Attention Olivianus

[Olivianus]

Hal,

I'm talking about your memory Olivianus.

Memory of what? You still don't get what you are asking.

A non-physical object, idea, proposition, premise in your memory, just like you were saying.

You still don't get it. What is the ememory of? I understand that a memory is non-physical, which may present a problem for you. I am asking what the OBJECT of the memory is. You show your confusion later when you say, "What "physical image"? What the hell are you talking about? I thought we were talking about information in our brains? " Secondly, I do not believe that a mind is a brain. 

A proposition is an object of memory you have in your mind, if it wasn't in your mind, and a memory, you couldn't use it.

Agreed. A propositional memory (in object not in mode of possession-revealed propsosition) is infallible. That is knowledge. A memory of a physical object is not knowledge.

Then by what you just admitted there, you can't recall any experience you had with your propositions

An image of a physical object is a proposition? 

How do you know your memory of propositions is 100% accurate and infallible?

I don't. I can grasp (operation) fallibly that which is infallible (demonstration). The proposition, "The just shall live by faith", is infallible. The proposition "Olivianus knows and believes The just shall live by faith" is fallible. I never said I know myself. I said that revealed propositions are the truth.

These propositions are memories and experiences.

What is an experience?

 

As I've explained, you can't do much of anything with your brain without memories, you'd just be a vegetable. Without a memory you wouldn't have been able to come back to the forum and give me a lame answer. You wouldn't have been able to recall what your flawed philosophy was to explain it to us. If you think you have an experience of verifying a proposition as true or false sometime in the past, how do you know you did?

And now that I've shown your stupidity I have a question, are you embarssed?

Your replies were assembly line trash I have read dozens of times and your confusion was typical. You didn't answer my questions Hal. Will you cop out and run like the coward you are? You have left so many unanswered questions here at this forum I don't doubt you will run from this one as well.

[Olivianus]

jaimehlers

What he assumes here is that an object of knowledge can only be revealed to someone, because the senses are undefinable except in terms of themselves.

What do you mean by "except in terms of themselves".

The fatal problem with this thesis is that it is a circular argument; the premise is the conclusion.

It is an axiom/postulate. On the euclidean view of demonstration a postulate is presented and logical deduction, not empirical induction, is the mode of demonstration. The first premise is unproved. I never said I could prove that the bible is true.   

Unless you accept the premise that objects of knowledge can only be revealed

By "accept" do you mean accept as being proven/demonstrated? If so, you've created a straw man.

So that is what Olivianus must first do; show that there is a path to the conclusion that "objects of knowledge can only be revealed"

Can't do it. never said I could. I have stated that i believe in Euclidean demonstration which asserts a first unproved premise, a premise that has no prior path of demonstration.

[HAL]

I consider your responses are so engrained in delusion, circular logic, and compartmentalization of your religious ideals that I consider any more work put into responding a waste of time.

And now that I've shown your stupidity I have a question, are you embarssed? Your replies were assembly line trash I have read dozens of times and your confusion was typical. You didn't answer my questions Hal. Will you cop out and run like the coward you are? You have left so many unanswered questions here at this forum I don't doubt you will run from this one as well.

At this point I will state that I believe you are delusional and not capable of rational examination of your ideas. Moreover, your delusion is so strong that you exhibit great anger at anyone attempting to talk about it, rather than calmly considering other views. I know when to move on to other business because I've seen this behavior many times over many years, so I wish you well with anyone else wanting to talk with you.

[jaimehlers]

What do you mean by "except in terms of themselves".

The fallacy of circular logic, which I explained in the very next sentence you quoted.

It is an axiom/postulate. On the euclidean view of demonstration a postulate is presented and logical deduction, not empirical induction, is the mode of demonstration. The first premise is unproved. I never said I could prove that the bible is true.

It doesn't matter if it's an axiom or postulate.  Circular logic is a fallacy because it depends on assuming the premise, which is implicit in the conclusion.  I do not accept the Euclidean idea of demonstration, as many of Euclid's non-mathematical arguments have been proven false.  For example, his idea that vision was caused by rays emitting from the eyes; you may consider this to be a valid proposition because the logic is sound, but it has been proven false since we cannot see without light.  I also do not accept purely logical deduction as valid.  You can "prove" anything by using the right premise or set of premises.

By "accept" do you mean accept as being proven/demonstrated? If so, you've created a straw man.

No, I meant "accept" in the sense of "accepting the premise is true".  You're stating your premise, that objects of knowledge are revealed, which you assume true, and following a logical chain, conclude that because the logic is valid, the premise was true.  Your premise is unprovable without your conclusion to validate it.  This is the definition of circular logic.

