|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st May 2018, 06:53 AM | #241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
21st May 2018, 08:34 AM | #242 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
I think it would be interesting (i.e. the highlighted bit), providing people could give some genuinely credible reason for thinking that all we observe might be just an illusion. But I never see anyone offering a convincing reason for why we should take such suggestions seriously. Apart from which - it really does not take much thought, eduction or intelligence for anyone to dream up countless questions like that ... they might just as easily ask "what if QM is all wrong?", or "what if God really does exist?", or "what if all that exists is one "Brain in a Vat"?" ... etc. ... if they think they have good reason to doubt QM or to doubt "reality", then they ought to submit a paper to Phys. Rev. with at least some proper calculations/maths to show why scientists (or anyone else) ought to spend their research time taking such suggestions seriously. |
21st May 2018, 10:26 AM | #243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Nah, if you go by strictly the part you highlighted, it's CAN'T be anything else than a brain-fart. It's the "and nothing we can ever know matters" that is the brain-fart, no matter how one might support the first part. Because illusion or not, there are still parts of it that work by very strict rules -- you know, PHYSICS -- and knowing those rules still matters A LOT.
Whether it's phrased as the Evil Demon of Descartes or as a Matrix simulation or whatever, that demon is very OCD about simulating everything down to quark and gluon level. But you don't even have to go that far down. Even just the refraction laws mean you can make glasses, which is one hell of an advantage over not knowing how to do that, and being blind as a bat in your old age like apparently God or the Matrix or the Evil Demon wanted you to be. Even just knowing chemistry means we can cure diseases that would have killed most of us in ages when we didn't. Etc. So basically whether it's an Evil Demon or God or Matrix or whatever kind of illusion, knowing stuff still does matter. And anyone thinking it's a free pass for anti-intellectualism and believing any random nonsense instead, is still a dumbass. Mind you, I still call it interesting, but as I was saying, in a Three Stooges kinda way. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st May 2018, 12:58 PM | #244 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that perception of the world, or the world itself is an illusion (I certainly am not). In fact, the notion of the world as illusion is more in line with Materialism - which states that there is this intermediary step, a calculation (brain as computer) that occurs, and then there's this magical self that somehow senses the calculations. Most branches of Idealism have experience, and the world as more intimate and less of an illusion.
|
21st May 2018, 01:49 PM | #245 |
The Terrible Trivium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
|
|
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
21st May 2018, 01:51 PM | #246 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
Well, there is the logical problem of dealing with the fact that knowledge is model and representation, such that it comes already packaged for consumption in many ways. Regardless of the fact that what is referred to as reality is mind-dependent, models work, and some better than others. While not suggesting convergence with mind-independent substance by progresses made in modeling (actually, such is impossible), the model of human cognition describes sensory inputs from the exterior, allowing for one to take, at minimum, an instrumentalist stance.
tl;dr: What's "there" is "there," but it isn't one-to-one with what you think. Explains one basis for changing and evolving perspective. ETA: On dualism: bollocks. |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
21st May 2018, 02:02 PM | #247 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 02:21 PM | #248 |
The Terrible Trivium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
|
Because materialism does not propose that reality is an illusion. Attempting to equivocate between "reality has to be perceived" and "reality is an illusion" is fallacious and constitutes a strawman of the materialist position.
And none of this makes materialism "more in line" with reality as illusion than idealism. |
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
21st May 2018, 02:21 PM | #249 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
People do get that "I can contrive an excuse for something after the fact" isn't evidence or a solid logical argument, right?
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
21st May 2018, 02:25 PM | #250 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 02:37 PM | #251 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
21st May 2018, 02:38 PM | #252 |
The Terrible Trivium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
|
|
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
21st May 2018, 02:46 PM | #253 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 02:48 PM | #254 |
The Terrible Trivium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
|
|
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
21st May 2018, 02:51 PM | #255 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 02:53 PM | #256 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 02:58 PM | #257 |
The Terrible Trivium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
|
This is not a claim. It is a statement of fact.
