Hello John Interested post of you here. I use to read your posts frequently, unfortunately usually I'm not skilled enough to comment. This time your note calls on me the following question for which is not certain how to answer, as it is not so easy to answer yours.
Thought is under a linguistic point of view a sort of text. This is like saying that I'm writing here in the form of a text that something that "I" perceive like my thought, whatever this means. This sort of text we call "thought" is like speaking? or like reading? Am I producing (sort of speaking) what I think? Or am I copying what I somehow read on my mind? Both reading and speaking point to different text owner persons, and so, which of these is a true or false perception I would choose the true statement, but the problem involves the doubt of the "I" itself, since I myself cannot say if I talk what i think or if I talk what I read on the unknown "screen" of mine. As said I dont know physics enough, which I would love to. However I understand that the answer to Gravity is one of the ultimate concepts, if not the very one. thks Carlos On Aug 25, 3:07 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well I'll try one more time. In brief: If we can envisage it as the > truth and the closer we come to believing it is the truth, the greater > is the likelihood that we are wrong... > > For example we think that gravity is a universal force that acts on > us. We define it in units of mass and acceleration. This is the same > definition we use for our weight. And so we think we have proved that > gravity acts on us because we feel our weight. Clouding logic with the > filters provided by our senses lets us assign to the universe images > of ourselves. So we think that a force that we feel is generated by > inanimate matter. False. We generate the force we feel and it is > applied on inanimate matter. The generated universal force that we do > not directly feel acts on the atoms that make up inanimate and animate > matter. We feel the cumulative resistance of those atoms. Of course > that's just conjecture as stated. I can show it mathematically but > we've already used that math to prove the validity of gravity acting > on us. So in the final analysis here, whose conjecture do you choose? > The true one or the false one? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
