There Are No Facts. Only Opinions. .
My argument:
A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. For example, the statement "it's a fact the Earth goes around the Sun" actually means "we're really really confident the Earth goes around the Sun."
However, before anyone jumps in and claims I'm a relativist moron, I also claim that some opinions are better and more useful than others. For example, While both of the following statements "the Earth goes around the Sun" and "the Sun goes aorund the Earth" are technical opinions, the first opinion is more useful for launching satellites and doing astronomy then the second. Just because all statements are opinions, does not mean all opinions are created equal.
Why am I posting this? Because I'm tired of people claiming "X is a fact.' The moment someone claims anything, they're just offering their opinion.
What are your thoughts?
A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. For example, the statement "it's a fact the Earth goes around the Sun" actually means "we're really really confident the Earth goes around the Sun."
However, before anyone jumps in and claims I'm a relativist moron, I also claim that some opinions are better and more useful than others. For example, While both of the following statements "the Earth goes around the Sun" and "the Sun goes aorund the Earth" are technical opinions, the first opinion is more useful for launching satellites and doing astronomy then the second. Just because all statements are opinions, does not mean all opinions are created equal.
Why am I posting this? Because I'm tired of people claiming "X is a fact.' The moment someone claims anything, they're just offering their opinion.
What are your thoughts?
Comments (262)
Is "There Are No Facts. Only Opinions." a fact or an opinion?
A "fact" is information that is verified by experience; not just one person's informed experience, but everyone's informed experience. Opinions are judgements about facts.
The opinion that there are no facts, only opinions, is an invitation to chase rabbits (Alice In Wonderland) where there are no facts.
...is the wrong tree.
LOL. No. It's my opinion.
It's not a fact that it's your opinion?
Here's a short summary:
1. In order to establish a fact, you have to, you know, state it.
2. But the moment you state it, you're expressing an opinion. Perhaps the Earth does circle the Sun, but the moment anyone claims it to be true, they're expressing an opinion.
It's my opinion that it's my opinion.
Main point: facts do not exist independent of humans. For example, if there are no humans, the Earth might still circle the sun. But without humans, there would be no "facts" regarding the Earth circling the Sun as there would be no one to think or state these "facts."
While there is something to what you are saying. Some opinions are so close to being 100% true most of the time that they are tested that you may as well call them facts.
Quoting YuZhonglu
So death is a fact? And facts exist? But if we talk about them then it is just opinion? If we created 2 A.I. entities could they communicate facts? What would that communication looks like?
But the moment a human talks about reality, they're just expressing their opinion. When they say "fact," what they mean is "an opinion I'm really confident about."
About AI, dunno. Still thinking about it, but it depends on how the AI was programmed.
So it might not be your opinion?
You been smoking powerful shit?
Oh, so if I just think to myself "absolute relativism is wrong" then it's a fact as long as I keep my mouth shut about it?
Yeah, okay, I'm definitely not saying that (out loud).
No I'm pretty sure it is my opinion. I don't understand your line of questioning. What's your point?
Is that a fact?
Is it a fact that you have opinions?
Is there a way we could know?
Quoting YuZhonglu
But you just defined what a fact is. Have you defined the non-existent? How can a fact not exist when a fact is an opinion verified by experience? Those criteria are met for claims all the time.
Surely this implies that facts are not as set in stone as most people take them to be, but I'm sure everyone around here knows how fragile our theories can be. Even if facts are only slightly more powerful than opinions, facts do carry the burden of proof.
No one asked what the definitions of the two classes were. The claim is that one class is empty.
Except that it isn't. If it wasn't a fact that you submitted that comment, then it would be impossible for me to reply to it. But I'm replying to it now, so it's a fact that you submitted it.
Here's mine. In order for a concept to be a "fact", it has to have at least two properties:
1. Permanence. For example, if you believe it's a fact that the Earth goes around the Sun, you can't just willy nilly believe the opposite the next day. Similarly, if you accept that "X is a fact" you're assuming that people in the future will also accept that "X is a fact."
