How do people gain more knowledge?

[Azmodius]

Life =/= Existance. Law of conservation of energy peeps!!

 

Knowledge, is knowin' sheet, I guess.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

The boundaries between free will and predetermination are simply arbitrary. What "lives" isn't really anything at all, and you can call the degeneration of that heaping chemical reaction dying if you so wish. But Felix said that only those were definite, when in fact absolutely nothing is save the lack of certainty. Felix opened the can first, I'm simply delving into the ultimate ramifications of it.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

The boundaries between free will and predetermination are simply arbitrary. What "lives" isn't really anything at all, and you can call the degeneration of that heaping chemical reaction dying if you so wish. But Felix said that only those were definite, when in fact absolutely nothing is save the lack of certainty. Felix opened the can first, I'm simply delving into the ultimate ramifications of it.

 

Life has nothing to do with free will or anything like that ****. Life just is. And it's very good at what it does.

[Raylen]

In any case, it is not an easy question to answer. But I like the responses.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

The boundaries between free will and predetermination are simply arbitrary. What "lives" isn't really anything at all, and you can call the degeneration of that heaping chemical reaction dying if you so wish. But Felix said that only those were definite, when in fact absolutely nothing is save the lack of certainty. Felix opened the can first, I'm simply delving into the ultimate ramifications of it.

 

Life has nothing to do with free will or anything like that ****. Life just is. And it's very good at what it does.

…And what is it doing, exactly?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

The boundaries between free will and predetermination are simply arbitrary. What "lives" isn't really anything at all, and you can call the degeneration of that heaping chemical reaction dying if you so wish. But Felix said that only those were definite, when in fact absolutely nothing is save the lack of certainty. Felix opened the can first, I'm simply delving into the ultimate ramifications of it.

 

Life has nothing to do with free will or anything like that ****. Life just is. And it's very good at what it does.

…And what is it doing, exactly?

 

Living.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Death is real. Life is real.

Eh' date=' debatable.

[/quote']

 

How? Death ends life. Life is simply existence.

 

Life MAY not be real. Existence may not be real. If life isn't real chances are death isn't either. That is why it is debatable.

 

How may life not be real?

What one classifies as living is subjective.

 

Bull****. Life, and therefor living, are easily defined and objective.

Nope. We're nothing more than a different kind of chemical reactions. And nothing is certain, there's always the chance everything we have learned up this point is one big lie.

 

This pseudo-philosophic **** is really getting on my nerves. Yes, life is definable, and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't living. It's always possible that that definition could change, yes, but it's not likely. It's useless, absolutely useless, to argue what is real and what isn't. Once you open that can of worms, then nothing that even comes close to discussion can happen. And that pisses me off.

The boundaries between free will and predetermination are simply arbitrary. What "lives" isn't really anything at all, and you can call the degeneration of that heaping chemical reaction dying if you so wish. But Felix said that only those were definite, when in fact absolutely nothing is save the lack of certainty. Felix opened the can first, I'm simply delving into the ultimate ramifications of it.

 

Life has nothing to do with free will or anything like that ****. Life just is. And it's very good at what it does.

And what is it doing, exactly?

 

Living.

Okay, to repeat my point, I wasn't saying I disagreed with you. Felix said this as if it was an absolute truth and everything else was an illusion of sorts. But when you apply that idea living and dying is also uncertain. When you make a few assumptions on what is real, then that and multiple other truths open up.

[Guest JoshIcy]

If you wanted this to be a debate, you should have posted it in the debates section, and wait for it to be approved.

 

So try and keep it to friendly conversation and acceptance of beliefs .-.

[Death Metal]

Click This.

 

Not good enough for you?

 

Click this instead...

 

That should answer any question you might have. =]

[The Donkey]

You gain Knowledge from your education. A simple example is gaining the Knowledge of how to Read, Write, and Talk a Language.

 

You also gain Knowledge from what you figured out in life on your own. A simple example is the baby who gains the Knowledge to know how to walk.

 

*Brays*

[Tabris]

A question that has confused me for ages. Does knowledge even exist? What is knowledge?

 

Does knowledge even exist?

 

As long as we process thoughts' date=' then yes, knowledge exists.

 

[i']What is knowledge?[/i]

 

It is thought inferred from the immediate environment; whether true or false is irrelevant.

[Raylen]

But if I went outside (I live in Alaska) without a shirt, I would feel cold, well freezing, to more exact.

 

But how can I be sure. How do I know that it is because that I lack clothing and in 15 F. There is always the possibility, that the cold doesn't exist. Or this, or that, but, we assume that if you are cold, put more clothes on, as knowledge, and true. From that, we base our actions.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

But if I went outside (I live in Alaska) without a shirt' date=' I would feel cold, well freezing, to more exact.

 

But how can I be sure. How do I know that it is because that I lack clothing and in 15 F. [b']There is always the possibility, that the cold doesn't exist.[/b] Or this, or that, but, we assume that if you are cold, put more clothes on, as knowledge, and true. From that, we base our actions.

 

lolwut? You're not making sense.

[The Donkey]

But if I went outside (I live in Alaska) without a shirt' date=' I would feel cold, well freezing, to more exact.

 

But how can I be sure. How do I know that it is because that I lack clothing and in 15 F. [b']There is always the possibility, that the cold doesn't exist.[/b] Or this, or that, but, we assume that if you are cold, put more clothes on, as knowledge, and true. From that, we base our actions.

