UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[Wolf_Rider]

Fact... check the depth of the ocean for fish, which live there under great pressure, for one, and life which exists under the Antarctic ice shelves in extremely cold conditions, for two. Creatures which exist under the sands of the hotest deserts, three, and geothermic ocean vent critters, four.

rather extreme conditions, yet life exists.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto be rendered superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

Math isnt a belief system.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Fact... check the depth of the ocean for fish, which live there under great pressure, for one, and life which exists under the Antarctic ice shelves in extremely cold conditions, for two. Creatures which exist under the sands of the hotest deserts, three, and geothermic ocean vent critters, four.

rather extreme conditions, yet life exists.

All located on the planet Earth, which in a debate as to the likelihood of extra terrestrial life reduces your number of locations to one.

Originally Posted by unreasonable

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

I am evidently attempting to communicate on a level of philosophical thought outside of your experiences to date.

The quest for the establishment of the nature of absolute truth has been the topic of fierce philosophical debate throughout documented history. Indeed the only logical conclusion which can be reached by sound critical reasoning is that; Since all information is transferred to our consciences via nerve impulses to the brain via sensory organs and neural networks, therefore existing solely in our individual conciousness and being entirely subjective, our perception of truth is in itself illusory.

'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion, rendering all we perceive in itself a belief system, open to the same passionate argumentation as the initial topic tabled for discussion.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Math isnt a belief system.

Yes it is. See above.

[raaaid]

1+1= equals whatever i want in my imagination , i dont accept the "real" world

in fact didnt jesus take one fish and one bread add them and get hundreds?

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

All located on the planet Earth, which in a debate as to the likelihood of extra terrestrial life reduces your number of locations to one.



I am evidently attempting to communicate on a level of philosophical thought outside of your experiences to date. [1]

The quest for the establishment of the nature of absolute truth has been the topic of fierce philosophical debate throughout documented history. [2] Indeed the only logical conclusion which can be reached by sound critical reasoning is that[3]; Since all information is transferred to our consciences via nerve impulses to the brain via sensory organs and neural networks, therefore existing solely in our individual conciousness and being entirely subjective, our perception of truth is in itself illusory. [4]

'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion,[5] rendering all we perceive in itself a belief system, open to the same passionate argumentation as the initial topic tabled for discussion.[6]

1] Rhetorical. An example of ad hominem argument, which is fallacious. Also, as it happens, untrue in this particular case, but I see no point in a "philosophy degree measuring" contest, if "Mr Logic" even has one. (Rhetorical by me )

2] Rhetorical. While this is true it is also irrelevant, but put in to attempt to make the reader infer that the poster is knowledgeable about philosophical debate throughout recorded history. An example of the appeal to authority.

3] Rhetorical. "Mr Logic" merely asserts that his conclusions are true and necessarily true, while not actually demonstrating any "sound critical reasoning".

4] There is so much wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. This statement of the mind-body problem conflates information with beliefs, the mechanisms by which we come to have beliefs with the beliefs themselves, and subjectivity with illusion. None of these stand up to scrutiny.

5] "Mr Logic" goes from the statement "our perception of truth is in itself illusory" to "'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion" which does not follow at all, even if the first proposition were true. "Mr Logic" is relying on the way in which human understanding tends to work through the association of ideas. Jumble them all up enough and you can end up with people believing that reality is illusion, black is white, all is one. The point of philosophy is to untangle these confusions, not to make them worse.

6] I cannot help noticing that "Mr Logic" has completely failed to address my objections to his post, namely that (If A&B Then A) is irrefutably true, and that his position is self contradictory.

[Wolf_Rider]

Black could be white though... its just how things turned out at the time, in the naming process

but don't fall into the logic trap of the circular argument where the posts keep shifting...

and remember the old adage of "take a leap of faith", in which the goal is to ignore what the senses tell you, in order to experience something tangible which is unperceived by those senses.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

but don't fall into the logic trap of the circular argument where the posts keep shifting...

Good advice, Mr Wolf_Rider. Mr Logic has a Trollish scent about him, so I probably will not respond to any further posts from him, unless he actually addresses my point.

On your other points... perhaps another time? Don't want to derail the thread.

[Wolf_Rider]

derail the thread?? wha? who? nevva...