2. All "facts" are statements.
My position is that these two properties are in contradiction with one another. Consequently, there is no such thing as facts.
Yes, you have a very strongly held opinion that you're replying to what I submitted.
It is a strongly held opinion of mine that I have opinions.
No, you need to actually attempt to refute my argument, not just repeat your assertion.
I didn't give a definition. What I offered is more an illustration of how they function in practice. The OP asserted a Divine Truth as to what the two, "classes" as you call them, were; so you're right, no one asked, but someone dictated. I'm responding to that dictation. The claim is not that one "class" is empty but that both are empty-on-demand by virtue of subjective reality.
I'm claiming that the "class" of "facts"- as the average person would think of it- is empty because the properties of the class contradict itself.
That's not even in the same universe with what I expressed here.
1. People establish their "facts" from experience.
2. They assume these "facts" are permanent (which is why they call them "facts"). E.g. statements like "you're entitled to your opinions, not your 'facts'.
This is a contradiction. If facts come from experience, then they cannot be permanent because people in the future will have very different experiences.
Hence my claim that all facts are just strongly held opinions.
Is it a fact that you strongly believe you have opinions?
yeah thats very often the case that needs to be considered by everybody when making a judgement on a situation. I'm not sure the concept of fact should be thrown out by greater society.
I've given a partial definition of "fact." Give me your definition and I'll answer your question.
Not all opinions are created equal.
What argument? Give me your definition of "fact" and we can talk about it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
Definitely. Now we get into an argument with some who decides whos is greater but i hope not today.
Condense it into something understandable. I know that website and it's virtually unreadable.
My [I]reductio ad absurdum[/I]. It's hard to miss.
A fact is something that's the case. It corresponds to a true statement. It's a fact that you submitted the comment I quoted above. The statement, "You submitted the comment I quoted above", is true.
Do you have a serious argument against this, or just trivial semantics?
1. I submitted a comment above.
2. This comment showed up on your screen.
3. Your eyes read the statement. Your brain interpreted it.
4. You're not schizophrenic. Consequently, your brain trusts itself.
5. Your brain is certain that it's a "fact" that I submitted a comment.
Hence: all facts are strongly held opinions. You have a very strongly held opinion that I submitted a comment, which you call a "fact."
It's just your opinion that it's unreadable.
It's MY opinion that if you can look at such an accurate website and get a general idea of what's being said, then you have no idea what you're talking about here.
That's a tacit acknowledgment of a fact. It's all I need for my argument to work. Nothing else you say even matters.
You need to reference the person you're responding to in posts here or it gets confusing. In my opinion.
In my view, the vast majority of facts have nothing to do with experience, and facts are not permanent.
Ah. Then what's your definition of "fact?"
What's your definition of "fact?" I define it as a strongly held opinion, a feeling of certainty towards a belief.
Alright.
[Is there a way to edit your previous posts?]
The three dots under the post you want to edit and then the pencil. (In my opinion :P)
Facts are states of affairs, ways that the world happens to be (at a given moment, from a particular reference point).
The only options are "flag, share, quote."
I already told you what a fact is, and I've given examples. I don't really care if you want to use the word differently. It seems that other respondents don't care much either.
You're clicking the dots on someone else's post. You have to click your own.
A better (more specific) definition would be:
"facts are perspectives generated by the brain that the brain happens to be really really certain about."
Thanks.
What would make that better?
It avoids airy statements like "the world happens to be from some reference point."
You're misquoting me, but there's nothing "airy" about that. The same thing will be different from different reference points, so it's worth specifying that.
Most facts have nothing at all to do with brains or people.
I don't define "fact" like the way a lot of other people do. As I see it, a "fact" is just a strongly held opinion that a person's brain [edit] is really certain about.
i disagree. If there are no brains, then there will also be no facts.
Anytime :smile:
So the world wasn't in various states prior to the appearance of brains?
I happen to believe that the Earth existed before the appearance of "human brains."
However, this 'fact'- the claim that the Earth existed, etc. etc.- cannot exist without a brain to think it.
