Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall.

It seems to me that's been obvious for quite a long time. It's why I stopped talking to him/her some time ago, after initially trying to make some simple progress. It was obvious that it was going to be an infinite game of snakes and ladders. Not interesting. That's why I asked (on one of the many other threads where essentially the same futile conversation is happening) why bother?

And this coming from the one who is too afraid to be questioned in regards to what happens if some travels at the speed of light, if they could, a certain distance.

You claim that you know what would happen, but you are too scared to be challenged and questioned on this. So, much for what you believe in.

[creation]

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall.

It seems to me that's been obvious for quite a long time. It's why I stopped talking to him/her some time ago, after initially trying to make some simple progress. It was obvious that it was going to be an infinite game of snakes and ladders. Not interesting. That's why I asked (on one of the many other threads where essentially the same futile conversation is happening) why bother?

I forgot to mention. If you took the time and cared to look at the actual clarifying question I asked, which provoked that answer from "terrapin station", then what can be clearly seen is I asked the question I did because I ALREADY KNEW what the answer was. I just wanted them to say that answer in their own words.

That one actually BELIEVES wholeheartedly that it is a complete impossibility for a human being to function without beliefs. I wanted them to express that clearly, so that I can then show the readers just how BLIND and CLOSED a human being is while they maintain a BELIEF.

[creation]

What "evidence"?

Human behavior, human physiology, logical implications in light of the above, etc.a

But human behavior, human physiology, logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true.

What I find far more reasonable is you provide the actual so called "evidence", instead of just saying things like: "Because all evidence aside ...". This could be seen as a diversionary tactic to not produce any so called "evidence" at all.

I've done this, but you just ignore it.

But you have NOT provided evidence. You have just expressed what you are completely incapable of doing. I have shown how I do everything I do without believing anything to be true. So, I have provided evidence countering what you say and believe is an impossibility.

You certainly have no counter to any of it.

Yes I have. And, I have shown them also.

Examples include someone being hungry and heading to their refrigerator for something to eat, where we know from biological and physiological facts about humans that they do not simply do this instinctually, or needing to urinate or defecate and heading to the bathroom, again where we know that's not simply instinctual (because we have to be taught these things),

Obviously, human beings do not need to be taught to feel hungry nor to urinate or defecate, so these things are obviously very instinctual.

As for 'bathrooms' and 'refrigerators' and how to use those things, then OF COURSE one has to be taught those 'things'. But this still has absolutely NOTHING at all about beliefs and believing things to be true in order for a human being to function in Life.

or wanting to make a trollish post here,

LOL. Can you not handle being challenged and questioned on your unsubstantiated claims?

as you regularly like to do, and heading to a keyboard (virtual or not) and pressing certain keys to make certain letters appear on the screen in certain orders, etc. There countless examples available like this.

I have countered ALL of these examples, which some might say 'you trollishly write'.

You are so STUCK in your own BELIEFS that you cannot see what is actually happening here.

Also, the mere ability not just suggests that contingently, it is the case that humans can function in all sorts of normal manner without beliefs, but the mere ability to function without beliefs is proof that humans can function without beliefs, which, by the way, has already been proven true, right, and correct anyway..

Empirical claims are not provable.

So far it appears that none of your claims are provable.

There's no example I know of where one has to do anything willfully or intentionally that doesn't involve beliefs.

I have given you examples of when I want to do some things willfully or intentionally and that I can function and do these very easily without beliefs. But because of your beliefs you are completely incapable of SEEING and UNDERSTANDING this.

As I have been informing, while people have beliefs then they are BLIND and CLOSED to anything contrary to their belief.

We'd not be able to explain the action in question otherwise.

I KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE is true. But I am not interested in what you believe is true. I am interested in what is actually True.

And, what I have wanted to get from you, to show and reveal to others, is that while a person BELIEVES something to be true, then they are NOT open to anything contrary. You are proving this to be perfectly True.

Can you even provide an example of when anyone 'has to' do anything willfully or intentionally?

Contingently, it turned out that humans have to do countless things willfully or intentionally rather than instinctually.

Will you provide any examples?

At least then we have something to look at, which you say you are seeing. Obviously, we cannot discuss some thing, nor can anyone counter that thing, if you never provide it.

Also, it did not turn out that humans 'have to' do countless things willfully or intentionally rather than instinctively. This is obviously just false.

