Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,215 members, 7,818,730 topics. Date: Sunday, 05 May 2024 at 11:16 PM

The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments - Religion (10) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments (9665 Views)

Three Arguments For God's Existence / The Philosophy Of Reality / A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 10:21pm On Nov 02, 2013
Joshthefirst: it seems you still don't even know what is wrong with your own statement.

Here's what you said:
how is the fact that the very act of mimicing involves thinking hard to understand?


Was that the point of my statement? See how you just barge in and support garbage?

The point was that the model was not thinking about posing but of mimicking the photographer....gaddem.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 10:31pm On Nov 02, 2013
Deep Sight:


"Mind's eye" - what is that by the way? Like you can sit down an form a picture in your mind of a place or person far away. You see that in your mind, no? Where is that. What eye sees that? Or what mind sees that? And how does it do this? Does this say anything about what the mind is, and what capacities it has. Does this give a hint about mind being beyond matter, or is mind just matter. \

The mind is immaterial in nature meaning it's not physical thereby beyond matter.
As to the capacity of the mind, that, I don't believe we can be certain of it's extent.
It can create, see, hear, feel that which does not exist or is sensible to/in our present physical reality.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 11:34pm On Nov 02, 2013
kwangi: The mind is immaterial in nature meaning it's not physical thereby beyond matter.
As to the capacity of the mind, that, I don't believe we can be certain of it's extent.
It can create, see, hear, feel that which does not exist or is sensible to/in our present physical reality.

Kwangi, we are finally getting somewhere, and deriving some truth, even if at the barest level, from what this thread set out to discuss. I will certainly be back tomorrow, to discuss further the thoughts that yourself and Kay17 have laid out.

I thank you both for your readiness to engage genuine thoughts.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by UyiIredia(m): 12:03am On Nov 03, 2013
kwangi: The mind is immaterial in nature meaning it's not physical thereby beyond matter.
As to the capacity of the mind, that, I don't believe we can be certain of it's extent.
It can create, see, hear, feel that which does not exist or is sensible to/in our present physical reality.

The mind is very material in Nature and this is evident in its affectations AS the human brain which it is nothing but the workings of. Put simply your mind is your brain. It is also not entirely true that the mind create what doesn't exist. Only in a limied sense because all the mind creates have precedents in Nature which the mind simply synthesizes from.

1 Like

Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by UyiIredia(m): 12:03am On Nov 03, 2013
kwangi: The mind is immaterial in nature meaning it's not physical thereby beyond matter.
As to the capacity of the mind, that, I don't believe we can be certain of it's extent.
It can create, see, hear, feel that which does not exist or is sensible to/in our present physical reality.

The mind is very material in Nature and this is evident in its affectations AS the human brain which it is nothing but the workings of. Put simply your mind is your brain. It is also not entirely true that the mind create what doesn't exist. Only in a limited sense because all the mind creates have precedents in Nature which the mind simply synthesizes from.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 6:55am On Nov 03, 2013
Logicboy03:
the model was not thinking about posing [size=20pt]but of[/size] mimicking the photographer....gaddem.

[size=30pt]! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Chei.

1 Like

Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 9:57am On Nov 03, 2013
Uyi Iredia:

The mind is very material in Nature and this is evident in its affectations AS the human brain which it is nothing but the workings of. Put simply your mind is your brain. It is also not entirely true that the mind create what doesn't exist. Only in a limied sense because all the mind creates have precedents in Nature which the mind simply synthesizes from.
The mind is immaterial in nature. It exist independent of the brain.
Your mind is not your brain.
I say the brain is the connect from our mind to the physical.
Now, you said the brain is an affectation of the mind!
What does that tell you?
What do you mean when you say the brain is an affectation of the mind?

The mind can create that which" does not exist" in the physical dimension.
Nature. What is nature? What is the scope of nature?
How did you come to the conclusion that the creations of the mind are not natural?

The blind, deaf and dumb, do they have a mind?
I believe both our answer to the above question will be Yes.
Going by your claim, would it mean that their mind is defective?
It is my view that nature first exists in the same realm as the mind before manifestation into the physical.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Joshthefirst(m): 1:20pm On Nov 03, 2013
Deep Sight:

[size=30pt]! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Chei.
I didn't want to keep arguing so it won't be that I like stupid arguments.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 5:25pm On Nov 03, 2013
SMH.....two people deceiving themselves undecided
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by UyiIredia(m): 6:28pm On Nov 03, 2013
kwangi: The mind is immaterial in nature. It exist independent of the brain.
Your mind is not your brain.

