INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: El on May 17, 2007, 07:25:32 AM
-
Truth is all relative anyway.
I'd like to argue this but I need more info. First, give your definition of "truth" and your definition of "relative" because I have to know what definitions you're working with, and then please let me know in what you base your belief that truth is relative.
-
You're hurting me.
I'm not going to define these words, as that is simply
a sucker's bet. Rather, I will give the foundation, which
is that all we really can know is our perceptions (and
yes, these too must remain undefined to one who
will argue that there is no proof of his own existence).
Now, while there may or may not be some underlying
reality, speculating about such a thing is purely pointless,
and can merely be seen as a model for explaining these
perceptions. Making the assumption (on top of one's own
existence) that others have SOME existence as well (ah,
a tremendous jump here - with NO foundation), and that
their perceptions have some reality as well, yet differ from
one's own, the point is clear.
Still, the assumptions upon which the argument lies seem
obscene - so perhaps it would be better to say simply,
"I am the objective truth." Seems more honest, at least.
-
I agree with the bird. 8)
-
The bird is the word.
-
OK; is your definition of "truth" something that changes with our perception of it (which seems insane, unless you call it "personal truth," and there's a reason for the word before it), or are you saying that objective truth actually changes because of how we perceive it? Or are you saying there is objective truth but it's inaccessible, so it's meaningless to talk about?
-
I would say one of the latter two.
-
tough morning for calandale, all around.
-
Truth is provisional in nature. That is to say that we assign a degree of likelyhood that something is truth based upon the number of facts that support it.
-
OK; is your definition of "truth" something that changes with our perception of it (which seems insane, unless you call it "personal truth," and there's a reason for the word before it), or are you saying that objective truth actually changes because of how we perceive it? Or are you saying there is objective truth but it's inaccessible, so it's meaningless to talk about?
I would say one of the latter two.
The problem being WHICH one. From our point of view, it's impossible
to tell.
You are leaving out one other possible option, which is that there
is NO objective truth. Saying something is meaningless to speak
about is how many atheists define away God, after all. Seems that
the same argument holds just as strongly for truth.
-
tough morning for calandale, all around.
But, it was quite fun.
-
tough morning for calandale, all around.
But, it was quite fun.
i kinda get a rush when i have been backed into a corner.
-
Honestly, I didn't feel particularly pressured,
except by the first question, as I realized that
I had spewed forth something which was not
completely in alignment with my views.
That, and it was 7 in the morning, and I was
getting quite tired.
-
the back peddling begins.
-
the back peddling begins.
No. I think I'm happy with what I said.
I'll have to wait, and see if it falls apart
under scrutiny, but I think that I covered
the issue.
-
There is a term called objective truth, which is always true whether or not we are aware of it. And there is a term called subjective truth, which is what we believe and think is truth. For those of you out there who believe that there is no truth but what we perceive, philosophers would call that subjective truth. For those of you who believe that there is a truth, and anyone who deviates from it is simply wrong, you would believe in the existence of objective truth. Although your belief in the existence of objective truth, would be a subjective belief. And people who believe in god may dispute this (mostly in my opinion because they're afraid when you start to apply concrete definitions to things there is a chance you can make them look like an idiot), but phrases like, "The lord works in mysterious ways." Shows that they believe objective truth exists, they are aware they may not know it.
-
Once one brings objective truth in though,
it does open up the same kind of can of
worms. The whole nature of such an underlying
reality is as difficult to comprehend as the lack
of such a truth.
-
Once one brings objective truth in though,
it does open up the same kind of can of
worms. The whole nature of such an underlying
reality is as difficult to comprehend as the lack
of such a truth.
those are fancy words.
-
Gotta use my BA in BS for something.
They were expensive, after all.
-
Once one brings objective truth in though,
it does open up the same kind of can of
worms. The whole nature of such an underlying
reality is as difficult to comprehend as the lack
of such a truth.
You believe in subjective truth then, and that objective truth does not exist? Or simply that we cannot know objective truth? OR Do you simply not know objective truth, and you don't know if it is impossible or not to know it?
-
I KNOW nothing. I believe in a personal truth,
which may or may not have some objective
reality. But, either way, I believe that it is
fundamentally a matter of my own will.
