So molly, other than a copy/paste...what do you think? I am quite aware that words have numerous meanings...often I post links when the term 'faith' comes up and someone demands one small area of meaning for the term....
In other words, are you saying that you find skeptics to NOT be people who examine?...What? On Sep 9, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not sure that a true skeptic only closely examines. Here is the > unabridged definition > > Main Entry: skep·ti·cism Pronunciation Guide > Variant(s): or scep·ti·cism \-tschwasecondarystresssizschwam\ > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): -s > Etymology: New Latin scepticismus, from Latin scepticus skeptic + - > ismus -ism > 1 a : the doctrine that any true knowledge is impossible or that all > knowledge is uncertain : a position that no fact or truth can be > established on philosophical grounds <total or radical skepticism> b : > a viewpoint that universally reliable knowledge is unattainable in > particular areas of investigation <theoretical or scientific > skepticism> <moral skepticism> <metaphysical skepticism> <religious > skepticism> c : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or > destructive criticism characteristic of skeptics -- compare DOGMATISM, > HUMISM, SOPHISM > 2 : an attitude of doubt or disposition toward incredulity in general > or in regard to something particular (as a supposed fact) > 3 : doubt concerning but not necessarily denial of the basic religious > principles (as immortality, providence, revelation) : FREETHINKING -- > compare AGNOSTICISM > synonym see UNCERTAINTY > > Citation format for this entry: > > "skepticism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, > Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002.http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com > (9 Sep. 2009). of skepticism: > > On Sep 9, 8:20 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 2009/9/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>: > > > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and > > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature > > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a > > > table ever change what it is? Etc. > > > How do we share concepts of items such as rocks or tables or trees or > > other things that we all experience in a shared way? I have formed the > > following opinion... > > > We use approximation and synthesization. As long as we can approximate > > in our reality the perceptions that fit the feedback about the same > > object as others describe in their reality then we can agree that we > > are sharing an experience of the same object. > > > This is easy with physical objects but becomes more problematic with > > other types of objects. The hierarchy is: > > > 1: Auto-psychological objects (the self). > > 2: Physical objects. > > 3: Hetero-psychological objects (other 'selfs'). > > 4: Cultural objects. > > > The further we get from #1 the more abstract and difficult > > approximation and synthesization becomes. Cultural objects (such as > > gods and philosophical concepts) are the most divergent while physical > > objects (such as rocks and tables and chairs) are the least. > > > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology? > > > Because at its base that is what it is, either at a quantum level or > > as the sum of all mass and all gravity in our universe (E=0). > > > > Why would you not agree with him? > > > That would depend what is meant by 'ultimate'. If it is meant that we > > 'rise to' it, then no. If it is meant that we 'rise from it', then > > yes. > > > Although I am equating emptiness with nothingness here... > > > All that is something comes from nothing. Now, the problem is with > > nothing which many physicists don't believe exists. There is always > > something even if it is the 'spooky' responses (energy of some sort > > not understood at all) between vastly separated quantum particles. Why > > is there something instead of nothing? Because something is more > > stable. What has been thought of as nothing is simply a curve of > > space-time in a quantum vacuum that possesses an unimaginable amount > > of energy. Occasionally this energy creates a bulge in the space-time > > curve and a bubble breaks free and often becomes a new universe (but > > that is for another thread).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
