The few responses by LB above lead me to conclude that I am having a discussion with people who have no idea what is being discussed. . .

Please someone tell me how results of an objective test are gleaned. . .

Through observation or not. . .

My word!

Deep Sight:

Add a third -

How do you test what you have observed?

Is it not by further observation?

Or how else?

Tell me.

Of course, by further observation- but this further observation would consider other things- so, its not the same observation as the first

^^^ And yet Plaetton's point is that observation cannot be trusted!

As such, in Plaetton's surmise, science, which relies on observation, cannot be trusted.

My point is settled.

I retire for the night.

Tata.

Logicboy03:


Of course, by further observation- but this further observation would consider other things- so, its not the same observation as the first

Other things such as?

Things not observed?

Lol. G'nite son.

Logicboy03:


Of course, by further observation- but this further observation would consider other things- so, its not the same observation as the first

smh
For pete's sake?
You dey fall my hand

Joshthefirst: smh.
You dey fall my hand

<<<<<

To the left. The points made here are beyond your "texting demon Olaadegbu" reasoning

Logicboy03:


You're a person. Did I not answer the question clearly?


What is your point? That we can get objective results from looking at your picture?

Tell me, do you consider looking at a picture a scientific observation? Hmm? Dem never tell you that beauty is in the eye of a beholder in art?

Never said a word about beauty, son.

I asked for thoughts on each image.

And if you care, there are many scientific questions raised by each image - questions bordering on biology, psycology, physiology and chemical reactions and many more. But oh - I guess you hadn't thought that far, had you, Mr Science?

The best you could do was to join Plaetton in his amusing scream that everything is subjective and therefore abandon all thought - in addition, of course, to branding innocents as fvctards, no?

Very bright, son, very bright.

I'm off now.

Later.

Deep Sight:

Never said a word about beauty, son.

I asked for thoughts on each image.

And if you care, there are many scientific questions raised by each image - questions bordering on biology, psycology, physiology and chemical reactions and many more. But oh - I guess you hadn't thought that far, had you, Mr Science?

The best you could do was to join Plaetton in his amusing scream that everything is subjective and therefore abandon all thought - in addition, of course, to branding innocents as fvctards, no?

Very bright, son, very bright.

I'm off now.

Later.

He uses insults to express his butthurt.

Deep Sight:

Never said a word about beauty, son.

I asked for thoughts on each image.

And if you care, there are many scientific questions raised by each image - questions bordering on biology, psycology, physiology and chemical reactions and many more. But oh - I guess you hadn't thought that far, had you, Mr Science?

The best you could do was to join Plaetton in his amusing scream that everything is subjective and therefore abandon all thought - in addition, of course, to branding innocents as fvctards, no?

Very bright, son, very bright.

I'm off now.

Later.

Deepsight!! You are back? Yippee!!!

We've missed you

mtchew......troll ^


*unfollows*

Ishilove:
Deepsight!! You are back? Yippee!!!

We've missed you

He's been back for ages.
You seriously didn't notice?

Joshthefirst:
Which kind of bad belle(butthurt) is this??

Take it easy lb before your head explodes.
I hope deepsight laughs as much as me this evening.
Smh.

Fools like you laugh at what you dont understand....Ishilove is here. Two of you can play. bye

Logicbwoy: mtchew......troll ^


*unfollows*

abeg jare.
Carry your derailing bad belled bottom off this thread.

Joshthefirst:
He's been back for ages.
You seriously didn't notice?

Seriously I didn't notice. When did he come back?

Joshthefirst: abeg jare.
Carry your derailing bad belled bottom off this thread.

Ishilove:
Seriously I didn't notice. When did he come back?

I think its been like a month now.

Deep Sight:


It is my sincere personal view that the atheist is stupefyingly shallow in his perspective, and I say so not as an insult to any atheist but as my sincere and open personal opinion - the theist is free to have and express this view - just as the atheist is free to express similarly dim views of the theist, especially of the religious theist. Surely you do not by your post seek to recommend some sort of hypocritical double-speak; whereby the theist must hide his honest views in order to pet and massage the ego of the atheist?

