Actually I was saying this:

In order to know that, wouldn't you have to know what at least two people know in order to make the comparison? In order to know that nobody sees the same thing, nor knows the same thing would require knowledge of knowing and seeing what everyone else sees.

I don't want to.

I don't have a god.

Wrong topic.

Pinky you're committing a major straw-man fallacy here.

I'm not wholly following this. Why is there no objectivity in and of itself?

In order to know that you cannot escape perception, wouldn't that require knowledge outside of one's perception, say, a third person perspective? If all you know is what you percieve, then how are you supposed to know that your only knowledge comes from the senses?

Enough with this philosobabble... you're being contrary just for the sake of it.

We get it.

You can't see every fucking side of a topic. There is no ultimate truth. Reality and objectivity are our own perception.

Et fucking cetera.

Now can we put an end to this farce and talk about something on topic and/or DEBATABLE?

PS: I'm being rude in order to convey my feelings of irrtation and impatience. Please take no offense.

No one occupies the same point of space at the same time; ergo, no one sees the same thing. If no one sees the same thing, then each person receives unique knowledge; ergo, people know different things.

Ergo, I can know that someone else knows something other than what I know, with out exactly knowing what that something is.

Two people may not see the same thing, yet still recieve the same knowledge. For example, when you and I both look upon a chair, we both recieve the idea of a chair, regardless of the fact you look at the front of it and I look at the back of it. Because it is possible to recieve the same knowledge as another without seeing the same thing, your proof is invalid.

Establishing an objective frame of reference is simple, though if chosen incorrectly it oftentimes provides no insight into a given matter. For example, let us suppose we wish to light a candle. Anything which helps light the candle we can objectively call good, and anything which does not, we call bad. Striking a match would be bad, since it does not directly light the candle, but holding an already lit match to the wick we would call good because it lights the candle. With the establishment of these rules we can determine good and bad objectively, because we have an objective frame of reference. If we're speaking about the general universe at large, perhaps there is no objectivity, but with the advent of human comprehension I begin to disagree.

But how exactly does this pertain to the issue of the topic, diversity vs. unification? As far as I can see, if one method is better able to attain the "goal" or "object" that you wish to be attained, then that method of government is "objectively" better.

You know you've done wrong and call it out yourself, but leave it be anyway? Rudeness is no substitute for irritation and impatience.

My comments were addressed at this particular line. After reading this I came to the conclusion you were a Creationist and from there you were a believer in a God. If this is not the case then I apologise for jumping to this conclusion. But I have to ask, if you don't agree with theory of evolution, then what do you agree with?

Participating in these forums is a voluntary act. If you don't like how we do things, you don't have to post replies.


This would be true if everyone existed within only a single frame of time. It is possible that two people can experience the exact same thing in the exact same settings, and it is also possible that two people can recieve the same exact knowledge without recieving the same exact information.

I would say that the flaw in your argument would be:
I don't find this to be always true. Two people can see two different things and gain the same exact knowledge. I can look at a blue screen from two feet away, and another can look at the blue screen from 3 feet away, and gain the exact same knowledge of the blue screen. Differences in locations don't make it impossible for two to know the same thing, it just makes it more likely for two to know different things. This is true if two people, even if only two people in the world's whole existence gained the same knowledge from two different locations.


I'm an Agnostic for the time being.

Knowledge isn't gained by simply experience -- the reception of knowledge is a two step process. Before we can "know" anything about something, we must first interpret it. That said, everyone posesses knowledge that is unique to their own thought process and, as much as I hate to say it, this means that a total objective truth cannot exist.

Who cares though; logic means nothing, right? I mean, if it did, that would mean objectivity exists. Paradox much?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2010, 4:34 am by Gantrithor.

I said the same thing in the other thread.

Technology, medicine, construction, and many other things all rely heavily on objective truths. To say everyone experiences things subjectively is just a completely meaningless point and does nothing but attempts to move the argument away, which is often why people bring it up.

If anyone TRULY thinks there are no such thing as objective truths, then try walking off a building, and see how "subjective" gravity is. Try putting a fork in a power point, and see how "subjective" electricity is. Try putting your head under water, and see how "subjective" our requirement for oxygen is.

Come now people! This is not intelligent discussion, this is meaningless nonsense that detracts from the main argument.


Why though, there is such a wealth of information out there that supports the evolutionary theory, and it's supported almost unanimously by the scientific community. It would seem to me you don't like the idea so your refusing to accept it...

Here are some cool explanatory vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhX2Kas558
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUozZo8nOpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg&feature=channel

If you watch these and still come out agnostic then it would seem to me your just flat out refusing to accept this theory for (some) reason?
I think the fact that all the animals and plants and bacteria on our planet are all our cousins is a rather beautiful prospect, I don't see why so many people have anything against it. You know accept when, it is another thing that disproves another element of the Bible.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2010, 11:23 am by Pinky.

Two people can gain the exact same knowledge from two different interpretations, this includes when the differences in interpretations are minuscule. If you and I both know that everyone possesses knowledge that is unique to their own thought process, then you and would both know the same thing independent from our thought process or interpretation process, thus nullifying the whole point of your argument.

---

[Edit] I've found my old post about solipsism, and I'm posting it here mainly for A_of-s_t and Gantrithor to read real fast, and so I can refer to it easier if need be.

http://www.staredit.net/191734/

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2010, 10:36 pm by CecilSunkure.

