(March 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm)discipulus Wrote: How much does a thought weigh Deidre? How much space do they take up, since you seem to think they can be measured...tell me.

Here, educate yourself!
fMRI
It is crude, yes... but it's a step in the right direction.

---

(March 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm)discipulus Wrote: How much does a thought weigh Deidre? How much space do they take up, since you seem to think they can be measured...tell me.

The wind does not weigh anything. It does not appear to take up any space either. Yet, we can observe the effects that the wind has on things around us. Thoughts are much the same. The same, however, cannot be stated for a mythological deity.

me no like this analogy.

Wind is the name we give to air in movement.
Air does take up space.... even in movement!

(March 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 12:50 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Therein lies the disconnect between us. You have redefined what you consider to be reality, as opposed to what it really is.

You don't know anymore than me or anyone else here, you HOPE. It's ok to hope but don't mistake it for something that it isn't.

No. Sorry Deidre. You and I are fundamentally different.

---

(March 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Thoughts are part of the cognitive process therefore there's proof that your thoughts stem from something.

People have brains, yes, um that can proven.


Ok, anything else? Stop being silly. :-P

How much does a thought weigh Deidre? How much space do they take up, since you seem to think they can be measured...tell me.

I'm glad you brought this up. Science diesnt know everything. There are phenomenon that science has no definitive answers for, (yet). But you know what science says? It says "I don't know." Until it has evidence, it doesn't make statements that it can't support. Historical referencing follows a similar but not identical protocol.

It is ok to say "I don't know." Because you don't. "God must be the cause" is speculative in the hearts and minds of those who dislike the phrase..."I don't know."

(March 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Air does take up space.... even in movement!

I think you know what I meant. Air does not take up space in the conventional sense whereby other things are blocked from occupying the same space.

Guys....logical positivism....empiricism is self refuting and has been all but abandoned for roughly half a century as a tenable investigative methodology by philosophers.

You all seem to think it is alive and well...


Need I say it again....? It is SELF REFUTING.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Air does take up space.... even in movement!

I think you know what I meant. Air does not take up space in the conventional sense whereby other things are blocked from occupying the same space.

oh, well.... then... nothing takes up space... everything can be displaced!

---

(March 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm)discipulus Wrote: Guys....logical positivism....empiricism is self refuting and has been all but abandoned for roughly half a century as a tenable investigative methodology by philosophers.

You all seem to think it is alive and well...


Need I say it again....? It is SELF REFUTING.

I like it that you put uninteresting boundaries in some statements...
"tenable investigative methodology by philosophers".
I wasn't aware that philosophers performed something called "investigation".

Or are you now wanting to say that people with a PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), regular scientists, don't use empiricism to arrive at their results and conclusions?

(March 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: I think you know what I meant. Air does not take up space in the conventional sense whereby other things are blocked from occupying the same space.

oh, well.... then... nothing takes up space... everything can be displaced!

---

(March 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm)discipulus Wrote: Guys....logical positivism....empiricism is self refuting and has been all but abandoned for roughly half a century as a tenable investigative methodology by philosophers.

You all seem to think it is alive and well...


Need I say it again....? It is SELF REFUTING.

I like it that you put uninteresting boundaries in some statements...
"tenable investigative methodology by philosophers".
I wasn't aware that philosophers performed something called "investigation".

Or are you now wanting to say that people with a PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), regular scientists, don't use empiricism to arrive at their results and conclusions?

Empiricism is not something you "use", it is a theory of knowledge. Empiricists "use" their senses, instruments, or any other tool pertinent to the object of their investigation. I use the terms "investigative methodology" and "theory of knowledge" synonomously which was ambiguous.

Philosophers of science investigate various things pertinent to science, philosophers of history investigate various things pertinent to history as well and so on and so forth.

Guys, empiricism is self-refuting because you cannot empirically demonstrate that other minds and thoughts exist.. so maybe ghosts and zombies who love us and live hidden inside us are like that... And can be real too...


Um. No. Try harder.

(March 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Guys, empiricism is self-refuting because you cannot empirically demonstrate that other minds and thoughts exist.. so maybe ghosts and zombies who love us and live hidden inside us are like that... And can be real too...


Um. No. Try harder.

Empiricism is the theory of knowledge which states that in order for a proposition (P) to be taken as true, it must be subject to verification via empirical means.

Decades ago philosophers came to realize that Empiricism is far too restrictive a theory of knowledge and even more so, is demonstrably self refuting. The proposition, "In order for a proposition (P) to be taken as true, it must be subject to verification via empirical means" is itself not subject to verification via empirical means, and thus fails to meet its own criteria and refutes itself.

Now the concepts I keep having to teach you are things learned in first year philosophy. This material is not exceptionally difficult to learn and is in fact foundational to more advanced concepts in philosophy of science.

Now either you just do not know these things or you do and are not using the knowledge you possess to come up with anything substantial.

Which is it?

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: oh, well.... then... nothing takes up space... everything can be displaced! :P

---

I like it that you put uninteresting boundaries in some statements...
"tenable investigative methodology by philosophers".
I wasn't aware that philosophers performed something called "investigation".

Or are you now wanting to say that people with a PhD (Philosophy Doctorate), regular scientists, don't use empiricism to arrive at their results and conclusions?

Empiricism is not something you "use", it is a theory of knowledge. Empiricists "use" their senses, instruments, or any other tool pertinent to the object of their investigation. I use the terms "investigative methodology" and "theory of knowledge" synonomously which was ambiguous.

It's only ambiguous because your theory of knowledge isn't empirically based, and isn't a true investigative methodology. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, if you begin with a theory before gathering all the facts, insatiably one begins to twist the facts to suit the theory.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)discipulus Wrote: Philosophers of science investigate various things pertinent to science, philosophers of history investigate various things pertinent to history as well and so on and so forth.

And philosophers of Dadaism blibbity bloop blip blop doo-WEEEEIH.

(March 10, 2014 at 11:46 am)discipulus Wrote: I think some spend a couple minutes perusing the various writings of internet "infidels" and conclude Jesus never existed based on these writings.

I'm just wondering why they even care. I mean, whether there existed an actual man that the stories of the bible are based upon seems like such a trivial topic.