daikarasu t1_ix51trw wrote

> About 20,000 years ago, sun was discharging across the solar system. There are scars like that all over earth and various other places throughout our system. If you look at a surface that's been blasted by high velocity plasma, you'll see that the scarring is identical.

From one of their other comments. It's in that category of "ancient aliens" new age cult revisionist history. The rest of their statements fit that same view, including belief in ancient spacefuturistic human society.

It's all unsubstantiated fiction that plays off uncertainties within history and anthropology.


daikarasu t1_iuxv0x0 wrote

I firmly believe that we're living out the early days of the biotechnology revolution. We're hitting milestones of understanding like crazy right now, it's only a matter of time before proof of concept scale development, industry scale development can't be that much farther behind


daikarasu t1_itvwbav wrote

>You ask. It isn't complicated.

Ok great explanation thanks.

Look, this has been fun, but it's pretty clear neither of us is going to budge an inch. We each hold our beliefs quite strongly. This has been an interesting conversation though, and I hope you have a nice day.


daikarasu t1_itvvi21 wrote

>You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference

Measurement is the key word here. The issue isn't that they are different, the issue is that they are measurable. You can demonstrate in absolute mathematics what is happening and why it looks different from different perspectives.

I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?

>What makes you think that?

Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.


daikarasu t1_itvu7l1 wrote

>Subjective truth

You mean a belief? Because nobody is saying you can't have your beliefs.

>The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.

This is a false equivalency, you can measure the universe and how frames of reference change. You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.

>I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.

Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.

Look, let's use an example. If you take 2 identical space ships and send them through an identical journey across the stars, they will end up in identical places. If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.

That's why I don't think it makes any sense to treat the two in the same way. You can't say that the universe is subjective in the same way as humans because it behaves predictably while humans do not.


daikarasu t1_itvno6x wrote

>My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy

I'll repeat myself. Anecdotes do not falsify or verify anything. Philosophy is purely anecdotal.

Philosophy is about how you experience things. Your experience can never be an absolute fact, therefore you can never verify anything, nor can you find it false. One person's heaven is another person's hell.

There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.


daikarasu t1_itvkuis wrote

>You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?

Yes, they're literally called Allegories.

>should be lived and applied

I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea. A speculation is forming a theory. You cannot prove or falsify a theory with anecdotal experience because people see the world in such different ways.

It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective. Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.