|
xssve -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/28/2012 10:56:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
Saying one thing and doing another is called hypocrisy - words are quantifiable, as are actions, and congruency between the two can be established, demonstrated or disproved, thus, hypocrisy is an empirical phenomena.
The things, actions are quantifiable. Don't you realize that abstractions are not concrete? They appear to be concrete in physics problems, but they are not in themselves concrete.
Normally, I would now ask: "define concrete" - but I'll save us both some time, and lay it on you straight, you seem intelligent enough to grasp it - in the abstact world itself, the linguistic centers of the brain, abstractions are concrete: they have substance, they can be "felt" even if they cannot be grasped with the fingers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
This is what happens. You take a measurement. The measurement concerns something specific. The abstraction that you believe you are measuring is vague (though the measurements themselves are specific). You make grand definite irrefutable assertions, then disaster comes because you were wrong. Why were you wrong? What you thought you were observing wasn't what you were observing. It is like confusing Pinhead with God.
You're asking a lot of me, considering the amount of fermented grains I have too quickly consumed, but leemee give it a a shot - the term "vague", implies, but does not explicitly define "unquantifiable" - there are what are called, among other things, "externalities", in physics, usually referred to as "effects", and the empirical existence of a particular phenomenological reality, a thhypothetical particle for example, can be inferred solely though it's effects, without having to "see" the cause, the particle itself - if it has effects, it exists, even if you cannot see it.
"Love" cannot be pinned to a cork board and preserved under glass, but it's effects are quantifiable and real, thus love is real - and even knowing, as empirical demonstrable fact, it is the result of evolutionary bookkeeping causing the brain to release particular proteins in response to specific stimulus, via the endocrine system, does not diminish the experience.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
God cannot be quantified empirically in any sense, thus god is not real, other than as a concept, the concept, or belief in a god or gods, variously defined is a real and quantifiable phenomena however.
I was going for plausibility. You are claiming that plausibility is irrelevant. A belief in God involves taking a series of steps where it begins with plausibility and He becomes increasingly plausible with each step. You begin to doubt that He does not exist. It begins with a mustard seed where a small doubt becomes a larger doubt.
Plausibility is irrelevant when it comes to abstractions - abstractions can be logical, but as a class, have no logical limit, plausibility only applies when applied to empirical phenomena.
The ego is limitless, the corpus is finite - depending upon your definition of "existence".
That hold you for five minutes?
|
|
|
|