What is True is human beings choose to do things willfully or intentionally rather than just instinctively.

That's an upshot of the way our brains developed, an upshot of our intelligence, which enabled us to construct cultures, civilizations to the extent we have.

But NONE of this has anything to do with the ability or not of human beings to function with or without beliefs.

Human beings are obviously born not believing anything, and they obviously function. I can, and also do, function without beliefs, which is absolutely contrary to what you believe is absolutely true.

Are you even open to the fact that it could be possible for a human being to function without beliefs? Or, is your belief just way to strong for you to be able to see and understand this FACT?

Once more, beliefs in general work by preventing and/or stopping people from learning more or anew.

I already explained Now this isn't the case with numerous examples. You had zero argument against those examples.

LOL now you are being beyond any sort of joke here.

You are so CLOSED that you are not even open to the fact that people use words in different ways than you do.

Oh, and by the way, I have countered those examples with actual evidence AND proof.

Your attempt for not proving what you say is it is not provable.

If I give you an counterexample to a claim you make and you want to claim that the claim still stands, you need to explicitly present the supposed problems with the counterexample.

I have done this already.

Also, remember it was you who made the claim in the beginning, which I have countered, and which you have not been able to counter at all.

You can't just ignore the counterexample and just double down via repeating the claim as if the counterexample was never given.

LOL, you really do have a very bad habit of twisting and distorting this around so much that you turn what you do onto the other one.

Let us look back at what has taken place here.
1. You claimed that it is impossible for human beings to function without beliefs.
2. I have showed how I and the very young function perfectly without any beliefs at all.
3, You have continually told us that you cannot function without believing things to be true.
4. I have said that while you believe things to be true, then you are not open to anything contrary to that belief.
5. You say that this is not true, as you believe some things to be true and supposedly at the exact same time you are open to it not being true at all.
6. I have shown how you believe wholeheartedly that human beings cannot function without beliefs and how you are completely CLOSED to anything contrary to this BELIEF of yours.

Showing how BELIEFS are the very things, which slow down and stop the whole of the human being species from progressing forward successfully and peacefully is what I wanted to reveal here. This has now been achieved. So, thank you for your help.

[creation]

It seems to me that's been obvious for quite a long time. It's why I stopped talking to him/her some time ago, after initially trying to make some simple progress. It was obvious that it was going to be an infinite game of snakes and ladders. Not interesting. That's why I asked (on one of the many other threads where essentially the same futile conversation is happening) why bother?

I probably still find it interesting because it's not clear to me if he's trolling or if it's some sort of serious mental/developmental disability. If it's the latter, I find the psychology of that, the psychology of trying to rationally interact with it, intriguing.

If he's trolling, then it's just a matter of how long he'll do so before he gets bored with it . . . and if he trolls long enough, that in itself is indicative of some serious mental problems, which I find interesting, especially in the context of attempting to interact rationally with someone with various mental problems. If it's rather the latter, then aside from my general fascination with oddities, oddball behavior, etc. and trying to interact rationally with it, there's always the possibility that eventually you can get through to someone like that, even a tiny bit, even if they're not about to admit it online.

I've mentioned before that I've taught private music lessons on the side in the past, and I had a number of students with learning disabilities--I gained a reputation as a worthwhile teacher for those students, and I found it an intriguing challenge to try to get through to them, where I had a lot of success in that, but it could take a very long time, an incredible amount of patience, and subtle creativity on my part re trying to figure out ways to "break through."

I have asked you this before, which you ONCE AGAIN, NEVER answered, but what is 'it' that you want to so call "teach" me, which you allege that I do not get.

Is what you want to teach me that you are just completely incapable of functioning without beliefs? If this is 'it', then I ALREADY UNDERSTAND this completely. I have since the first time you said this.

Or, is what you want to teach me, that it is completely impossible for EVERY human being to function if they are not believing something is true, then I ALREADY UNDERSTAND that this is what you believe is true and that you are NOT open to anything contrary. This is very well understood AND accepted, by me.

But, if there is something else you want to teach me, then just say what 'it' is. Or, will you like the other times I asked you, you will just dismiss this and/or say something totally unreasonable like: "I did not read the rest of what you wrote", as though that is some sort of reasonable excuse for not answering clarifying questions posed to you?

[Terrapin Station]

But human behavior, human physiology, logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true.

