Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
This is one mind blowing thread. No wonder this forum and it's members are viewed as "the brainy lot".
Right...back on topic. I understand how we can be 99% certain and 100% absolutly sure of something. The question is, is it at all possible to "KNOW" something. I'm going to give some examples..., like this soft ball infront of me (I don't mean my bollocks!). It's round (duh!) blue with a green strip going around it. My eyes tell me it's there. So that's one source of infomation that tells me that there is something there and it that it has certain characteristics. Now my sense of touch confirms that there is in fact something there that fits the description for which my eyes have given. So now, I'm quite sure it's real but not 100% certain. I could be suffering from delusion. Parts of my brain giving it self false data. So I can't say for sure it's 100% real. I've got two sources of incoming data that is telling me the same thing. Pointing to the same conclusion. So this must mean it's highly likely that it's real, but not 100% sure.
Now is it possible to KNOW what would happen say by taking an action for which you know of the direct reaction? Knowing what would happen based on the knowledge and understanding of physics? Is this knowing something? Like throwing a stone. When you release it during acceleration of your arm that you know the stone with it's stored kentic energy will continue to move based on the working knowledge of physics, and not stop in mid air the moment you let go of it.
I'm a touch confused but I'm sure you brainies can solve this. If I made some kind of error, feel free to correct. Physics is not my strongest points. Romance, ice skating, humour and healing are my strong points.
Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof? I've found this is the basic differences between some theists and atheists is the skeptical view point of assuming that null is non-existant and first observation is assumed delusional until seconded by another source. Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