To prove this show that someone's mind can exist without a brain. I'll play ghostbuster.

kwangi: I say the brain is the connect from our mind to the physical.
Now, you said the brain is an affectation of the mind!

No I said mind is just affectations of the brain.

kwangi: What does that tell you?
What do you mean when you say the brain is an affectation of the mind?

Wrong again.

kwangi: The mind can create that which" does not exist" in the physical dimension.
Nature. What is nature? What is the scope of nature?
How did you come to the conclusion that the creations of the mind are not natural?

I never concluded such read well.

kwangi: The blind, deaf and dumb, do they have a mind?
I believe both our answer to the above question will be Yes.
Going by your claim, would it mean that their mind is defective?

Yes their minds are defective a blind man will never understand the concept of color neither would a deaf man loudness.

I
kwangi: t is my view that nature first exists in the same realm as the mind before manifestation into the physical.

Wrong.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Kay17: 6:32pm On Nov 03, 2013
The mind is an impression of the self.

EDITED
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 7:32pm On Nov 03, 2013
Uyi Iredia:

To prove this show that someone's mind can exist without a brain. I'll play ghostbuster.









Yes their minds are defective a blind man will never understand the concept of color neither would a deaf man loudness.


The mind is immaterial in nature, the brain is not. It is of that immaterial world that the idea of anything comes from.

"A blind man will never understand the concept of colour". Good.
What is the concept of colour?

I'll like you to answer my question on nature.

Secondly, kindly explain the phrase, "...mind is just affectation of the brain"?
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 7:38pm On Nov 03, 2013
Kay 17: The mind is a impression of the self.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MrTroll(m): 10:48pm On Nov 04, 2013
Deep Sight:

Does this say something about the source of life and the nature of living things as opposed to the nature of matter?
are you saying that the nature of life and the nature of matter are two different things from different sources?
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 9:41am On Nov 18, 2013
Since a further response on Plaetton's issues regarding this thread ended up being made on another thread, I post the same here for future reference purposes - - - >


plaetton:

I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.
I see that it indisputably silver in color-all will agree with me on that.
It is very light in weight. But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.
If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.
If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

Now let us take a fine comb through this matter once and for all.

The thread in question was one in which I posted some pictures and invited the thought's of viewers on the pictures: seeking an excercise in thought through pictorial arguments.

You responded (in fact were the first to respond) by saying (i paraphrase you), that minds only see what they are conditioned to see, and as such, nothing objective could be deduced from the exercise.

This is the prime reason that I contend that you do not even grasp your own statement: your statement devolved on mind, and its capacity to perceive and observe. Your statement was a comprehensive statement: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

That which I have placed in red bold in the paragraph above is of critical importance in understanding this issue and should not be glossed over. For emphasis, I REPEAT: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

And further: to buttress and prove your statement, i extract the exact quote of yours, word for word: and please note the bold -

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man. wink

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that [size=30pt]mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.[/size]
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

Mr. Queen, sir - I cannot over-emphasize the bold: and it is that which both yourself and those who agree with your take, miss entirely. I am not minded towards careless assumptions, and I take every element of a debate, discourse or argument seriously and into context. This, with respect, is exactly what you have failed to do: and this is why I say for the umpteenth time that you do not grasp the very import of your own words here.

This is made worse by the trajectory of your post, in which you gave a historic-evolutionary context to your comments: thereby slamming your point home that the mind, as evolved, can only see that which it is conditioned to see. I am gratified that your comment takes note of the fact that it is the mind that actually sees, and not the eyes, and in so saying you therefore contend that everything that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

So now, settle down carefully: here is the simple point that I have labored to make from that thread all the way to this thread: if everything that we see (and remember it is the mind that sees) is only what we have been conditioned to see, please tell me what can ever be objectively known as true: remember - EVERYTHING (your words) that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

Indeed, you went so far as to describe what you meant by saying that external influence is critical in this "conditioning".

My dear Plaetton, what is so sad in all of this is the fact that you completely miss my point. Did I revert to you arguing that the foregoing is not true? No! Indeed, my very first response to you stated clearly that all of that is in fact true. I however went further to point out that as a response, it nullifies every possible discussion, and applies equally to every possible contention. Indeed, I went so far as to point out to you that it is even good grounds to question our very existence, and even the objective existence of the world.

