Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2019 17:39:37 GMT
Figgles: I've been waiting patiently for a response to my post in address to this bit below, but evidently, none is coming.
Reefs: "As for the counter-argument, I think if the assertion would have been “I honestly don’t know” then no one would have had an issue with that. Even if the assertion would have been “I cannot know” – I’d say, okay, fine. That's at least an honest statement from the perspective of the intellect. But the assertion “I cannot know and you can’t know either” – that’s where it gets problematic. Because it’s not even a logically sound argument. And there's a realization that will actually reveal the exact opposite.
True not-knowing would be statement #1 (“I honestly don’t know”). Statement #2 (“I cannot know”) is already knowing something. And with statement #3 (“I cannot know and you can’t know either”) we are already far into TMT territory where the first part of the statement contradicts the second part. "
True not-knowing would be statement #1 (“I honestly don’t know”). Statement #2 (“I cannot know”) is already knowing something. And with statement #3 (“I cannot know and you can’t know either”) we are already far into TMT territory where the first part of the statement contradicts the second part. "
Figgles: True disinterest in a particular conversation I can understand. Laughter provides a good example of what that actually looks like. Beyond a brief assertion that in his estimation "not knowing can come to an end," he makes no comment whatsoever upon anything those of us who say it cannot be known, say. It's clear he really has no interest in discussing the disagreement.
You on the other hand, clearly demonstrate in the bolded, that you DO still have interest in the discussion...that you still DO have interest in addressing my argument. It's evidenced right there in the bolded. What you have no interest in though, is anything I have to say in response to that.
& Why is it okay for you to discuss this topic in this quantum mechanics thread, but if I want to respond to your posts where you directly speak to my views, I have to do it in the petty thread...you know...the one that you are keeping closed?
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4939/quantum-mechanics-dummies?page=8#ixzz61PKEGjtn
You on the other hand, clearly demonstrate in the bolded, that you DO still have interest in the discussion...that you still DO have interest in addressing my argument. It's evidenced right there in the bolded. What you have no interest in though, is anything I have to say in response to that.
& Why is it okay for you to discuss this topic in this quantum mechanics thread, but if I want to respond to your posts where you directly speak to my views, I have to do it in the petty thread...you know...the one that you are keeping closed?
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4939/quantum-mechanics-dummies?page=8#ixzz61PKEGjtn
It's highly unlikely that I'll be getting anywhere in terms of actual response to any questions I have regarding Reefs assertions of knowing, thus, I'm starting a thread over here to dissect the conversation.
There are several issues at stake; One being Truth (something Reefs for one used to hold in very high regard...he called it "Truthin") and the other, the stark example being provided by the ongoing morphing of the original argument, of just how tenaciously mind needs to believe there is something within experience it can hold onto, (then of course there is the poor character/behavioral issues being demonstrated by Reefs....his control issues.....his attempts to manipulate....his obvious continued interest in making his own points, but refusing to address those that counter...all of which ultimately, have their inception in identification...thus, really, it's all related).