-
Mkay. I know nothing, and I believe in no truths. I follow my desires and I do not have any strong mental convictions about the rightness or the wrongness of anything. I accept the possibility of objective truth, but I have seen no convincing method for being sure about it, so it is irrelevant to life. At least I am comfortable with that attitude personally. I accept that someone may know objective truth, if it exists, but there is no convincing method to be sure about them either.
-
i smell a trap....
-
Mkay. I know nothing, and I believe in no truths. I follow my desires and I do not have any strong mental convictions about the rightness or the wrongness of anything. I accept the possibility of objective truth, but I have seen no convincing method for being sure about it, so it is irrelevant to life. At least I am comfortable with that attitude personally. I accept that someone may know objective truth, if it exists, but there is no convincing method to be sure about them either.
I pretty much buy this, with the exception that I have
some irrational beliefs, which I can't explain the cause of,
that I CAN change the fundamental reality which I seem
to sense. Whether this would effect hypothetical others
is not really a big issue to me.
i smell a trap....
I hope so. I don't see it.
-
I dont have any irrational beliefs only because I know there are rational reasons behind all my desires. I dont care much about my ability to affect reality, but I loosely disbelieve in free will. But my base desires dont give a flying fuck whether I intellectually believe in free will or not. They want me to get a ham sandwhich and they wont shut up until I go get it.
-
Doesn't the concept of 'rational reasons' almost presuppose SOME reality though?
Then again, my judgment that mine are irrational, does the same. But, I was using
mine in what seems a looser manner, in that I am simply not calling them rational.
Perhaps also that I mostly act as though there is an underlying reality, which is
unchanging - as do most people. Trying to either define or 'break' such a concept
is hard though - paradoxes arise in either case. Just babbling here again.
-
What I'm saying is that all my beliefs have reasons behind them. The ones which appear irrational have a reason behind it which is usually rather obvious but it seems stupid, unless you consider the strength of ones base beliefs and desires, so people would prefer to not acknowledge them.
-
I see that the sane answer just doesn't leave much to discuss. ::)
-
I KNOW nothing. I believe in a personal truth,
which may or may not have some objective
reality. But, either way, I believe that it is
fundamentally a matter of my own will.
:agreed:
-
Truth is a matter of your own will? I'm still not even clear on your definition, but it seems to far different than mine that there's no way to argue it. It would be like arguing over the one true pronunciation of the word "read." It's pointless.
-
Truth is a matter of your own will? I'm still not even clear on your definition, but it seems to far different than mine that there's no way to argue it. It would be like arguing over the one true pronunciation of the word "read." It's pointless.
It's actaully very simple: if there's no objective truth, truth is a matter of your own will and nothing more.
-
Truth is a matter of your own will? I'm still not even clear on your definition, but it seems to far different than mine that there's no way to argue it. It would be like arguing over the one true pronunciation of the word "read." It's pointless.
It's actaully very simple: if there's no objective truth, truth is a matter of your own will and nothing more.
Which I completely disagree with. If I disagree with a philosophy, I tend to think I just don't understand it yet; hence why I ask people to define their terms before I argue with them.
-
Truth is a matter of your own will? I'm still not even clear on your definition, but it seems to far different than mine that there's no way to argue it. It would be like arguing over the one true pronunciation of the word "read." It's pointless.
It's actaully very simple: if there's no objective truth, truth is a matter of your own will and nothing more.
Untill you get hit in the head with a meteorite, then objective reality takes over. ;D
-
Truth is a matter of your own will? I'm still not even clear on your definition, but it seems to far different than mine that there's no way to argue it. It would be like arguing over the one true pronunciation of the word "read." It's pointless.
It's actaully very simple: if there's no objective truth, truth is a matter of your own will and nothing more.
Which I completely disagree with. If I disagree with a philosophy, I tend to think I just don't understand it yet; hence why I ask people to define their terms before I argue with them.
Imagine that there is some objective reality (for this is, I believe where
most people stand).
What effect does it have on you? Doesn't it only somehow impact
your own perceptions? So, those perceptions are, to the observer,
the only actuality. Anything else is merely a model for explanation.
Now, if you can impose your will on these perceptions, essentially you
are changing the very nature of truth.
-
no he is regaining his footing and confidence.
-
Never lost it.
Well, I did last night, but not while posting.
-
Never lost it.
Well, I did last night, but not while posting.
so we can expect that humility is just an act?
-
Never lost it.
