Absurdism

[Emporion]

"When I am looking at someone's face it is impossible for me to also view them from their backside. It is one thing to claim to be objective; it is quite another thing to actually be such. I am certainly NOT objective, and I don't try to be anymore because I find it to be an extremely pointless excercise. To me it is like trying to touch everything I want to observe with both hands and both feet to make sure I am not missing something."

Here is your counterexample which makes my logic complete in your example:
*looks behind someone and remembers what their backside looks like for mental processing at any time*

The logic of this exercise is very useful so you don't miss anything important.

[Rhizomorph13]

The mind is dynamic. You aren't the same person now that you were a minute ago. You can't view a situation from multiple directions at the same time with the same mindset and trust that you will remain objective throughout the excercise. Even if you could hold the same mindset, that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. You could miss something through your rigidity of thought.

[Emporion]

The mind is dynamic. You aren't the same person now that you were a minute ago. You can't view a situation from multiple directions at the same time with the same mindset and trust that you will remain objective throughout the excercise. Even if you could hold the same mindset, that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. You could miss something through your rigidity of thought.

I never claimed I could hold the same mindset. To be considered an openminded person, you have to be able to consider a lot more possibilities when making a decision than a narrow minded person is able to do. That is my basic point.

[reverendjeremiah]

Absurdist literature uses possibilities to show that, in reality, there are almost limitless possibilities. Absurdist "religions" (like The church of the subgenius) use possibilities much like other absurdist literature, but they make under the banner of "faith", to show that faith and possibilites go hand in hand. What is most important is to know the difference between the possible and the probable. Sure, it is possible, but is it PROBABLE? This is one of the many things I consider an open minded person to consider.

Thats a funny word; Reality. To me, it goes hand in hand with the word 'cosmos'. It means EVERYTHING that happens. Everything that exists and is thought about. You really did think that elephants have wings. With that said, if you have a dream that you were a hamburger chasing a mac truck, then it is in reality. You did experience that dream. It is now a part of the cosmos. Does that mean you are actually a hamburger chasing a mac truck? You were in your dreams. In the waking world it is a different story.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

---

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

[reverendjeremiah]

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

---

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

So you have a dream. Did that dream really happen? Yes. Were you really a hamburger IN THAT DREAM? Yes. Where you really a hamburger when you woke up? No. Did you really wake up? Yes (as far as you can tell).

So how does that not fit with reality?

There is a lack of better wording for such things. I dont stand strongly behind that last post, but it is something I have pondered. I wish I had better words to use. Fictional and non-fictional tend to be my favorites: Dreams being fictional and being awake is non-fictional is one way of putting it. Fiction and non-fiction both take place in reality, in my opinion, If fiction wasnt real (or a better word, didnt "EXIST") then we would have no idea what fiction was, would we?

[Emporion]

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

---

Ahhh so we are down to personal deffinitions then??

reality = what is in front of you NOW. not what you THINK is in front of you

So you have a dream. Did that dream really happen? Yes. Were you really a hamburger IN THAT DREAM? Yes. Where you really a hamburger when you woke up? No. Did you really wake up? Yes (as far as you can tell).

So how does that not fit with reality?

There is a lack of better wording for such things. I dont stand strongly behind that last post, but it is something I have pondered. I wish I had better words to use. Fictional and non-fictional tend to be my favorites: Dreams being fictional and being awake is non-fictional is one way of putting it. Fiction and non-fiction both take place in reality, in my opinion, If fiction wasnt real (or a better word, didnt "EXIST") then we would have no idea what fiction was, would we?

Maybe math can explain it better.

[reverendjeremiah]

Maybe math can explain it better.

That would be nice. Do you have some math to explain it?

Void makes a good point with probablistic terms. Being a lucid dreamer, absurdist, materialist, Epicurian, atheist, in my mind makes since to use probablistic approaches. In my mind anything I think of is possible... but is it probable?

[Emporion]

Maybe math can explain it better.

That would be nice. Do you have some math to explain it?

Void makes a good point with probablistic terms. Being a lucid dreamer, absurdist, materialist, Epicurian, atheist, in my mind makes since to use probablistic approaches. In my mind anything I think of is possible... but is it probable?

That's where math is so helpful. Check out Bertrand Russell, as I think that was what he was trying to do(using math to explain philosophy).

[reverendjeremiah]

I thought you were going to give me some formulas