I believe I have already explained that.

Post #30,072 by Brandioch 2/27/02 7:15:01 PM Reply	I believe I have already explained that. And have you any intention of explaining how you draw the line between fact and Truth, or is this just an attempt to shift ground without anybody noticing? You >DO< understand that there is a difference between "truth" and "Truth". I noticed that you've used a "T" in your post. LIke I said, Reality (the set of all facts, known and unknown) is filtered by senses and beliefs to yield an individual's opinion. This opinion is the "truth" to that individual. The person will CONTINUE to filter facts in order to maintain his/her current opinion. There is no "Truth". Have I lost you again? It's a very simple concept. But it does tend to discredit your religious affiliations with a certain political party. So I'll say that you won't accept it. (See, Drew? Another real world application.)
Post #30,076 by boxley 2/27/02 7:30:53 PM Reply	Filters are changeable truth may be acertained by pulling the filters aside every now and then but the Truth is scary. Like I tell my kids the real monsters are the ones that look and act like your friends. Thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #30,149 by drewk 2/28/02 11:15:33 AM Reply	Okay, so there's no "Truth" but there is "Reality" And how are these different? When I say "Truth" how is that different from what you mean when you say "Reality"? Oh, and a factual error in your other post: Like when >YOU< say that discussion things that can't be CURRENTLY experienced is worthless. No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,159 by Ashton 2/28/02 11:50:31 AM Reply	Those 'things' (!) which "cannot be perceived" - Er, do you mean, "those 'things'* which I cannot perceive", but another claims "to perceive"? Is one 'Right', the other 'Wrong'? One 'true/True' the other 'false/False'? * mental concepts are distinctly un-thing-like, no? How could You tell? Is there YAN nicely Boolean 'The Truth' here, hiding somewhere? Le coeur a ses raisons, qui raisonnent seul ne percevront jamais: Disallowed for being unBoolean? Subtle expression of wisdom? What's The Truth? ~ The heart has its reasons which reason alone shall never perceive How does the concept of 'wisdom' differ from the concept of 'knowledge'? Is a single datum / factoid, 'knowledge'? And if a One becomes Certain of the False (say, even about the concept of 'The Truth'?) - where next? ...while you're 'defining' the limits of human perception. (D'ya think there might be some limits to ordinary language re certain imaginable topics ?) Yours for perfectly logical definitions of Truth, Ashton Mysteries Solved Ltd. Personal Universes Deconstructed While You Wait Not responsible for lost Epiphanies or other disappointments Recommended book, The Doors of Perception, Huxley.
Post #30,198 by Brandioch 2/28/02 4:05:05 PM Reply	That's why I told you to read the OTHER thread. And how are these different? When I say "Truth" how is that different from what you mean when you say Reality"? Remember the part where I said that >YOU< were busiy filtering out the stuff you didn't want to think about because it would alter your opinion? Well, that's contained in the other thread that you didn't want to read. In a nutshell, "The Truth" is what is possessed by a certain political viewpoint and other viewpoints do not have "The Truth". Think "religion" if that will help you. As for the "factual error", I'm not seeing any difference between those statements. No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. Let's break that down a bit, shall we? No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. As in my example of xrays being perceived 200 years ago. Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived". Like I said, xrays, 200 years ago. We've advanced and now we can see the effects of things we did not know existed before. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. So, "aren't worth discussing" means something different to you than the discussion of those things being worthless. I don't see the distinction. Unless your point is whether or not we will ever be able to perceive things we cannot perceive?
Post #30,207 by drewk 2/28/02 4:37:18 PM Reply	Your 'caveat' is exactly the opposite of what I said Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived". Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y." Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,212 by Brandioch 2/28/02 4:52:56 PM Reply	Awwww, did I hurt your feelings? Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion. Hmmmm, seeing as how I clearly spelled out my objection to your statement, and you pointed out that it "reversed" your statement (that's an interesting use of the word "reverse") you're going to run away and claim it's all my fault? Hmmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me. Why run away when we've just located a point of contention? Wouldn't further discussion of said point be required? Or is it that you've FINALLY realized how wrong you are and you're running away to avoid having to admit it? Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y." No, you did NOT specifically draw such a distinction. You have not yet differentiated between what we cannot YET perceive and what we will NEVER perceive. To prove this, I'll quote you back in your face: No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30149\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=30149] No distinction there. But feel free to provide one now. Tell me, what the difference is, in context with your previous posts, of things we cannot currently perceive and things we cannot perceive? Or you can run and appear to be a sniveling, lieing coward.
