thehomer:
No you didn't. You didn't say who or what the higher authority was that would tell you whether or not you were in pain.

You asked whether someone can tell me I don't have a headache, you didn't ask me to name the higher authority

thehomer: I don't think you can have the illusion of pain. You're probably confusing the referral of the pain with the sensation and feeling of being in pain itself.

Please, I'll like to see how you describe pain absent the feeling of pain.

thehomer: Once again, you're failing to see that using the word "authority" when speaking about the senses is not quite appropriate.

I think it is quite appropriate, so far you have failed to convince me otherwise

thehomer: No, based on our senses, the earth is round. Deciding on whether or not the earth is flat or round depends on your vantage point and your abilities of inference.
Today, it is easily determined by satellite images. In the past, it was done by inference to other objects in space, the solar and lunar eclipse and the fact that the tops of sailing ships appear first and disappear last into the distance among other means.

You missed the point.
If we relied solely on our senses, we would never be convinced the earth was round unless we saw it for ourselves i.e we would never take anyone else's word for it and since for most of us, our vantage point is based on a seemingly flat landscape, the earth is round theory will never have progressed and consequently most scientific breakthroughs will never have happened.
At a point, we just had to accept the authority of someone else even though it disagreed with our senses.

thehomer:
That is exactly what I'm saying. The definition of authority I'm using here is the third one here.

This concept is easily extended to the Bible and the church because they were ultimately made or written by some person. But one's senses aren't those sorts of tools neither are logical axioms tools of a similar nature.

You're splitting hairs.

Whether person, object or sensory perception, this definition always holds for authority:

An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

Since we know that the senses deceive us all the time how can you confer such a high authority on the senses.


People have been hypnotised to feel pain. Pain has been hypnotised away. There are so many effects that can be created by messing with the senses. It is ridiculous to place such a high stock on sensory information.

Imagine a scenario. You are with four friends and you see a white horse and you point at it and say to them, 'look at that beautiful white horse'.

They respond, 'what beautiful white horse are you drunk? There is nothing there, or , oh, you mean that dirty pig wallowing in the mud'

You don't see a pig but you still see a beautiful white horse.

Which Authority will you accept more. The Authority of your senses or the Authority of Consensus. 4 different people are seeing things differently from you.

Pastor AIO: Let's put it this way. An Authority is what you rely on to determine the TRUTH.

When you get contradicting information you take the more authoritative source to be True.

In thehomer's case it is his senses. Now, can the authority of the senses be undermined? the answer is a very simple yes. You know that drink and substances and varying emotional states affect the perception of the senses.

Even without varying mind states the senses feed us with wrong information all the time. Now I want to put up a link for you to study but I'm afraid that it is this link that got me banned last time so I will first put it in non-link form. and then put the link up later in another post.

http: //

www.michaelbach


.de/ot/mot_feet_lin


/index.html

Please join the 4 lines above into one http address and check out the page.

About truth, does this imply that there can be multiple truths? This is because different people defer to different "highest authorities"

Pastor AIO: Since we know that the senses deceive us all the time how can you confer such a high authority on the senses.


People have been hypnotised to feel pain. Pain has been hypnotised away. There are so many effects that can be created by messing with the senses. It is ridiculous to place such a high stock on sensory information.

+1

As much as sensory perception is an authority, it is sometimes yet based on the authority of memory. And either of the two (perception and memory) can easily be manipulated.

Pastor AIO: Let's put it this way. An Authority is what you rely on to determine the TRUTH.

When you get contradicting information you take the more authoritative source to be True.

In thehomer's case it is his senses. Now, can the authority of the senses be undermined? the answer is a very simple yes. You know that drink and substances and varying emotional states affect the perception of the senses.

Even without varying mind states the senses feed us with wrong information all the time. Now I want to put up a link for you to study but I'm afraid that it is this link that got me banned last time so I will first put it in non-link form. and then put the link up later in another post.

http: //

www.michaelbach


.de/ot/mot_feet_lin


/index.html

Please join the 4 lines above into one http address and check out the page.

