[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm unable to comprehend where I am assuming anything. If someone makes a claim about objectively reality and I disagree, the only possibly way to resolve that dispute is through something higher than both of us: empirical data. When someone makes an objective claim, they implicitly agree to the fact that reality is that which exists and that there is a method by which one can come to a truth about its (reality's) nature.

here you go making assumptions again. why are you assuming that the only way for us to resolve a dispute is through empirical data? why do you assume that i must hold empirical data as higher than myself? i'm not even sure what that means. no empirical data exists for a large portion of my experience, yet those experiences are every bit as real as experiences which can be proved with empirical data. so why should i hold what can be proved empirically higher than myself when "myself" comprises things empirical AND non-empirical?

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you're only interested in convincing people about the true nature of reality who do not care about following the methodology by which that knowledge was gained, then you are just indoctrinating people. If you do care that people agree with you for the right reasons, then you'd be more than willing to either offer up the fact that your statement is just an opinion which is purely subjective and doesn't have to be taken seriously or that there is empirical evidence which the other person must accept--unless the person rejects reality, making any assertions you put forth moot anyway.

another assumption. i'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. i am more than willing to offer my every word as opinion, but why are you unwilling to consider what i have to offer as opinion before you accept it as an attack on your personal understanding that has to be taken seriously?

dude you really need to chill out. spent way too long on those philosophy forums i reckon.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I would only believe they are wrong if they are inconsistent with their own beliefs. They would have to tell me they are wrong, but perhaps the only way they could come to that conclusion would be by me asking questions, such as the question of whether their claims are logically consistent, whether they believe logical consistency to be important, or whether they require evidence for their claims in order to believe them to be true.

you're describing how they would be wrong by being inconsistent with YOUR beliefs. i.e. logical consistency. everything you have said has fuck-all to do with their beliefs. my god man. . . amid all this talk of objectivity, consider the importance you place upon the process of subjective understanding which lead you to a belief in the objective importance of logical consistency.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I would never say someone is flatout wrong unless they were inconsistent with themselves. If someone believed they lived in the book Alice in Wonderland and rejected all empirical evidence, there would be no possible way for me to tell them they were wrong, for I am not the one experiencing the consciousness within that person's mind.

yeah you're getting it now. and you would pass that person off as insane or otherwise not having anything to offer you due to their "moot" assertions. but someone who doesn't abide by so rigid a logical checklist might forgive their "insanity" and have a pleasant conversation with them regardless. they may learn something new, come to think of something in a new way, or reaffirm their thoughts on certain subjects as a result of reflecting with this person rather than simply reaffirming their thoughts outright and denying themselves the chance for conversation.

you are right to say you are not the one experiencing the consciousness within that person's mind, but you can open yourself up to that consciousness by conversing with it. you can find out why it believes what it does, and this will invariably offer you a new perspective to consider and widen the scope of your personal experience. you could have done this here by asking why i think what i posted, but instead you asked for proof of what i was saying. and here we are conversing all about you, which i suppose may have been your original intent.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I feel like when someone is saying something that I disagree with, they are saying I'm inconsistent with my own beliefs. Therefore, I try to ask questions to try to reconcile whether our beliefs differ. Questions like: Do you accept empirical evidence as valid? Do you accept that logical contradictions cannot exist?

yes you very obviously feel like making that quiet assumption. why do you care more about how the beliefs differ than the beliefs themselves? you haven't even offered any belief in regard to this subject, all you've done is attempted to critique my belief with with your beliefs about your beliefs (only empirical evidence being valid, non-existence of logical contradiction).

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you don't accept empirical evidence, then no amount of evidence could possibly dissuade you, but then again, you couldn't make any claims which required empirical evidence either. It's a similar situation with logic: If you accept that logical impossibilities can exist, then you can't possibly put forth logical claims to support your assertions, as you already accept that any contradictory claims opposed to your assertions could just as easily exist as well.

i accept empirical evidence, but i accept things beyond empirical evidence as well. you've built a veritable tank of a box with your beliefs and assumptions, i hope you enjoy living in it.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Thus, it's utterly impossible to converse with someone who does not accept empirical and logical evidence. I see all such conversations as solipsist and isolationist, divorced from reality, which is why I prefer objectivity and consider it to be the most communal of all forms of communication.

yes, it's impossible in your terms. i choose not to put a limit on who i can converse with, but then again i'm one to, when i happen to find one, break down a wall of my box rather than reinforce it as you seem so keen on doing.