Post #30,313 by bepatient 3/1/02 10:39:58 AM Reply	Interesting development That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare... "I know I'm right and your wrong" he says..."and since you don't want to discuss it anymore you must be chicken" Damn, you sound all growed up. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,323 by Brandioch 3/1/02 11:41:50 AM Reply	Hey, I'm not the one who's hiding. That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare... Oh, I forgot. You can't think in anything but binary terms. It's called "mockery". You were immature because you thought that FUD and allegations were a sound basis for a political viewpoint. Drew is hiding because he's found out that his position doesn't hold water and isn't mature enough to admit it. So he throws out some idiotic claim about how I've "reversed" his position to "justify" his hiding. So I'm mocking Drew and pointing out what he's doing. I know this annoys you but I don't have to accept either of your (Drew and you) childish behaviour. So I treat you like the children you are behaving as. Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. But if you will (I know you won't) read my post which preceeded Drew's declaration that he wasn't going to discuss this anymore, you'll find a complete absence of immature language. I posted a breakdown of Drew's post and illustrated the differences between my starting position and his in clear language (the caveat). Then Drew decides that he can't handle the discussion any more and runs and hides. Toooo bad, soooooo sad. Just like you are, Bill. And no. I'm not going to let this go like an adult. I'm going to treat you as the immature, ignorant children you are behaving as.
Post #30,325 by pwhysall 3/1/02 11:49:36 AM Reply	Er. Grow up. Stop telling people they're sad, or blinkered, or stupid, just because they don't see the world the same way as you. I'm tired of reading threads full of your not-funny, not-clever, not-really-very-good-at-all insults. You know what the most annoying thing is? You actually make some interesting, valid points. Only they get buried under you going "me so clever! you so stoopid!". Yeah, and Marlowe? All this shit applies to you too. Stop being assholes, both of yers. Or I'll come over there and wield the LART, +5 to undweeb. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #30,330 by Brandioch 3/1/02 12:20:31 PM Reply	Not going to happen. Sorry, Peter. I don't start that way with people. But I don't see any reason to waste good manners on louts. And I will freely admit to an active dislike for intolerant religious extremists and bigots.
Post #30,359 by admin 3/1/02 3:19:29 PM Reply	Ah... so... other people's behavior... ... excuses your own? Stop being an ass. This applies to all of you. I'm sick of reading the infantile bullshit. I wouldn't know if ANY of you had decent points, because I don't read this crap anymore. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #30,368 by Brandioch 3/1/02 3:53:04 PM Reply	No need for an excuse. Ah... so... other people's behavior... ... excuses your own? Nope. But then, I'm not looking to excuse my behaviour. I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. I'm not asking for anyone to excuse my behavoiur or accept it or anything else. Like I said, I am not about to waste good manners on louts. If someone is acting like an idiot, I do not see any reason to pussyfoot around that fact.
Post #30,371 by admin 3/1/02 4:02:30 PM Reply	In that case... plonk Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #30,395 by screamer 3/1/02 5:05:05 PM Reply	Whaaaaaaaaaaaa This was a demonstration of an "opinion" and not a fact. Truthfully. "Infantile crap"... Not only did he demonstrate how annoying insult posts can be by DOING IT HIMSELF, he also demonstrated the dichotomy and hypocrisy of his position by stating that "I don't read this crap anymore". So, in the spirit of "if a person doesn't read this crap anymore (in the woods?)" post about how he read this crap, did it happen or not? :-) :-) Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,400 by admin 3/1/02 5:32:28 PM Reply	Never said it was anything other than opinion. You're quite free, as is Brandioch, to post your opinions/content in any fashion you please. I'm also free to point out what I think is "infantile crap". For me, "infantile crap" includes things like titling a post "[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30003\|Awwww, is the poor baby going to cry?]" (as an example). I'm sick of seeing it, and I said as much. Feel free to tell me that it isn't "infantile crap", but don't expect me to agree. As far as reading the crap, no, I don't any more. I read Peter's post, because his name isn't in my personal killfile and he usually has something good to say. In this case, I'd read enough crap previously to still want to comment on it. I also read Brandioch's reply to my post, because I generally do that if someone posts a reply to me. Not any more in Brandioch's case, but that is neither here nor there. Capice? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #30,480 by ben_tilly 3/2/02 6:14:41 PM Reply	Unfair! They are engaged in a juvenile philosophical discussion on the nature of Truth. And you dare confuse things by introducing Opinion into the mix? Ah well. Fairness is the first complaint of incompetence. :-) Cheers, Ben PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site?
