Vegetarianism

[Paraprakrti]

You may want to revise your post, (Q)

You apparently missed that analogy of the apple. Seva explained one who lacks the *taste* and wishes to argue the *taste* of an apple, not the existence of the apple itself. So the fact that you can see the apple is irrelevant to the analogy. Unless you can taste by seeing.

 

[(Q)]

if i only had one life, i would probably have sex everyday. steal money and kill whoever comes my way.

Then you are a sociopath who has no regard for human life and cannot control yourself.

if i wanted God and love to do good, and realize that karma will affect me, then i will probably live every life to the fullest, in devotion to humanity, the world, and God.

Sorry, but your line of reasoning does not follow here. What exactly is it that changes from mindless sociopath to citizen of the year? If you need a belief in gods in order to tell you how to live life without abuse, then you quite clearly cannot think for yourself. Baaaaaa....

 

[(Q)]

So the fact that you can see the apple is irrelevant to the analogy. Unless you can taste by seeing.

Ok, we can assume the man can be shown he has no taste and the reasons thereof. He can also be shown that others have taste and the reasons thereof.

If a rational man, he will not argue his lack of taste.

Again, bad analogy.

A proper analogy would be trying to show how I can see invisible pink unicorns and you cannot.

 

[Paraprakrti]

^^^^^^^LOL

Then Seva was comparing you to an irrational man wasn't he?

The analogy is fine. The one I have used before is the blind man who wants someone to prove the color blue but will not accept the operation to heal his blindness. This is the same point being exemplified. The blind want to prove sight and the tasteless want to prove taste.
At this point you are arguing pointlessly. Your argument actually ended at "Shoo-bee-doo-wop!"

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with (Q) the taste thing is a bad analogy. We could set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that people can distinguish things using taste. Just put some apple juice and some orange juice in cups, labeled. Have some people taste them blindfolded and see if they can tell by tasting which one is apple and which one is orange juice. The results of this experiment would show conclusively that taste does exist (isn't science great?)

 

[(Q)]

The one I have used before is the blind man who wants someone to prove the color blue but will not accept the operation to heal his blindness.

The blind man is totally irrational not to accept the operation yet demand proof. HIs argument is moot.

Your analogy is even worse.

Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Paraprakrti]

^^^nonsense...

It would not prove to the tasteless man that taste exists because he has no firsthand knowledge of taste himself. Now, he may accept the authority of those who do say that taste exists. But this is precisely the problem. We accept different authorities and so we will perpectually be in disagreement. (Q) accepts authority similar to the man in the analogy without the ability to taste. He denies the existence of that which he has no experience of. The argument is thus done. We do not accept your conclusions and you do not accept ours. Someone needs to close this thread or something.

 

[(Q)]

It would not prove to the tasteless man that taste exists because he has no firsthand knowledge of taste himself.

Then he is as irrational as the blind man. Unlike gods taste CAN be shown to exist regardless of whether one refuses to accept it or not.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It would not prove to the tasteless man that taste exists because he has no firsthand knowledge of taste himself.

No, it would indeed prove that taste exists. The fact that blindfolded people can tell the difference between apple juice and orange juice while blindfolded makes the existence of taste conclusive to the tasteless man. The tasteless man can have no idea what taste is like, but after that experiment he would know for a fact that other people have a special sense that gives them the ability to distinguish between different chemicals when licked by the tongue/placed in the mouth. The existence of this special sense (which he does not have) has been proven by this simple experiment.

Someone needs to close this thread or something.

Yes, this is off topic and it is a debate occurring in a non-debate forum....I will notify the other Mods. They may move this to the debate forum, but it would still be off topic, unfortunately, which is too bad--I have enjoyed reading everyone's arguments.

 

[Paraprakrti]

No, taste cannot be proven to the man with no tongue. Even if you blindfold other men and have them taste different things, you must take into account other factors, i.e.: texture, consistency. Also the prospect of cheating others. There are too many factors for taste to be completely and irrefutably proven to one who has not the ability. Just like if I asked you to prove that you feel hungry. You might go and eat something but this doesn't prove that you are hungry. It would be closer to proving that you are not feeling full.
The tasteless man may accept taste because he has such faith in certain authorities. This is the bottomline.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Remember, I'm just *playing* the skeptic. I couldn't say if (Q) is playing or being for real.