I believe unification contradicts itself as long as there is a government in the first place...
The point is to have everyone equal while the government uses the resources and denizens in that union to keep everyone unified and in constant control. But, the flaw is not everyone is equal as the government would be valued higher than the actual people in this union. So, if you were to take out the regulating force, who know what will happen. People in general could get the whole Unification thing right, or the exact opposite. People could go wild and start acting like animals, which sets us back a few hundred years. And if we have to fight over resources again, then the people with more resources will be considered superior. People as a whole cant simply regulate ourselves; its just not in us. People who think we can has way too much faith in humanity.
So if we still had this Regulating Force, if the people had to protect the union from any danger, the union would actually be protecting the people who are in the force.
I like to think of this as a two level pyramid, the government on the top and the denizens on the bottom. However, the Government supposedly occupies both levels of the pyramid, so they aren't supposed to consider themselves superior.
With our society and various religions today, there are numerous levels of how people are considered.
One such example would be the Caste System. People of one caste can not move up or down a level as long as they live. Its just the way people of the said religion believe people are rated. Some are expendables and some are indispensable. This is a static Pyramid.
Another example would be our own American monetary system. (lower, middle, upper and everything in between)
If a hobo on the street were to find a lottery ticket worth 6bilion dollars, he would move from lower to upper without even trying. This is a Dynamic Pyramid. What is also dynamic is not just how people can move up or down, but how people themselves can change the bar of what they consider upper or lower class. Therefore the levels are flexible.
Guys, this may sound garbled and unorganized but thats because im writing this during insomnia at 3:30 in the morning.

Unification = Growth = Over-population = We're screwed.

Unification and united reform also kills culture. Prime example, the U.S.

Productivity goes up, identity goes down. People don't like living in cultural wastelands.

Wow i seriously wrote all that at 3:30 this morning?
I wonder if anyone can salvage any of this that i wrote...

If you review the argument from free will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

This posits that omniscience is incompatible with free will. You need a "state of uncertainty" to be able to make any choices, so omniscient beings can't make any new choices, they can't decide to do anything or to fight over anything.

Actually, I would further this by stating that omniscient beings have no future. To them everything has already been done. There is nothing left to experience, do, or look forward to. To them they have already experienced every fight they could possibly go through, so they already know what it is like to fight over everything so they would have nothing new to fight over.


Solution to what? What exactly would this solve?!?

Even if we had a single world government, we would probably just replace countries with "administrative districts", where as each of these districts would be granted a certain level of authority, sort of like how governors are given authority over states in the U.S. And instead of wars we would have "civil wars", this is just a small change in the semantics of things, but it wouldn't change anything. Actually as has been pointed out we already have a sort of One World Government with the U.N having authority over most nations in some decisions.

Furthermore, how is this government going to be run? If this government is run by a dictator like Mengsk it could very well make things worse.


I think most people probably already agree, we should get rid of discrimination, Man vs Woman, White vs Black, Homosexual vs Heterosexual, etc and just be a single species working towards a single goal. However, this is not going to happen anytime soon because the bourgeoisie wants people to be divided so that they can run off with all the $$$$


I know a lot of people who support paradise engineering what matters is what you do about it. Everybody here probably agrees that they would like to see a Star-Trek like future with replicators eliminating scarcity, Interstellar space travel, Androids, and all these other technologies, however, just wishing for something is worthless what matters is what you do about it.

Before we even get into the logistics of such a government, the first question asked should be "What purpose would this government serve?". Would it be the purpose of the government to act as some sort of social directive, organizing humanity in such a way as to promote scientific achievements, or would its purpose simply be to provide police services, courts, public transportation, language standards, ect. The answer to this question is really what would determine whether a "One World Government" is really the "best solution" for the human race. Skipping the question makes any further discussion pointless, since you have not determined what it is your solution is meant to achieve.

I would guess it was inspired by media, so what answer would he have on such question?

How is this relevant? Are you suggesting that a piece of information becomes more factual with the more people who accept its validity? In 1692 it was supported almost unanimously by the population of Salem Town that there was witchcraft afoot. Are you to say that means it must have been true?

Also, are you conveniently overlooking the innumerable times in the past when a majority of the "scientific community" agreed that something was fact, and then had it later be disproved? Simply having a mass of people agree on something does not make it more valid, it only increases the probability that others will themselves accept it as valid and become part of that mass.

Using the same logic, a god must exist because it's supported almost unanimously by the religious community. What does that prove? Nothing. The fact you would use it as evidence only serves to highlight the lack of evidence which you have to present.

I also don't understand your assumption that anyone who doesn't commit to believing in evolutionary theory believes in God. Is it not enough for someone to simply believe that neither is the "right" answer? Perhaps we as organisms which are not omniscient have thus far been incapable of perceiving the actuality of our origins. That seems like the most plausible likelihood to me.

If you wish to jump to unproven conclusions, whether it be under the guise of religion or science, you're of course more than welcome. If you wish to zealously attempt to convert non-believers to your security blanket of choice, then by all means. However, don't be offended that everyone else isn't as quick to embrace ignorance by discounting all other possibilities in the face of inconclusive evidence.

Interesting idea, although I'd like to recall an earlier post of mine:

I don't think you need a state of uncertainty in order to make a choice, rather, you need free will to make a choice. I would say an omnipotent being would make a completely predictable choice if the one making the prediction were omniscient.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 1 2010, 8:43 am by CecilSunkure.

Predictable yes. The ability to change outcome?