Again, empirical claims are not provable. Obviously you disagree and you'd say that they are provable.

So how about an argument supporting the claim that there are provable empirical claims?

[creation]

But human behavior, human physiology, logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true.

Again, empirical claims are not provable. Obviously you disagree and you'd say that they are provable.

Why is this so called "obvious" to you?

And, why would you assume such a thing?

Also, why are 'empirical claims' not provable, to you?

So how about an argument supporting the claim that there are provable empirical claims?

Well considering that I have not made the claim that empirical claims are provable, and considering that that it was you who made the claim that empirical claims are not provable, then you prove your claim here?

Also, I have already achieved what I set out to do.

And, I suggest that if you want to continue to make claims such as you have here, then you at least have some thing to back up and support your claims BEFORE you make the claims.

[Terrapin Station]

Why is this so called "obvious" to you?

Because you just wrote, "logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true. "

"One can do everything without believing anything at all" is an empirical claim. You're saying that something proves that claim, that it has been "proven to be true."

[creation]

Why is this so called "obvious" to you?

Because you just wrote, "logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true. "

"One can do everything without believing anything at all" is an empirical claim. You're saying that something proves that claim, that it has been "proven to be true."

Yes that is correct.

I also wrote, 'Also, why are 'empirical claims' not provable, to you?'

So how about an argument supporting the claim that empirical claims are not provable?

[Steve3007]

I probably still find it interesting because it's not clear to me if he's trolling or if it's some sort of serious mental/developmental disability. If it's the latter, I find the psychology of that, the psychology of trying to rationally interact with it, intriguing...

Obviously it's hard to say for sure because we can't look directly into each other's heads and (as we've discussed before), in this kind of forum, we have none of the usual physical and auditory queues to go on; just monotone written words with none of the fast, informal feedback of face-to-face interaction, and no visibility of who's reading. But I've seen variations on this general behaviour pattern before in other posters on this forum. It usually focuses on a central thesis that the poster has developed and wishes to publicize. They're usually convinced that the truths in this thesis are obvious (if only others would open their closed minds) and suppressed by some form of authority.

I think there's probably an aspect of what might be called trolling, partly because posters like this often imagine they're talking to a much wider audience than they (probably) really are. In the absence of feedback to the contrary, they think their posts are read in their entirety, by a large audience, probably because of an inability to put themselves into the position of other people and imagine how they appear to others. I've noticed several times creation using expressions like "the readers will see...". He doesn't think of himself as just talking to you in a conversation. He's playing to an imagined gallery. I don't know for sure, of course, but I think he probably thinks that his long, vague posts are read, and their deep meanings pondered, by lots of people. So, to sustain the good feelings that brings, it's important not to speak plainly and use words unambiguously, in order to keep what are imagined to be the throngs of readers guessing, and thinking that something profound is being communicated.

There's also simple confusion and vagueness in deciding what he means by the words that he's using. Words are just thrown out there - pages and pages of them - without any serious consideration of either how they might be interpreted or what he himself means by them.

Obviously this word "belief" forms a core part of much of his conversation with you. As you've tried to explore previously, I presume there's a vague association of that word, in his mind, with religious faith (beliefs that are not evidence-based and which don't therefore change in the light of new evidence). There are whole swathes of posters, past and present, on here who've had religious upbringings and have found a variety of different ways to react against those upbringings and/or come to terms with them. I presume if a person has been brought up in an environment of blind adherence to various dogmas then, in some cases, once they've satisfied themselves that they've seen through those dogmas and become what they regard as a free-thinker, they're keen to point out that blindness in others, whether it's there or not.

I think it's similar to the psychology of the adolescent who mocks what he sees as the backwardness of his parents; who has grown just enough understanding to do that but not yet the maturity and life experience to understand why they are as they are, and to empathize with them as fellow human beings with their own history of experiences. Most people eventually get beyond that adolescent stage and see their parents (and, by extension, their wider cultural background) in context, with empathy.

I've mentioned before that I've taught private music lessons on the side in the past, and I had a number of students with learning disabilities--I gained a reputation as a worthwhile teacher for those students, and I found it an intriguing challenge to try to get through to them, where I had a lot of success in that, but it could take a very long time, an incredible amount of patience, and subtle creativity on my part re trying to figure out ways to "break through."