Materialism is the position that an external reality exists. That is all. That is its definition. Illusions do not enter the equation at any point. If you wish to argue that materialism implies that reality is an illusion, the onus is on you to justify it. You have yet to do so. |
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
21st May 2018, 05:45 PM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Uh, no. Just no. Redefining words arbitrarily does not a valid argument make.
Plus, you may want to check out such elementary logic concepts as the difference between implication and equivalence. Namely the elementary fact that X => Y cannot be flipped on its head to Y => X. E.g., "if it's a bird, then it has wings" is NOT the same as "if it has wings, then it's a bird". Trivial example, bats or airplanes. In your case, what COULD be reasonably assumed is "if it's an illusion, it has a greater susceptibility of being in error or false", but that is NOT the same as "if it has greater susceptibility of being in error or false, then it's an illusion." You can't make something an illusion just because you don't know much about it. In fact, if you want to turn it around, the proper way to turn it is X => Y is equivalent to Y => X. So basically, "if it does NOT have a greater susceptibility of being in error or false, then it's not an illusion." And considering that actually we are increasingly accurate in knowing how reality works, yeah, that doesn't work in your favour. Basically, sorry, when some of us said we'd like a good argument, we didn't mean argument from not knowing elementary logic |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st May 2018, 07:56 PM | #259 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
|
|
21st May 2018, 10:11 PM | #260 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Philosophy is the analysis of problems that prevents us from having bad philosophies. Including the silly philosophical things that can said those that think to speak in the name of science when only do bad philosophy. Quite a common vice in this and other forums of philosophy amateurs who think that they can avoid philosophy just quoting Wikipedia.
|
21st May 2018, 10:58 PM | #261 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
Worldviews are, in and of themselves, philosophy, framing the world from the get-go. There is no escaping philosophy, just ways of ignoring it and botching the job, usually leaving a meandering trail of naive realism going eventually in circles, or a beeline to a Rule Book one can bow to and cede irksome intellectual due diligence to fantasy.
tl;dr: If the obvious were as it seems, and final answers readily available, there would be little to disagree about. Not, of course, the case. |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
21st May 2018, 11:29 PM | #262 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
Yes, yes, more complaining and strawmen... But I notice that you didn't answer my question.
What superior explanation does materialism have for a seemingly real and consistent world? It's all bits of mind doing mind stuff isn't any different from 'it's all buts of stuff'. You're not offering an explanation, you're just handwaving. |
22nd May 2018, 12:03 AM | #263 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
No. You have already said here that nobody can reach out and actually touch anything, because you claimed it was only something "experienced in your mind", and you repeated that saying that someones example of a running horse was wrong because according to you there is no actual "running" occurring, and again you claimed that the run only happens in your mind. You have said exactly the same things countless times in numerous other threads, and each time it has been pointed out to you why your statements are wrong. So now the only possible conclusion is that you are making those statements deliberately (and it is you who must take full responsibility for repeatedly doing that). And, "No!", science and scientists never claim anything that you just described as "a magical self" ... that's only something that philosophy proponents on the internet are fond of doing/saying. |
22nd May 2018, 12:21 AM | #264 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Even skipping past the attempt to tailor your own definitions, the important part remains: that has nothing to do with materialism. The point of materialism is that the persistent external reality is there, regardless of your perception or limitations thereof.