Post #30,492 by admin 3/2/02 7:20:41 PM Reply	Re: Unfair! PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site? I'm seriously considering spending the time to build one. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #30,500 by ben_tilly 3/2/02 11:35:13 PM Reply	Please? If you do, and if you and your family ever come to NYC, you and your son get a choice of a real Pyramid, a t-rex, or a medieval castle. (The first and third are filled with art. The second isn't, but includes such things as a full-sized model of a blue whale.) Cheers, Ben
Post #30,188 by marlowe 2/28/02 3:36:00 PM Reply	Your filters are not the universe's fault. Just because you happen to be hopelessly mired in subjectivism doesn't mean there's no Truth. The universe is not bounded by the limitations of your intellect. Or anyone else's. There's plenty of Truth. You're just too stupid to see it. You're trying to blame the universe for the consequences your own intellectual incompetence. As an inhabitant of the universe, I object. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #30,194 by Another Scott 2/28/02 3:57:09 PM Reply	Your filters can't be removed. Only modified. Slightly. Hi, If we could get beyond the pithy phrases for a while... :-) Let's consider your .sig: Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. Let's apply it to something concrete in human affairs: "Terrorism is always wrong." Is that statement something you'd regard as part of "The Truth"? I'd say no, it's not part of "The Truth". Why do I say that? Because 1) How does one define Terrorism? 2) I don't believe in many absolutes in human affairs. 3) I regard The Truth as something unchanging and something without general applicability to human affairs. What would you say? Or if you don't like that example, please provide something specific application of your view of the Truth (from human affairs). (Before I am condemned here (maybe too late! :-), I believe that terrorism is wrong and generally counter-productive. But one person's terrorist might be another person's freedom fighter. Were the colonists at Lexington and Concord terrorists in fighting to keep the British troops from taking their guns in 1775? I don't think so. But an argument can be made that they were for some definitions of terrorist.) Until everyone agrees on the terms it's hard, IMHO, to declare that The Truth exists (in human affairs). My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #30,209 by Brandioch 2/28/02 4:39:24 PM Reply	Where did I lose you? Your filters are not the universe's fault. Well....... I guess that would depend upon how you view "the universe", wouldn't it? Is it the fault of the rock that you cannot see the diamonds within? You see, the human body has certain limitations. Trying to assign blame for these limitations is... well..... ummmmm...... How about..... Fucking STUPID?!? You think it is "the universe's" fault that you cannot perceive xrays? Just because you happen to be hopelessly mired in subjectivism doesn't mean there's no Truth. You're right. It doesn't. Or did you manage to miss my earlier explaation? Reality is filtered through our senses and beliefs to yield our opinions. Now, you're making the SAME MISTAKE that Drew did. Can't you even follow a simple process. My >OPINION< is that there is no "Truth". Look at the statement two lines up. How can my >OPINION< influence anything above it? So, >NO<, just because >I< say there is no "Truth" does not mean there is no "Truth". Because there is no "Truth" is what means there is no "Truth". Just because >I< do not believe in the tooth fairey's house does not mean it doesn't exist. I would not exist even if I >DID< believe in it. Just as "The Truth" does NOT exist even though >YOU< would like to believe in it. The universe is not bounded by the limitations of your intellect. Well >DUH<. Or have you managed to skip or not comprehend the part where I pointed out that human senses are not capable of perceiving everything in the universe? Did you miss my example of xrays to Drew? Ah.... or are you now going to go for the classic error of saying that because I don't know everything, that your fantasy is not a fantasy? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Your fantasy is still a fantasy, whether I know everything or not. There's plenty of Truth. You're just too stupid to see it. Ah, sensai, perhaps you can then answer the question that you have been unable to answer before. What is "The Truth" about people? You see, you can make any claim you want, but if you can't cough up something THAT WORKS (now, where did I see that claim before) then all you're doing is spewing your fantasies. Make whatever claim you want. Tell me what colour the tooth fairey's house is. Tell me how many rooms it has. But try to provide me with an address or I'm going to, correctly, call you an idiot. It's a simple question. You claim there is "Truth". Tell me what the "Truth" about people is. You're trying to blame the universe for the consequences your own intellectual incompetence. No. As I pointed out before, "the universe" is in no way responsible for any limitations. The rock is NOT under any obligation to show you the diamonds it contains. You have to operate under the "laws" of the universe. You can complain about them all you want. But that still doesn't mean you can see through rock. As an inhabitant of the universe, I object. Then take it up with complaints department. I'm sure "The Truth" of the universe will tell you where that's located.

Welcome to IWETHEY!