perception

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Re: perception

i agree with this statement, what i would like to see is the argument. for example, on easter my brother in law and i were debating about being able to prove anything. he says that it can't be done, i disagree. he says that everything is perception, i say that everything is what it it, but we may percieve it differently. then he starts saying that math is flawed, and that you can't even prove that 1+1=2, because you cannot prove that 2 is the proper perception. i tell him that i can prove that 1>0, he agrees, so then i follow that 1(more than)+1=2. he still disagrees. how do you argue this type of illogical thought?

It's not entirely illogical to say that the whole of reality is subjective. I believe Berkley argued for the same thing. The only problem is that unlike Berkley, your brother in law he is rejecting the basis of logic itself. If he is correct, then nothing can be proved. If nothing can be proved, then your brother in law cannot prove his point. If he cannot prove his point, and has already made the attempt, he has failed. But he cannot fail to prove what is correct in the same sense that it is true, because that would be self-contradictory. You brother in law must admit that a contradiction can exist without being perceptible (since you have demonstrated its existence without him senseing it), or admit that he is rejecting rationality itself, rendering the entire debate meaningless (the same applies if he says contradictions do not exist). If he wants to be like UCE or Ian and keep repeating himself, just leave.

 

[Guest]

Reality: c4ts came with another "smart" reply.

My perception : He is still missing Franko.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[c4ts]

Reality: c4ts came with another "smart" reply.

My perception : He is still missing Franko.

Thanks,
S&S

If you are going to post, please contribute to the discussion.

 

[Guest]

If you are going to post, please contribute to the discussion.

Reality : c4ts is angry

My perception : c4ts will be more angry now.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

I am contributing, is on topic.

 

[evildave]

Then there's always the perception of the religiously afflicted versus the unreligious:

Unreligious Perspective: A plane full of people crashed.

Religious Perspective: God called a plane full of people home.

Unreligious Perspective: A few lucky people made it out OK.

Religious Perspective: God was watching out for them.

Unreligious Perspective: Except for that five year old kid, who'll be paralyzed and blind.

Religious Perspective: It's a test from God. (or "Who can guess God's way?")

 

[Shroud of Akron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: perception

It's not entirely illogical to say that the whole of reality is subjective. I believe Berkley argued for the same thing. The only problem is that unlike Berkley, your brother in law he is rejecting the basis of logic itself. If he is correct, then nothing can be proved. If nothing can be proved, then your brother in law cannot prove his point. If he cannot prove his point, and has already made the attempt, he has failed. But he cannot fail to prove what is correct in the same sense that it is true, because that would be self-contradictory. You brother in law must admit that a contradiction can exist without being perceptible (since you have demonstrated its existence without him senseing it), or admit that he is rejecting rationality itself, rendering the entire debate meaningless (the same applies if he says contradictions do not exist). If he wants to be like UCE or Ian and keep repeating himself, just leave.

this is exactly what i was looking for, thankyou!

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: perception

this is exactly what i was looking for, thankyou!

Reality : Now everybody is happy.

My perception : this thread will go on.

Thanks,
S&S