Especially about religion. I will
tell you that even the Devil talks about God and religion.

Thank you for your comments. I hope you will continue reading my messages
under the name "Peace Crusader". Please pick up anything that you think is
good and credible. I wish to repeat, "always, doubt first before you
believe."

[cz...@ecn.ab.ca]

Peace Crusader (theway...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: The Laughing Infidel wrote in message
: <37598ebe....@news3.newscene.com>...

: >Wrong. The heart pumps because of a deterministic electro-chemical

: >process. There is no need for a spirit. There is no evidence that
: >anything other than the rules of physics and chemistry are at work in
: >our bodies. Your belief in a spirit is contrary to the evidence.

: Have you heard of a dead body in the morgue coming back to life? Or a
: person in a coffin knocking to let him out?

Have you ever heard of "improper diagnosis"?

: >Upon what do you base these beliefs? I see no evidence of any of this

: >except the ancient claims of ignorant men.

: The Bible said so.

Like he said, "...the ancient claims of ignorant men."

: The Holy Spirit that I communicate with (tape recorded in fact) said
: so also.

<rubs eyes> Did I just read that? I want the wave file! Hearing is
believing! (I can't wait!)

: There is a new prophecy that I heard from the Holy Spirit last March.

Oh, good! I do hope you recorded this one as well!

: And this will happen very soon. I believe, after 2001. This will

: start from the Philippines and spread worldwide. I will reveal what
: this is in the very near future.

Ooo! I can't wait! I'm all goosepimpley!

: If you will believe it, my communication with the Holy Spirit is tape
: recorded.

Would we be hearing him, or just you talking to him?

--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************

[Martin Dann]

In article <hfk63.15565$eU6....@news2.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes
>
>Andrew Mulcahy

>
>> >> My understanding is that they don't. My point was that if language
>> >> entails communication, and privacy excludes communication, then there
>is
>> >> no such thing as a private language. I am not sure how what you say
>> >> here answers that.
>
>> >If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the same
>> >entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to said
>> >entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
>> >communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure why
>you
>> >find this particular concept difficult.
>
>

>> Like if the hand is talking to the foot, or the
>> brain is having a chat with the nose, perhaps?
>
>Somewhat limited in concept, your above offering, for an entity need not be
>a physical body, but perhaps a specific group of individuals who have a
>private language. There are those who speak *pure* however I do not expect
>you to have knowledge of this language as it is private.

That is not what is meant by private in this context. Private means
"private to an individual". Once one other person shares it, it is no
longer private. But, ONE, are you not misleading Andy here? You have
certainly made claims in the past that communication of the type he
suggests, counts as language... or have you forgotten?

>
>> What makes this concept difficult for intelligent
>> people to buy is that they need to have adequate evidence
>> that the components of the communication are capable of
>> sending and/or receiving information.
>
>It is that exact lack of evidence that allows the language to be private.
><smile>

Ah, I see. By "private" you mean "non-existent". Silly me!

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Chib]

In article <Aqa63.84$L42...@nswpull.telstra.net>, "Peace Crusader"
<theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Who or what is this Invisible Pink Unicorn? What did he do to proclaim
> himself as god? Jesus, my God, is real and until now, He is still doing
> wonders and miracles. He even prophesies events that will happen in the
> future. And when He does that, they do happen because He is God to make
> them happen. To God, nothing is impossible.

What? You don't personally know the Invisible Pink Unicorn? All you have to
do is drop to your knees and ask him/her/it to come into your life. If you
truly believe, he/she/it will make himself/herself/itself known to you, and
you shall truly dwell in the peace of his/her/its infinite mercy. We know
this because nothing is impossible to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because
he/she/it is the Way to All Truth.

--
To reply by email, remove the numeral 2 from my address.

[John Hattan]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John Hattan wrote in message <375935b7.612726@news>...

>>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>He even prophesies events that will happen in the
>>>future. And when He does that, they do happen because He is God to make
>>>them happen.
>>

>>So let's hear one. Let's hear a prophesy for the future, so I can, in my
>>astonishment, become a believer when it happens.
>>
>I have just posted my reply to BRose under the subject "Recent Prophecies
>From the Holy Spirit". Please read it and to see some of these prophecies
>revealed in 1979. Almost 20 years have now passed.

Sorry, but that's not a prophesy of the future. That's a prophesy of the
past. Claiming, in 1999, that the HS predicted something that happened
in 1980 is not a prophesy of the future. It's simply a creative reading
of a vague prophesy, making it fit an event that also happened in the
past.

I want to see a SPECIFIC prediction of something that hasn't happened
yet.

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

> >> >> My understanding is that they don't. My point was that if language
> >> >> entails communication, and privacy excludes communication, then
there
> >is no such thing as a private language. I am not sure how what you say
> >> >> here answers that.

> >> >If the communicator and the communicatee are different parts of the
same
> >> >entity, said communication is necessarily private by definition to
said
> >> >entity. Whatever language (subset of communication) is used by that
> >> >communication then becomes private by default. I am not at all sure
why
> >you find this particular concept difficult.

> >> Like if the hand is talking to the foot, or the
> >> brain is having a chat with the nose, perhaps?

> >Somewhat limited in concept, your above offering, for an entity need not
be
> >a physical body, but perhaps a specific group of individuals who have a
> >private language. There are those who speak *pure* however I do not
expect
> >you to have knowledge of this language as it is private.

> That is not what is meant by private in this context. Private means
> "private to an individual". Once one other person shares it, it is no
> longer private. But, ONE, are you not misleading Andy here? You have
> certainly made claims in the past that communication of the type he
> suggests, counts as language... or have you forgotten?

The word *private* has many usages, and we are unsure of the context you
refer, except perhaps your own. If you refer to the consensual definition,
then you would need to identify which consensus you agree with as there
appears several definitions (again, according to consensus) to choose from.
If yours is a particular usage apart from consensus, then of course, such
usage would indeed be private and you make our point admirably. We have
not forgotten our own position sir, but merely advance another alternative
that has bearing on the concept of a "private language". Like a gemstone,
the various facets reflect the light of understanding from many sources.