I'm not calling claims facts.
I'm calling states of affairs facts.
What do you mean by "state of affairs?"
By appealing to approximate consensus. There is a societal consensus that I can sue him in a court of law. And if I win, then society will order officers to collect that debt for me.
Yes, but the claim that this state of affairs exists cannot exist without a human brain.
Again, I'm not talking about claims.
But all facts are claims.
As I see it, a "fact" is the product of a neurological process. Consequently, if there's no "brain" then there are also no "facts."
No. I'm not using the term "fact" that way. And the way I'm using the term is standard in a lot of contexts, including philosophical and scientific contexts.
Good for you. I don't define "horse" like a lot of other people do. I define "horse" as sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat, such as a grill or fire.
I had cheese on horse earlier. I might make some more. Would anybody else like some cheese on horse?
So what is your definition of "fact?" [I couldn't understand what you had written earlier].
You already asked that and I already answered it. The answer was: "Facts are states of affairs, ways that the world happens to be (at a given moment, from a particular reference point)."
Without human brains, there can also be no human facts.
Without bread, there can be no cheese on horse.
I'm using logic to to demonstrate that what you're doing is silly.
You only think I'm being silly because you don't get what I'm doing. Review my comments and give it some thought.
Facts are generated by the human brain. If there's no brain, then there are no facts.
That's one of my positions. Why do you disagree or think it silly?
EDIT: So I guess, yes.
I said, "Good for you".
I then told you how I define "horse". What's the problem?
Would you like some cheese on horse whilst you try to grasp what I'm doing?
I mean, facts are generated by brains, correct?
yes. On purpose.
So, there are various ways that the world happens to be: I gave the example that a particular hydrogen atom will have a particular spatial relation to another particular hydrogen atom. Another example is that a given small rock on Mt. Denali will have a particular water content. Etc. These ways that the world happens to be are at a particular time--the rock's water content will change over time, for example, and from particular reference points--for example, the hydrogen atom might be to the right of the other from a particular reference point, but to the left from a reference point on the opposite side.
These ways that the world happens to be are known as "states of affairs," and it's common to use the term "fact" as another word for this.
What doesn't make sense about sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat, such as a grill or fire? That's how I define "horse". It isn't how a lot of other people define "horse".
That's analogous to what you're doing with "fact".
You can't make cheese on horse without bread.
Facts are not generated by brains. Opinions are generated by brains. Facts are observed by brains.
Concepts of position requires sensory perceptions. The very concept of position itself wouldn't exist without a brain.
Why would you think that I'm referring to a concept per se?
i think YuZhonglu is making the notion that in a historical, crime scene, and scientific perspective that over time new conclusions are made about old results. If i have video footage that Bob robbed my house and 10 years later i discover Bob died in 1990 and infact it was hologram of Bob. The actual person who robbed my house was Frank and he did it with out being caught on camera.
That just isn't true. The concept of "position" is available to even the most rudimentary organisms in an absence of "sensory perception".
That's a concept generated by the human brain.
Tim is right, for once. This is just a language game. It is a game, so should be treated as such. Who wants to play hopscotch?
Do you not understand what reference is? You're confusing pointing with what we're pointing to.
You can't reference something unless your brain believes it exists. Does a "state of affairs" exist outside of us? Maybe. But any claims about it are generated by a human brain.
I feel my previous posts clarified what YuZhonglu was trying to get across. I could be wrong.
You can't literally point at something without a finger, right? Does that mean that we can only point at our finger?
crap. he got me.
I don't need you to clarify to me what he is trying to get across. I understand what he is doing, and I am responding accordingly.
You realize Descartes already thoroughly tackled this question? Even the most ardent of skeptics comes to two irreducible facts: cogito ergo sum. You think and therefore you are.
The question I asked you is if we can point at something other than our finger. What's the answer to that question?
this pretty much clarifies the whole thing. There are some facts that aren't worth debating by anyone.
I catch his drift, and I agree. I don't need him to explain. Maybe I am more intelligent than you.