If everything we see is only what we have been conditioned to see, then there is nothing in the world around us that we can determine objectively exists. Nothing whatsoever. It is all, and only, what we have been conditioned to see.

This is why I argued very clearly that your contention was meaningless and escapist: for it applies equally to every fundamental statement of our existence that could possibly ever be made: if you come across me in the street today, and see me live and direct: it could be argued that that is only what you have been conditioned to see. Even this post sef, and every word you are reading herein, is only what you have been conditioned to see. Whatever affirmations you hear from other people, are also only what you have been conditioned to hear. Remember, it is still the mind at play here, as you stated: and its conditioning.

I fervently hope you see the point here now: and duly recognize that there is nothing frivolous in my objections to your contentions: they are objections that show clearly why your point is moot: and serves to render everything truly meaningless, as I said in the other thread.

Therefore I will now address your last post in terms of what I have explained above and with my explanation above, I hope you will recognize that I am not trying to be funny, or make jest of the discussion, but that the ridiculous comments I must make below: are rather the comments that should hold true and normal: if your contention is accepted - - ->

plaetton:

I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.

That is what you have been conditioned to see it as.

I see that it indisputably silver in color-

That what you have been conditioned to see it as.

all will agree with me on that.

- All have also been conditioned to see it that way or worse - - ->

- YOU have been conditioned to see all others affirming what you have been conditioned to see

It is very light in weight.

That is what YOU have been conditioned to feel it as.

And all other people have been conditioned to feel it that way.

An ant, would certainly regard it as heavy, no?

But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.

Even the scale and the result it shows is only what you have been conditioned to see.

If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.

Verifiable HOW? ? ?

Whatever verification you get - be it affirmation from other people or affirmation by computers, these all remain what you have been conditioned to see. what if the other people and the machines are not really there: but only some software you have been conditioned to see as such? What if the scale is actually just a virtual reality projection that YOU have been conditioned to see as a scale?

If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

Same thing. What if all these are simply VR software that you have been CONDITIONED to see as such?

You see, this is why I told you that you yourself have not grasped the depth and enormity of the implications of your statement.

Obviously.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

No you cannot: it is possible that no one else actually exists and that every other person in the world is a figment of your imagination which you have been CONDITIONED to see as such.

Now you can see very clearly the problems with your argument: which of course you willfully ignored and made sweeping and careless assumptions on. It befuddles me that I have to go to this trouble to explain all of this for you: while you sit aside and cry about losing respect for people. Teeeeesh!

Now let me come to the "subjective" part of your comment:

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

These are your thoughts: and they are indeed the subjective thoughts that were invited by the thought-exercise I set up in that thread. I made it clear enough that I was interested in people's subjective thoughts.

And there is nothing wrong with such an exercise: as far as I know, there is no one who looked at, for example: the picture of the stone, and declared that it was a dog, or other living thing. Therefore in terms of your declamations to the effect that "everyone could verify" this or that - I am sure you would agree that everyone could verify that the stone is not an image of a living thing. Unless, of course, you wish to quibble pedantically - that that is only what they have been conditioned to see.

Those pictures were for open discussion: on images that we are ALL familiar with. If you could not see the proper issues of existentialism, cosmology, evolution, science, and much more; that were thereby elicited: and properly and intelligently engage those issues: but rather stop the discussion at the meaningless point that everything we see is that which we have been conditioned to see - then no probs - I cannot help you.

Thanks.
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by cbravo2: 8:44pm On Jan 27, 2017
postmodern rejection of absolute truth in richard rorty: an appraisal



















http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/?p=746&preview=true
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by cbravo2: 2:49pm On Apr 19, 2017
Postmodern rejection of absolute truth in Richard Rorty: an appraisal
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/postmodern-rejection-of-absolute-truth-in-richard-rorty-an-appraisal/
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by cbravo3: 2:52pm On Apr 19, 2017
Postmodern rejection of absolute truth in Richard Rorty: an appraisal
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/postmodern-rejection-of-absolute-truth-in-richard-rorty-an-appraisal/

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply)

Abortion: Same As Murder? / Six Importants Reasons You Should Seek The God OF Wisdom / Bizarre Scratch Marks On The Body

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 78
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.