Well, I did last night, but not while posting.
so we can expect that humility is just an act?
WHEN have I ever been humble?
-
when you are tired.
-
Hmm...I thought I was just being more careful.
Funny, the two times that I seem able to 'score'
is when I am truly tired or drunk. I KNOW I'm not
humble in the latter case, and I doubt that I am
in the former either, but it's possible I come across
that way.
It's tough to be humble when the world is owed
to one.
-
You're humble in the hemrhoidail ass sense. ;)
-
You're humble in the hemrhoidail ass sense. ;)
i bet they can be humbling
-
Very much so..
-
Very much so..
in the end!
-
Very much so..
in the end!
Boooo!! Groan!!
-
I'm healing them. Still can't seem to get the
hang of healing my wisdom teeth though.
-
Very much so..
in the end!
Boooo!! Groan!!
i figure that if i just go one on one with you then you will always be within my reach....postwise.
-
Very much so..
in the end!
Boooo!! Groan!!
i figure that if i just go one on one with you then you will always be within my reach....postwise.
You out-post me 3:1 though. :grrr:
-
It's the lunch breaks.
-
Very much so..
in the end!
Boooo!! Groan!!
i figure that if i just go one on one with you then you will always be within my reach....postwise.
You out-post me 3:1 though. :grrr:
i am just not feeling it ATM.
-
Imagine that there is some objective reality (for this is, I believe where
most people stand).
What effect does it have on you? Doesn't it only somehow impact
your own perceptions? So, those perceptions are, to the observer,
the only actuality. Anything else is merely a model for explanation.
Now, if you can impose your will on these perceptions, essentially you
are changing the very nature of truth.
No, you aren't changing the objective reality, you are changing the subjective reality. Granted, you may wind up acting/behaving in different ways, wihch change the objective reality, but outside of that, you're only lying to yourself or changing your own perception of truth, and not the truth itself. I still either don't follow your argument or just disagree with it.
-
The real point is that we have NO absolute view
of any proposed objective reality. All that is
meant by it is some model based on our
perceptions. It would be insane, if our
perceptions disagreed (even through
our own choice) not to change the
model, in accordance. This is the
type of thinking that fundies tend
towards - holding onto strict
creationism, when the evidence
is wholly against them.
-
The real point is that we have NO absolute view
of any proposed objective reality. All that is
meant by it is some model based on our
perceptions. It would be insane, if our
perceptions disagreed (even through
our own choice) not to change the
model, in accordance. This is the
type of thinking that fundies tend
towards - holding onto strict
creationism, when the evidence
is wholly against them.
Not that this adds all that much depth to the discussion.
But is not the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?
-
paradox- 28 days ruined the term "insanity" for the public. :/
Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
The real point is that we have NO absolute view
of any proposed objective reality. All that is
meant by it is some model based on our
perceptions. It would be insane, if our
perceptions disagreed (even through
our own choice) not to change the
model, in accordance. This is the
type of thinking that fundies tend
towards - holding onto strict
creationism, when the evidence
is wholly against them.
I'd agree if our perceptions were known to be both reliable and valid. We do indeed have models based on our perceptions, but the widely-accepted models aren't based on the perceptions of just one person. For example, one scizophrenic is in a room with 99 "normals." Should we base our reality on the voices he hears, or on the silence everyone else hears. The models of perception we generally have now do not change according to who views them; a basic example here is the fact that although we cannot be certain everyone "has the same yellow," we can still call a banana objectively yellow. Even if there is a colorblind person who cannot see the yellow, so long as most of us see what we call yellow, we call the banana objectively yellow. There are also things which lie outside of our senses but which we can still comprehend and think about, and which tend to be the same no matter what; for example, mathematics is basically independent of tangible experience.
Having said all that, perhaps you're working with a broader definition of "perception" than I am.
Might I add, speaking of the "fundies" is obviously an attempt to get a certain amoutn of emotional appeal to your side of the argument. However, both you and I are arguing for things which cannot be proven. You cannot prove that reality can be altered by altering perception, unless you redefine reality. I find nothing in the definion of "real" here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/real that matches your definition; in fact, one defintion seems opposite: 3b c : having objective independent existence (Also, reality is definied as the quality of being real, or " a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily")
-
paradox- 28 days ruined the term "insanity" for the public. :/
Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
28 days ruined what *confused look*it was a movie right?
