Lovely!
We all come assembled with a brain that controls our bodies and processes what our senses give it.
This is my idea of logic, a steady foundation and property of what is without aquired outside sources. I know how to process these sources into facts through my own logic that is already present. I could go my entire life deaf, mute, and blind and still have logic able to process facts. If you have logic you don't need facts for it to be true because these facts will be processed back into your logic which maintains as being logic without the facts. Would logic have a purpose? No, but it would still be logic. Would facts have a purpose? No, but they would still be facts.

first off, you can't deny both forms of knowledge.....a priori and a posteriori.....

so in some cases you do need facts for logic to be true.....just because logic might appear sound, doesn't necessarily mean it's valid........in order for logic to be accepted, to truly be accepted, it must meet both this criteria.....

you see this in everyday occurances, such as law........logic might prove that person A shot and killed person B, but one needs the facts to support this logic.........now, granted, in many cases logic alone can carry the weight of the argument, but logic can be decieving if at any point a premise isn't logically sound and valid....

for example: socrates is a man, all men are immortal; therefore, socrates is immortal..........this is logically sound, but not valid, for the premise that all men are immortal isn't logical at all..........

on another note, if a person is born without any ability to aquire sense data (meaning said individual is deaf, blind, can't taste, can't smell, nor can feel) then said individual would not have the ability to use logic........

you need a priori and a posteriori forms of knowledge to acquire logic, and you also need facts (at times) to support your logic.....

But either way, there's 2 sides. You have the ability to reason and logically gather facts but you don't need facts in order to be able to. Logic would have no purpose without facts but it's still logic. You are born with the ability to reason and as you grow older you use this reasoning to sort out facts back into reasoning.

i agree with that, but what's your point?

Hmmm . Not a bad inference. "The mind is generated with certain types of knowledge already built in" .. are you referring to innate ideas ?? Tabula Rasa I say to you !!! hehe ... well . as far as the statement of sight being the metaphysical aspect of the eye . True, it is possible to have an eye and not see . However the eye serves a purpose , and if you were no longer able to use it for that purpose then it becomes a "broken unit" so to speak ... I will say this , we all have significant differences amongst our front-end visual systems .. yet we can all agree on what our perception of , lets say, orange is .. what does this indicate you ask ? Well it is a known fact that there is some sort of brain circuitry involved here , that balances color .. Indicating that color is defined by our experience in the world ... key word : experience ...So even though the "hardware" is differential .. it is still very significant .. because obvioulsy this whole process wouldnt occur without it ... Basically i think what we are going to end up discussing here is the problem of universals , which usually gives me a headache

No real point. Stating what I can while trying not to delve up an argument. What is is and you don't have to sense it for it to be if it's going to turn right back around into what is, was, and will be which is infinity.

hmm, well, y'know.....i haven't actually made my mind up on Locke's Tabula Rasa or whether or not the mind is filled with some slight a priori knowledge....although, i do think that instinctual knowledge might have some effect; um, the ignorance a child to cope (how well can a baby interpret experience? baby hungry, baby cry, baby get fed: repeat!); the flawed logic of behavorism (which, i think, goes hand in hand with empircists); flaws in empiricism; flaws in perception; yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.........so i don't really know how i feel about the whole "born with / born without" debate.....

however, i do agree with the idea that what knowledge we do have of objects is essentially what knowledge we as humans grant the object.....and in truth, we really no nothing about the object itself.....Hume's "veil of appearance" and all that.......


as for the eye and all that....like i said, it was Aquinas' theory, which was used to prove what a "soul" was....it's a fun theory, even if flawed when regarding scientific theories and medical what-nots.....but all i was kinda playin' around with was a vaguely stupid idea that "yes, we all can go, THAT'S ORANGE!, but what is orange really? what are we really lookin' at?"....stupid idea, and of course it boils down to perception, granted by experience, and then all these other wonderful arguments and theories come out and play....."ORANGE YOU SAY! THERE IS NO ORANGE! THERE IS ONLY ME!"

Right, right, and I think we all use our abilities to distinguish the world into ourselves and if that's the case we don't need to know what the world is anyway because it will turn back into us and we will transfer these ideas into eachother which will still be at the same level because we have the same abilities to communicate with. Wow...you know that's interesting. Need to look into it. If this world doesn't see us how we see it then what is truth? Us ultimately and nothing else because our ideas derive from facts that we sense and when we all sense differently it causes conflict so...maybe it's the liar, the cheater, the backstabber, the one to blame, reality, pah, is that what we trust?

careful....perception (although extremely sound in its logic) is flawed.....

it's funny, lately perception has been the key topic of discussion here in philosophy...

infinity exists. Matter can not be created or destroied only redistributed. as such it always was and always will be. everything is a part of everything else. as such all things last forever and the what we describe as the creator is simply matter. As far as time goes it is neithr linear nor circular it is a field simliar to gravity.

care to rectify that with particle decay and entropy?

these are redistrubtion methods, the reason why time exists, they do not have any bearing on infinity because infinity is the absence of time. Furthermore neither represnt the destruction of matter so what were you getting at with your question?

as of yet, there is no going back due to entropy... you either spend energy maintaining the whole or lose it in decay.

I dont think iam getting your point can you clarify. Entropy says energy leaves one system causing it to breakdown. The energy is lost from one system but is picked up by anohter system. iam not sure what the going back part is can you explain?

i suggest you study the Heat Death of the Universe... the theory, not the short story.

maybe iam missing somthing could you point out to me where the theory (short version or long its all the same to me) states that matter or energy are ceasing to exist. Matter and energy bascily exist forever unchanged or forever changing. Does this not describe somthing that is infinite?

actually, it decribes the closest thing to nothingness a closed system will ever have... immeasurable space between all particles... no more atoms, just blackness.

a closed system can not have immeasurable distance.

i didnt see in what i read some numbers. if every atom in universe were to split how big would the universe have to be to dispate that energy so that no new atoms could be formed.

annihaltion and creation says that energy and matter are interchangeable one can become the other I wonder if anyone has done a study which shows a relative age of stars. assumeing that the heat death theory is correct i would expect that on average their are more older stars then younger. (assuming of course that we can view a star as a concentration of energy) if their are more younger stars on average it would seem more likly that the universe is in equilibrium (it is important to rember we are talking about a static univerese).

I guess I should say particles are infinite given the heat death theory.

maybe the system isnt closed and it looks to be expanding as well.

perhaps particles and energy really can not dispate.

Iinfinity can be percieved as circular time and linear if you consider that the same stuff happens everywhere all the time, but it never happens the same way. I would call it a spiral timeline. Its not posible to call it one or the other so you need a combination.

Another thing, light particles (photons) travel foward and back in time, at the same time. How can this be explained. If it moves both foward and backward at the same time, couldent one argue that photons stand still in time? Standing still meens not changing. Could always staying the same be defined as being Infinit?

Ponder this.