Now, let us put all that aside, and anyone who will can play the game of thoughts and pictures with me.

Ouch! Classic Deepsight

Deep Sight:

And this is not done through the faculty of observation and thinking on what we see in the universe?

The same faculty of observation that he says is not to be trusted as it is entirely subjective and cannot disclose objective truths.

The contradiction is staggering, you guys really make me feel tired with such.

You have not even bothered to exercise your brain muscles on this simple matter for one second.

Enjoy.

A lie, repeated many times, tend to be taken as truth.
I hate lies and I resent being lied about.

You have repeated so many untruths here about my posts that I am beginning to wonder whether you are genuinely confused or just plain malicious.

I have repeated something at least four times on this thread, and in each time you are cornered you have twisted it to suit.

Lets me take everyone back to the genesis of all this argument so that I can expose your deliberate obfuscation of the issue.

But first, let me try as much as I can in the plainest english, to explain to anyone with the barest comprehension skills, the meat of my argument.

Lets take a leaf of a plant in my hand.
With that leaf in my hand, I can see it's color,whether green, orange or red.
I can see it's shape, whether oval or circular.
I can feel it's texture, whether fine or rough.
I can see the symmetry of it's veins.
If I wish, I could also smell it or even taste it.

That is what is called observation.
It is objective.
Any other person who holds the same or similar leaf, will make the very same observations.
In this case the truth about the nature of this leaf is easily and universally discernable.

Now, other other hand,

If I ask several people to gaze upon a portrait or photo image of the same leaf, and then ask them to deeply reflect upon their thoughts on it and it's implications for truth of blah blah blah...,
then surely, all will come up with very different subjective interpretations for this one visual image of the very same leaf that they had objective observed, and whose physical characteristics they had all agree upon.

Is that clear enough for any dumbos out there?

Now,
lets go back to the genesis of this argument.

Deep Sight:
What thoughts spring to your mind for each image you see.

What bearing do those thoughts have on the theistic - atheistic worldviews as contrasted.

I will sometimes post just a lone picture, and for each, I'd like your thoughts.

Also I may place more than one picture in a post, and i'd like your thoughts on the significance of the contrast, in respect of the theistic - atheistic worldviews.



I will stop here for now. Please I request that the viewer takes each image at a time and takes a moment to reflect deeply on the image, the meaning of the image, what the image tells, and its implication on the existence or non-existence of God and the meaning of our lives (where there are two images in a post, they are meant to be reflected on together)

I request genuine and deep reflection and comments.


Many thanks
.

My first post and subsequent post were responses to the above injunctions.

In my first post, I merely reiterated the dangers of relying on subjective interpretations as a means to objective truth.
They are different things
This is what I have been harping on, but Deepsight, perhaps out for mischief, continues to distort my words by claiming that

Deep Sight:


If science is based on observation, and as our friend Plaetton says, observation cannot disclose objective truths, then, quite simply, science cannot disclose objective truths.

End of.

Show me where I said that observation cannot disclose objective truth.
You did did not ask us to observe a rock or a human brain or a mother and child.
No.
You asked us to deeply reflect upon the images of a rock and a brain, a mother and a child, dead corpse, etc.

To observe requires the use of physical faculties of sight, touch, ear, nose and taste.
To reflect upon an image already seen requires the a complex system of memory, age and experience, cultural or religious bias to interpret a simple image.

Enough.
Remember you did not call for observation, you called for thoughts and reflection and it's implications for so so truth.

@ Deep Sight: As I said one doesn't need to invoke God/gods to explain reality especially since science makes it possible to explain reality without reference to such. Atheism involves one less explanation about Nature. That's one good reason amidst several why atheism trounces theism or deism.

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: As I said one doesn't need to invoke God/gods to explain reality especially since science makes it possible to explain reality without reference to such.

Really ol chap?

Did you really just say this?

Oya, show me the scientific explanation for reality.

Give me the scientific answer to the simple conundrum of reality and existence: why something instead of nothing.

Oya, show me.

plaetton:


A lie, repeated many times, tend to be taken as truth.
I hate lies and I resent being lied about.