So that we use a concept to refer to something doesn't imply that we're referring to a concept, does it?
It's just like using a finger to point. We use a finger to point at something that's not a finger.
We use a concept (and language in general) to point at something that's not a concept (not language).
Noting that we have to use a concept/language to point at the thing in question is like noting that we need to use a finger to point at something.
No brain. No neural circuitry. No facts.
So why isn't it the case that anytime you use a finger, you're referring to (pointing at) that finger?
Observation is not generated by the brain, it exists outside the brain and is interpreted by the brain. It is a function of the environment to impress something upon the brain, not a function of the brain to impress something upon the environment. The brain is an aspect of the environment and acts accordingly via automated processes. There is no subjective reality; there is fact, and there is what the brain interprets--"subjective reality"--compulsion.
Lol.
1. Facts are statements.
2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain.
3. No brain- > no facts.
That's good. The whole point is to get you thinking. Settling back on a prepared statement isn't going to do that.
If you agree that we can point at something that isn't our finger--even though we HAVE to use our finger to do that, then why can't you agree that we can use a concept to point at something that's not itself the concept? Sure, we have to use a concept to do it, just like we have to use our finger to point, but the idea of reference is that we can point to something that's different than the thing making the reference.
2. Cheese on horse consists of cheese and cooked bread.
3. No cooked bread, no cheese on horse.
They most certainly do. They exist in other humans outside the singular human, and apart from that in other animals, and apart from that in everything down to the smallest living organism, and apart from that down to the smallest subatomic particle. This body belongs to, and is comprised of, the constituents of its environment. To separate it as if it's somehow enchanted beyond the sum of its parts is both religious and absurd.
Sure. But again, this claim of yours requires a brain. There are no observations independent of the observer.
Consciousness is a tool of microorganisms that we interpret as being our domain due to the nature of its function--self-awareness--which is mandatory for the fabrication of inorganic intelligence--a prerequisite to interplanetary, and in turn perhaps intergalactic, propagation of species.
Doesn't change the fact that you are and that you are thinking.
My existence is not mandatory as far as I have observed. It is an infinitesimal function of a greater whole and is wholly expendable.
That's so absurd that it's funny.
Speak for yourself!
Quoting whollyrolling
I don't think that's true in the least.
Well there you have it. You don't even have to give it any consideration, it's not you though it may be others, specifically the person who so audaciously suggested it. If you disagree, then maybe you can explain how your consciousness in particular is uniquely altruistic.
Not sure what you'e saying here.
Quoting whollyrolling
I don't think it is.
So now the argument has changed from "there are no facts, just opinions" to this new argument that "facts are statements, which generated in the brain". Wonder how this will change later...
Ok. Can the planet Jupiter exist without you yourself being alive? If so, can it exist without any humans being alive? If so, why would the fact of it's existence need a statement generated by the neural circuitry in our brains?
You highlighted a small portion of my comment and stated that you don't think it's true. You took it out of context, so now that you've replied I'm not sure what you're replying to, my full comment or your excerpt from it. That humans are self-centred has been demonstrated for thousands of years and i we have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
You're proving yourself to be one of those self-centered persons right now.
Which doesn't matter because it only illustrates my point, but in what way?
Maybe a bunch of brains thinking about other brains?
That is one of the basic questions: What can I know? Like... Am I real? Are you real? Are our perceptions of what we call 'reality' consistent with what 'reality' actually is? (It often is, but sometimes it is not.) How would we know, one way or the other?
No, it's only a reflection on you. The rest of the world is not determined by your narcissism.
It seems to me to be the case that human are self-centered. Of course, that isn't all we are all the time. But creatures with egos like their reflections. In a way, most creatures are self-centered. Their various lives are composed of efforts to survive and propagate. Survival and propagation require a narrow focus.
This shows that it is not sensible to use "fact" as he does, just as it is not sensible to use "horse" as I did. I only used it that way to demonstrate the general problem of idiosyncratic usage.