Would you say that numbers are an authority just as the Bible and the church are authorities?
Note that I didn't say my senses were my authority because the way the word is used makes it open to various degrees of misunderstanding which is what is happening already.

thehomer:

Would you say that numbers are an authority just as the Bible and the church are authorities?

How? Numbers don't even exist. They are abstractions of size, and only have value because we associate them with a group of similar objects with some shared characteristics (all called numbers).

Mr_Anony:
You asked whether someone can tell me I don't have a headache, you didn't ask me to name the higher authority

Okay. So who or what is it?

Mr_Anony:
Please, I'll like to see how you describe pain absent the feeling of pain.

Why should I? I didn't say anything along those lines. You're the one who was talking of pain in the absence of a stimulus not me.

Mr_Anony:
I think it is quite appropriate, so far you have failed to convince me otherwise

If you cannot see that one's senses are in a different class from books or other people, then I really cannot help you.

Mr_Anony:
You missed the point.
If we relied solely on our senses, we would never be convinced the earth was round unless we saw it for ourselves i.e we would never take anyone else's word for it and since for most of us, our vantage point is based on a seemingly flat landscape, the earth is round theory will never have progressed and consequently most scientific breakthroughs will never have happened.
At a point, we just had to accept the authority of someone else even though it disagreed with our senses.

I didn't miss the point because you're committing another error. Taking another person's word for something doesn't automatically make that person an authority when the person actually has some good reasons for what they're saying. It simply means that the person is right with good reason. The whole point is for you to avoid simply taking people at their word and examining how they arrived at their conclusion.

InesQor:

You're splitting hairs.

Whether person, object or sensory perception, this definition always holds for authority:

An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

Are you basically saying that you're consenting to use your senses? How is that even possible? Are your senses someone else that you're granting it consent?
Do your senses augment the position of someone else other than yourself?
Do your senses define the scope of someone other than yourself?

I seriously find it difficult to believe that you're trying to defend the idea that your senses are like the Bible or another person.

Pastor AIO: Since we know that the senses deceive us all the time how can you confer such a high authority on the senses.

That's just it. I don't confer "authority" to my senses.

Pastor AIO:
People have been hypnotised to feel pain. Pain has been hypnotised away. There are so many effects that can be created by messing with the senses. It is ridiculous to place such a high stock on sensory information.

This doesn't counter what I've said. There are various theories behind the idea of hypnosis and none of them really leads to the conclusion that the person is or isn't in pain.

Pastor AIO:
Imagine a scenario. You are with four friends and you see a white horse and you point at it and say to them, 'look at that beautiful white horse'.

They respond, 'what beautiful white horse are you drunk? There is nothing there, or , oh, you mean that dirty pig wallowing in the mud'

You don't see a pig but you still see a beautiful white horse.

Which Authority will you accept more. The Authority of your senses or the Authority of Consensus. 4 different people are seeing things differently from you.

If one is hallucinating, then that's all there is to it. All I can say here is that my senses aren't an "authority" in the way that the consensus would be considered to be an authority.

thehomer:

Are you basically saying that you're consenting to use your senses? How is that even possible? Are your senses someone else that you're granting it consent?
Do your senses augment the position of someone else other than yourself?
Do your senses define the scope of someone other than yourself?

I seriously find it difficult to believe that you're trying to defend the idea that your senses are like the Bible or another person.

I hope you READ that I typed [b]conferred [/b]or consented, and not only consented? In the case of senses, they are conferred. In the cas3 of a third party, it is consented. Surely you couldn't have missed that.

So I can't believe you're saying one requires no conferring from their brains to believe or accept their senses! How does sensory perception work then? Why are there neurologically-based conditions like synaesthesia, derealization and delirium?

Your senses do not augment the position or define the scope of someone else, but then your senses are not you, so they still augment the position of another (i.e. you, as opposed to the senses themselves).

