Posted on 04/10/2003 6:45:19 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Yes it will.
He says that our senses are fooling us, that jumping out the 12th floor window wouldn't prove reality.
Funny, would be pretty real.
Welcome to FR by the way.
Now, why resurrect this long dead thread?
How about reading his initial posts that resurrected this trhead.
He couldn't keep his premise straight.
That wouldn't "prove" reality to anybody. Consider the possibilities:
1. He is not killed. Thus he has "proved" that jumping 12 floors isn't always fatal. Thus he has proved nothing, in an absolute sense.
2. He is killed, and is simply extinguished (i.e., no life after death). He has proved nothing, because there is no intellect to acknowledge the proof.
3. He is killed, and ascends to an afterlife. He has proved ... well, what? At best, it'd be something that is not part of the reality you're trying to evoke in your question. So again he's proved nothing.
And as far as you're concerned, you have no proof that anything has happened at all -- so is it really "proof" in the scientific sense?
Further, even if we assume that he has "proved" something by his jump, it is not clear that he has proved anything about "reality." Again: his point is about the inadequacy of human reason and senses to completely address "reality." What, precisely, will his putative death have shown about the nature of "reality?"
The thread is from 2003.
He is likely a troll.
He said it is impossible to know reality.
Gravity was mentioned, 'is it real? How do we know?'
Easy, step out the 12th floor window.
Now, let this thread from 2003, and the two people resurrecting it, die in peace.
I'm content to let it die. But you really should re-think your position: it's logically untenable.
Really?
Do you truly want to defend post 17 in this thread where he siad it is impossible to know what is real?
THAT is logically untenable.
Yes, This thread should die, again.
Thank you.
But my position stands.
Especially if you'd read what Vion said in the beginning, and the tangents he went off in trying to worm out of his post 17.
Like his "Dream" post to try to explain away gravity.
That's not remotely close to what he said.
Here is post 17, in its entirety:
I think it is true that we cannot know anything for certain, EXCEPT this very statement. Here's why: We directly detect our environment using only our five senses. To think that we can "prove" something 100% requires us to make the arrogant assumption that our senses are working perfectly. We have to assume that our senses give us a 100% accurate description of reality. So far, all we can say is: "ACCORDING TO OUR SENSES, this particular statement is true." We cannot make a conclusive statement about reality unless we assume that our senses give us a PERFECT picture of reality.
This statement is correct, unless: (1) you can somehow prove that your senses actually do give you a perfect picture of reality; (2) you can prove that your senses tell you the same thing that my senses tell me; and (3) we agree on all points about what our senses tell both of us.
You can't prove any of that. His statement stands.
Reality doesn't require our belief in it to comntinue to exist.
Can you prove that?
Can you disprove it?
I said jumping out the window cannot test Vion's idea because the entire experience consists of feelings. He feels the pull of gravity, he feels his legs breaking, he feels his back breaking, etc. But these are no more than feelings that he sense. He might be feeling the exact same experience if he has a realistic dream about jumping off a building, yet the reality in both cases are very different. (I think that was the point he was trying to make with the "dream example.")
But, I think the disagreement here arises from different definitions of "reality." I read this on one of your posts: "Perception does equal true reality." I guess, since you define reality the same as perception, then of course, certainty exists. In other words, if you make the definition that (in Vion's words) "what feels real must be real," then I can see why you disagree. Conflict resolved (I hope).
You made the absolute statement. The burden of proof is on you. Sorry....
To prove your position, you must disprove mine.
Otherwise, your position is not provable either.
Now, let this thread die.
It is from 2003, and was resurrected by a TROLL.
When you make a statement, people are curious to see why you think that's true, and thus ask you for "proof." You can't just respond with "well, can you disprove it?" because they are not saying you are wrong yet. They can't prove it or disprove it -- that's why they are asking you (hoping that, since you made the statement, then you have some sort of "proof"). They are simply trying to decide whether to agree/disagree with you.
Reality does not require our belief in it to exist.
Can you disprove that?
NOW, stop resurrecting this thread.
Of course this was mere speculation, and by a science fiction writer, of all things. It could not be proved, of course, at least not for a few more years.
This statement reveals a rather deep misunderstanding of the underlying science.
Not true, and for you to think otherwise shows two things: that you don't understand what "proof" is, and also that you don't really understand what you're trying to prove in the first place.
Now (again) to your challenge. It's easy to say that I can perceive something of reality, and at the same time state that my perception of reality is not complete. I can say, then, that reality exists insofar as I can sense it. Descarte's Cogito ergo sum was able to get to that point, though he bogged down after that. Beyond what my limited senses tell me, I cannot say what reality really is.
You said something far more broad: that reality exists apart from your senses. One can certainly believe that it does (and indeed I do), but it's not an easy thing to prove -- you must demonstrate to yourself that "stuff" will remain after you're no longer around to sense it.
Now, let this thread die.
Happily.
"Reality does not require our belief in it to exist.
Can you disprove that?"
I don't know if your statement is true or false, so why would you ask me to disprove it? Disproving it requires me to believe that you are wrong (which I never said).
This is the convention:
1) if someone makes a claim, then you ask them to prove it
2) if someone disagrees with your claim, then you ask them "can you disprove it?"
3) if someone is neutral towards your claim (they say "I don't know if you are right or wrong), then they can't be asked to prove or disprove anything
I'm currently at 3). By asking me to disprove your own point, you are assuming that I disagree with you, and that I have implied a claim opposite to yours, and thus I should prove my own claim by disproving yours. No, that's not the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.