It would be comical, if it were not so sad, to see you dance about with twisted and meaningless falsehood, and simultaneously accuse others of telling falsehoods about your statements. Frankly, I hardly expect such from you of all people.

You have advanced a most useless, meaningless and worthless argument, and when shown exactly why it is useless, meaningless and worthless, you have become frighteningly emotional. For making simple and clear points about your statements, you have stated that I have some (imagined) animosity towards you, and herewith you now state that you are being "lied about".

Please stop behaving this way: I have great respect for you and this is simply not worthy of your class and calibre. I mean that seriously.

Address the point fair and square and forget about emotions. They are only in your imagination, and they are a symptom of that insidious creeping fear and rightful shamefulness that is invoked in a person when they realize that they are advancing a nonsensical point - but are far too ashamed to admit it even to themselves - poor trapped souls that they are, at that sad moment.

That is exactly where you find yourself, friend.

In my next post I will show you yet again exactly what I have already said clearly several times, and which is very clear and simple.

Deep Sight:

How have you been friend? Been a while. Hope cool.

I'm doing good. I trust you are too.

You know very well that I have always spoken of both intuition and logic. Even in that post, I referred to both. I believe both are central to the matter.

Plaetton's posts on this matter are meaningless. I have explained why already. I am tired and cannot repeat myself.

In summary he says that we cannot know or derive any objective truth from what we see, because what we see is entirely subjective. This really means that no objective truth can ever be known. Not even in science - which he contradictory then flaunts as the answer - as science is based, primarily, on what we see and sense, around us, and our observation of same. He says that this observation cannot be trusted. What this means is that nothing can be known about anything - not even in science.

Its a simple point.

Everything I need to say has been said in my previous posts.

Its as simple as presenting an object for discussion, and being told that no discussion can be had about the object as everything we see about the object is subjective, and as such, nothing objective can be known about the object. This is a killer blow for even all science, and leans in favor of those who say that the world is an illusion, and does not objectively exist.

In short, the word "objective" ceases to exist.

If you look at my earlier response to him, you will see that I did not say that it is necessarily wrong: I said that it is meaningless, empty and escapist.

It's just a meaningless argument to make: a lame, irrelevant and escapist one, and as I said before, can be said in response to anything and everything: including your existence and mine.

Yes, you have consistently spoken of your belief in God being anchored on intuition and empiricism. “Appeal to intuition”, then, wasn’t the best way for me to put it.

I disagree with much of what plaetton has written – however, some quick points.

If the question “Is there EVIDENCE for God?” is asked, a Yes or a No would both be good answers, in my view. Here’s why.

1. God is not tangible – no one has ever seen him.

2. God is not to be seen in this dimension so the tools of science and research are useless in finding him.

3. Extra-sense perceptions of God, dreams, near death experiences, soul travel, etc, are subjective experiences – I mean, they always present a porter only the experiencer can log on to. (That explains why materialists like Martian and logicboy would hastily, and probably in ignorance, dismiss them as either lies, reading too much into ordinary things, or pure hallucinations.)

4. “Intuition” is tendentious, spectacularly subjective, and cannot be relied upon for the apprehension of objective truth. Logicboy did a sound critique of it above. I put a very similar argument to you in the past – where logicboy used the illustration of tribal folks believing the world is flat, I used that of Hindus venerating cows.

5. Outside an individual’s head, extra-sense perceptions cannot be equated with sense perceptions – that will make nonsense of the word “objectivity”.

6. The First Cause argument is good. But so is the counterargument.

I recall a cousin telling me he believes in God simply because he is comfortable with that position. At the end of the day that is what it often comes down to for the majority of thinking people – the position you prefer, since, according to Kierkegaard, you have to take a position.

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”). But some atheists (like plaetton), on other hand, have reviewed the science available which tells them that the Big Bang came out of nothing without an apparent need for intelligent intervention. Some other atheists (like mazaje) insist that we don’t really know how it all started and since we can’t see any God or lightenings of him (and can't know even if we do since we don't know what God looks or sounds like) we can’t just conclude that God must be responsible. No lack of depth or thought there.

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

Logicboy03:


Gbam......Deepsight is the master of sophistry.