Do you think that music, in particular, is a good medium to use to get through to people with some kinds of learning disabilities?

My younger sister has, for a long time, been a high school art teacher. She now uses art to teach children with various learning disabilities (partly inspired by the autism of her son/my nephew). She certainly thinks that art is a useful medium. Obviously it's hard to do that right now because it's hard to teach art remotely, via social media/Skype/Zoom/WhatsApp etc, though not impossible. I presume there are similar problems with music.

[Terrapin Station]

I probably still find it interesting because it's not clear to me if he's trolling or if it's some sort of serious mental/developmental disability. If it's the latter, I find the psychology of that, the psychology of trying to rationally interact with it, intriguing...

Obviously it's hard to say for sure because we can't look directly into each other's heads and (as we've discussed before), in this kind of forum, we have none of the usual physical and auditory queues to go on; just monotone written words with none of the fast, informal feedback of face-to-face interaction, and no visibility of who's reading. But I've seen variations on this general behaviour pattern before in other posters on this forum. It usually focuses on a central thesis that the poster has developed and wishes to publicize. They're usually convinced that the truths in this thesis are obvious (if only others would open their closed minds) and suppressed by some form of authority.

I think there's probably an aspect of what might be called trolling, partly because posters like this often imagine they're talking to a much wider audience than they (probably) really are. In the absence of feedback to the contrary, they think their posts are read in their entirety, by a large audience, probably because of an inability to put themselves into the position of other people and imagine how they appear to others. I've noticed several times creation using expressions like "the readers will see...". He doesn't think of himself as just talking to you in a conversation. He's playing to an imagined gallery. I don't know for sure, of course, but I think he probably thinks that his long, vague posts are read, and their deep meanings pondered, by lots of people. So, to sustain the good feelings that brings, it's important not to speak plainly and use words unambiguously, in order to keep what are imagined to be the throngs of readers guessing, and thinking that something profound is being communicated.

There's also simple confusion and vagueness in deciding what he means by the words that he's using. Words are just thrown out there - pages and pages of them - without any serious consideration of either how they might be interpreted or what he himself means by them.

Obviously this word "belief" forms a core part of much of his conversation with you. As you've tried to explore previously, I presume there's a vague association of that word, in his mind, with religious faith (beliefs that are not evidence-based and which don't therefore change in the light of new evidence). There are whole swathes of posters, past and present, on here who've had religious upbringings and have found a variety of different ways to react against those upbringings and/or come to terms with them. I presume if a person has been brought up in an environment of blind adherence to various dogmas then, in some cases, once they've satisfied themselves that they've seen through those dogmas and become what they regard as a free-thinker, they're keen to point out that blindness in others, whether it's there or not.

I think it's similar to the psychology of the adolescent who mocks what he sees as the backwardness of his parents; who has grown just enough understanding to do that but not yet the maturity and life experience to understand why they are as they are, and to empathize with them as fellow human beings with their own history of experiences. Most people eventually get beyond that adolescent stage and see their parents (and, by extension, their wider cultural background) in context, with empathy.

I've mentioned before that I've taught private music lessons on the side in the past, and I had a number of students with learning disabilities--I gained a reputation as a worthwhile teacher for those students, and I found it an intriguing challenge to try to get through to them, where I had a lot of success in that, but it could take a very long time, an incredible amount of patience, and subtle creativity on my part re trying to figure out ways to "break through."

Do you think that music, in particular, is a good medium to use to get through to people with some kinds of learning disabilities?

My younger sister has, for a long time, been a high school art teacher. She now uses art to teach children with various learning disabilities (partly inspired by the autism of her son/my nephew). She certainly thinks that art is a useful medium. Obviously it's hard to do that right now because it's hard to teach art remotely, via social media/Skype/Zoom/WhatsApp etc, though not impossible. I presume there are similar problems with music.

Very good post.

Re the question about music, I think actually that visual art might actually be easier. Music is actually fairly analytical. There are many aspects to it that are at least slightly like learning mathematics or logic--understanding intervals, scales, keys/key signatures, rhythms, time signatures, and so on. Even simply learning how to read music is akin to learning a new language or learning a programming language. The mechanics of learning how to play can also be challenging. There's a fine-grained sort-of "athletic" aspect to that, and it requires regular practice to be able to get up to speed on that physical component.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops, too many "actuallies" lol. I really need to proofread better.