> >> What makes this concept difficult for intelligent
> >> people to buy is that they need to have adequate evidence
> >> that the components of the communication are capable of
> >> sending and/or receiving information.

> >It is that exact lack of evidence that allows the language to be private.
> ><smile>

> Ah, I see. By "private" you mean "non-existent". Silly me!

Yes silly, for I did not say non-existent and your conclusion is hasty.

ONE

[Don Kresch]

On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:54:22 +1000, in alt.atheism, Peace Crusader etched in the
space-time continuum

>My Dear Fellowmen

>
>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>>Not at all. So there can't be more.

>>jeff

>
>
>Is the existence of Jesus a myth?

Pretty much.

> No, it is not. Scientists have proofs that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth

Nazareth did not exist back then.

> existed some 2000 years ago. His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
>today.

Please provide the proofs.

Now.

>Jesus is God Himself if you will believe it.

Since there is no god, it's all moot.

> God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus. God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in a human

>body who was named Jesus. Jesus was not an ordinary human being like you
>and me. He is God that is why He was able to perform miracles that no human
>being can ever do.

Miracles are impossible. A miracle is that which causes an entity to act
against its nature--to violate the law of identity.

But A will always equal A. Identity cannot be violated. Ever.

>A simple proof that Jesus is God Himself is found in the Bible.

That's circular reasoning.

>God showed us the way to go to His kingdom. And the way is only through
>Jesus. He said that no one goes to the Father except by Him. He taught us
>good things. Did Jesus teach us to do evil things? No, He did not. So why
>don't we follow His teachings? They are for our own good, aren't they?
>Which one do we want to do -- to do good things or to do evil things?

You create the false dichotomy of follow HayZeus or be evil.

>Believing in God is by faith -- faith that He exists and believing in Jesus.
>Jesus said that he who had not seen Him and believe in Him is better than he
>who had seen Him and did not believe.

But realizing that there is no god is better.

Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

[Christopher A. Lee]

Piggyback alert.....

In article <375dca65...@news2.usenetserver.com> rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) writes:
>On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:54:22 +1000, in alt.atheism, Peace Crusader etched in the
>space-time continuum
>
>>My Dear Fellowmen
>>
>>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>>>Not at all. So there can't be more.
>>

>>Is the existence of Jesus a myth?

Spot the bait'n'switch....

Is he later going to equivocate between the possible existence
of a man called Yeshua bib Yussuf, and the son'o'god?

[jeff]

On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Don Kresch wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:54:22 +1000, in alt.atheism, Peace Crusader etched in the
> space-time continuum
>
> >My Dear Fellowmen
> >
> >>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
> >>Not at all. So there can't be more.

> >>jeff

> >
> >Is the existence of Jesus a myth?

I didn't say that was or wasn't evidence for the existenc of jesus. I said
there was no evidence for the existence of god. Whether or not someone
named jesus once lived is irrelevant.
jeff

[Andrew Mulcahy]

>On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:54:22 +1000, in alt.atheism, Peace Crusader etched in the
>space-time continuum
>
>>My Dear Fellowmen
>>
>>>There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god whatsoever. None.
>>>Not at all. So there can't be more.
>>>jeff
>>
>>
>>Is the existence of Jesus a myth?
>

> Pretty much.
>
>> No, it is not. Scientists have proofs that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed some 2000 years ago. His teachings spread and now He has a huge number of believers worldwide
>>today.
Scientists are simply not interested in stuff like
that-- theologians are, and their informed opinion of the
existence or non existence of Jesus is readily available at:
http://magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html
Cheers,
Andy

Searching for the Truth? Find the secret passage at:
http://magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html

[jeff]

Besides which, the existence of a man named jesus doesn't have anything to
do with the existence of god.
jeff

[The Laughing Infidel]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:

>The Laughing Infidel wrote:
>
>>"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:
>>
>>>I said that God is a spirit and the spirit of God resided in the body of a
>>>human being who was called Jesus.
>>>This is like yourself. You have a physical body but without your spirit
>>>which is the breath of life from God, your body is dead. Your body won't
>>>move. As long as the spirit is in the body, the body is animated. It
>>>breathes and the heart continues to pump.
>>
>>Wrong. The heart pumps because of a deterministic electro-chemical
>>process. There is no need for a spirit. There is no evidence that
>>anything other than the rules of physics and chemistry are at work in
>>our bodies. Your belief in a spirit is contrary to the evidence.
>
>Have you heard of a dead body in the morgue coming back to life? Or a
>person in a coffin knocking to let him out? These happen because their
>spirit returned to their body so the body become animated again.

It's far more likely that they weren't actually dead. Under certain
circumstances, circulation can be reduced such that a pulse can't be
felt at the wrist, but the person eventually recovers on their own.
I'd be far more impressed if they came back to life after an autopsy!

>>>God manifested Himself in the person of Jesus so that people will find the
>>>way to go to where God the Father is which is Heaven. That is His
>>>kingdom.
>>>That is where He resides. Jesus became the way in order to go to this
>>>place. That is in the spiritual world. Not in this physical world. But
>>>in
>>>the spiritual world, there is Heaven and there is Hell. Spirits live for
>>>eternity, forever. Spirits who are worthy to God can live with Him in His
>>>kingdom. Those who are not will be sent to Hell, the "lake of fire"
>>>mentioned in the Bible, to suffer there forever.
>>
>>Upon what do you base these beliefs? I see no evidence of any of this
>>except the ancient claims of ignorant men.
>
>The Bible said so.

That would be the ancient claims of ignorant men I mentioned above.

>The Holy Spirit that I communicate with (tape recorded
>in fact) said so also.

See below.

>Remember, He is a spirit and He knows what is there
>in the spiritual world.

Let's decide whether he exists before we begin arguing what he knows.

>>And why would God create spirits who are not worthy to live with him
>>in Heaven? It makes no sense.
>
>The spirit that came from God is good. However, while this spirit is in the
>physical body, it let the body prevail or dominate it to do evil deeds even
>though the spirit is reminding the body not to do such evil deeds. So the
>spirit becomes unclean and God cannot accept it if it is unclean.
>Therefore, we have to be strong to thwart temptation. Temptation can lead
>us to sin which will make our spirit unclean, therefore, unworthy to God.
>However, if we accept our sin and repent and ask God for forgiveness, He
>will pardon us. But we should avoid repeating the same mistake.