And three b this is just a broader way of clarifying what I said.
And it was a joke, I do know the dictionary definition
The way understand the world, is you could not believe in subjective reality unless you also believed that everything, person, plant, animal was interconnected in such a way, that they as a whole could perceive reality, and therefore from some of every object of reality a subjective reality could be determined. There is no reality without something to observe it, therefore reality is only subjective, no matter how much you hallucinate.
-
Your last sentence isn't a supporting argument; it's a tautology.
-
Okay a tautology is logically redundant,.we are dealing with something that we do not have all the fax, logic is based on information. We are dealing with guesses, and personal beliefs.
-
That doesn't change the fact that your last sentence of your second-to-last post was a tautology. We do not have utterly conclusive facts, however, if all you can contribute are guessed based on no information or theories or metaphors or anything that you can back up other than in tautologies, you arent' contributing to anything but your own post count.
Also, there is actually a form of logic which isn't based on information per se but simply on logical priciples which exist outside of experience; which is similar to math in that respect.
-
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.
-
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.
:P It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass. It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
-
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.
:P It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass. It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
find me a fitting avie and i will change my name to McSmartass.
-
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.
:P It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass. It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
find me a fitting avie and i will change my name to McSmartass.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.
:P It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass. It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
find me a fitting avie and i will change my name to McSmartass.
got catchy under avie phrase as well?
-
"No ifs, ands, or butts."
Oh, and you uploaded it funny. :(
-
"No ifs, ands, or butts."
Oh, and you uploaded it funny. :(
i just copy and pasted the propeties from your link.
i guess that i should save it to my computer.
-
done.
but you realize that you could have done this to me! ;D
-
Yes, but this way, I get to be lazy. :)
-
Yes, but this way, I get to be lazy. :)
you can still lay claim to the idea!
-
I like the new look McJ. ;) It makes you look more sophisticated than your last Avie. ::)
-
next, i think i will go with McQuagmire: a giggity giggity goo.
-
I'd agree if our perceptions were known to be both reliable and valid. We do indeed have models based on our perceptions, but the widely-accepted models aren't based on the perceptions of just one person. For example, one scizophrenic is in a room with 99 "normals." Should we base our reality on the voices he hears, or on the silence everyone else hears.
Depends if we are the schizophrenic or not. Because, in the end, we base our model
on our OWN perceptions, even though those perceptions might be second hand. I
certainly sometimes doubt that what I propose is possible, based upon the utterances
of those uncertainly real critters known as others; nonetheless, when logic is fully
applied to the issue, my views seem stronger. They're just difficult to have the
requisite faith in, as we are brainwashed (or trained?) early on to believe that
these 'others' are indeed real and similar to our own reality.
for example, mathematics is basically independent of tangible experience.
I beg to differ. Mathematics is either a pure construct of one's mind, OR it is something
which is based largely on our perceptions, depending on whether we want it to
be applicable to our model. There are many perfectly consistent mathematics, which
serve little purpose, as they don't reflect our model well. This is actually where the issue
of will comes in - if one can change the mathematics to a model which is different, and believe
it entirely, the underlying reality becomes effectively something new. My own tactic lies in
that branch of Mathematics known as logic - wherein I believe that ~(A ^ ~A) is not an
axiom.
Might I add, speaking of the "fundies" is obviously an attempt to get a certain amoutn of emotional appeal to your side of the argument. However, both you and I are arguing for things which cannot be proven. You cannot prove that reality can be altered by altering perception, unless you redefine reality. I find nothing in the definion of "real" here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/real that matches your definition; in fact, one defintion seems opposite: 3b c : having objective independent existence (Also, reality is definied as the quality of being real, or " a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily")
depends on what is meant by proof. Convincing myself is sufficient.
Definitions, if not part of the objective reality which I define, are unimportant.
If I am all that is necessary, then my will and view become so, as well.
-
To the first: If the scizophenic AND the 99 "normals" are silent, is the scizophrenic changing the perceptions of those around him by hearing voices? I.E., are his perceptions changing the reality of others, without his actually doing anything but perceiving it?
To the second: I think we're working with different defintions of "perception." I was referring to the senses and the information they give; I believe now you meant our intellect and rationality as well.