I think that's probably true in a sense. We often act selfishly and think only of ourselves.
Few, however, would seriously maintain that the universe actually revolves around them in the way that the earth revolves around the sun.
But we're also genetically programmed to be social beings, so I think our very nature drives us in two directions.
That's correct, the rest of the world is "determined" by its own narcissism.
No. Both of those definitions seem to widely miss the mark. Philosophy isn't a bunch of brains full stop. And doing philosophy doesn't consist in thinking about brains, even if some philosophical thinking does. The question of what's the case is philosophical and about reality, not brains, unless we happen to specifically be talking about brains.
This is the finger-moon mistake that Terrapin was getting at.
So does the propagation of an idea.
It's narcissistic to assume we're all like you :P
It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true.
I didn't come close to assuming or implying that.
My guess (and hope) is that people mean "the universe seems to revolve around them", from their slightly skewed perspective.
Philosophy is whatever I say it is, and truth is whatever I say it is. And everything else is whatever I say it is. Because I'm always right. Because I'm basically a god.
Fortunately for us, none of this matters all that much.
How could it be true according to your relativism, if others disagree? What you mean is that you believe it is true, it is true for you; but that means, not that it is a truth, but that it is merely a belief.
Exactly. I was preempting what the discussion eventually became about, which is that the OP already had in mind a definition of 'fact' which determined his proposition true. Hence the rest of the discussion was pointless until you guys wheedled that 'fact' out of him.
@YuZhonglu. I don't suppose I can do a much better job than Terrapin in showing you what is meant by fact, nor than S in showing you why it is silly to have any other definition, but just in case it helps, one way to think about it might be to ask yourself - if facts are statements, then what word would be left to describe the object of statements? If I say "the grass is green" and by your definition, that proposition is itself a fact (the strong belief in my mind), then what is the word for the actual state of affairs that I hold a belief about (the actual greenness of the grass)?
There may be psychiatrists who could prescribe something to make his "preaching" go away.
I'm not a relativist.
I don't need a doctor. I [I]am[/I] the doctor.
No, I haven't contradicted myself, you're just demonstrating once again that you don't pay close enough attention to what I say.
I'm not a relativist, I'm specifically and only a moral relativist. That wasn't a moral statement. It was a statement about ability. You calling me a relativist is like me calling you a good listener.
And it was obviously tongue-in-cheek, whether true or false. (It's the former).
I favour moral relativism because I judge that to be a better position than the alternatives, but I can switch between moral relativism and a position like error theory depending on how we interpret moral statements. It just doesn't seem as useful to interpret moral statements in the latter way because of the logical consequences. All moral statements would be false or unwarranted. But I don't see the same problem with other types of statement, statements that seem factual rather than something like an indication of opinion.
My argument appears to be changing, or at least that's how it would appear to others, but that's because I'm presenting it in installments. Also, I'm not entirely sure how to summarize my idea, so I'll attack this communication problem from another angle- by providing the context and the background for my odd claims- so at least others will know where I'm coming from.
Imagine this: you're in a dark, abandoned house. Your best friend, hiding in a corner, jumps in front of you, and you scream like a little girl. The casual relationship in this scenario appears to be obvious: "your best friend surprised you in a scary environment. Thus you were scared and screamed."
But it's not that simple. What actually happened on a biological level was more like this:
"Sounds and sights from the environment [best friend jumping in front of you] triggered the neurons in your eyes to send signals to neurons in the back and side lobes of your brain. These neurons then triggered the subsystems in your brain involved with "fight / flee." Your body jumped back because, again, the fight/flee subsystems sent signals to the rest of your body triggering a physical reaction. This event is then, somehow, imprinted in the various subsystems of your brain involved with memory, which is why, later, when your friends tease you about it, you get angry." Etc. etc. [I'm being vague because neuroscientists don't know most of these details yet- and obviously I don't, either. But what I've sketched here is a reasonable summary].