Can't do it. never said I could. I have stated that i believe in Euclidean demonstration which asserts a first unproved premise, a premise that has no prior path of demonstration.

In other words, you tacitly admit to using circular logic.  You have to assert your unproved premise as true, and if the conclusion is valid, it proves that your assertion was correct.  If an argument depends on circular logic, as yours clearly does, then it lacks the capacity to convince anyone who is capable of tracing the logic.  As such, it is worthless as an argument except to gull the uninformed.  If you want to convince people, you have to use logic that does not depend on fallacies, and you have to be able to demonstrate it on their terms, not insist that they accept your terms.

Until such time as you can show that you are capable of these two things, I cannot take your logic seriously.

(edits were for clarification)

[Olivianus]

jaimehlers

""For example, his idea that vision was caused by rays emitting from the eyes; you may consider this to be a valid proposition because the logic is sound, but it has been proven false since we cannot see without light.  I also do not accept purely logical deduction as valid.  You can "prove" anything by using the right premise or set of premises."

You guys siously don't give a moments thought to the nonsense you write here. I said i took euclid's theory of demonstration. I did not say that i took Euclid's postulate or his system. I do not accept that to be a valid proposition because it cannot be deduced from the protestant canon of the bible which is another reason you CANNOT "prove" anything by using this theory of demonstration.

"No, I meant "accept" in the sense of "accepting the premise is true"."

That still doesn't escape the straw man. Your view of "true" is "proven" is it not?

  You're stating your premise, that objects of knowledge are revealed, which you assume true

Define "true".  I never said i was proving anything which is why it isn't circular. I said that I dogmatically assert a premise and then from that premise I deduce my theory.

"This is the definition of circular logic."

Wrong. This is not circular logic. It is an axiomatic dogmatic explanation fo a theory.

"In other words, you tacitly admit to using circular logic. "

No. I admit to having an axiomatic theory.

"You have to assert your unproved premise as true"

Wrong. A postulate by defintion is not true knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Knowledge must be given an account. Only the propsiotions deduced from the postulate can be given an account and thus be termed true knowledge. The postulate is the assumption it is not knowledge.


You may now insert foot into mouth.
 

[Olivianus]

I am amused at how Hal is bowing out like he's some moral superior when he's been acting like a horse's ass for weeks now.

[jetson]

I am amused at how Hal is bowing out like he's some moral superior when he's been acting like a horse's ass for weeks now.

Apparently, you're not reading most of the threads here.  But that doesn't surprise me, given the fact that you are using the forum as your personal platform, and have no intention of discussing anything with anyone.  Your summary dismissals of replies is evidence that you are not here to discuss, but rather to preach.  Good luck!

[Olivianus]

jetson

Apparently, you're not reading most of the threads here.  But that doesn't surprise me, given the fact that you are using the forum as your personal platform, and have no intention of discussing anything with anyone.  Your summary dismissals of replies is evidence that you are not here to discuss, but rather to preach.  Good luck!

Seeing that I have made 11 replies today at this forum and 18 replies at http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php, for a total of 29 replies today; Hours of attention to these forums. You have shown me that you are devoted to lies, belligerence, and personal attack with no warrant whatsoever. Consider yourself smited and I will never reply to anything you say again.

Go ahead and check my profile and check my profile at http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php.

[Willie]

You really don't need to use so many words, Olivianus. A simple "neener neener" would have worked just as well.

[jetson]

jetson

Apparently, you're not reading most of the threads here.  But that doesn't surprise me, given the fact that you are using the forum as your personal platform, and have no intention of discussing anything with anyone.  Your summary dismissals of replies is evidence that you are not here to discuss, but rather to preach.  Good luck!

Seeing that I have made 11 replies today at this forum and 18 replies at http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php, for a total of 29 replies today; Hours of attention to these forums. You have shown me that you are devoted to lies, belligerence, and personal attack with no warrant whatsoever. Consider yourself smited and I will never reply to anything you say again.

Go ahead and check my profile and check my profile at http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php.

My point flew right over your head.  You are the one "acting like a horse's ass".  This is what you are failing to see, on an epic scale.  I don't care how many posts you've made, because it is beyond obvious that you are not reading what others are saying, and you are wholesale dismissing other members based on your own bias.  It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

You have never attempted to engage in honest dialog, because you came in here, blasted the forums with walls of text, and barely acknowledged the existence of our rules and etiquette.  This was pointed out to you in numerous threads.  Yet, you continue.