The point here is that either way, an authority defines scope. It is that which you accept or depend upon or believe in to establish a reference point or axiom.

InesQor:
How? Numbers don't even exist. They are abstractions of size, and only have value because we associate them with a group of similar objects with some shared characteristics (all called numbers).

Keep in mind the definition that Pastor AIO was using which is what I was responding to.

Which was:

Pastor AIO:
Let's put it this way. An Authority is what you rely on to determine the TRUTH.

We use numbers to arrive at some truths don't we?
Saying they don't exist means that you're able to grant "authority" to something that doesn't exist. That way lies madness.

thehomer:
We use numbers to arrive at some truths don't we?
Saying they don't exist means that you're able to grant "authority" to something that doesn't exist. That way lies madness.

Numbers are an abstraction of size, so they can serve as an authority in establishing a relative frame of reference, even though they don't exist as objects. There is no madness in there.

InesQor:

I hope you READ that I typed [b]conferred [/b]or consented, and not only consented? In the case of senses, they are conferred. In the cas3 of a third party, it is consented. Surely you couldn't have missed that.

How is this better? You're saying that you conferred authority to your senses? Can your senses decide to do something else like deceive you the way books or people can? Do you confer authority to your stomach to digest food? Or does it just digest food whether you like it or not?

InesQor:
So I can't believe you're saying one requires no conferring from their brains to believe or accept their senses! How does sensory perception work then? Why are there neurologically-based conditions like synaesthesia, derealization and delirium?

Sensory perception works directly. There are no permissions asked or granted.

InesQor:
Your senses do not augment the position or define the scope of someone else, but then your senses are not you, so they still augment the position of another (i.e. you, as opposed to the senses themselves).

Your senses aren't a person. They're a part of you unlike books or other people. Again, you're butting up against the problems but you're refusing to see it. Is it possible for your senses to augment the position of someone else other than you who they're a part of?

InesQor:
The point here is that either way, an authority defines scope. It is that which you accept or depend upon or believe in to establish a reference point or axiom.

You do realize that axioms are what you accept or depend upon to believe in to establish a reference point. Are they also authorities?

InesQor:

Numbers are an abstraction of size, so they can serve as an authority in establishing a relative frame of reference, even though they don't exist as objects. There is no madness in there.

In other words, numbers exist.

Using your definition, did you confer anything upon numbers or did you consent?
How do these abstract numbers define your scope and augment your position?

@thehomer:

You're still splitting hairs. Senses are a special case because they are a feedback system, a part of your body, yet you need to accept the information that they provide as an authority. It is possible to experience a sense and refuse to accept it as an authority e.g. because another authority (like a doctor) has informed you that you're only hallucinating. If you mind does not confer the authority to accept the information supplied, the authority of the senses will be discarded. This is inherent to how sensory perception works.

Yes, axioms are also [i]authorities [/i]in a particular case, for whoever confers the right of authority on the axiom. i.e accepts the axiom.

thehomer:

In other words, numbers exist.

No they don't. Can you show me a seven? Or allow me experience a million?

thehomer: Using your definition, did you confer anything upon numbers or did you consent?
How do these abstract numbers define your scope and augment your position?

I confer the abstraction/idea of two upon a set of objects based on mentally associating that set with another group of similar objects with some shared characteristics i.e. size, also a count of two. "Two" in itself means absolutely nothing, and does not exist.

"Two" then defines the scope (i.e. size of the set of objects) and it augments my position because I am informed of the size / limitation of the set of objects.

InesQor: @thehomer:

You're still splitting hairs. Senses are a special case because they are a feedback system, a part of your body, yet you need to accept the information that they provide as an authority. It is possible to experience a sense and refuse to accept it as an authority e.g. because another authority (like a doctor) has informed you that you're only hallucinating. If you mind does not confer the authority to accept the information supplied, the authority of the senses will be discarded. This is inherent to how sensory perception works.

Yes, axioms are also [i]authorities [/i]in a particular case, for whoever confers the right of authority on the axiom. i.e accepts the axiom.