The guy can write beautifully and in a verbose manner without making any factual point.

I think you're attacking the person. The use of flowery language or play on words does not necessarily amount sophistry. Not that there is flowery language here, to start with.

plaetton:

I have repeated something at least four times on this thread, and in each time you are cornered you have twisted it to suit.

No sir: I have twisted nothing whatsoever. You have rather been the one who has deliberately ignored simple posers put to you on the validity and worth of your response to the OP. That response, to be conscise, was that objective truth cannot be determined based on what we see - because that which we see is wholly subjective.

You are now attempting to hair-split the issue in a most lamentable manner and I will surely show all exactly why the hair-splitting you are now attempting is most untenable, wholly false, incongruous, and unacceptable.

Lets me take everyone back to the genesis of all this argument so that I can expose your deliberate obfuscation of the issue.

But first, let me try as much as I can in the plainest english, to explain to anyone with the barest comprehension skills, the meat of my argument.

Lets take a leaf of a plant in my hand.
With that leaf in my hand, [size=20pt]I can see[/size] it's color,whether green, orange or red.
[size=20pt]I can see[/size] it's shape, whether oval or circular.
I can feel it's texture, whether fine or rough.
[size=20pt]I can see[/size][size=8pt][/size] the symmetry of it's veins.
If I wish, I could also smell it or even taste it.

STOP PRESS!

TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOLD WORDS!

This, my dear Plaetton, destroys every fibre of your argument. It also shows you to be being either shockingly contradictory, or, I would hope not - hypocritical, my friend.

You state here that you can arrive at an objective truth about this leaf, and with the bold words you say that part of how you do so is by SEEING.

YOU repeat THREE times what YOU CAN SEE about the leaf.

All of these things, you can also SEE in an image or photograph of the leaf, no?

It is the same faculty of sight, that enables you to SEE these things, on which you then state that you can arrive at an objective truth about the nature of the leaf.

Why then did you contend all through that what we see is wholly subjective and cannot be trusted to deliver objective truth? These are your EXACT words, my friend -

"My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19115877

"My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

You thus made it abundantly clear, that that which is seen in any image, cannot be trusted to disclose any "absolute truth". You stated that the mind only sees what it has been conditioned to see.

If this is the case, why do you say above, that YOU CAN SEE the lines, shape and color of the leaf, and that this discloses objective truth about the leaf? Is it not rather true, as you said in the quotes above, that whatever you are seeing about that leaf is only subjective, and is only "what you have been conditioned to see" and as such is not absolute truth?

It is amazing how you twist about shamefully on this.

And it gets worse. For you then go one to say -

That is what is called observation.
It is objective.
Any other person who holds the same or similar leaf, will make the very same observations.

This is particularly odious, because in the images in the OP, everyone similarly can make the exact same simple observations as you claim everyone will make about your leaf!

There is no one who has said that the stone was not a stone or that it was a pink ballon, is there? Everyone saw a mother and a child and not, say, a father and a child, in another image no? Was there any one who reported with respect to the image of the thinking man, that they rather saw there a woman or a goat? Is there someone that says he cannot see a corpse and a little boy running, in yet another image? Does this not show that indeed, people can see certain basic things about an object with their faculty of sight, and thereby reach an objective conclusion about the object?

And ALL of these are functions of the very same faculty of sight -

- WHICH FACULTY YOU USED TO LOOK AT A LEAF AND ARRIVE AT WHAT YOU CALLED OBJECTIVE TRUTHS ABOUT IT, SUCH AS ITS LINES, SHAPE AND COLOUR -

- AND WHICH SAME FACULTY YOU EARLIER ARGUED CANNOT DISCLOSE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, EVERYTHING SEEN IN AN IMAGE IS SUBJECTIVE, AND IS ONLY WHAT WE ARE CONDITIONED TO SEE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

In this case the truth about the nature of this leaf is easily and universally discernable.

I hope you can NOW SEE that this statement runs in stark contradiction to your claims on the first page of this thread.