This is a discussion forum, not a platform for your personal opinion.  You are treating this forum like its your personal blog.  It is not.

And now, I am another member you summarily dismiss and ignore, based on pure arrogance and quite frankly, bullshit opinions.  As I said before - good luck - because what you are doing here is not going to last much longer. 

[ParkingPlaces]

Can I watch?

[jetson]

Can I watch?

Indeed, you will.   

[jtp56]

Why don't you take a basic fundamental part of your philosophy and start a discussion about it. Start from ground zero and tell us what your philosophy stands on at the most basic level. Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Start it here if you want to.

Let me take a crack at it.  No I don't mean I'm a crack addict.  Go to Wikipedia (which I dislike, but that's a whole other discussion) and look up Motoo Kimura.  Wikipedia does a job of spinning what he was actually trying to say.  There are three other molecular evolutionists who expand (expound) on his theories and supporting observations and mathematics (gosh how mathematics and observations cloud the issue for BBT and evolution guys).  Even assuming that 2/3 of DNA is really junk (there are others who, beyond Kimura, believe there is no such thing, but, for the sake of argument, we will allow for 2/3 junk DNA), that on the nucleotide and genome level all mutations are deleterious.  And even with natural selection being able to eliminate radical deleterious mutations, bottom line per Kimura and others that all mutations (neutral mutation theory) are deleterious.

Basically what the science says, which other evolutionary biologist "scientists" avoid, is that we are evolving to death.  Hummmmm, Kimura didn't say it (don't know his World View beliefs), but his math and observations would explain why the Bible says people lived so long shortly after creation.

[jetson]

Let me take a crack at it.  No I don't mean I'm a crack addict.  Go to Wikipedia (which I dislike, but that's a whole other discussion) and look up Motoo Kimura.  Wikipedia does a job of spinning what he was actually trying to say.  There are three other molecular evolutionists who expand (expound) on his theories and supporting observations and mathematics (gosh how mathematics and observations cloud the issue for BBT and evolution guys).  Even assuming that 2/3 of DNA is really junk (there are others who, beyond Kimura, believe there is no such thing, but, for the sake of argument, we will allow for 2/3 junk DNA), that on the nucleotide and genome level all mutations are deleterious.  And even with natural selection being able to eliminate radical deleterious mutations, bottom line per Kimura and others that all mutations (neutral mutation theory) are deleterious.

Basically what the science says, which other evolutionary biologist "scientists" avoid, is that we are evolving to death.  Hummmmm, Kimura didn't say it (don't know his World View beliefs), but his math and observations would explain why the Bible says people lived so long shortly after creation.

I think there's a crack in your crack.  Google Evolution 101 Berkeley.  And freaking read it for cryin' out loud.

[jtp56]

Why don't you take a basic fundamental part of your philosophy and start a discussion about it. Start from ground zero and tell us what your philosophy stands on at the most basic level. Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Start it here if you want to.

Let me take a crack at it.  No I don't mean I'm a crack addict.  Go to Wikipedia (which I dislike, but that's a whole other discussion) and look up Motoo Kimura.  Wikipedia does a job of spinning what he was actually trying to say.  There are three other molecular evolutionists who expand (expound) on his theories and supporting observations and mathematics (gosh how mathematics and observations cloud the issue for BBT and evolution guys).  Even assuming that 2/3 of DNA is really junk (there are others who, beyond Kimura, believe there is no such thing, but, for the sake of argument, we will allow for 2/3 junk DNA), that on the nucleotide and genome level all mutations are deleterious.  And even with natural selection being able to eliminate radical deleterious mutations, bottom line per Kimura and others that all mutations (neutral mutation theory) are deleterious.

Basically what the science says, which other evolutionary biologist "scientists" avoid, is that we are evolving to death.  Hummmmm, Kimura didn't say it (don't know his World View beliefs), but his math and observations would explain why the Bible says people lived so long shortly after creation.

Allow me to interject a little more here.  I hope you all agree that we need to look at origins from multiple scientific perspectives/specialties.  Agree?  I mean, evolution you need to really be looking at biological sciences and geology (fossil record).  BBT you need to look at theoretical physics.  History of man, which is generally not discussed too much, philosophy and history.  Astronomy.  Etc.

There is a theory out there (albeit not in agreement with the majority of scientists who adhere to the primary axiom) that a physicist from Israel and New Zealand put forth that takes Einsteins field equations, which Einstein himself "apologized" for (sorry, this discussion should take books, I'm trying to summarize [using the term lightly]) and changed it in a way that put us close to the center of the universe (Hubble who himself said that we cannot place ourselves close to the center of the universe for BBT reasons), that it all makes sense!  Where is the center of the universe?  You're guys don't know.