In other words, when "you" jump back and scream in response to a scary event, it's not as simple as it seems. What's actually happening is that your brain is responding to itself, in response to external cues from the environment. Or more specifically: subsystems in your brain responded to other subsystems in your brain, which then activated various other parts of your body, which is why you were scared. When you look back at the event, what's happening on a biological level is that executive neural networks in your brain are modifying/recalling the neural networks involved with memory. Somehow. No one knows the details, but what I've provided here is a reasonable sketch.
Why did I write all this? It's to point out that "facts" don't exist in a vacuum. "Facts" are memories stored (somehow) in human brains. When you recall a "fact", you're recalling a "memory"- the result of some physical process in your brain. If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't be able to recall 'facts.' If everyone lost their brains, then everyone would have also lost their 'facts,' which means there will be no 'facts' anymore.
Etc. etc. '
[EDIT: Ignore the italics. Not intentional. I can't seem to get rid of it].
And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion.
It really resolves into a "This statement is false" kind of thing.
I'm only interested in opinions if they are based on some reason, or evidence, but then that would no longer be an opinion, but an informed statement. What reasons, or evidence would you provide that there are no facts, only opinions, and are those reasons just other opinions?
Where does it stop? Is it your opinion that you exist and have a mind, or is that a fact? Is your post evidence that you have a mind and that you exist?
I'm sure you experience typing a post and submitting it. Anyone can call that event, or state-of-affairs, anything they want, but isn't it a fact that it happened, or that something is happening (like your mental existence)? Using arbitrary symbols to refer to that event is something different and requires a mental existence to even accomplish.
Dream on! :kiss:
You literally did. You said "all" humans think the universe revolves around humans.
You'll have to ask wholly if that's what he means. My reading of his post was that he thinks we all think it DOES.
Well, by my definition of 'fact' it would, yes, but that's not what the OP appears to be talking about. They appear to be defining 'fact' rather idiosyncraticaly as something more like proposition. By that definition, if one class were empty would be irrelevant, but if someone were to claim one class were empty, that would be an opinion, apparently.
The reason I made the comment you're responding to is really to try and break apart issues caused by definition from issues related to metaphysical commitments.
For me (and I think most of us) facts are states of affairs, they are the subject/object of propositions, not the proposition itself, so the idea that facts are opinions by this definition is basically solipsism.
If, on the other hand, the underlying metaphysical position here is one of Pyrrhonic skepticism, hen that's something I have a degree more sympathy for.
What I'm trying to say is that the difference between an opinion and a fact depends on the feeling of certainty attached to the concept, as both opinions and facts are merely the products of neurological activity.
I agree with you.
My agreement was the point of what I said.
You don't have to stick to the concept of neurological activity though, which itself stems from experiences you have had. You could say that all we have are experiences, that we can't know for sure what experiences others have, so fundamentally all we talk about is based on our subjective experiential point of view, rather than on the point of view of some omniscient being who could see what everyone experiences and could experience.
1. I have a memory of X.
2. This memory is accurate.
3. Others should agree with me on this claim.
In other words, we're not actually talking about X itself. Instead, we're discussing our interpretations of X, generated by the physical processes of our brains.
You don't appear to understand metaphor or colloquialism, so let me explain. I didn't mean that all humans are convinced that the universe literally circles around an axis literally at the location of their brain. My intent was to play on a colloquialism, something that I assumed everyone was aware of, "you think (everything, the world, the universe, etc.) revolves around you".
It is a basic primary instinct to act to preserve the self, though it's not unconditional. It is tertiary, and I don't believe instinctive but optional and often very difficult, to act to preserve the species.
I understand the colloquialism. But in the context of this specific thread, it takes on new meaning. Unless, of course, you're just blabbing and not actually contributing to the conversation?
Quoting whollyrolling
You're clearly not a mother.