 

[Druidus]

Why would I bother to have faith in something that is highly possible to be the inventive genius of mans imagination? There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest gods had nothing to do with anything at all.

I may never prove gods don't exist, that is if I really did care about it. But you will never prove gods do exist and you will never find one shred of evidence to suggest it. In other words, the evidence to suggest a godless universe far outweighs a universe conducted by gods.

Those sort of show where you say there is evidence for a godless universe. Show me this evidence.

 

[(Q)]

The tasteless man may accept taste because he has such faith in certain authorities. This is the bottomline.

The tasteless man can be placed in a room with 100 other people who are able to taste.

While blindfolded a variety of foods are placed in front of them to try. Only the blind man knows which food is which; ie. he knows strawberries are labeled such.

If all the participants choose the strawberries when asked what food tastes like a strawberry, would the tasteless man be able to see all the participants choose the correct food?

Do you now see why your analogy doesn't work?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes Parapraktri, I'm sorry but (Q) is right. In a scientific experiment, we could take into account texture, temperature, color--everything that could give away the true identity of the substance. We could even make sure there is no pulp in the orange juice. The fact remains that by using the scientific method, we can establish the existence of taste.

Perhaps you should revise your claim and say "you cannot prove to the tasteless man what taste feels like". Even then, it is possible that we could, using electric impulses to the brain...

 

[Paraprakrti]

Then we can take smell into account. It is a fact that taste is dependent on smell. If you can't smell, you can't taste.

So...
In this experiment, have we proven taste or have we proven smell? We can't inhibit the sense of smell and prove the sense of taste. Therefore we are left uncertain as to whether the determining factor is smell or taste. The tasteless man has heard that supposedly a relationship between smell and taste exists. Unfortunately, because we cannot prove that taste exists, first of all, we cannot prove that such a relationship exists. In other words we are left with a paradox:

In order to prove taste we have to prove that smell is related, but in order to prove that smell is related we have to prove the existence of that which it is supposedly related to, taste.

I still stand firmly in support of this analogy.

Note: This line of reasoning is assuming that all foods in this experiment are of the same texture, temperature, etc. And that any other distinguishing characteristics that may be felt and/or heard are equally present in all foods given herein.

 

[Paraprakrti]

@ (Q)

Also, your original statement in refute of Seva's apple analogy was, "I can see the apple". Seeing the apple has nothing to do with your present argument of seeing a group of blindfolded people choose which apple is the one in question.

Therefore my original statement, "So the fact that you can see the apple is irrelevant to the analogy", stands.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Moving to General Debate Forum.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Note: This line of reasoning is assuming that all foods in this experiment are of the same texture, temperature, etc. And that any other distinguishing characteristics that may be felt and/or heard are equally present in all foods given herein.

The subjects could be blindfolded, and the apple juice and the orange juice can be the same temperature and texture. The tasteless man could be the control subject in the experiment...if he is able to somehow accurately identify apple juice or orange juice consistently, we know we haven't isolated the sense of taste yet. Once we have designed an experiment in which it is impossible for the tasteless man to distinguish between the two liquids, we can start proving the existence of taste.

Then we can take smell into account. It is a fact that taste is dependent on smell. If you can't smell, you can't taste.

So...
In this experiment, have we proven taste or have we proven smell?

Paraprakrti, this is getting silly--there are lots of ways we could isolate taste from smell, touch, sound, and sight in our experiment. For example, we could ask the blindfolded subjects to hold their breath and pinch their noses closed, and place their faces only a couple of inches above each liquid. We then ask each subject to stick out his tongue and dip it into the liquid....this would isolate sensory organs on the tongue as the only means of identifying the liquids and conclusively prove the existence of taste, especially when the tasteless man fails to identify the liquids while everyone else succeeds.

Isn't it amazing how the scientific method can lead us to the truth?

 

[Paraprakrti]

I am sorry, but no...

The bottomline remains: If you can't smell it, you can't taste it.

If they are in fact pinching their noses then they can't taste the liquid. If they can taste the liquid then we know that they are not really pinching their noses.

This debate is over.

 

[(Q)]

I still stand firmly in support of this analogy.

Adamant denial of the facts when placed directly in front of you.

And this is supposed to be intelligence?