If the center of the universe is close to us, and current day scientific observations tell us that anything within about 6,000 light years in any direction from us is calm, why can't observations beyond that (using the Hubble telescope and the new one to look "deeper" into the universe) show us creation or what was happening (if your world view is BBT + evolution) 6,000 year ago?

[jtp56]

Let me take a crack at it.  No I don't mean I'm a crack addict.  Go to Wikipedia (which I dislike, but that's a whole other discussion) and look up Motoo Kimura.  Wikipedia does a job of spinning what he was actually trying to say.  There are three other molecular evolutionists who expand (expound) on his theories and supporting observations and mathematics (gosh how mathematics and observations cloud the issue for BBT and evolution guys).  Even assuming that 2/3 of DNA is really junk (there are others who, beyond Kimura, believe there is no such thing, but, for the sake of argument, we will allow for 2/3 junk DNA), that on the nucleotide and genome level all mutations are deleterious.  And even with natural selection being able to eliminate radical deleterious mutations, bottom line per Kimura and others that all mutations (neutral mutation theory) are deleterious.

Basically what the science says, which other evolutionary biologist "scientists" avoid, is that we are evolving to death.  Hummmmm, Kimura didn't say it (don't know his World View beliefs), but his math and observations would explain why the Bible says people lived so long shortly after creation.

I think there's a crack in your crack.  Google Evolution 101 Berkeley.  And freaking read it for cryin' out loud.

No kidding?  I got that in middle school!  I believed it when I was 13 years old.  Kids at Berkley would do much better with a library card rather than paying the tuition their paying.

[jetson]

No kidding?  I got that in middle school!  I believed it when I was 13 years old.  Kids at Berkley would do much better with a library card rather than paying the tuition their paying.

Yeah, you didn't "get" anything.  And based on your last post, you might want to cling to God.  It suits you!

[jtp56]

Let me take a crack at it.  No I don't mean I'm a crack addict.  Go to Wikipedia (which I dislike, but that's a whole other discussion) and look up Motoo Kimura.  Wikipedia does a job of spinning what he was actually trying to say.  There are three other molecular evolutionists who expand (expound) on his theories and supporting observations and mathematics (gosh how mathematics and observations cloud the issue for BBT and evolution guys).  Even assuming that 2/3 of DNA is really junk (there are others who, beyond Kimura, believe there is no such thing, but, for the sake of argument, we will allow for 2/3 junk DNA), that on the nucleotide and genome level all mutations are deleterious.  And even with natural selection being able to eliminate radical deleterious mutations, bottom line per Kimura and others that all mutations (neutral mutation theory) are deleterious.

Basically what the science says, which other evolutionary biologist "scientists" avoid, is that we are evolving to death.  Hummmmm, Kimura didn't say it (don't know his World View beliefs), but his math and observations would explain why the Bible says people lived so long shortly after creation.

I think there's a crack in your crack.  Google Evolution 101 Berkeley.  And freaking read it for cryin' out loud.

How do your geniuses at Berkley respond to Kimura?  As of right now, I don't care what you think.  You obviously swallow what others tell you.

[jtp56]

No kidding?  I got that in middle school!  I believed it when I was 13 years old.  Kids at Berkley would do much better with a library card rather than paying the tuition their paying.

Yeah, you didn't "get" anything.  And based on your last post, you might want to cling to God.  It suits you!

Berkley suits you! What's the difference?

[jetson]

How do your geniuses at Berkley respond to Kimura?  As of right now, I don't care what you think.  You obviously swallow what others tell you.

They are not "my geniuses".  It's something called "education", where people go to learn about the world, and biology, and science, and math.  We've been down this road 1,000 times with you.  You don't understand the theory.  And you know what, that's OK with most of us.  It's not a requirement to understand it.

But when you bounce in and out of this forum, pretending to refute things, while simultaneously showing that you argue against something you clearly cannot pass a test on, you end up looking foolish.  Why do that to yourself, over and over again?

[jetson]

Berkley suits you! What's the difference?

I only pointed it out because I think it does a great job of explaining the theory.  I was being very sincere actually.  But, I do know that this is not the first time you've purposely misrepresented the theory.

[atheola]

Wow.. I still can't type wow any louder yet, but I have spent the  better part of the past hour reading this entire thread, some of it twice (don't ask why.. Im sick of being stuck on this couch all day I guess) and I just realized I must have dropped 50 IQ points alone just reading Olly's bullshit. The rest of you I got, but captain Olly.. WOW..now that cat's an IQ killer.. He reminds me of those guys back in the 70s who would get laid by getting teenage girls so stoned on shit acid mixed with strichnine (sp) then run a line of bullshit so thick they believed he was god himself then split town once their bellies started growing...