To the third: Your argument is solid if I buy your framework. It's bollocks if I don't. "I believe that my belief makes things the way they are, so by believing this, I make it so" relies on itself for validation.
I don't think this is going to get anywhere, but at least I've established enough for my own satusfaction that I disagree with you on this.
-
To the first: If the scizophenic AND the 99 "normals" are silent, is the scizophrenic changing the perceptions of those around him by hearing voices? I.E., are his perceptions changing the reality of others, without his actually doing anything but perceiving it?
Those around him? The only thing that matters is the locus of the perceptions
To the second: I think we're working with different defintions of "perception." I was referring to the senses and the information they give; I believe now you meant our intellect and rationality as well.
Yes. Without both, it's an incomplete system. Should have caught this myself.
To the third: Your argument is solid if I buy your framework. It's bollocks if I don't. "I believe that my belief makes things the way they are, so by believing this, I make it so" relies on itself for validation.
As opposed to relying on the validation from potentially mythical others?
I don't think this is going to get anywhere, but at least I've established enough for my own satusfaction that I disagree with you on this.
Probably not. Your faith is too strong.
-
I'm glad you responded the way you did; it fills in the missing space I was missing. Your response to the first and the fourth establishes what I didn't realize; you're not saying any one person can change reality. You're saying any one individual can safely assume he is the only real thing in the universe, so by changing his perception, he is changing the only "real" reality.
Please don't pretend you're not acting as faith-based as well, calendale. I do agree neither of us can prove our points; however, they are bot unscientific in that neither can be disproven. My faith is based on evidence I recieve from the world around me that it is real; I interact with it, in interacts with me, and I feel that this body of evidence is sufficient for me to believe that I do indeed exist in a reality that exists independantly of myself. You see the world and interact with it, but do not draw this conclusion; I wonder what evidence would actually suffice?
-
I'm glad you responded the way you did; it fills in the missing space I was missing. Your response to the first and the fourth establishes what I didn't realize; you're not saying any one person can change reality. You're saying any one individual can safely assume he is the only real thing in the universe, so by changing his perception, he is changing the only "real" reality.
If there is such a thing. I'm not convinced that it is necessarily the case.
Please don't pretend you're not acting as faith-based as well, calendale. I do agree neither of us can prove our points; however, they are bot unscientific in that neither can be disproven. My faith is based on evidence I recieve from the world around me that it is real; I interact with it, in interacts with me, and I feel that this body of evidence is sufficient for me to believe that I do indeed exist in a reality that exists independantly of myself. You see the world and interact with it, but do not draw this conclusion; I wonder what evidence would actually suffice?
1. I'm torn about whether mine is faith-based. Certainly, the ABILITY to control it is. But the steps leading to
the conclusions seem undeniable - even under the assumption that there is an underlying reality, which may
differ from that of the perception/understanding.
2. nothing is provable or disprovable. Thus, there is no science - only religion.
3. I believe that there is likely more than just myself. I also believe that I can change
it. A pure matter of fancy though.
4. Evidence is impossible.
-
Do you think you can change your reality in a godlike sense, or in the sense of being able to change your own experiencing through either restructuring your own perceptions and/or performing actions in the world around you?
-
The second seems the most likely. Indistinguishable from the first.
The third seems the most sane, and therefore impossible.
-
And in your framework, if something is indistinguisable from something else, it is actually not different?
-
Well, actually I'm pretty sure that all things are one.
-
Is that a genuine belief or a glib dodge?
-
Yes.
It strikes me that individuating is impossible.
Just another case of models, which aren't
too useful.
-
Define "models," define "useful," and tell me wat you find in this world to be useful. I'm guessing you don't find much of anything useful, which makes calling something not useful meaningless.
-
1. Models are the mental conception that
we have of the underlying reality. A refined
version of our perceptions. This is why I didn't
really want to say perceptions include our intellectual
assessment - as I see some distinction. They are similar
though.
2. True. I'm not sure that anything is useful. Not sure
that anything is. Take my own existence on faith. But,
if there is some ultimate 'good,' then utility would be
defined in terms of it - and hence usefulness as well.
-
1. Models are the mental conception that
we have of the underlying reality. A refined
version of our perceptions. This is why I didn't
really want to say perceptions include our intellectual
assessment - as I see some distinction. They are similar
though.