In fact, regardless of if you even exist to perceive it. Our galaxy formed before there was any living organism to perceive it at all, for example, but it formed anyway. Essentially the picture of a rose is not the same thing as the rose. Materialism is concerned with the rose, not with how distorted you may or may not draw it. Plus, by now we have better means of studying reality than your limited senses. E.g., what they recently did at CERN (you know, the one that had nutters going "OMG, they're making a black hole") was just measured by matter interacting with other matter. Humans' limited senses had nothing to do with it. It was just the external material world interacting with itself. You know, speaking of materialism. Any personal illusions that may exist, are entirely spurious to the whole thing. Back to the rose example, it's like saying, "but someone may have drawn a distorted image of it!" Well, so what? How is that even relevant to the existence of the rose? |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 12:32 AM | #265 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
But back to what seems to be the root of your confusion: you seem to sneak in the premise that the world IS what you perceive. As in, outright self-identity, not even equivalence, if you want to actually make it work that "the world IS an illusion." Which is not what materialism says.
Again, the picture of a rose is not the same thing as the rose. I can apply countless calculations and filters to the image. In fact, I can go beyond what the brain does, and run it through Gimp or Photoshop first. I can quite trivially make the petals green and the leaves purple. I can give it wings. Hell, I can give it a swirl. And then come the processing done in the eyes (because the retina already does some) and the brain. But that does not affect the actual rose. Your PERCEPTION of it may be wrong, sure. Hell, you could be tripping balls on LSD and have a REALLY wrong perception. You could be paranoid schizophrenic and add your own bits to the picture. Etc. But that's about your perceptions and internal model of the world, not about the world itself. The rose is still a rose even if a guy on LSD sees it as a mighty dragon. Materialism is precisely the idea that the actual rose that I photographed in the first place, is still there, regardless of how or if you see it. Or to put it less flatteringly, materialism just says: get over yourself, you're not that important. What experiences you have, or how intimate you get with the world, don't actually change what the world is. So, anyway, basically all you're arguing is basically that, yeah, but illusions could exist TOO. Sure, but... SO WHAT? That's so irrelevant as to be pretty much a textbook case of a Chewbacca defence. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 12:49 AM | #266 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
If you are making any sensible statements at all in this discussion (and you may not be doing that; you may just be so consumed by your own belief in some sort of philosophy that you are incapable of understanding what science says about the world around us), then what you might say is that whilst scientists do think that what we experience as the world around us, is indeed "real", and almost entirely as we perceive it, nevertheless there are of course limits to how precisely our sensory system can detect certain things … … for example; human eyesight, or eyesight in other animals, does not provide absolutely 100% accurate colour representation of every object that any of us can ever see. It's perfectly possible to perceive false or different colours or different shades of particular colours. But that is not an illusion of the object itself not existing ... in fact it's not right to even call it an "illusion" at all ... all that is, is a limit to the colour accuracy of precise detection by the human eye and of course more likely a greater degree of inaccuracy or incapacity in the eyesight of many other animals. But you will not find any sane scientists who think, or claim, that when we see a bird (for example) it is anything other than a small feathered flying animal with a beak etc., or that a mountain is a large upright rocky formation, or that the ocean is a large deep expanse of water containing fish that swim around etc. None of that is an "illusion". Also, the idea of talking about “materialism” is not something scientists ever talk about. That seems to be just some garbage nonsense term from philosophy. However, if you think it's perfectly possible that the world around us is just an illusion, such that the objects and events have no actual existence, then you have zero credibility in that belief/claim unless and until you produce a properly credible explanation of how and why none of that actually exists … so what is that explanation of how the observed world may not actually exist? ... and why have no scientists ever published any genuine research papers explaining how the world does not really exist? |
22nd May 2018, 01:07 AM | #267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I would add/stress though that in the meantime those sensory limitations aren't even relevant any more.