 

lolwut? You're not making sense.

 

You can temporarily ignore the cold, but once you begin to shiver, you will know that the cold truly exists and through this experience you gain Knowledge of remembering to wear enough clothing to keep you warm.

 

*Brays*

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

But if I went outside (I live in Alaska) without a shirt' date=' I would feel cold, well freezing, to more exact.

 

But how can I be sure. How do I know that it is because that I lack clothing and in 15 F. [b']There is always the possibility, that the cold doesn't exist.[/b] Or this, or that, but, we assume that if you are cold, put more clothes on, as knowledge, and true. From that, we base our actions.

 

lolwut? You're not making sense.

 

You can temporarily ignore the cold, but once you begin to shiver, you will know that the cold truly exists and through this experience you gain Knowledge of remembering to wear enough clothing to keep you warm.

 

*Brays*

 

Whether or not you shiver or wear clothing doesn't change the fact that it would be cold.

[Raylen]

Sorry. I was very unclear.

 

What I am saying is that there ways you learn things. Hence the title. For example, you can say, "I am cold, I don't have a lot of clothes on, therefore I need to put more clothes on.", or you can say "I don't have a lot of clothes on, therefore, I am cold and need to put more clothes on."

 

In either case, you arrive at a conclusion, "I need to put more clothes on."

 

However, you don't really know if either reasoning is correct. Maybe you aren't cold and you are just imagining you are. There is no set of facts that can disprove that you aren't just hallucinating.

 

I hope this clears it up a bit.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Sorry. I was very unclear.

 

What I am saying is that there ways you learn things. Hence the title. For example' date=' you can say, "I am cold, I don't have a lot of clothes on, therefore I need to put more clothes on.", or you can say "I don't have a lot of clothes on, therefore, I am cold and need to put more clothes on."

 

In either case, you arrive at a conclusion, "I need to put more clothes on."

 

However, you don't really know if either reasoning is correct. Maybe you aren't cold and you are just imagining you are. There is no set of facts that can disprove that you aren't just hallucinating.

 

I hope this clears it up a bit.

[/quote']

 

Whether or not you realize it does not change the fact that it is cold or not. Your perception changes, but reality does not.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Chaos Pudding's reality requires that there is an equilibrium of perception, in each others reality in order for it to be true. Sadly this is not the case, granted some cases far less obvious than the next. When in "reality", the only reality is the mutual end result.

 

This can easily be rather "disproven" by this thought. For me 90f is normal and I do not sweat nor consider it hot, but my friend who lives in the UK would consider anything above 70f to be hot and she would sweat. For me to feel "hot weather" it would have to be 97f or above, where the humidity drops rapidly.

 

In her reality, 70f is blistering hot but it is cold in mine. In my reality, 97f is blistering hot.

 

And before you get out of hand here. Raylen clearly stated that the definition for reality in this scenario is how you perceive events, rather than the Equilibrium I mentioned at the start; which would be your definition.

 

.___. Don't try and come off like that Pudding. It's terribly troublesome.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Chaos Pudding's reality requires that there is an equilibrium of perception' date=' in each others reality in order for it to be true. Sadly this is not the case, granted some cases far less obvious than the next. When in "reality", the only reality is the mutual end result.

 

This can easily be rather "disproven" by this thought. For me 90f is normal and I do not sweat nor consider it hot, but my friend who lives in the UK would consider anything above 70f to be hot and she would sweat. For me to feel "hot weather" it would have to be 97f or above, where the humidity drops rapidly.

 

In her reality, 70f is blistering hot but it is cold in mine. In my reality, 97f is blistering hot.

 

And before you get out of hand here. Raylen [i']clearly[/i] stated that the definition for reality in this scenario is how you perceive events, rather than the Equilibrium I mentioned at the start; which would be your definition.

 

.___. Don't try and come off like that Pudding. It's terribly troublesome.

 

Icy, you don't want to go down this path. It will only end up badly for you. I've been arguing about things like this for longer than you think.

 

It's true that, depending on your philosophical views, a person's definition of "reality" can change. And it is also true that, for an individual, what you perceive is your reality. But the tree that falls in the middle of a forest with no one to hear it does make a sound, and, while "cold" is an inherently subjective term, no amount of perception changes the absolute reality that 50 degrees F is colder than 60 degrees F.

 

Furthermore, although everything we observe and believe is "reality" is inherently tainted by our perceptions and unintentional biases, to believe that reality itself is merely a byproduct of our perceptions is to suggest that humans are special to the universe at large in some way. I obviously can't prove that that is or isn't the case (well, pretty much at this point, according to the people I'm arguing against, I can't "prove" anything at all, which is one of the inherent problems with arguing about this subject), but the implications if such a situation was true are staggering, and go against all evidence we already have (which, like I said earlier, doesn't even matter to the other side because they can easily claim that it doesn't even exist).

[Guest JoshIcy]

Gyah... But you come off like you're forcing the issue. And my goal was to at least dilute that. I'm fully aware that in my present state (even when pushing my best which YCM hasn't seen), I couldn't beat you without purging something in my mind.

 

Alas, as I said the end goal was to at least dilute your opinion to come off as less harsh and forceful and more... Open arms.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

I appreciate your concern, but you know my position when it comes to discussions.

[Womi]

Synapsis.