On Aug 22, 4:25 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle"
erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>> You're still not paying attention, and deliberately trying to hide
>> that fact, now. Regardless of what you need to do before you do
>> anything else, the implications of the observation were at issue, so
>> your attempt to claim that "this is where you are wrong" is - how
>> shall we say? - curious.
>
> No, it goes right to the core.
> You talk about conclusions based on data which you cannot be sure of.
> So let us recap, reaaallly slow :
Good idea. You seem to need things explained to you real slow, and
even then you don't get it.
> Before you can conclude anything 'true' from an observation, you need to
> 'know' (lol)
> -the method you used to observe was sufficient. (meaning perfect, eg-
> impossible)
Error #1. If you observed something, you already know the method you
used was sufficient to observe it, on account of you having, you know,
observed it, and all.
> -the translation from what was observed, to what is presented in your
> consciousness is sufficient.
Error #2. "Reality", for perceiving individuals, is what they perceive
as real, as opposed to what they perceive in their imaginations.
Whether what lies "beyond consciousness" bears any kind of resemblance
to that perception of reality is entirely irrelevant, and awareness of
any such resemblance is not required for knowledge.
It is a little ironic, however, since you think it's impossible to
have knowledge, and it is true that you don't actually have any. It's
a mistake to believe anyone else suffers from this inadequacy,
however. That's error #3.
> -After all these impossibilities, you have to perfectly conclude. (once
> again, lol)
Error #4. Knowledge is assumption backed up by consistency and
predictive power. Perfection is not required for it to be knowledge.
As I've told you before, you don't need to know everything in order to
know something.
Errors #5, #6 and #7. You assert that knowledge of truth is
impossible, yet you idiotically try to assert that all three of these
statements of yours are true, and to derive fixed conclusions from
them (error #8).
> Now, please describe what you accept as being fact,
That you've just made at least eight glaring schoolboy errors in only
three short statements. Surprisingly, that's actually pretty good
going for you.
> you lovable angry nooby
It's always funny when idiots who confuse themselves with concepts
that they should have mastered within the first week of a philosophy
class try to make out that others are "noobs". On the other hand, you
can always tell when they're faking it and not believing themselves,
because they try to wrap it up in cutesy and rather gay terms to -
ineffectually - give the impression that they're not horribly rankled
by it all, and that they don't care about not being taken seriously by
anybody.
You have an awful long way to go, laughing boy. I hate to burst that
little bubble of yours (actually, I don't) but you've yet to even
reach one on the challenging scale. You should get together with that
"565" character, he's at the same "clueless rank beginner but believes
himself a genius" level as you - you'd probably get on like a house on
fire.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
