View Single Post
Old 10-23-2012, 01:16 PM   #19
cj wisty
Non Ignorant Math Team
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,884
Rep Power: 15
cj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venomscj wisty five deadly venoms

Originally Posted by Face of the Golden Falcon View Post
Just because your understanding of either of these two concepts (sanity and insanity) depend on your understanding of it's "oppostite" does not mean that "sanity" as an actual real "thing" depends at all on "insanity". You're confusing your understanding of reality with reality itself. I suspect this is because you believe that reality is completely subjective.

Your original statement was that "sanity depends on insanity". Which is not true. An intellectual understanding of sanity as a concept depends on having also an intellectual understanding of insanity as a concept.

Whether or not you have an intellectual understanding of sanity has no bearing on sanity as a reality.
yes i do believe reality is completely subjective. ur view on reality seems more kantian.

mine is more like schopenhauer/nietzsche

u call sanity a "thing" but how do we know this "thing" we know it through our own senses or our own subjective means.

how can u possibly know "sanity" as an objective "thing". u cant. its impossible. u can only understand what it means personally to you. therefore to argue about "objective sanity" cant be done. its an impossible task.

how can u know "objective reality"

I'd say so. Which means we may not get very far in this conversation, but it's interesting none the less.

Things are ordered though. It's what makes them "things". A true understanding of chaos can only be one of complete chaos. You cannot have a little bit of chaos or 80% chaos etc. either it's chaos or it isn't. The Universe will allow there to be an element of disorder, but even then the intelligence and capacity of the universe to adapt merges that disorder into the cosmic plan.

You say people believe that it should be ordered when it is ordered. It is objectively observable.


Noun:The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

This is all that that is seen in the universe. Order.

If you don't think that there is an intelligence behind this order, fine, but there is order.

Assuming macroevolution is a viable theory on the order of things (I would say it has to many holes for that to be so) how is it a chaotic event? How can you say it is a chaotic event but "looks like it has order". Which one is it? How do you decide which one it is? Do you live your life assuming your senses are incorrect simply because they are not always 100% accurate?

u can measure chaos.

if the sequence or pattern seen in a system is a coincidence is that system still said to be ordered?

people believed they saw a completely orderly creation because animals were very complex and that it had to be done with a purpose in a perfect way.

evolution isnt completely chaotic but it isnt as ordered as intelligent design because evolution has no set direction.

i think nothing is real and that everything is imagined.

also what if there was a mathematician so intelligent that he could see a sequence or pattern in every event.

do you think that everything relative to this mathematician is a completely ordered system

cj wisty is offline   Reply With Quote