Why does God put spirits in evil, unclean bodies? Why did he make the
bodies evil and unclean when he created them? It still makes no sense.

However, it does make a good story. Drama -- conflict between good and
evil, the carnal and the spiritual sides of human nature. That's part
of why these beliefs persist.

>>>Do you want your spirit to go to Hell and suffer there forever?
>>
>>A moot question since there is no Hell.
>
>The Bible describes a place called the "lake of fire" where evil spirits
>will be sent to suffer there forever. This place is also confirmed by the
>Holy Spirit I communicate with.

The Bible is a collection of the primitive myths of an ancient and
ignorant people. This "Holy Spirit" is a voice in your head generated
by your subconscious mind because you are mentally disturbed.

>>>There is only one thing that we can take with us when we physically die.
>>>Only one thing! Do you know what it is? It is belief in the true God.
>>
>>We can take nothing with us when we die because we cease to exist when
>>we die.
>
>Since our spirit came from God, it will return to God. If this spirit
>denied God, He will deny this spirit also and send it to the "lake of fire"
>to suffer forever.

More threats. Sorry, this sort of thing doesn't work on me. If there's
no reason to think it's true, then there's no reason to fear it.

>>>If
>>>you do not know God, He will say to you when you go to the spiritual world
>>>that He does not know you. Is that fair enough? If you deny Him, He will
>>>deny you also.
>>
>>Why should I believe any of these baseless claims? All you offer are
>>threats and fear.
>
>I am not threatening you or anybody. I am sharing with you what I heard and
>learned from the Holy Spirit.

You may have no malice, but you are threatening everyone who
disbelieves. The doctrine you believe is designed (intentionally or by
social evolution) to perpetuate itself by stimulating fear. People are
afraid to not believe it.

>>>When we physically die, our body will return to the soil because it came
>>>from the soil. Water in our body will go back to like water. The air
>>>will return to air.
>>
>>Your obvious ignorance of chemistry undermines your credibility.
>
>Our body is composed by water, solids and air, plus the spirit from God. So
>when we die, all these will return to their respective sources. Water to
>water, solid to the soil, and air to the atmosphere. And our spirit which
>made the body to be "alive" will go back to its source -- God.

Dividing the world into air, fire, earth, and water is an ancient and
disproved concept. The fact that you conceptualize the physical world
in this simplistic way demonstrates your ignorance of modern
scientific knowledge.

>>>This is when we have our last breath which is exhaling. And
>>>our spirit will return to the One who gave that life into the body. And
>>>who gave that life, it is God. So we better know Him now before it is late.
>>>Accept God as the one who gave us our life. We owe our existence to God.
>>>We will not exist if it were not because of God who gave us the breath of
>>>life.
>>
>>More baseless claims. Humans have made up hundreds of myths like this.
>>The reason you believe this one is because it's what you were taught
>>to believe as a child and it fulfills your psychological needs.
>
>I am already an adult when I come in contact with the Holy Spirit. So what
>I tell you are not myths which may have been taught to me as a child.

You were not taught Christian doctrine as a child? I strongly doubt
that. The fact that you didn't hear this doctrine as a voice in your
head until adulthood is irrelevant.

>>>Just imagine how thick the Bible is. It survived the test of time. It
>>>was written by various people who lived at different times and
>>>at different places. And yet they come into agreement.
>>
>>No they don't. Many books have been written exposing the
>>contradictions within the Bible.
>
>The Bible is the word of God. It tells us the way to go to the Kingdom of
>God.

So why is it filled with contradictions? You're being evasive.

>>>Even the birth of Jesus was
>>>prophesied by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was even
>>>born. Isn't that a wonder?
>>
>>No, it isn't a wonder because the birth of Jesus was twisted by his
>>followers to fit those prophecies in order to trick people into
>>following Jesus.
>
>The stories in the Bible are marvelous. How could so many people become
>believers of Jesus?

Because the religious doctrine which grew up around the mythology of
Jesus was emotionally satisfying to many people.

>How could the apostles talk in languages that they did
>not even know when they communicated with the foreigners who were in
>Jerusalem to celebrate a festival?

That's most likely a simple exaggeration. The stories of the Bible
were passed down for several generations by word of mouth before being
written down. Maybe the foreigners happened to speak the language of
the apostles and that was claimed to be a miracle. Then it got
switched around in the retelling. Something like that.

>Jesus even foretold about His sending of the Holy Spirit and what this Holy
>Spirit will do. If you will believe it, the Holy Spirit that I communicate
>with fulfills what Jesus promised. Please read my response to BRose under
>the subject "Recent Prophecies From the Holy Spirit". Please scrutinize
>those prophecies and tell the world that they did not happen or are not
>happening.

I've examined several supposedly fulfilled prophecies. They were all
vague and could be interpreted in many ways. They were simply being
interpreted to fit events which had already happened.

>>>While there is still time, let us change our bad ways, our bad behavior,
>>>our wrong beliefs.
>>
>>I agree. You should change your wrong beliefs. They cause great
>>suffering and waste.
>
>I am prepared to meet my Maker, my Creator. How about you?

More fear. I don't have a creator, and neither do you. I feel sorry
for you that you are wasting the only life you will ever have on
fantasies of something better after death. That's one of the greatest
evils of religion.

>>>Our stay on this earth will not be long anymore because it
>>>is now harvest time. God is now harvesting the fruit of time. And that
>>>is us, the people of this world. When He harvests, He will harvest both the
>>>good and the bad, the good crop and the weeds. So let us be good and know
>>>Him and accept Him. This is our last chance. Remember, we cannot repent
>>>in the spiritual world anymore. Repentance can only be done while our spirit
>>>is still in our physical body.
>>
>>More threats and fear. Religious believers have been threatening that
>>the world is coming to an end for thousands of years. They do this to
>>frighten ignorant people into converting.
>
>There is a new prophecy that I heard from the Holy Spirit last March. And
>this will happen very soon. I believe, after 2001. This will start from
>the Philippines and spread worldwide. I will reveal what this is in the
>very near future. When this prophecy happens, most people will be meeting
>their end.