Now, other other hand,

If I ask several people to gaze upon a portrait or photo image of the same leaf, and then ask them to deeply reflect upon their thoughts on it and it's implications for truth of blah blah blah...,
then surely, all will come up with very different subjective interpretations for this one visual image of the very same leaf that they had objective observed, and whose physical characteristics they had all agree upon.

This is just irrelevant friend. An image is an image - frankly you use your eyes to see it, just as you use your eyes to see everything around you in real life - it is the same faculty of sight at play.

THAT faculty of sight - is what you have said is not to be trusted - is exactly what you have said cannot disclose any objective truth.

Secondly, and just as important - is the fact that ALL science relies anyway on images. For example when a field test is done, pictures will be taken, which will be studied afterwards. Images from Space are not directly observed either, no? Are they not pictures and images transmited through machines and cameras? Do we not use the SAME FACULTY OF SIGHT TO see these images and arrive at conclusions based on WHAT WE SEE?

So on both grounds, your tantrum about subjectivity is just meaningless. I never denied anyone's subjectivity, I have shown you how hopelessly useless it is as an argument to make here. I have also shown you that it can ALWAYS be used in every discussion, and it shuts down all discussions in history. In the context that you used the subjectivity of the mind in your first response, you did not even grasp the depth of what you said. You rendered all human life as existing within a subjective cage of the mind - and I said that this while being true is useless and meaningless for all purposes of discussion. I also pointed out that it can be used to question the existence of you, me and even the whole world, but you have not averted your mind to that, have you?

Or you never grasped the depth of that issue, did you?

Is that clear enough for any dumbos out there?

I fear that you might have to search from them "in there" rather than out here.

Show me where I said that observation cannot disclose objective truth.

Here -

"My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19115877

"My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

- - - And in addittion to this, we must remember that it is this same subjective mind that controls what we hear, smell, taste and touch. It is this same subjective mind that controls every thing sensed by all the five senses!

What this effectively means is that all sensing is subjective. This means that nothing can ever be objectively known.

You did did not ask us to observe a rock or a human brain or a mother and child.
No.

I did, stop quibbling about with words.

You asked us to deeply reflect upon the images of a rock and a brain, a mother and a child, dead corpse, etc.

And what's the problem with that?

To observe requires the use of physical faculties of sight, touch, ear, nose and taste.
To reflect upon an image already seen requires the a complex system of memory, age and experience, cultural or religious bias to interpret a simple image.

Lol, now observation must be divided up among the senses? How desperate are you getting? An image already seen, is seen by the faculty of sight. That is the very faculty that you said could not be trusted as objective. And yet that is the very faculty that you said, THREE TIMES of, that YOU CAN SEE this or that element about the leaf, and thereby reached an objective conclusion.

Enough.
Remember you did not call for observation, you called for thoughts and reflection and it's implications for so so truth.

Don't even be funny or duplicitous. When I ask you to "look" at an image, you now conclude that that is not observation? Please stop this disgraceful tittle tattle and man up for once.

And yes, haven seen an image, what's the problem with anyone giving their simple thoughts about it, for the purpose of a discussion? How in the world is that a problem. It is even a technique employed in forensic investigations with pictures of crime scenes and the like. People looking at an image and giving their thoughts.

How that simple prospect of looking at images (everyday images by the way) and giving your thoughts on them, managed to scare you so badly into five pages of whimpering that nothing can be known by what we see, is nothing but one thing alone: shivering jittery fear.

MyJoe:
I'm doing good. I trust you are too.




Yes, you have consistently spoken of your belief in God being anchored on intuition and empiricism. “Appeal to intuition”, then, wasn’t the best way for me to put it.

I disagree with much of what plaetton has written – however, some quick points.

If the question “Is there EVIDENCE for God?” is asked, a Yes or a No would both be good answers, in my view. Here’s why.

1. God is not tangible – no one has ever seen him.

2. God is not to be seen in this dimension so the tools of science and research are useless in finding him.

3. Extra-sense perceptions of God, dreams, near death experiences, soul travel, etc, are subjective experiences – I mean, they always present a porter only the experiencer can log on to. (That explains why materialists like Martian and logicboy would hastily, and probably in ignorance, dismiss them as either lies, reading too much into ordinary things, or pure hallucinations.)