(Emphasis mine)

Come on. You know I'm not splitting hairs. You've effectively shown why your senses aren't like books or other people. Otherwise, what follows is whether you consider your mind to be an authority.

How on earth can someone confer the right of authority to an axiom? You see, you're already slipping in your use of the word authority.
I simply wonder if you're ready to progress further with the discussion.

thehomer:
Come on. You know I'm not splitting hairs. You've effectively shown why your senses aren't like books or other people. Otherwise, what follows is whether you consider your mind to be an authority.

Yes, senses aren't like books or other people, but you still [i]need [/i]to accept or believe the information they provide.

Every source of information can be considered an authority, as long as you accept it as one. This is why I said conferred [/b]or [b]consented.

The mind can be considered an authority. Yet, as I said, perception and memory can be influenced or manipulated, so the authority may not be absolutely reliable.

thehomer: How on earth can someone confer the right of authority to an axiom? You see, you're already slipping in your use of the word authority.
I simply wonder if you're ready to progress further with the discussion.

I am not slipping in my use. My use still stands as An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

An axiom defines the scope within which logic operates, and augments the position of the premises built upon that axiom. This is because we have accepted these axioms as TRUE (i.e. conferred or consented).

Surely my position is entirely consistent.

InesQor:
No they don't. Can you show me a seven? Or allow me experience a million?

You're being self contradictory. You've already said they exist albeit abstractly.

InesQor:
I confer the abstraction/idea of two upon a set of objects based on mentally associating that set with another group of similar objects with some shared characteristics i.e. size, also a count of two. "Two" in itself means absolutely nothing, and does not exist.

Could you decide not to confer the abstract number two to two keys?

InesQor:
"Two" then defines the scope (i.e. size of the set of objects) and it augments my position because I am informed of the size / limitation of the set of objects.

I just noticed that your definition is a bit ambiguous and I'm wondering if that is one of the problems here.
Take another look at it.

InesQor:
An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

Does the word in bold only refer to people?
And what is scope there referring to? i.e scope of what?

thehomer:
You're being self contradictory. You've already said they exist albeit abstractly.

They are abstractions. Ideas not associated with any specific instance, and so they do not "exist" on their own. Yet they can be used as frames of reference.

thehomer:
Could you decide not to confer the abstract number two to two keys?

Yes, if you are experiencing a sensory illusion your abstraction will differ from mine.

thehomer:
I just noticed that your definition is a bit ambiguous and I'm wondering if that is one of the problems here.
Take another look at it.

An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

Does the word in bold only refer to people?
And what is scope there referring to? i.e scope of what?

The word "another" in bold refers to any instance, object or idea outside that which is being considered as an authority. It can be a person or whatever.

Scope has its normal meaning in English. The extent of operation, or value, or ambit of definition, if you may.

e.g. in the case of your sense of sight, the scope would be how far, how clear, etc that you can possibly see. This determines how much of an authority I will consider my sense of sight to be. Are you short-sighted? The scope of your sight as an authority is thus-defined.

InesQor:
Yes, senses aren't like books or other people, but you still [i]need [/i]to accept or believe the information they provide.

(Emphasis mine)

The highlighted portion of your post is what I've been saying all along.

InesQor:
Every source of information can be considered an authority, as long as you accept it as one. This is why I said conferred [/b]or [b]consented.

The mind can be considered an authority. Yet, as I said, perception and memory can be influenced or manipulated, so the authority may not be absolutely reliable.

So you [/b]conferred authority to [b]your [/b]mind?
Who is this you conferring this authority to your mind?

InesQor:
I am not slipping in my use. My use still stands as [b]An authority defines scope, and augments the position of another. It is a conferred or consented right.

An axiom defines the scope within which logic operates, and augments the position of the premises built upon that axiom. This is because we have accepted these axioms as TRUE (i.e. conferred or consented).

Surely my position is entirely consistent.