Idealism as a way to explain the world had a point a few hundred years back, when our limited senses WERE the only way we knew that the world was there. So basically Plato kinda was onto something about us perceiving imperfect copies of something that is more than that. But, as I was saying, in the meantime we are increasingly using just matter interacting with other matter to study the world, and our senses play exactly zero part in that. E.g., when we look at some insect cells under an electron microscope, or when we do a CT scan, or when we look at a pulsar via a radio-telescope, etc, the data is collected and pre-processed without any human senses being involved. If everyone at a radio-telescope takes a vacation and isn't even there at all for a week, or if you spike their water cooler with LSD so their own perception is WAAAY off, the machine can still collect the same data anyway. Basically way back when, it made sense to wonder how accurate our perception of the world is. Now we actually know the exact answer to that. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 02:19 AM | #268 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
It's so weird to hear someone who claims that reality is perception/mind/experience based use words like 'survival', 'reproduction', 'skull', and 'kitten'.
If everything is just a big ball of consciousness, these words are basically meaningless. But by using them, they basically admit that there are discrete units of stuff that mean specific things. And that all this stuff isn't as fluid as a solipsist's fever dream. Basically, that there is something 'real' that is not dependent on our first person perception. Yet they still want to argue that a materialist description is fundamentally incorrect, because 'you can't perceive something outside your perception, dude' and 'consciousness is like, really special, man'. It's all special pleading. And it introduces far more problems than it solves. Sure, we don't understand consciousness completely, but saying 'therefore I'm going to replace everything with a system that can't explain or predict anything at all' is stupid and dishonest. |
22nd May 2018, 02:30 AM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
22nd May 2018, 03:57 AM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Maybe, maybe not. That's ultimately a case of the ever-popular Argumentum Ad Populum: if enough people believe X, then X. Here it's just X="there's anything to argue about."
You may have a point otherwise, mind you, but appealing to the fact that some people still find there's something to argue about is not a valid inference. Frankly, enough people found (and some still find) something to debate about Obama's birth certificate, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, etc, etc. Enough find it worth a debate whether homeopathy works, or crystal chi pendants, or telepathy, or dowsing, or ouija boards. Enough find it worth debating that there's a medical conspiracy to NOT cure diseases, and hide some miracle drug that cures everything from resistant bacteria to AIDS to cancer to type I diabetes, so the big pharma could sell you insulin/chemotherapy/whatever for ever. Etc. Hell, there are still people who think it's worth arguing that the Earth is flat. You'll notice that there ARE slam-dunk arguments against all of those , but people can still argue something stupid anyway. In fact, according to a recent study, you can make a certain kind of people believe ANY woowoo or conspiracy theory, even one you just made up on the spot, by telling them something like "it's widely disbelieved, but..." They're not actually interested in the evidence, or the merits of arguing that, they just want to feel more enlightened than the rest of the sheeple. tl;dr: enough people believing something means exactly nothing. And frankly that goes for the domain of philosophy too. While I like philosophy as a domain, it's kinda like liking a nude beach: you very soon become acutely aware that there's no quality control. For every Descartes or Hume or Russell, there are a hundred whose deepest thought is that their last fart must have legs, 'cause it went all the way to the next room. Just because they find something to debate based on their own ignorance, doesn't automatically make it a valid point. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 04:47 AM | #271 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
The point I was making was that if common sense and naive realism had any basis, it'd be a lot easier to agree to what would be abundant foregone conclusions. Certainly do not wish to suggest that bulk numbers make for good reasoning; see Ancient Alien episodes on YouTube and weep.
[Aside: Having said that, also true that the main check on good reasoning is, in fact, getting more people to agree. Contradictory, imperfect, maddening, but it's all we got (peer review is just that in science). Note that a statement can be correct (best fit to data) when some lone person first formulates it, but to be incorporated into the body of science, it takes others to agree.] |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
22nd May 2018, 04:53 AM | #272 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Well science does not of course merely confirm "the obvious", does it!? No, it most certainly does not. On the contrary almost everything discovered and explained by science, is very (VERY) far from obvious (and certainly not remotely "obvious" to non-scientists, inc. philosophers and theists). So it's certainly not the case that ... and it is science (not philosophy, or theism) that has explained to us so clearly why the world around us is often not so obvious as to be the way we might imagine or perceive it to be at first sight (in fact, not even anything remotely like anyone previously imagined from philosophy or theism ... what science has shown us is that things are often very different indeed, unimaginably different, from what any philosophers or theists ever believed). |
22nd May 2018, 05:04 AM | #273 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
The difference is that it's not actually how science works. There are a bunch of impersonal criteria for checking your hypothesis against reality, and those people are there only to try to disprove your theory by those criteria and hopefully fail. Any other agreement or disagreement is irrelevant.