4. “Intuition” is tendentious, spectacularly subjective, and cannot be relied upon for the apprehension of objective truth. Logicboy did a sound critique of it above. I put a very similar argument to you in the past – where logicboy used the illustration of tribal folks believing the world is flat, I used that of Hindus venerating cows.

5. Outside an individual’s head, extra-sense perceptions cannot be equated with sense perceptions – that will make nonsense of the word “objectivity”.

6. The First Cause argument is good. But so is the counterargument.

I recall a cousin telling me he believes in God simply because he is comfortable with that position. At the end of the day that is what it often comes down to for the majority of thinking people – the position you prefer, since, according to Kierkegaard, you have to take a position.

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”). But some atheists (like plaetton), on other hand, have reviewed the science available which tells them that the Big Bang came out of nothing without an apparent need for intelligent intervention. Some other atheists (like mazaje) insist that we don’t really know how it all started and since we can’t see any God or lightenings of him (and can't know even if we do since we don't know what God looks or sounds like) we can’t just conclude that God must be responsible. No lack of depth or thought there.

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

I hear you on all this, but nothing here should form an argument against discussing everyday images what reflecting on what they may disclose about truth.

Plaetton's cry was directed at saying that such an exercise cannot disclose any truth.

And he has very badly shot himself in the foot, contradicted himself hopelessly, and destroyed every fibre of sense by his example on his "objective" conclusions by seeing a leaf - or even sensing it in any other way.

MyJoe:
I think you're attacking the person. The use of flowery language or play on words does not necessarily amount sophistry. Not that there is flowery language here, to start with.

I don't think anyone takes LB seriously, and yes, thank you o, when people speak about flowery language, I just smile because, as you have said, there is no flowery language here whatsoever!

Deep Sight:

No sir: I have twisted nothing whatsoever. You have rather been the one who has deliberately ignored simple posers put to you on the validity and worth of your response to the OP. That response, to be conscise, was that objective truth cannot be determined based on what we see - because that which we see is wholly subjective.

You are now attempting to hair-split the issue in a most lamentable manner and I will surely show all exactly why the hair-splitting you are now attempting is most untenable, wholly false, incongruous, and unacceptable.



STOP PRESS!

TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOLD WORDS!

This, my dear Plaetton, destroys every fibre of your argument. It also shows you to be being either shockingly contradictory, or, I would hope not - hypocritical, my friend.

You state here that you can arrive at an objective truth about this leaf, and with the bold words you say that part of how you do so is by SEEING.

YOU repeat THREE times what YOU CAN SEE about the leaf.

All of these things, you can also SEE in an image or photograph of the leaf, no?

It is the same faculty of sight, that enables you to SEE these things, on which you then state that you can arrive at an objective truth about the nature of the leaf.

Why then did you contend all through that what we see is wholly subjective and cannot be trusted to deliver objective truth? These are your EXACT words, my friend -

"My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19115877

"My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

You thus made it abundantly clear, that that which is seen in any image, cannot be trusted to disclose any "absolute truth". You stated that the mind only sees what it has been conditioned to see.

If this is the case, why do you say above, that YOU CAN SEE the lines, shape and color of the leaf, and that this discloses objective truth about the leaf? Is it not rather true, as you said in the quotes above, that whatever you are seeing about that leaf is only subjective, and is only "what you have been conditioned to see" and as such is not absolute truth?

It is amazing how you twist about shamefully on this.

And it gets worse. For you then go one to say -



This is particularly odious, because in the images in the OP, everyone similarly can make the exact same simple observations as you claim everyone will make about your leaf!

There is no one who has said that the stone was not a stone or that it was a pink ballon, is there? Everyone saw a mother and a child and not, say, a father and a child, in another image no? Was there any one who reported with respect to the image of the thinking man, that they rather saw there a woman or a goat? Is there someone that says he cannot see a corpse and a little boy running, in yet another image? Does this not show that indeed, people can see certain basic things about an object with their faculty of sight, and thereby reach an objective conclusion about the object?

And ALL of these are functions of the very same faculty of sight -

- WHICH FACULTY YOU USED TO LOOK AT A LEAF AND ARRIVE AT WHAT YOU CALLED OBJECTIVE TRUTHS ABOUT IT, SUCH AS ITS LINES, SHAPE AND COLOUR -

- AND WHICH SAME FACULTY YOU EARLIER ARGUED CANNOT DISCLOSE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, EVERYTHING SEEN IN AN IMAGE IS SUBJECTIVE, AND IS ONLY WHAT WE ARE CONDITIONED TO SEE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



I hope you can NOW SEE that this statement runs in stark contradiction to your claims on the first page of this thread.



This is just irrelevant friend. An image is an image - frankly you use your eyes to see it, just as you use your eyes to see everything around you in real life - it is the same faculty of sight at play.

THAT faculty of sight - is what you have said is not to be trusted - is exactly what you have said cannot disclose any objective truth.

Secondly, and just as important - is the fact that ALL science relies anyway on images. For example when a field test is done, pictures will be taken, which will be studied afterwards. Images from Space are not directly observed either, no? Are they not pictures and images transmited through machines and cameras? Do we not use the SAME FACULTY OF SIGHT TO see these images and arrive at conclusions based on WHAT WE SEE?

So on both grounds, your tantrum about subjectivity is just meaningless. I never denied anyone's subjectivity, I have shown you how hopelessly useless it is as an argument to make here. I have also shown you that it can ALWAYS be used in every discussion, and it shuts down all discussions in history. In the context that you used the subjectivity of the mind in your first response, you did not even grasp the depth of what you said. You rendered all human life as existing within a subjective cage of the mind - and I said that this while being true is useless and meaningless for all purposes of discussion. I also pointed out that it can be used to question the existence of you, me and even the whole world, but you have not averted your mind to that, have you?

Or you never grasped the depth of that issue, did you?



I fear that you might have to search from them "in there" rather than out here.



Here -

"My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19115877

"My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."
https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

- - - And in addittion to this, we must remember that it is this same subjective mind that controls what we hear, smell, taste and touch. It is this same subjective mind that controls every thing sensed by all the five senses!

What this effectively means is that all sensing is subjective. This means that nothing can ever be objectively known.



I did, stop quibbling about with words.



And what's the problem with that?



Lol, now observation must be divided up among the senses? How desperate are you getting? An image already seen, is seen by the faculty of sight. That is the very faculty that you said could not be trusted as objective. And yet that is the very faculty that you said, THREE TIMES of, that YOU CAN SEE this or that element about the leaf, and thereby reached an objective conclusion.



Don't even be funny or duplicitous. When I ask you to "look" at an image, you now conclude that that is not observation? Please stop this disgraceful tittle tattle and man up for once.

And yes, haven seen an image, what's the problem with anyone giving their simple thoughts about it, for the purpose of a discussion? How in the world is that a problem. It is even a technique employed in forensic investigations with pictures of crime scenes and the like. People looking at an image and giving their thoughts.

How that simple prospect of looking at images (everyday images by the way) and giving your thoughts on them, managed to scare you so badly into five pages of whimpering that nothing can be known by what we see, is nothing but one thing alone: shivering jittery fear.

Garble babble rabble!

Lies + Sophistry + Anonyism + lawyerly tenacity = Truth?

Maybe in your new galaxy.

Playing for the jury of uninformed plaebians again? huh?

Sorry, the well-informed jury has already spoken .
I am satisfied that Mr. Troll, Logicdude, Uyi, as well as myjoe have all made the same simple points that I did.

I cannot go on an endless cycle of repeating myself over and over again as if I was talking to a retard.
It makes me begin to feel like a retard.

End of discussion.

Deep Sight:

Really ol chap?

Did you really just say this?

Oya, show me the scientific explanation for reality.

Give me the scientific answer to the simple conundrum of reality and existence: why something instead of nothing.

Oya, show me.

What a crap.


How can a sane person say " The conundrum of reality" ?
In what way is reality a conundrum?
Reality as compared to what? A non-reality?

Oya, Why don't you give us an example of nothingness or a non-reality ,and then, we might try to explain why we have something instead of nothing.