YuZhonglu

Ok. I'll try to understand.

Also, no.

Human feelings of belief and truth have little to do with accuracy.

No. So that's another reason why I don't understand what you're saying.

Too much passive tense.

If you are a fanatic, belief and truth are the same. They're different only if you're not a fanatic and can see things from the perspective of others.

I couldn't understand what you're saying. Um, the grammar needs work. Could you phrase that differently?

You know, if the Communists invade a Muslim country I don't think the Communists will win. Those Muslims are pretty stubborn at defending their lands.

Claim: Beauty is only relative or culturally dependent. Answer: In a study that was conducted by an American woman - Judith Langlois - it was found th...

Here's another problem: The pious might believe they're talking about the same God (from different angles). But to everyone else, it looks like each i...

Belief and Truth are not the same... only if you can think from the perspective of someone else. If you can't, then they are the same.

Ok. Is Augustine writing about the same God as Aquinas? Are modern scholars of the Bible thinking of the same God as scholars of the Bible of the, uh,...

What I'm really asking for is: Is the OP's question even answerable?

That definition doesn't make any sense. I'm a different person than you. Furthermore, nothing can transcend the universe because the universe by defin...

Good. But put it in your own words. I don't want to read a hyperlink. EDIT: Hyperlinks are lazy.

That's remarkably vague.

Ok. Goes like this. Let's say Person A provides an answer to his question. "God is material because of X or Y reason." But if Person A is talking abou...

So that means when he talks about God, and when you talk about God, and when I talk about God, we're each talking about a different God. Right?

Oh don' t bother. As it happens my math is better than yours.

But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you?

No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?" Perhaps t...

There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'?

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.

Parental nurturing instincts are a good thing... today. But people may not think so in the future. Desirability is the product of biology and biology ...

In other words: your brain isn't observing facts. Your brain is creating them.

Then they would have their "facts," but these "facts" would not be comprehensible to us. When I talk about "facts" I mean "human facts."

It means every so-called "fact" that any human has ever learned or thought about is the product of neuronal activity. If there are no brains, then the...

In order to respond, your brain had to interpret and remember the visual input coming in from your retina. Then, based on this interpretation, neurons...

Technically you're not responding to what I wrote. You're actually responding to a memory of what you believe I wrote.

But it is interesting, to many others, because philosophy is little more than neuroscience but without the science or the tools.

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 so...

I agree, but it's not the direction I'm going. The direction I'm aiming for is the idea that anytime we talk about something, we're actually discussin...

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 opini...

I'm glad this has not devolved (yet) into blind insults. That's good. My argument appears to be changing, or at least that's how it would appear to ot...

I have to go. But I'll be back in an hour or two. Thank you for your time and I will respond when i get back.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains.

Sure. But again, this claim of yours requires a brain. There are no observations independent of the observer.

You can use your finger to point at something that's not your finger. But you can't think about the brain without using your brain.

I.e. A "fact" is a physical process generated by complex neural circuits of the brain.

Alright, this is confusing me. Here's my position again: 1. Facts are statements. 2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain. 3. No ...

Human observations do not exist independent of the human brain.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. Like, literally, the neural circuity related to that concept fire up. No brain. No neural...

Clarify what? I'm confused.

Ah, but now we have neuroscience to figure out how we think.

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate?

We can only point at things that we can observe and interpret through our brain.

In part, yes. I think.

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 ...

I'm mostly trying to point out the assumptions that people unconsciously make when they talk about "facts."

No it's not. A bacterium doesn't know where it is, at least not in the way we would understand it.