It does not surprise that you might be "rather silly". You have decided to "go ahead" and question the level of sense available to me, but you have not decided to "go ahead" and answer my challenge to produce your evidence. Attack the person rather than the idea? Is that your concept of philosophy?Skyblack wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 2:24 pmWell....i could go ahead and question the level of sense available to the mind that has posted the above but that would be rather silly.This is absolute nonsense. Most, if not all, facts actually require interpretation -- without that interpretation nothing makes any sense.
The glass is half full -- fact. The glass is half empty -- fact.
If you think that I am wrong, then explain about facts that do not require interpretation.
Gee
So you are claiming that you can get an unbiased opinion from a subject, who does not have a subjective, and therefore unbiased, opinion? You are perhaps looking for an objective subjective opinion???Skyblack wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 2:24 pm But to answer you question, if you read the OP minus your biased reactions then you will find the words "without bias" have been used. The OP is pointing to an interpenetration free from subjective bias which may stem form one's affiliations, one's conditioning , one's beliefs so on and so forth.
You are moving goal posts here. We were talking about "facts" not words or observations. Look up the word, fact. It is a word that science uses, and they are pretty fussy about what is a fact and what is not a fact. Are you sure that you are not experiencing a "deterioration of the human mind"?Skyblack wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 2:24 pm Furthermore, there is another kind of observation where the word is not the thing. The word glass is not the actual glass. So it's possible to observe the glass without the word and the associated interpretations. But that kind of observation is beyond the pay-grade of a conditioned reactive mind.
Gee