It wouldn't be the first time I've given examples of this. It's true that Spain borders France, that one plus one equals two, and that Earth orbits the Sun. They're objective truths. They don't depend on me or my judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that, nor on anyone else or their judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that. You can interpret the meaning of moral statements, such as that abortion is wrong, in the same way, but I don't accept that there's an objective truthmaker in the sense I just described, and I find it very counterintuitive to end up with the logical consequence that no moral statement is true, so I opt for moral relativism. Moreover, your community defined ethics leads to problems you have been unable to resolve, so that rules that one out. And I'm tired of trying to go over that with you, because your response has been unsatisfactory each time I've tried: either handwaving or completely ignoring it. And I'm also tired of hearing your excuses for this, predictably blaming it on me instead of taking responsibility.
What does being a mother have to do with this?
I'm addressing the topic at hand and the resulting dialogue within the thread. Claiming someone is "blabbing" is not contributing to the conversation, it's just ad hominem nonsense intended to discredit what is misunderstood. Whether or not someone is self-centred pertains directly to a conversation about opinion vs. fact. So does free will. So does the nature of consciousness. So does instinct.
Then you'd know that self-preservation is only one of the primal instincts. Protecting another or others can (for parents) be just as primal and instinctual, if not more.
It's not an ad hominem, since I've said nothing about you as a person. I also didn't claim you are blabbing. I stated it as a hypothetical possibility contingent on the purpose and content of your words.
All basic primary instincts are a function of biology and can be modified once people finally begin to understand how the brain works. Just because something is "basic" doesn't mean it can't be changed.
Then why do so many mothers across species abandon their injured offspring to die, and why do so many mothers across species attempt to injure or otherwise set back each other's offspring, and why is legal support for abortion and assisted suicide increasing as the number of mothers involved in legislation increases?
Being a mother isn't some qualifier for higher knowledge, that's absurd.
Protecting others is never "instinctive" if we're going to suggest that "instinct" entails virtually irresistible biological compulsion as opposed to rational decision making. In the immediate or short term, protection is a choice prompted by rapidly occurring chemical and energetic processes within the body, and in both short and long term it involves a variety of both learned and genetic psychological influences. These processes don't necessarily result in protection of another. They often result in a decision to flee rather than to fight.
I personally believe that every behavior is a result of automation and that there's no free will, but this isn't what consciousness perceives, and I don't believe it's beneficial to resign to it in practice.
"Blabbing" implies incoherence or idleness or superfluity or that what a person is saying doesn't qualify as worthwhile. Your lack of understanding doesn't qualify or disqualify my commentary.
You didn't seem very interested when I gave you my definition of "horse" and validly drew a few logical consequences.
You're doing the same thing with "fact".
No, I'm responding to what you wrote.
This is what you wrote:
Quoting YuZhonglu
And this is my response:
Quoting S
The same applies to me, too, of course. It's an insanely complex process.
Quoting YuZhonglu
Are these facts or opinons. I'm pointing at myself right now. That is a fact not an opinion. After i finally got my head screwed on straight i agree with everyone else.
So what? Describing in detail how I responded to what you wrote doesn't do anything, logically.
If humans disappeared, the Earth might still revolve around the Sun. But there would be no "facts" regarding this phenomenon. "Facts," as people understand them, do not exist independent of the mind that created it.
EDIT: This has significance because when two people look at the Sun, they're not seeing the same "Sun." Similarly, when two people react to a post, they're not reacting to the "same" post.
Quoting YuZhonglu
this is a whole another forum topic. What if there are aliens or what if some other species evloves that can talk? What if some parrot says that your wrong YuZhonglu?
ok
All sane parents know what I said is true.
Some non-parents don't know it (including you).
Your examples are beyond ridiculous.
Your lack of coherence doesn't make a good case for you not babbling.
I think that's possible in some cases, although not desireable in all. Parental nurturing instincts are a good thing. We should both aim to understand and foster such good inclinations.
You're presenting an absurd argument from authority based on a notion you've constructed out of thin air that being a parent equates to higher knowledge and greater compassion, and you're calling my commentary incoherent blabbing or babbling (whichever you intended).
That "all sane parents" and "some non-parents" are privy to certain pieces of knowledge solely by virtue of parentage not only contradicts what you said earlier about instinct, as opposed to knowledge, but is also just baseless opinion.