[jtp56]

How do your geniuses at Berkley respond to Kimura?  As of right now, I don't care what you think.  You obviously swallow what others tell you.

They are not "my geniuses".  It's something called "education", where people go to learn about the world, and biology, and science, and math.  We've been down this road 1,000 times with you.  You don't understand the theory.  And you know what, that's OK with most of us.  It's not a requirement to understand it.

But when you bounce in and out of this forum, pretending to refute things, while simultaneously showing that you argue against something you clearly cannot pass a test on, you end up looking foolish.  Why do that to yourself, over and over again?

First of all, the scientists and theories I talk about are real.  It is difficult to argue with you and your side that dismisses the messenger and not the message.  Kimura, Ager (A guy on your side for crying out loud), Einstein, Etc. give reason to "doubt" your world view!  So why can't I?

Quote me where I look foolish?  Please?  You link to Berkley 101???????  Berkley 101????  Who is looking foolish here???

[ParkingPlaces]

Berkley suits you! What's the difference?

Twice in a row you misspelled Berkeley. This does not bode well for you. It means I'm not impressed.

Anyway, are you saying we can't see 6,000 years out into the universe? And what about the all the things we have that are clearly older than 6,000 years on this planet? Do any of them count?

[jetson]

First of all, the scientists and theories I talk about are real.  It is difficult to argue with you and your side that dismisses the messenger and not the message.  Kimura, Ager (A guy on your side for crying out loud), Einstein, Etc. give reason to "doubt" your world view!  So why can't I?

Quote me where I look foolish?  Please?  You link to Berkley 101???????  Berkley 101????  Who is looking foolish here???

OK, but I'm not seeing a message that resonates with mainstream science?  I'm not seeing anything in your posts that indicates the "doubt" modern understanding and scientific theories should be concerned about.  If you find a dissenting scientific view, is it peer reviewed?  And if so, what are the conclusions of the peer review?  Are those peers concerned, and do they change their minds?

There is a lot going on in science, and tons of research that is inconclusive, and ongoing, which is great!  But I have not personally heard anything that would shed doubt on things like the theory of evolution, or the BBT. 

Berkeley 101 was a sincere effort to help you.  And if you take a look at their website, it goes beyond 101.  What are you afraid of?  I learned a ton of stuff about the ToE that I did not understand, just using that site.  I have a permanent link to it.

[jtp56]

Berkley suits you! What's the difference?

Twice in a row you misspelled Berkeley. This does not bode well for you. It means I'm not impressed.

Anyway, are you saying we can't see 6,000 years out into the universe? And what about the all the things we have that are clearly older than 6,000 years on this planet? Do any of them count?

What is older than 6,000 years old on the planet?  The fossil record per your own guys (at least per Ager and during hist time) couldn't establish any disputable evidence to the contrary.  Rock from a known 3,000 year old volcano was dated millions (billions) of years old.  They don't know even though your university profs beholding to the primary axiom do.  If you are a college student, try to determine your profs world view (don't question it, you'll be in a heap of trouble).  Try to determine if he/she has objectively examined alternative world views based on the same evidence that they present.  The same evidence!!  The same evidence!  Are there enough fossils for billions of years of death?  I've actually investigated/observed fossil fields, where are the fossils?

[jetson]

What is older than 6,000 years old on the planet?  The fossil record per your own guys (at least per Ager and during hist time) couldn't establish any disputable evidence to the contrary.  Rock from a known 3,000 year old volcano was dated millions (billions) of years old.  They don't know even though your university profs beholding to the primary axiom do.  If you are a college student, try to determine your profs world view (don't question it, you'll be in a heap of trouble).  Try to determine if he/she has objectively examined alternative world views based on the same evidence that they present.  The same evidence!!  The same evidence!  Are there enough fossils for billions of years of death?  I've actually investigated/observed fossil fields, where are the fossils?

Uhh... seriously? 

Can you explain exactly how old the earth is, according to your sources?  Give me details, they're important.

[atheola]

I googled berkley 101 and got a handful of class syllabus's a map of businesses with 101 in their names near Berkley...then the search results go wayyy down from there... 

[jetson]

I googled berkley 101 and got a handful of class syllabus's a map of businesses with 101 in their names near Berkley...then the search results go wayyy down from there... 

It's Berkeley.  Now get back there and don't come out until you've studied!  Damn atheist.