Reality and Proof

[Parallo]

But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits. People can have hullucinations. I can't remember where it was said but it was said somewhere recently in a same sort of discussion. People on cocaine experience bugs in their skin. Is that real? No. I can rationaly say I am not a homo sexual. Wait! Must be PC in my examples I can rationaly say that I am not a homo/hetro sexual. I can present evidence.

[Removed off-topic part of post. --Karyuu]

[zanzibar]

But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.

The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.

[emeraldfool]

Well, Barty obviously didn't see it 

And no proof is iirefutable. There's such thing as photoshop. Or even social pressure. I know of people who were married for decades and had several kids before they realised they were gay. (I also know of a few perfectly straight girls who have kissed other girls just for the attention...)

But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.

The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.

Again, I doubt that applies to a Death Guardian. Horribly mutilated 9-foot zombie-monster things don't strike me as the religious type... And even still, it still doesn't mean he would refer to another person as a 'spirit'. Sort of like I believe that, until I meet you in RL, you are simply a name on a computer screen. I'm still not gonna say "Stop wasting my time with talk, Name-on-computer-screen"

 

[Parallo]

But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.

The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.

How is that rational? Is there proof? Is there even remote evidence?

@emerald: I know of such people too that didn't have feelings for men untill they were much older. They either changed so to speak or all along have been bisexual but not found the right man, once again, so to speak.  They were not exclusivly gay.

[zanzibar]

How is that rational? Is there proof? Is there even remote evidence?

Get read for this, cuz I'm gonna get all impressionist on ya.

Is the chair you are sitting on real?  Is there proof?  Real proof?  Is there even remote evidence?

All understanding we have of the universe around us is based on assumption.  We may use logic to move from axioms to new knowledge, but it's all built on a foundation of assumption.  Proving those basic assumptions is often impossible or impractical, but it stops no one from using them in their daily lives.

Further, whether or not a belief is justified is beside the point if it's shared by a group of people.  It's real to them, and so they give it reality.

[Parallo]

But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.

[zanzibar]

But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.

It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.

[emeraldfool]

But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.

It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.

How can assumption be enough to go on for anything? Why assume anything?

There are a trillion truths that have an equal chance of being the one true truth, which means there's like a 999 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 9 hundred and 99 to 1 chance that you're wrong.

Just enjoy the ride, and look forward to the answers at the end. I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.

[bilbous]

Hey I already told you guys we are a bunch of grey blobs in an endless void....

[Idoru]

I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.

Its because thats what we do, we are inquizative beings (or we wouldnt all be sat with PCs or fire or electricity etc.) I personally think that the only reason for life is reproduction, same purpose as worms, dogs, bacteria and viruses (its just we are a more virulent infection of our planet). Depressing isnt it

[Zan]

I'd say the meaning of life is to live it ... not let it pass you by while you're completely left behind trying to contemplate how or why things happen.

And if the meaning is to reproduce ... how in the world can you call a fun purpose like that depressing?

[Parallo]

Just because the purpose of our life is to reproduce doesn't mean we can't do other stuff to. The beauty of the human race is that through natural selection we escaped natural selection. Its no longer about being the fastest and fittest in order to survive. We have technology that can save even the dumbest humans from death. The beauty of the human species is the ability to make ones own gaols. Life should not be depressing given that.

It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.

But given the standard of evidence that it takes for something to become recognised as true. Have you heard of the celestial tea pot?

[LARAGORN]

How can assumption be enough to go on for anything? Why assume anything?

There are a trillion truths that have an equal chance of being the one true truth, which means there's like a 999 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 9 hundred and 99 to 1 chance that you're wrong.

Just enjoy the ride, and look forward to the answers at the end. I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.

Any chance I can get a copy of those statistics?

[Parallo]

Of the top of his head I'd guess.

[Idoru]

Well, you could work out the statistics if you wanted. How many times have people been known to discover this thing in the past and its been proved accurate? I would vouch for zero times. That would sort of make it as statistically impossible as reaching the moon was in 1968

Although I do think the term is always 'statistically improbable'.