Do numbers and your senses have rights?

Does an axiom have rights?

An axiom defines the scope of logic? Are you sure you don't have it the wrong way around?
You're saying that a statement like the set of integers is infinite defines the scope of logic.

You're also forgetting that axioms are premises themselves so how is their own position augmented?

thehomer:
So you [/b]conferred authority to [b]your [/b]mind?
Who is this you conferring this authority to your mind?

I already mentioned neurological disorders and mental conditions in which one cannot trust the operation of their mind. e.g. Derealization, and delirium. So, if you [b]think you are mentally and neurologically healthy, then you may confer the authority of trust to your (assumed) healthy mind.

thehomer:
Do numbers and your senses have rights?
Does an axiom have rights?

Anything can be said to have a right of authority if you have [b]allowed [/b]it to [i]influence [/i]your experience.

thehomer:
An axiom defines the scope of logic? Are you sure you don't have it the wrong way around?
You're saying that a statement like the set of integers is infinite defines the scope of logic.

Yes, an axiom defines the scope of logic. You can't logically relate to a "largest possible number" because there is an accepted axiom that the set of integers is infinite.

thehomer: You're also forgetting that axioms are premises themselves so how is their own position augmented?

This is why they are called axioms, d'uh. They are already [b]accepted [/b]as [i]unquestionably [/i]correct. Thus are accepted as an authority.

I think the problem you're having is that you're limiting the definition of "authority" to one's sensory perceptions. This is not true. Whatever you accept as authority is authority for you.

Axiom (n):

A proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is [b]assumed [/b]to be self-evident

InesQor:
They are abstractions. Ideas not associated with any specific instance, and so they do not "exist" on their own. Yet they can be used as frames of reference.

In other words, they do exist.

InesQor:
Yes, if you are experiencing a sensory illusion your abstraction will differ from mine.

If you're hallucinating, then you're not deciding not to confer the abstract number two to two keys.

InesQor:
The word "another" in bold refers to any instance, object or idea outside that which is being considered as an authority. It can be a person or whatever.

Can you be an authority to the number two?

InesQor:
Scope has its normal meaning in English. The extent of operation, or value, or ambit of definition, if you may.

e.g. in the case of your sense of sight, the scope would be how far, how clear, etc that you can possibly see. This determines how much of an authority I will consider my sense of sight to be. Are you short-sighted? The scope of your sight as an authority is thus-defined.

Okay. So with your example of two, is it the number two that is defining your use of it to two keys or are you using the number two for the two keys because of the way it matches the concept?

thehomer:
In other words, they do exist.

What does existence mean to you?

thehomer:
If you're hallucinating, then you're not deciding not to confer the abstract number two to two keys.

When you're hallucinating, you may be deciding to confer the abstract number three to two keys.

thehomer:
Can you be an authority to the number two?

This makes me feel you're just wasting my time. How does this make sense of my earlier submission? I said numbers can be an authority, and not that I am an authority to numbers. Number PI acts as an authority (a reference point) as the ratio of a perfect circle's circumference to its diameter.

thehomer:
Okay. So with your example of two, is it the number two that is defining your use of it to two keys or are you using the number two for the two keys because of the way it matches the concept?

Two [/i]defines your use indirectly. In order for you to TELL that it matches the concept, it means you have subjected yourself to comparing the subject with the abstraction in your head for what "[i]two" means. You have accepted and believed what [i]two [/i]represents.

InesQor:
I already mentioned neurological disorders and mental conditions in which one cannot trust the operation of their mind. e.g. Derealization, and delirium. So, if you think you are mentally and neurologically healthy, then you may confer the authority of trust to your (assumed) healthy mind.

Yes you did but as I pointed out, you don't grant them authority, you simply perceive what you perceive.

InesQor:
Anything can be said to have a right of authority if you have [b]allowed [/b]it to [i]influence [/i]your experience.

Lol wut? Numbers have rights because you've allowed them to influence your experience? Gravity has rights because you've allowed it to pull you towards the earth?