[creation]

I probably still find it interesting because it's not clear to me if he's trolling or if it's some sort of serious mental/developmental disability. If it's the latter, I find the psychology of that, the psychology of trying to rationally interact with it, intriguing...

Obviously it's hard to say for sure because we can't look directly into each other's heads and (as we've discussed before), in this kind of forum, we have none of the usual physical and auditory queues to go on; just monotone written words with none of the fast, informal feedback of face-to-face interaction, and no visibility of who's reading.

This is right. You cannot be absolutely sure what is actually going on from my perspective.

But I've seen variations on this general behaviour pattern before in other posters on this forum. It usually focuses on a central thesis that the poster has developed and wishes to publicize. They're usually convinced that the truths in this thesis are obvious (if only others would open their closed minds) and suppressed by some form of authority.

Once again another prime example of APE.

Making Assumptions based on Past Experiences does NOT reveal thee Truth of things to you. In fact behaving APE-like will prevent and STOP you from seeing, learning, and/or understanding thee actual Truth of things.

I think there's probably an aspect of what might be called trolling, partly because posters like this often imagine they're talking to a much wider audience than they (probably) really are.

Do ALL of them?

In the absence of feedback to the contrary, they think their posts are read in their entirety, by a large audience, probably because of an inability to put themselves into the position of other people and imagine how they appear to others.

Wow so many assumptions in just one sentence, about so many people or about so much in just one person, all based on one's own previous experiences with others. I wonder if and when people who make so many generalized assumptions about others actually stop to wonder and realize if people are actually different and that not all people think and behave in the exact same generalized ways?

I've noticed several times creation using expressions like "the readers will see...". He doesn't think of himself as just talking to you in a conversation. He's playing to an imagined gallery.

Is this absolutely true, or just what you believe is true?

Could it be a fact that "creation" is just a group of people working together? Or, could "creation" be one, and just shares with other readers what "creation" is actually creating here?

Is it possible that what you believe is true is not actually true and in fact some thing else is going on? Or, is this just not possible in "steve3007" own little "world"?

Also, is talking to someone about another your usual mode of operation, or just your mode of operation in relation to me?

Do I get to you so much that I need to be talked about with and to others by you?

I don't know for sure, of course, but I think he probably thinks that his long, vague posts are read, and their deep meanings pondered, by lots of people.

You are exactly Right. You do not know for sure. But, I if you had read my "long, vague" posts, then you would realize HOW to KNOW, for sure.

So, to sustain the good feelings that brings, it's important not to speak plainly and use words unambiguously, in order to keep what are imagined to be the throngs of readers guessing, and thinking that something profound is being communicated.

The Truly wise ones can and will work out the profound message in my "long, vague" posts.

I have expressed quite CLEARLY and LOUDLY what that message IS, but only those who are NOT closed can SEE and UNDERSTAND that message.

If one just wants to learn, know, and understand the Truths in Life, also almost immediately by the way, then they will have SEEN the MESSAGE/S within my writings.

There's also simple confusion and vagueness in deciding what he means by the words that he's using.

But still NO actual working out of what the MESSAGE has been in my writings. Although, once you learn and understand IT then you can SEE it throughout my writings.

Words are just thrown out there - pages and pages of them - without any serious consideration of either how they might be interpreted or what he himself means by them.

LOL once again, I can use the words of another to PROVE with EVIDENCE what I have been saying AND pointing out.

By the way, I have "thrown" my words "out here", in this forum, with an amount of consideration of exactly how they will be interpreted, but not interpreted necessarily by who you think my words are for exactly, and I KNOW exactly what I mean, and what I am doing here.

Remember, not everything is about 'you' and you fully grasping an understanding of things yet. I do what I do here with absolute patience and purpose. If I want you to understand something, then I will let you know, okay?

Obviously this word "belief" forms a core part of much of his conversation with you. As you've tried to explore previously, I presume there's a vague association of that word, in his mind, with religious faith (beliefs that are not evidence-based and which don't therefore change in the light of new evidence).

Well your 'presumption' is so far from thee actual Truth of things, that the absurdity of 'presuming' this, let alone anything, is absolutely hilarious.

What my actual MESSAGES have been within my writings, which I am obviously HIDING from you, when REVEALED will make the absurdity in what you say here so CLEAR and OBVIOUS.