And if this doesn't happen, will you accept that the voice in your
head (which you believe is the Holy Spirit) is actually a figment of
your imagination, and then check yourself into a mental hospital?

If I were you, I wouldn't delay revealing what is supposed to happen.
If you wait until there's evidence which you could have used to make a
guess, your "prediction" will not be nearly as impressive.

>>>These things that I am imparting to you are not of my own thinking. These
>>>are things I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit who I have the
>>>privilege to communicate with.
>>
>>So you hear voices in your head. Great. Lots of people have heard
>>voices in their heads. Many of them murdered a bunch of people. The
>>evidence indicates that such voices are generated by your own mind.
>>Seek help.
>
>If you will believe it, my communication with the Holy Spirit is tape
>recorded. So that I can quote Him verbatim. This communication is heard by
>other people also. Anyone of us can actually talk to Him.

Really... does the voice of the Holy Spirit come out of thin air, or
does he speak through you like a "channeler"?

If it's spoken by your mouth, it just means you're a little more
insane than I first thought. If it comes out of thin air, you
shouldn't have any trouble getting on TV. And a man named James Randi
has a million dollars for you.

>>>I invite you to visit my Web site to know His prophecies and prove to
>>>yourself whether they have happened or not.
>>
>>Sorry, I've seen plenty of examples of supposedly fulfilled
>>prophecies. Biblical prophecies are so vague that they can be
>>interpreted to fit many events. They're not evidence of anything.
>
>Well, some of the prophecies are mentioned in my reply to BRose under the
>subject "Recent Prophecies From the Holy Spirit."

See above.

>>>The Holy Spirit also reminds us
>>>to "Doubt first before you believe."
>>
>>According to your Bible, Jesus said that those who believe without
>>seeing for themselves are "blessed." Yet another Biblical
>>contradiction.
>
>Before you believe what I say or what other people say, "Doubt first before
>you believe." In this way, you can scrutinize what is being said and take
>your time before you make your decision. Especially about religion.

My decision that religion is not just false, but actually harmful, was
carefully considered. I'm always open to new evidence, but you haven't
said anything I haven't heard before.

>I will tell you that even the Devil talks about God and religion.

Do you hear his voice too?

>Thank you for your comments. I hope you will continue reading my messages
>under the name "Peace Crusader". Please pick up anything that you think is
>good and credible. I wish to repeat, "always, doubt first before you
>believe."

I doubted first, and then I decided to not believe.

[Martin Dann]

In article <3IN63.13886$o56....@news1.mia>, ONEstar
<ONE...@galaxycorp.com> writes

You are quite right to point out that the word "private" has more than
one use - it is the equivocation between different uses the word that is
the problem here. Note that I said "in this context" above, recognising
that there were other ways the word could be interpreted but reminding
you that we are operating within the context of the "private language"
claim. In this context "private" means, and is clearly intended to mean
by those who make such a claim, "belonging or pertaining to some
particular person; individual; personal". I took the latter from a
dictionary, which I hope will satisfy your passion for "consensus".

I note that in the first part of the above paragraph you appear to
demand clarity, singularity and consensus. In your last sentence you
abandon such admirable aims in favour of a multifaceted approach. It
would be nice to know where you really stand on the issue.

>
>> >> What makes this concept difficult for intelligent
>> >> people to buy is that they need to have adequate evidence
>> >> that the components of the communication are capable of
>> >> sending and/or receiving information.
>
>> >It is that exact lack of evidence that allows the language to be private.
>> ><smile>
>
>> Ah, I see. By "private" you mean "non-existent". Silly me!
>
>Yes silly, for I did not say non-existent and your conclusion is hasty.
>

Of course you didn't say "non-existent" for that is clearly not what you
intended. However the possibility, which you accept by implication of
lack of evidence, that the components of an entity are not capable of
sending and/or receiving information, surely entails the possibility
that the kind of private language you claim may not be possible - thus,
as I said, non-existent. Having accepted that there is no evidence, you
have no reason to suppose it does exist.

Cheers!
--
Martin

[Peace Crusader]

Dear Jeff, Andrew and my Fellowmen,

Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever heard
of ghosts?
NDE is experienced because a spirit in the body has left the physical
body. However, it was able to return to the body to describe the
experience. People from different cultures have had experienced these and
they are documented. Please see some books in your public library to read
about this phenomenon.
Ghosts have been experienced by many people as well and are documented.
Please read some books about this phenomenon in your public library. Those
people who come from different backgrounds couldn't be wrong in their
experiences.
That only proves that there is a spirit in our body. It is not just
body. But the body moves as long as the spirit is in it. This is what is
meant to be alive. This spirit is from God and when we die, this spirit
will return to God. If this spirit does not acknowledge God, He will not
acknowledge that spirit as well. If that spirit denies God, God will deny
that spirit as well. Isn't that fair enough?
So while there is still time, let us know God. Accept Him that He is
the one who gave us this life. We will not exists if it were not for God.
He is the one who breathed life into our physical body to make it alive.
Please read my postings especially about prophecies revealed by a
spirit. He is the Holy Spirit Himself.

Sincerely,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando

jeff wrote in message ...

[Robert J. Kolker]

Peace Crusader wrote:

> Dear Jeff, Andrew and my Fellowmen,
>
> Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever heard
> of ghosts?
> NDE is experienced because a spirit in the body has left the physical
> body

Horse potatoes. It is an hallucination suffered from a person
in extremis who lives to tell about it.

Bob Kolker

ftb

ftb

ftb

[jeff]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Peace Crusader wrote:

> Dear Jeff, Andrew and my Fellowmen,
>
> Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever heard
> of ghosts?
> NDE is experienced because a spirit in the body has left the physical

> body. However, it was able to return to the body to describe the
> experience. People from different cultures have had experienced these and
> they are documented. Please see some books in your public library to read
> about this phenomenon.
> Ghosts have been experienced by many people as well and are documented.
> Please read some books about this phenomenon in your public library. Those
> people who come from different backgrounds couldn't be wrong in their
> experiences.
> That only proves that there is a spirit in our body. It is not just
> body. But the body moves as long as the spirit is in it. This is what is
> meant to be alive. This spirit is from God and when we die, this spirit
> will return to God. If this spirit does not acknowledge God, He will not
> acknowledge that spirit as well. If that spirit denies God, God will deny
> that spirit as well. Isn't that fair enough?
> So while there is still time, let us know God. Accept Him that He is
> the one who gave us this life. We will not exists if it were not for God.
> He is the one who breathed life into our physical body to make it alive.
> Please read my postings especially about prophecies revealed by a
> spirit. He is the Holy Spirit Himself.

