> 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