This guy is such a demonstrable jackass.
Anyone who clicks that ad or gives him their money for his “insight” does not deserve to keep it.
This was literally presented as an outrageous idea (that they went ahead and did anyway) in the 2018 film, Sicario 2.
If the Covid vaccine wasn’t designed to prevent infections, did anyone on the panel ask her what it was designed for?
*ducks*
Same thing here. What do you mean “different kinds of truth”? To me, that’s a non sequitur. I’m not familiar with Piaget or genetic epistemology, but describing how “truths can be concordant with reality” is, to me, just a way of describing opinions that are functional/useful to a given set of conditions. What you call “reality” I call “your perception of it.” There’s really no other way to describe it. All we have are our perceptions.
It is only when we *stop* perceiving that we see what is underlying. THAT, and only that, is the Truth that is always-and-everywhere. Everything else is just mind stuff. God, dogma, religion, beliefs, opinions, “truths” (concordant or not), all of these are nothing more than concepts, mental objects, which people take as being 100% true. But it isn’t. Referring back to my initial response to you, consider the “truth” of Hanuman to a devout Hindu. It carries no more truth than Athena or Jesus. This isn’t about consensus. No belief is True.
I dunno. I don’t really see the difference, even though you’re trying really hard to show it to me. LOL.
I don’t agree that, “Something that is true everywhere and always is still perfectly achievable in a subjective framework, if your framework applies soundly to the whole universe.” It’s precisely the subjectivity that I’m pointing at which makes it relative. Anything relative is not True always-and-everywhere. It is only true in relation to certain conditions or a specific framework. It’s one sided, from one perspective.
I do understand what you are saying, and read it several times. It’s just that maybe we have differing views on what TRUTH means. Not to devolve our discussion too much, but Truth does not depend on consensus (we agree on this), nor does it depend on a framework (we disagree on this).
When you refer to the “relativeness of the meaning,” it sounds like you are scoring a point for me, actually.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled.”
~Mark Twain
This extra comment is a nice follow up to your other one, because I was going to ask whether you acknowledged the relativism of your answer. And, it sounds like you are by recognizing that it’s “assessed individually.”
Lately, I’ve begun to see that epistemology, itself, is entirely relative, too. Or, at least, entirely subjective, which is basically the same thing, no? So, if all religious understanding (whether about god or gods, Confucianism or Taoism) is only *relatively* true, then they might as well be false. We’re looking for something that True, always and everywhere.
Since we were on the topic of evolution, I should point out that I wouldn’t say that “science” is True, here either. Far from it, in fact! Science is constantly being tested, updated, challenged, and questioned (as it should be). Science may tell us “how” but it cannot tell us “why.” Adherence to any religion that purports to have an answer to how and why by pointing to an imaginary entity possessed of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, should be only lightly held, if at all.
Again, I don’t want to poke at what you hold sacred. Your beliefs are yours, to whatever extent your conditioning creates them.
You are free to believe and worship whatever you want, of course, and I’m not here to pick a fight.
I’d only ask you to consider whether what you understand “properly” about Jesus is just as valid as what a Hindu understands “properly” about Hanuman, or what an Ancient Greek understood “properly” about Athena.
The answer is either yes or no, and both are equally terrifying.
But it does suggest we derived from a common ancestor with the chimp that ostensibly looked similar.
Correct. That’s how it works.
No, they cannot breathe underwater. They must hold their breath during dives.
Seals are mammals, not fish.
What happens to your lungs at 60 meters or 200 feet underwater
https://video.nostr.build/4fa7a87b00fa1bfd313eadaf065bfeaaea4e459ce813f5ee7c1fc63c71ca4122.mp4
What is the name/location of this facility?
Yeah, there’s a branding issue here, too.
It will never cease to amaze me how eager some people are to prove their own ignorance to the public.
For sure, there’s a time and place for both.
Is Kalshi taking bets on this, yet?
nostr:note12mpczly30j3s3razrglw8nc9gfvgcauuf586sy6r4e56ntgahkqsqsays8