I have read about them. I wish they could be shown to be what they are
claimed to be. As for the rest of your post, that is removed even farther
from what is sugeested by the reports.
jeff

[Alex]

These same "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are also experienced by
pilots while conducting high-G maneuvers and when they're playing in the
centrifuge. Now I guess you have to start a religion around centrifuges and
jet aircraft.

[Antonio Fanelli]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:25:19 +1000, "Peace Crusader"
<theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever heard
>of ghosts?

Yes: all stupid things
--
起^ ciao aa # 1286
\ toto

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5990

[Peace Crusader]

Dear Alex and my Fellowmen

Alex > wrote in message <375f2...@news.getonthe.net>...

Will pilots be able to prophesy while in this "religious" and "spiritual
experiences"? Please read what I posted regarding the 19 prophecies of the
Holy Spirit in 1979.

I and several others are able to experience conversing with the Holy Spirit.
And these "sessions" as we call it are tape recorded. So the voices of the
Holy Spirit and our voices are recorded. I don't think you will be able to
do such recording when you are in "religious" and "spiritual" experiences
you mentioned -- in high-G maneuvers.

For me, I can honestly say that my experience with the Holy Spirit is real.
They are tape recorded. I can listen to these recordings anytime. I can
transcribe what He says that is why you can read an enumeration of the 19
prophecies I posted.

Sincerely,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando

[The Laughing Infidel]

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> saw fit to say:

>Alex wrote:
>
>>These same "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are also experienced by
>>pilots while conducting high-G maneuvers and when they're playing in the
>>centrifuge. Now I guess you have to start a religion around centrifuges and
>>jet aircraft.
>
>Will pilots be able to prophesy while in this "religious" and "spiritual
>experiences"?

You're being evasive and that's a form of dishonesty. He was referring
to your claim that near death experiences are evidence of an
afterlife. The same experiences are caused by the loss of blood flow
to the brain experienced by pilots in centrifuges. There's nothing
supernatural about it.

[Antonio Fanelli]

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:35:03 +1000, "Peace Crusader"
<theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>For me, I can honestly say that my experience with the Holy Spirit is real.

Ok, but I that means has for know that you are telling the truth?

[STD DIALUP]

: On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:25:19 +1000, "Peace Crusader"
: <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

: > Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever heard
: >of ghosts?

Have you ever heard of LSD ? It makes those NDEs come alive !

[ONEstar]

The Laughing Infidel

We did not observe the dishonesty you infer above. The responding question
pointed out a major difference in the experience that you clearly discounted
in your zeal for dismissal. While the supernatural can be summarily
dismissed by those who choose not to observe it, we have found that it is
the motivation rather than the actuality which causes the lack of
observance.

ONE

[Peace Crusader]

Dear Antonio

I am glad to hear that your experience with the Holy Spirit is real.
If God lives in your heart, then you will experience Him. You will learn to
be loving and caring for your fellowmen. Jesus said that what we do to our
fellowmen, we do it to Him as well. So, if we feed the hungry, give drink
to those who thirst, give clothes to one who is naked, visit a prisoner in
jail, help take an injured or ill person to the hospital, when we do these,
then we do these to God also. Because God is in each of us.
You are asking "How will you know that I am telling the truth?" I am
just disseminating what I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit. They are
not of my own. My intellectual capacity does not reach the level of what
the Holy Spirit said. It is for you to read and scrutinize what I post.
Pick up what you think is good and discard what you think is evil. This is
the reminder to us of the Holy Spirit -- "Doubt first before you
believe." -- in any thing, whether it is from Him or from anyone else.
If you think the prophecies are from the Holy Spirit because it is only
God who can make the impossible to become possible, then listen to his other
messages. Not only these prophecies. I will be posting them in various
newsgroups. Please keep posted to read my postings.
Thank you for your message.

Sincerely,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader, http://www.come.to/thewaytolife
"If you have ears, then, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches!"
Rev. 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22 (Good News Bible)

Antonio Fanelli wrote in message <37624d3...@news.globalnews.it>...

[Peace Crusader]

Dear STD DIALUP and my Fellowmen,

STD DIALUP wrote in message ...

>: > Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you ever
heard
>: >of ghosts?
>
>Have you ever heard of LSD ? It makes those NDEs come alive !

Please compare the experiences of those who have taken LSD and those who
experienced NDE. Please inform the group of these LSD experiences. I hope
that after taking LSD, they do not end up injecting heroin.

I know that those who had NDE did not have fear of dying anymore because
they already know how beautiful and peaceful out there. They become more
loving and caring to their fellowmen.

Sincerely

[Mina Miller]

What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?

[The Least Rev. John A. Franklin, Esq.]

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:57:04 +0800, "Mina Miller" <Mina_...@pacific.net.sg> emanated:

>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?

Allow me to introduce myself...

The Least Rev. John A. Franklin, Esq.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Usenet's Preeminent Basher of Atheism
+Since 1998+

[genein]

alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate

Mina Miller wrote in message <7k2jq7$e7f$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...

>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?

agreed, and what the heck are these anti-religious zealots doing in alt.
philosophy?

g.

[Werail]

In article <3787f870...@news.cha.bellsouth.net>,
who....@I.do.com says...

> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:57:04 +0800, "Mina Miller" <Mina_...@pacific.net.sg> emanated:
>

> >What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?
>

> Allow me to introduce myself...
>

Hi, Alan.
--

- Werail AA# 1546

Heard on alt.atheism:
"Werail, I hate you because you're an atheist."
[Brian Pickrell]

"No one ever really dies, children."
[Alan Craft]

"Christians are not the source of Truth."
[Pastorjaco]

[The Laughing Infidel]

"ONEstar" <ONE...@galaxycorp.com> saw fit to say:

>The Laughing Infidel wrote:
>
>> >>These same "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are also experienced
>> >>by pilots while conducting high-G maneuvers and when they're playing in the
>> >>centrifuge. Now I guess you have to start a religion around centrifuges
>> >>and jet aircraft.
>> >
>> >Will pilots be able to prophesy while in this "religious" and "spiritual
>> >experiences"?
>>
>> You're being evasive and that's a form of dishonesty. He was referring
>> to your claim that near death experiences are evidence of an
>> afterlife. The same experiences are caused by the loss of blood flow
>> to the brain experienced by pilots in centrifuges. There's nothing
>> supernatural about it.
>
>We did not observe the dishonesty you infer above. The responding question
>pointed out a major difference in the experience that you clearly discounted
>in your zeal for dismissal.

Try to follow along, ONEstar. Near death experiences and prophecies
are two different things. "Peace Crusader" wasn't claiming that people
acquire prophecies while having NDEs. He was changing the subject from
NDEs to prophecies to _evade_ the point Alex made about fighter pilots
having the same experiences. I realize that since you do the same
thing whenever you get backed into a corner, it doesn't seem like
dishonesty to you, but it is.

If "Peace Crusader" didn't have an answer for Alex's fighter pilot
argument, he should have admitted that NDEs do not support the
existence of an afterlife. Instead he changed the subject to
prophecies which is a dishonest, rhetorical tactic.

>While the supernatural can be summarily
>dismissed by those who choose not to observe it, we have found that it is
>the motivation rather than the actuality which causes the lack of
>observance.

I'm going to ignore these unsupported and insulting claims about my
motives affecting my thinking, ONEstar, because over the past year or
so you have demonstrated yourself to be a muddle-headed, vague,
pretentious, dishonest, deceptive, evasive, smug fool with whom
productive conversation is impossible.

[Antonio Fanelli]

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:48:31 +1000, "Peace Crusader"
<theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Because God is in each of us.
> You are asking "How will you know that I am telling the truth?" I am
>just disseminating what I heard and learned from the Holy Spirit. They are
>not of my own. My intellectual capacity does not reach the level of what
>the Holy Spirit said. It is for you to read and scrutinize what I post.
>Pick up what you think is good and discard what you think is evil.

How do you know that is holy spirit and not something other?
And if is the devil?

--
起^ ciao aa # 1286
\ toto

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5990

Oh, remove GOD for write me

[Mina Miller]

genein wrote in message <7k331v$658$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

>
>
> alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
>
>Mina Miller wrote in message <7k2jq7$e7f$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...

>>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?
>
>

>agreed, and what the heck are these anti-religious zealots doing in alt.
>philosophy?
>
>g.

Are they really zealots? There is a difference between defending/debating
your position and literally preaching what is right or wrong. I would like
to point out that I was responding to Peace Crusader's post, and no one
else's, because it what he wrote that bothered me.
My problem is not that some posts are from religious people; in fact, that
makes the discussions interesting. It's just that I'm overwhelmed by the
blatant desire to "convert" atheists (e.g. Peace Crusader's 6/14 post), on
the usenet, where everything is subject to criticism and dissection. Of
course he has the right to express his opinion, although I don't agree with
it. (Time to bring out Voltaire...) Why, though, with arguments such as
"Jesus says...[so we have to do it]?" It falls on deaf ears in this
newsgroup, and I think he knows it. So what is the point? To challenge
my/the atheists/agnostics' POV? Ok!
But P.Crusader's is not the way to do it. I don't want to read a didactic,
patronizing pamphlet.
Theists and atheists know that as well as I do...which is why I made that
comment in the first place. It was out of frustration (I had just read all
the available posts on my server and it was the umpteenth time I fell onto
something of type: "God exists because it can't be proven otherwise). It was
a sincere question, albeit aggressively posed, not a condemnation of the
right to post religious opinions.

What I'm saying is probably just as irrelevant to some theists responding to
this string as what Crusader is saying is to some of the atheists.
Personally, I feel uncomfortable whenever one refuses to question one's own
beliefs, or set of moral values. This is not only applicable to religion,
but to many other areas of interest. Atheism in itself should be questioned,
and that's where the theists come in. Atheists such as myself (another time
though, this is way too long :)) should try questioning it too...
Anyway, I felt the need to explain my previous exclamation, which I in no
way apologize for. Too simply put, perhaps, but not that far off target, if
I've managed to make myself understood.
Sincerely, Mina.
By the way, if on alt.religion.christian, atheists posted messages such as
"GOD DOESN'T EXIST", in caps lock, no less, they might be considered zealots
trying to convert, or de-convert, if you will, the religious such as some of
the religious are doing here. I'm not talking about that possibility. As far
as I can see, this string is a series of RESPONSES from atheists, who
answered on all the newsgroups the original message appeared on. Your
comment on alt.philosophy is thus irrelevant, especially since debate marks
a difference of opinion, and as far as I know, you do not need to belong to
any particular religion to study philosophy. You don't even have to be
religious to study theology, for god's sake (no pun intended) I plan to
a)remain an atheist b) study philosophy when i go to college in a year.
cheers.
Bring on the criticism...but at my e-mail Mina_...@hotmail.com, since I'm
moving and will not be able to get to my computer for a month...

[Mina Miller]

The Least Rev. John A. Franklin, Esq. wrote in message
<3787f870...@news.cha.bellsouth.net>...

>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:57:04 +0800, "Mina Miller"
<Mina_...@pacific.net.sg> emanated:
>

>>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?
>

> Allow me to introduce myself...
>
>
>

> The Least Rev. John A. Franklin, Esq.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Usenet's Preeminent Basher of Atheism
> +Since 1998+

Pleased to meet you. I'm Mina, the budding Preeminent Basher of all
Organized religion, and blind following of any kind, religious or not. See
you around.

[Mina Miller]

Peace Crusader wrote in message ...

>Please compare the experiences of those who have taken LSD and those who
>experienced NDE. Please inform the group of these LSD experiences. I hope
>that after taking LSD, they do not end up injecting heroin.

Aaaaaaw. How sweet of you...and presumptuous. Do you know anything about
drugs?