InesQor:
Yes, an axiom defines the scope of logic. You can't logically relate to a "largest possible number" because there is an accepted axiom that the set of integers is infinite.

How exactly does an axiom define the scope of logic?

InesQor:
This is why they are called axioms, d'uh. They are already [b]accepted [/b]as [i]unquestionably [/i]correct. Thus are accepted as an authority.

So you're basically saying that there are certain authorities that have no support themselves?

InesQor:
I think the problem you're having is that you're limiting the definition of "authority" to one's sensory perceptions. This is not true. Whatever you accept as authority is authority for you.

Actually, I don't think that one's sensory perceptions are an authority. I think it is a misuse of the word to apply it to the senses.

@thehomer:
You cannot stick to only ONE definition or authority out of many possible ones and claim that an authority must be a person

thehomer:
That is exactly what I'm saying. The definition of authority I'm using here is the third one here.

I think my points have been made here. I'm tired of going round in circles.

Going to the original topic of the thread.
I agree that many people have a tendency to derive their decisions to allow decisions to be made towards the other.
That is a religious principle ... that reminds me of the famous phrase "Furer thought for me ..."
I also believe that human beings need to "idols" of "leaders" of "heroes" or "heroes". That also applies to religion ... that many priests are "deified."
But I think there are no accidents. On the religious level all is well studied and understood.
If the dependence on authority, and the search for reference we add FEAR, people are quite permeable to the "authority".
There are many religions that use these three principles as pillars to ensure through fear, leadership and authority, the fidelity of the people.
My respects

InesQor:
What does existence mean to you?

It means all that there is. They're roughly divided into abstract and concrete objects.

InesQor:
When you're hallucinating, you may be deciding to confer the abstract number three to two keys.

Hallucinations aren't under your control. If you're perceiving three keys when there are two, then you're not deciding to confer three to two keys, you're just doing it.

InesQor:
This makes me feel you're just wasting my time. How does this make sense of my earlier submission? I said numbers can be an authority, and not that I am an authority to numbers. Number PI acts as an authority (a reference point) as the ratio of a perfect circle's circumference to its diameter.

It makes sense in that you're pretty much implying that anything can be an authority to anything else which doesn't make sense. And that is why the concept should be limited to certain objects like people, books etc.
If you cannot be an authority to two, then can someone else be an authority to two?

InesQor:
Two [/i]defines your use indirectly. In order for you to TELL that it matches the concept, it means you have subjected yourself to comparing the subject with the abstraction in your head for what "[i]two" means. You have accepted and believed what [i]two [/i]represents.

You're basically saying that the number two is somehow making you use it correctly. But it isn't so. You use it correctly otherwise you just end up being incoherent. What you're saying is no better than saying that words somehow make you use them correctly when the point is that if you don't use them correctly, you will simply be failing to communicate.

InesQor: @thehomer:
You cannot stick to only ONE definition or authority out of many possible ones and claim that an authority must be a person

Why not? What was the source of your definition?

InesQor:
I think my points have been made here. I'm tired of going round in circles.

My entire point was to show you that certain things fit the idea that you're presenting better than what you're postulating.

thehomer:

Okay. So who or what is it?
Why should I? I didn't say anything along those lines. You're the one who was talking of pain in the absence of a stimulus not me.
If you cannot see that one's senses are in a different class from books or other people, then I really cannot help you.
I didn't miss the point because you're committing another error. Taking another person's word for something doesn't automatically make that person an authority when the person actually has some good reasons for what they're saying. It simply means that the person is right with good reason. The whole point is for you to avoid simply taking people at their word and examining how they arrived at their conclusion.

At thehomer, I would very much like to continue with you but it is beginning to occur to me (and especially reading your argument with InesQor) that you are purposely trying to misunderstand Pastor AIO premise. For this reason, I won't continue with you. I don't want to dance around in circles today.

I'll continue with Pastor AIO who by the way is yet to answer my questions though.