2. True. I'm not sure that anything is useful. Not sure
that anything is. Take my own existence on faith. But,
if there is some ultimate 'good,' then utility would be
defined in terms of it - and hence usefulness as well.
i always thought that a list was supposed to be A,B, when their was only two examples.
-
Numbers and letters are the same.
-
Calendale, do you believe there is some ultimate "good," or is that the same sort of impossible hypothetical women tell themselves: "If only I were 5'10" and 105 lbs, I would be completely happy."?
-
Calendale, do you believe there is some ultimate "good," or is that the same sort of impossible hypothetical women tell themselves: "If only I were 5'10" and 105 lbs, I would be completely happy."?
I direct you to an argument I made
when much less weary:
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=2367.0
-
About your wii? Or are you just reminding me you're a nihilist?
-
I'm 5'10" and 160 lbs. 8)
-
I'm 5'10" and 160 lbs. 8)
173 after a good bukakke.
-
About your wii? Or are you just reminding me you're a nihilist?
About my view of ultimate good.
-
About your wii? Or are you just reminding me you're a nihilist?
About my view of ultimate good.
It doesn't link to anything relevant. Are you making an extremely obscure point?
-
I must have erred then. I thought that the discussion
went into why it doesn't really matter IF there's an
ultimate good or not, that we can't reall know it -
pretty much the same as any sort of underlying reality.
The two are the same issue.
-
I'm 5'10" and 160 lbs. 8)
173 after a good bukakke.
13lbs? Thats a lot of spunk. Provided by the Swedish national wanking team? >:D
-
Some guys just look at semen and put
on weight. You know how it is.
-
Some guys just look at semen and put
on weight. You know how it is.
:laugh:
-
It doesn't link to anything relevant. Are you making an extremely obscure point?
The only point I see here is that he wants to be miserable and no amount of logical argument will deter him.
-
It doesn't link to anything relevant. Are you making an extremely obscure point?
The only point I see here is that he wants to be miserable and no amount of logical argument will deter him.
QFT.
-
I would like to interject with something far less hopeless and relevant.
(http://www.dark-sanity.com/stupid-trick-cube.jpg)
Kitty!
-
Damn your lack of plussability.
-
top right turn twice.
right botton turn counter clockwise once.
left side middle turn cloways two turns.
finished.
-
top right turn twice.
right botton turn counter clockwise once.
left side middle turn cloways two turns.
finished.
(http://www.keysan.com/thumbnails/sckc4644.jpg)
Quick: How many? :P
-
487!
-
I would like to interject with something far less hopeless and relevant.
(http://www.dark-sanity.com/stupid-trick-cube.jpg)
Kitty!
Why is the kitten taking a dump
while trying to solve the cube?
I find it harder to push, when I'm
concentrating on something like that.
Reading is ok, but that?
-
It's an optical illusion. :P
-
I caught a guest viewing this topic while snooping, so why not bring this back to life and have further discussions about whether or not truth is relative (or absolute)?
In my opinion, truth is what is considered to be facts according to someone's perception and senses (not to be confused with opinions).
For example, for me, it is a truth that I'm typing on this computer a post that'll soon be submitted to this forum in this exact thread, and it is a truth (from my perspective) that this will have already been submitted once I've clicked the Post button and let the submit code do its thingy.
It is a truth that I'm sitting on a chair at the moment, a very uncomfortable chair, mind you. It is a truth that the chair has a brown seat.
It is a truth that I have two hands and two eyes and two ears and two feet and one mouth and one nose, etc.
From my perspective, these are all truths.
But what about how and what others perceive?
What color will a color blind person see when he's looking at the seat of my chair? Will he see brown or a different color? If it's a different color, is he not telling the truth by stating what color he himself sees?
Who's to say who's seeing the "absolutely true" color?
In this sense, truth can be relative.
But there's also the sense in which it must be absolute.
One simple example is in the following question:
Is the statement that truth can be relative an absolutely truth?
To this, the most proper answer I can come up with is that, yes, it's an absolute truth.
So, in my view, some truths are absolute and some are relative (depending on one's perspectives).
-
Gave my perspective on this here once.
As far as I'm concerned, my experience is the real one. Just not the type to mix truth and reality. There's an underlying foundation to existence that can be called truth. Reality is a perspective and all perspectives are subjective. Don't know the truth, but neither does anyone else. That's my reality; your's may be different.
-
Good post. :thumbup: