From: Michael Gordge on
On Jan 3, 11:28 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote:

> I just posted an example.

Try an example that deals with reality, sensory reality, you know,
mind independent, reality is after all the only thing that matters in
gaining knowledge.

MG
From: M Purcell on
On Jan 3, 1:21 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:26 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote:
>
> > An axiomatically certain example is: "All parallel lines intersect
> > at infinity.".
>
> What lines? There are no lines in reality, do you have an example of a
> certainty that deals with reality, you know something that is
> independent of the mind?

You want to know a certainty without using your mind?
From: John Stafford on
In article
<94dfd1ab-891b-4a44-95dc-65079a1311f9(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 5:00�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > So true. Let's take for example how we construct certain things from
> > visual perception. After considerable observation we can describe the
> > rules we use to build a construct,
>
> I very much doubt it. What would be the control to check on whether
> you would be getting this right or not?

PA, I can provide demonstrations of my assertions. with one or two
common images. I'll do that when I am back at work this week.

> In fact, of course, you have
> little idea what you are talking about. Do you actually enjoy waffling
> on for no particular analytic reason? You silly lightweight sausage.

There you go again backing into a corner insanely screaming denial
instead of being constructive.
From: John Stafford on
In article
<f3db2252-da9d-4ccf-b384-7f6fb190902b(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2:48�am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 6:27�pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 12:33�am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 2, 12:17�am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > At least Zinnic was starting to ask a few pertinent questions. You are
> > > > > such a sad lot.
> >
> > > > Hey! No fair teach. Please please take that back and tell me that I,
> > > > ZINNIC, am still at the bottom of your class.
> >
> > > You have not done enough bad things lately. You are trying to gain an
> > > unfair advantage over that prick Stafford and Dutch! You fail. They
> > > are beating you to the bottom.
> >
> > So I went out and did enough �bad to �successfully bottom me out.
> > Thanx.!
>
> Please leave me alone Zinnic, you are complete idiot who knows
> absolutely nothing about philosophy and have no curiosity to power the
> least improvement...

Zinnic, you could show this animal who calls herself Patricia Aldoraz a
PhD in Philosophy from Oxford and she would back into a corner screaming
obscenities like a side-walking crab in the face of a barracuda.
From: John Stafford on
In article
<f33a2911-f61f-4299-9da3-3ebe2b929298(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 1:29�am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote:
> > Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 12:51 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote:
> >
> > >> Well, now I'm considering that I don't know when I'm using
> > >> inductive reasoning when I'm thinking about a problem.
> >
> > > Neither does Stafford. He just waves his hand to websites and to
> > > Scientific Method. You are so gullible!
> >
> > did you go to that site and do the test? �I did.
> >
>
> Of course you did, because you have not seen tests like this before
> and have no idea what the problem of induction is and so you would
> think *anything* might be relevant. Thus you will be misled by someone
> like Stafford who also shows breathtaking ignorance as well.

Yah, sure someone like Stafford and a thousand brilliant scholars all
around the world. Do you think you are some kind of messiah, FaSoLa?
Consider the odds.