>
>I know that those who had NDE did not have fear of dying anymore because
>they already know how beautiful and peaceful out there. They become more
>loving and caring to their fellowmen.

So only people who are going to heaven experience NDE?
"Knowledge is like food. The less you have of it, the more you spread it
around." (French saying)
cheerio.

[dotcom]

Mina Miller wrote:
>
> What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?

Proving the intellectual superiority of atheism.

dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus

There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann

[genein]

--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate

Mina Miller wrote in message <7k3cs3$12f$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg>...

>
>genein wrote in message <7k331v$658$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

>>Mina Miller wrote in message <7k2jq7$e7f$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...

>>>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?
>>
>>

>>agreed, and what the heck are these anti-religious zealots doing in alt.
>>philosophy?
>>
>>g.
>Are they really zealots?

some most certainly are.....

There is a difference between defending/debating
>your position and literally preaching what is right or wrong.

yes there are those that preach as if they had the absolute answer in their
pocket and i have found these people in both groups......

>else's, because it what he wrote that bothered me.
>My problem is not that some posts are from religious people; in fact, that
makes the discussions interesting.

i would agree, and am glad you agree that they are all not zealots but
attempting to defend their position which is attacked quite often..

It's just that I'm overwhelmed by the
>blatant desire to "convert" atheists (e.g. Peace Crusader's 6/14 post), on
>the usenet, where everything is subject to criticism and dissection.

overwhelmed? well in this newsgroups it appears that i am overwhelmed by
zealots of the atheists party and a few of the christian type...i have no
objection to anyone airing their views afterall this is a newsgroup but there
are far too many bigoted "atheists" who attempt to legitimize their
bigotry.....

Of
>course he has the right to express his opinion, although I don't agree with
it. (Time to bring out Voltaire...) Why, though, with arguments such as
>"Jesus says...[so we have to do it]?" It falls on deaf ears in this
>newsgroup, and I think he knows it. So what is the point? To challenge
>my/the atheists/agnostics' POV? Ok!

i would be interested in what you may consider the agnostic pov.....then of
course there is the philosophers pov.....

>But P.Crusader's is not the way to do it. I don't want to read a didactic,
>patronizing pamphlet.

nor should you be forced to.....nor do you have to.....so why do you?

>Theists and atheists know that as well as I do...which is why I made that
>comment in the first place. It was out of frustration (I had just read all
>the available posts on my server and it was the umpteenth time I fell onto
something of type: "God exists because it can't be proven otherwise).

that is not what i read on my server....why do we differ in what we read?

It was
>a sincere question, albeit aggressively posed, not a condemnation of the right
to post religious opinions.

the ability to respond in a civilized manner on the internet can be considered
an art form......extremely easy to appear aggressive....extremely difficult to
pose questions that will not enrage...

>What I'm saying is probably just as irrelevant to some theists responding to
>this string as what Crusader is saying is to some of the atheists.

i have not read anything as yet by this "crusader" and so will withhold and
sort of judgement......

>Personally, I feel uncomfortable whenever one refuses to question one's own
beliefs, or set of moral values.

there are those that do question and there are those who do not.....as there
are atheists who have an absolute belief in their atheism....no proof just a
belief....

This is not only applicable to religion,
>but to many other areas of interest. Atheism in itself should be questioned,

glad you said that.....

>and that's where the theists come in. Atheists such as myself (another time
though, this is way too long :)) should try questioning it too...

you appear to lean more towards agnosticism or perhaps not far from it....imo
the far more civilized outlook.....when i questioned my athiesm some years ago
it dissipated like dew in a hot sun.....an athiest in order to remain an
athiest must have the same strong belief as the theist.......as you probably
know kant considered atheism or theism as illegitmate forms of knowledge, for
obvious reasons...(he was agnostic btw,..... but you knew that)

>Anyway, I felt the need to explain my previous exclamation, which I in no way
apologize for.

no apologies needed, only rational explainations

Too simply put, perhaps, but not that far off target, if
>I've managed to make myself understood.
>Sincerely, Mina.

yes you have......

>By the way, if on alt.religion.christian, atheists posted messages such as
>"GOD DOESN'T EXIST", in caps lock, no less, they might be considered zealots
trying to convert, or de-convert, if you will, the religious such as some of
the religious are doing here.

>comment on alt.philosophy is thus irrelevant, especially since debate marks

>a difference of opinion, and as far as I know, you do not need to belong to
any particular religion to study philosophy.

the philosophy of religion is a highly organized form of debate which treats
the critical evalutation of all the facts of religous experience...that is...
god, soul, immortality and evil.......the emphasis is on the word
"evaluation"..........and please be advised that the philosophy of religion not
be confused with religion or athiesm...this evaluation is unrestricted by bias,
authority, revelations, or faith...it simply takes all pertinent data (such as
it is) as a means of attaining the most coherent evalutation...and so the facts
of science, nature are also taken into consideration.....as opposed to theology
which is perfectly happy to accept on faith the validity of the bible....or the
athiest who is perfectly content to refute, no attempt at evaluating (although
some swear they do...but i see no evidence of it)....to me it is the most
civilized approach...so allow me to say that philosophy has a *greater*
relevancy by virtue of it's structured argument and does not fall into the
passion trap.....

You don't even have to be
>religious to study theology, for god's sake (no pun intended) I plan to
>a)remain an atheist b) study philosophy when i go to college in a year.

if you continue to explore and think in a rational manner with a free mind
unencumbered by emotions, you will no doubt become a free thinking
agnostic...the extreme atheist and his brother the theist will continue to
pummel each other with beliefs and faith, fashioned after their own
likeness....what a grim future....take another route.

there are those of course in both "camps" who simply live out their lives and
become ceo's,doctors and indian chiefs..much to the benefit of our
society.....an athiest will visit a christian doctor and not give it a second
thought.....god bless these people...(assuming a god of course)

g.

>cheers.