I didn't say "things can't be changed".
that is true
It doesn't and it isn't. But keep blabbing about stuff you don't know anything about. I'm satisfied that you haven't got anything of substance to add here.
Quoting YuZhonglu
No, it very obviously doesn't. But you aren't good enough at logic to see that.
Or, if that wasn't intended as a reply to me, then you should have been clearer. You shouldn't just start a sentence of with, "It means...", when the context isn't clear.
I don't think we should base what we currently view as desirable on what people might in some unlikely case view as undesirable in some distant scifi future.
It's a bit premature to assert that.
This has gone from bemusing to annoying. I'm going to leave you and your silly language game be, as you aren't reasonably engaging when you say stuff like the above.
No, you simply asked for an example, without explaining yourself properly, and now you're doing your usual thing of blaming me instead of taking responsibility.
And I deliberately ignored your arrogant attempt to pigeonhole me instead of listening to what I've actually said. I define my position, not you. I haven't even used the term "empirical" once.
I don't care about your "intersubjectively corroborated" rubbish enough to treat it as a serious criterion that I must fulfill. You already know that we disagree over that, so I don't know why you'd expect me to do that when I don't need to. You seem to just be in your own little world right now.
You think you're talking about me, but what's funny is that you're really talking about you.
You're right. There's little point in discussing things with you as you are arrogant and abusive. Please don't respond to my threads anymore.
Yes, I'm right about many things: one of them being that you're playing a silly language game without realising it.
You don't understand, or are wilfully ignorant, that saying something like, "brains create facts", has zero significance outside of your language game.
And I will respond to what I like, whether you like it or not. If you're going to be just one more person who blocks out good sense because it sounds arrogant and rude, then that's your loss.
Real solid rebuttal.
The irony... :roll:
- The "fact" as to the identity of the murderer refers, by convention, to a single name within the envelope in the middle of the board.
- The fact is constructed to be a hidden element of a finite set of suspects that is also decided by convention and known a priori to all players.
-The fact is decidable within finite time.
-At any time during play, a player's belief-space consists of the finite set of cards he knows of, but has not so far personally witnessed during this game.
So in this game, there is a clear convention for distinguishing epistemology from metaphysics, that is to say, for distinguishing 'belief' from 'fact'. The question the OP raises, as i understand it, concerns the extent to which the Cluedo model of truth applies in the real world.
Consider for example, what if two names were placed inside the envelope? Does this modified game denote epistemological uncertainty, or metaphysical ambiguity as to the culprit? Doesn't the answer to this question depend upon whether a second game will be played as a decider?
In America, the game is called "Clue." I'm assuming you're referring to that because I'm looking at the name "Cluedo" and I'm wondering "what country calls it that?".
In regards to the other points made, um, my point is more like this:
Are we even thinking of the same game? I mean, we might call it by similar names, but the thought processes you go through when you think about "Clue" or "Cluedo" appears to be really different from the thought processes I go through when I think about it.
Lol! Americans are funny people with their simplifications of the English language. I can imagine it being discussed in a board meeting:
[I]"Yes, but if we call it 'Cluedo', Americans might get confused".[/I]
What do you guys call Monopoly? [I]Money Game[/I]?
Wow, yeah, I didn't realize we all had to bow to Imperial America and conform to American English.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/53/ad/2353addb8189b7dc60ad19b6461b7e25.jpg
Yes, just as I believe something that I also know. But that's just my opinion. :smile:
Worse: there is no "American English", only the American language. English is the language spoken by the English, who live in England.
[No, I'm not taking your joke seriously, just adding a dash of cynicism and nationalism into the mix. :wink: ]
I'm afraid that will only make him worse. In the end, we have only this:
Don't feed the trolls!
These forums are created so that all of us no matter who, what, where, how , when and so on can be engaged in a conversation that at least can put some lights on what they are after or can take it to others.....
You know, if you're going to keep publicly slandering me like that and attempting to manipulate others against me, then you can't at the same time act like you have the moral high ground without hypocrisy.