There are whole swathes of posters, past and present, on here who've had religious upbringings and have found a variety of different ways to react against those upbringings and/or come to terms with them.

But, as I have ALREADY SHOWN this does NOT apply to me. So, ONCE MORE, ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which is completely and utter WRONG.

I wonder how long before the message sinks in?

Thee actual Truth is HERE for ALL to see. But only if they want to see It.

I presume if a person has been brought up in an environment of blind adherence to various dogmas then, in some cases, once they've satisfied themselves that they've seen through those dogmas and become what they regard as a free-thinker, they're keen to point out that blindness in others, whether it's there or not.

You have quite a lot of presumptions and assumptions, which obviously could be in absolute contradiction with what thee actual Truth of things IS.

I think it's similar to the psychology of the adolescent who mocks what he sees as the backwardness of his parents; who has grown just enough understanding to do that but not yet the maturity and life experience to understand why they are as they are, and to empathize with them as fellow human beings with their own history of experiences.

Yes you have made this completely WRONG and ABSURD assumptions previously.

Yet, you are still to young and to immature to KNOW how to find and discover what thee actual Truth IS. Even though you have been told countless times already. You are still to CLOSED to SEE and LEARN.

Most people eventually get beyond that adolescent stage and see their parents (and, by extension, their wider cultural background) in context, with empathy.

Having and gaining 'empathy' is about one of the most simplest things in Life to do for a human being. Yet here you are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is needed for how one gains and grasps True empathy, which is completely unsurprising considering the way you actually think and see things.

I've mentioned before that I've taught private music lessons on the side in the past, and I had a number of students with learning disabilities--I gained a reputation as a worthwhile teacher for those students, and I found it an intriguing challenge to try to get through to them, where I had a lot of success in that, but it could take a very long time, an incredible amount of patience, and subtle creativity on my part re trying to figure out ways to "break through."

Do you think that music, in particular, is a good medium to use to get through to people with some kinds of learning disabilities?

My younger sister has, for a long time, been a high school art teacher. She now uses art to teach children with various learning disabilities (partly inspired by the autism of her son/my nephew). She certainly thinks that art is a useful medium. Obviously it's hard to do that right now because it's hard to teach art remotely, via social media/Skype/Zoom/WhatsApp etc, though not impossible. I presume there are similar problems with music.

Have you either of you two ever considered the actually learning disabilities that you both show you have? Or, are you like most people who believe that you do not have learning disabilities?

[creation]

Obviously it's hard to say for sure because we can't look directly into each other's heads and (as we've discussed before), in this kind of forum, we have none of the usual physical and auditory queues to go on; just monotone written words with none of the fast, informal feedback of face-to-face interaction, and no visibility of who's reading. But I've seen variations on this general behaviour pattern before in other posters on this forum. It usually focuses on a central thesis that the poster has developed and wishes to publicize. They're usually convinced that the truths in this thesis are obvious (if only others would open their closed minds) and suppressed by some form of authority.

I think there's probably an aspect of what might be called trolling, partly because posters like this often imagine they're talking to a much wider audience than they (probably) really are. In the absence of feedback to the contrary, they think their posts are read in their entirety, by a large audience, probably because of an inability to put themselves into the position of other people and imagine how they appear to others. I've noticed several times creation using expressions like "the readers will see...". He doesn't think of himself as just talking to you in a conversation. He's playing to an imagined gallery. I don't know for sure, of course, but I think he probably thinks that his long, vague posts are read, and their deep meanings pondered, by lots of people. So, to sustain the good feelings that brings, it's important not to speak plainly and use words unambiguously, in order to keep what are imagined to be the throngs of readers guessing, and thinking that something profound is being communicated.

There's also simple confusion and vagueness in deciding what he means by the words that he's using. Words are just thrown out there - pages and pages of them - without any serious consideration of either how they might be interpreted or what he himself means by them.

Obviously this word "belief" forms a core part of much of his conversation with you. As you've tried to explore previously, I presume there's a vague association of that word, in his mind, with religious faith (beliefs that are not evidence-based and which don't therefore change in the light of new evidence). There are whole swathes of posters, past and present, on here who've had religious upbringings and have found a variety of different ways to react against those upbringings and/or come to terms with them. I presume if a person has been brought up in an environment of blind adherence to various dogmas then, in some cases, once they've satisfied themselves that they've seen through those dogmas and become what they regard as a free-thinker, they're keen to point out that blindness in others, whether it's there or not.