[azur...@hotmail.com]

In article <yt393.15$cH1....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net>,

"Peace Crusader" <theway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear STD DIALUP and my Fellowmen,
>
> STD DIALUP wrote in message ...
> >: > Have you ever heard of Near Death Experience (NDE)? Have you
ever
> heard
> >: >of ghosts?
> >
> >Have you ever heard of LSD ? It makes those NDEs come alive !
>

> Please compare the experiences of those who have taken LSD and those
who
> experienced NDE. Please inform the group of these LSD experiences.
I hope
> that after taking LSD, they do not end up injecting heroin.
>

Haha. Heroin users are not at all the same set of people who use
lsd. I can't think of a single thing (besides illegality) that they
have in common.

Anyway, I don't think lsd is in any way similar to a NDE. Of course
it is a very subjective experience, and it may be like a NDE to some.
Ketamine and DXM are more often reported to have that kind of effect.

-Az

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

[ONEstar]

Mina Miller

>>>>What the hell are these religious zealots doing in alt. atheism?

Atheism is no cure for being zealous and in some cases I have seen, actually
stimulates it.

>>Pleased to meet you. I'm Mina, the budding Preeminent Basher of all
Organized religion, and blind following of any kind, religious or not. See
you around.

Probably not, however you can start by bashing religion bashers, who seem to
be a religion in themselves.

ONE

[ONEstar]

The Laughing Infidel attempted an intelligent response...in failure.

>>> >>These same "religious" and "spiritual" experiences are also
experienced by pilots while conducting high-G maneuvers and when they're
playing in the centrifuge. Now I guess you have to start a religion around
centrifuges and jet aircraft.

>>> >Will pilots be able to prophesy while in this "religious" and
"spiritual experiences"?

>>> You're being evasive and that's a form of dishonesty. He was referring
to your claim that near death experiences are evidence of an
>>> afterlife. The same experiences are caused by the loss of blood flow to
the brain experienced by pilots in centrifuges. There's nothing
>>> supernatural about it.

>>We did not observe the dishonesty you infer above. The responding
question pointed out a major difference in the experience that you clearly
discounted in your zeal for dismissal.

>Try to follow along, ONEstar. Near death experiences and prophecies are two
different things. "Peace Crusader" wasn't claiming that people acquire
prophecies while having NDEs. He was changing the subject from NDEs to
prophecies to _evade_ the point Alex made about fighter pilots having the
same experiences. I realize that since you do the same thing whenever you
get backed into a corner, it doesn't seem like dishonesty to you, but it is.

<smile> Do not be misled LI, for we were not. The experience of being
centrifuged, and the spiritual experience differ by a great margin, thus the
subject was changed by the previous poster and not, as you seem to claim by
the respondee.

>If "Peace Crusader" didn't have an answer for Alex's fighter pilot
>argument, he should have admitted that NDEs do not support the
>existence of an afterlife. Instead he changed the subject to
>prophecies which is a dishonest, rhetorical tactic.

The fighter pilot's experience is every bit as real as the spiritual so we
have no reason to discount the experience, although as we see it, there was
no argument at all, merely another attempt to discount what one could not
fathom.

>>While the supernatural can be summarily
>>dismissed by those who choose not to observe it, we have found that it is
the motivation rather than the actuality which causes the lack of
observance.

>I'm going to ignore these unsupported and insulting claims about my
>motives affecting my thinking, ONEstar, because over the past year or so
you have demonstrated yourself to be a muddle-headed, vague,
>pretentious, dishonest, deceptive, evasive, smug fool with whom
>productive conversation is impossible.

In the absense of any reference to yourself, we are surely glad you ignored
the non-existent insults, however should you assign those motivational
qualities to yourself, amd should they fit well, you are welcome to them.
We suggest your faculties could be better used in fabricating a conversation
with yourself, where your talents would shine and your logic would soar by
comparison.

ONE

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

"test"

>Martin

[ONEstar]

Martin Dann

>>The word *private* has many usages, and we are unsure of the context you
refer, except perhaps your own. If you refer to the consensual definition,
then you would need to identify which consensus you agree with as there
appears several definitions (again, according to consensus) to choose from.
If yours is a particular usage apart from consensus, then of course, such
usage would indeed be private and you make our point admirably. We have
not forgotten our own position sir, but merely advance another alternative
that has bearing on the concept of a "private language". Like a gemstone,
the various facets reflect the light of understanding from many sources.

>You are quite right to point out that the word "private" has more than
>one use - it is the equivocation between different uses the word that is
the problem here. Note that I said "in this context" above, recognising that
there were other ways the word could be interpreted but reminding you that
we are operating within the context of the "private language" claim. In this
context "private" means, and is clearly intended to mean by those who make
such a claim, "belonging or pertaining to some particular person;
individual; personal". I took the latter from a dictionary, which I hope
will satisfy your passion for "consensus".

Yes, individuals do have several methods of communication within themselves
which are private by definition, thus a private language does exist in this
venue. We concur there is no private language between two individuals that
is understood by others as the oxymoron *private language* would make little
sense in that venue save one which was exclusive to those two alone. IN
that condition, they could be said to have their own private language. The
word *private* here indicating exclusion to multiple persons rather than
one. (belonging to or concerning a company or interest) Thus you see,
there are many conditions contingent to the phrase *private language* and it
depends upon those conditions as to whether there is or is not a *private
language* in use.

>I note that in the first part of the above paragraph you appear to
>demand clarity, singularity and consensus. In your last sentence you
>abandon such admirable aims in favour of a multifaceted approach. It would
be nice to know where you really stand on the issue.

Know that our stand is both singular and multi-faceted as the particular
case demands. To be either one, alone, would be to ignore the other such
that limitations would occur.

<snip>
>>Yes silly, for I did not say non-existent and your conclusion is hasty.

>Of course you didn't say "non-existent" for that is clearly not what you
>intended. However the possibility, which you accept by implication of
>lack of evidence, that the components of an entity are not capable of
>sending and/or receiving information, surely entails the possibility
>that the kind of private language you claim may not be possible - thus, as
I said, non-existent. Having accepted that there is no evidence, you have no
reason to suppose it does exist.

No, dear Martin, the lack of evidence (to others) is merely required by the
word *private* where evidence would make the occurence somewhat less than
private in nature. Strange how your position is so relative to your view
concerning a spiritual entity as well. No physical evidence in your
discovery equates to no spiritual entity, no matter that said entity does
not operate in direct physical evidence for specifically that reason.

ONE