E.g., probably even most physicists would agree that QM is the most ludicrious thing that ever came down the pike. And they'd love nothing more than to be able to disprove it. (If nothing else, because that would be a Nobel prize right there. Not to mention a whole new chapter in our understanding of the universe.) But in the meantime it checks perfectly against reality in every single way we could possibly check, so that settles it. Meanwhile other stuff like the multiple universe interpretation has a LOT of physicists agreeing that it makes sense, but as long as there is no way to check it against reality, it remains just an interesting hypothesis. Basically, no, science is NOT a matter of convincing the old gang that you can talk convincingly out the ass. It's the criteria for checking it against reality that matter. That checking against reality is the QA on the nudist beach, so to speak. And is something that most schools of philosophy don't really have. (Well, some, like epistemology have an easier time checking against reality, but not all.) So, yeah, everyone is free to disagree for whatever reasons, including in some cases not knowing WTH they're talking about. Edit: plus, frankly, even Logic evolved precisely to find a more objective reason for agreeing or disagreeing with an argument, than how many people it sounds convincing to. It in fact rose precisely AGAING sophistry, which was the art of making persuasive (if not necessarily sound) speeches to convince the audience. So, yeah, convincing many people stopped being a valid argument for something about 2500 years ago. You know, around the time of this guy Socrates. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 05:23 AM | #274 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
|
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
22nd May 2018, 05:27 AM | #275 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
|
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
22nd May 2018, 06:11 AM | #276 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Actually, there is a very good thing you can do: present a logically sound case for whatever alternative you favour. Because that's the other easy point a lot of people seem to miss: logic is rather impersonal and independent of my feelings or beliefs.
And I'm rather easy going there too. I'm not just asking for binary logic. I'm perfectly fine with probabilistic reasoning as well. You give me some P>0.5 and disproving the null hypothesis for your alternative, and I'll be the first to convert. And to certain reasonable extents I will gladly accept informal logic shortcuts as well. Not that it matters what I accept. If you can make a sound case for idealism or whatever alternative there, then you are objectively right, and it doesn't even matter whether I believe it or not. But just that some people still insist on debating something, that just happens to be not a valid argument, let alone sound. Consider this: probably a LOT more people think that the score isn't settled yet on Feng Shui or Acupuncture, than ever heard of Descartes' Evil Demon or Plato's Cave. Hell, probably more people have a DIPLOMA in Homeopathy or Acupuncture, than people who have a major in philosophy. So if number of people, or even number of experts, who think there's still something to debate actually meant anything, you'd HAVE to concede that Feng Shui, Acupuncture or Homeopathy also are very valid fields. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
22nd May 2018, 06:38 AM | #277 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
22nd May 2018, 06:41 AM | #278 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,001
|
Err...none?
Please explain? |
22nd May 2018, 08:04 AM | #279 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 404
|
Originally Posted by Ian
Before the twentieth century scientists were known as natural philosophers and science was known as methodological naturalism. So scientists were philosophers using empirical observation [ the scientific method ] to understand the natural world. And that is why science is a branch of philosophy even if nowadays they are treated as entirely separate disciplines. There were still philosophers like Kant and Spinoza and Descartes who used logic rather than empiricism but those who we now regard as scientists like Galileo and Newton and Darwin were also known as philosophers in their time |
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN |
|
22nd May 2018, 08:27 AM | #280 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
I can't help but think that any philosophy that calls realism naive is tipping it's hand as to it's true purpose.
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|