I think it's similar to the psychology of the adolescent who mocks what he sees as the backwardness of his parents; who has grown just enough understanding to do that but not yet the maturity and life experience to understand why they are as they are, and to empathize with them as fellow human beings with their own history of experiences. Most people eventually get beyond that adolescent stage and see their parents (and, by extension, their wider cultural background) in context, with empathy.



Do you think that music, in particular, is a good medium to use to get through to people with some kinds of learning disabilities?

My younger sister has, for a long time, been a high school art teacher. She now uses art to teach children with various learning disabilities (partly inspired by the autism of her son/my nephew). She certainly thinks that art is a useful medium. Obviously it's hard to do that right now because it's hard to teach art remotely, via social media/Skype/Zoom/WhatsApp etc, though not impossible. I presume there are similar problems with music.

Very good post.

A typical response, like when two children are bumping elbows and egging each other on as they laugh at, and ridicule, another, which they feel much superior to.

Re the question about music, I think actually that visual art might actually be easier. Music is actually fairly analytical. There are many aspects to it that are at least slightly like learning mathematics or logic--understanding intervals, scales, keys/key signatures, rhythms, time signatures, and so on. Even simply learning how to read music is akin to learning a new language or learning a programming language. The mechanics of learning how to play can also be challenging. There's a fine-grained sort-of "athletic" aspect to that, and it requires regular practice to be able to get up to speed on that physical component.

There is also always the 'want' and 'desire' that is actually needed. Did you ever 'consider', part of empathy, that what you call a "learning disability" in another was and is just your own inability to teach properly and correctly? After all how many children really want to go to "music lessons" anyway? But you probably did not notice this, just ignored this, and would definitely now like to tell us that they definitely wanted to go to your "music lessons".

Obviously the ones that Truly 'want' to go to lessons, and 'desire' to learn more, do not have the so called "disability" to learn as others are said to have. The only disability these ones have is finding the right and proper teacher for them.

There are other things also, which would prove just what is actually true and right here.

Also, your own self-promoting and self-praising here reveals more about your actual inabilities, then your actual abilities, which you appeared so desperately 'trying to' get across and accepted. But, we can just leave these aside for now correct?

[Terrapin Station]

Because you just wrote, "logical implications in the light of the above PROVES that one can do everything without believing anything at all. This has already been shown and proven to be true. "

"One can do everything without believing anything at all" is an empirical claim. You're saying that something proves that claim, that it has been "proven to be true."

Yes that is correct.

I also wrote, 'Also, why are 'empirical claims' not provable, to you?'

So how about an argument supporting the claim that empirical claims are not provable?

We can't prove empirical claims because we can always turn out to be wrong. The simplest aspect of this is that we can't even know with certainty what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the world really happens to be.

Phenomenal data can differ from reality.

"Phenomenal data" doesn't necessarily refer to our mental experience per se, but it can refer to that, and one simple aspect of this is that we can't know with certainty what the relationship is between our mental experience and the external world, or even if there is an external world.

Aside from that, we have possible perceptual problems, measurement and other instrument issues, the inherent uncertainty of inductive predictions, the fact that logic and mathematics are constructions for which there are alternate, competing/incompatible constructions possible (and that are used in various situations), and so on. We can even have (core) paradigms wrong, which would require retooling our entire conceptual background for making empirical claims.

Here's a good article about this from a scientific claims perspective: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Note above that I'm not saying that we can't know things period. I'm saying that we can't know them with certainty, which is what "proof" implies. Knowledge in general isn't certain. Again, we go by the best evidence, the best reasons for belief, but we could always turn out to be wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

There is also always the 'want' and 'desire' that is actually needed. Did you ever 'consider', part of empathy, that what you call a "learning disability" in another was and is just your own inability to teach properly and correctly? After all how many children really want to go to "music lessons" anyway? But you probably did not notice this, just ignored this, and would definitely now like to tell us that they definitely wanted to go to your "music lessons".

Obviously the ones that Truly 'want' to go to lessons, and 'desire' to learn more, do not have the so called "disability" to learn as others are said to have. The only disability these ones have is finding the right and proper teacher for them.

Do you have a view that cognitive or learning disabilities are a fiction or myth?