Sun Caged original?

[cagedvoice]

Originally Posted by rbloemink

thank you for your reply. I think your opinion about your the cd SC is nice. You admit that the intro is copied, and that is what I wanted to achieve. But I'm also sharing your opinion about the other songs. You said that the overall feeling is a lot darker and this is a point I total agree. I also think that SC can be even better if you can continue your dark style that you already founded on your debute.

Note: I know the intro is NOT copied, but sounds somewhat similar...
Just break it down note for note, I'm sure You have to admit its not the same.

[cagedvoice]

Originally Posted by Borkdude

Nice conclusion! Nietzsche says there is no truth either! I think the intro is not copy-pasted from a LTE midi file or smth either. But I think it is funny to recognize things of other bands - sometimes when I write some music with my own band I come up with something, and someone else says: hey, that is from this and that band. Sometimes I think people don't even realize they are copying because they have listened such a long time to such an amount of music, they don't know what riff is already exisiting or what riff is inspiration .

...and Nietzsche is right! There is no truth, just perspective (or point of view).

[rbloemink]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Note: I know the intro is NOT copied, but sounds somewhat similar...
Just break it down note for note, I'm sure You have to admit its not the same.

Hopefully it is not copied note for note! That would be humiliating! It is just the feel of the intro that sounds copied to me.

[cagedvoice]

Originally Posted by rbloemink

Hopefully it is not copied note for note! That would be humiliating! It is just the feel of the intro that sounds copied to me.

Do you know that Dream Theater was accused of the same thing? On "when day and dream unite" the guitar solo's where to much like yngwie.. and on "images and words" the riffing got compared to bands like pantera. I've heard a lot of Pink Floyd influences (to the point of copying) in "scenes of a memory....
I'm sure it wasn't ment to sound so much alike....

[Borkdude]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

...and Nietzsche is right! There is no truth, just perspective (or point of view).

Lol - so what's Nietzsche says is true... right?

Point of View is a darn nice Fates Warning song btw. And I agree on "the point of view" point of view on the world... I was just thinking that when bycikling on the way to my work (where I am now).

Sorry for the offtopic reactions and all but at least it keeps this forum going, right? .

Ow, another thing. There was something with the rythm change and riff in DT's the Mirror and a song by SyX on their album V (title I can't remember). Also a Foo Fighters song (pretty recent, wasn't it called Times like these or smth) was accused of stealing the rythm pattern from DT's The Mirror.

[SanderThomas]

We're not denying similarity. On the contrary. But you were implying we're COPYING other bands.

My thoughts exactly

Does anyone have a (bass) transcription of both intro's? :P

[rbloemink]

Originally Posted by Redelijk

We're not denying similarity. On the contrary. But you were implying we're COPYING other bands. That's something quite different, my man...
Since we put a lot of time (most of our time!) in writing our songs, it doesn't feel very nice when someone says we're copying other bands. Because we know we're not

Anyways... Let's leave it with this

Dennis

ok let's leave it by this, but I have to make 1 remark here. I didn't mention to make you feel uncomfortable. I didn't call you a total Dream Theater rip-off or something! It isn't bad to be influenced by other bands. My comments on your album are just a point of criticism, not kind of slatering. Maybe I expressed myself not too well, but (I've said this a few times) I like Sun Caged! I think that you can even become a big international band in the Progressive Metal, because your debut sounds very well. I'm curious what kind of progression you will make on the next album. Good luck!

René

[FLechdrop]

Originally Posted by Borkdude

Nice conclusion! Nietzsche says there is no truth either! I think the intro is not copy-pasted from a LTE midi file or smth either. But I think it is funny to recognize things of other bands - sometimes when I write some music with my own band I come up with something, and someone else says: hey, that is from this and that band. Sometimes I think people don't even realize they are copying because they have listened such a long time to such an amount of music, they don't know what riff is already exisiting or what riff is inspiration .

I once wrote a part of Pull Me Under

[mcoenen]

Originally Posted by rbloemink

thank you for your reply. I think your opinion about your the cd SC is nice. You admit that the intro is copied, and that is what I wanted to achieve. But I'm also sharing your opinion about the other songs. You said that the overall feeling is a lot darker and this is a point I total agree. I also think that SC can be even better if you can continue your dark style that you already founded on your debute.

I don't think Andre admits that the intro is copied since it is not !
Ofcourse we all have our INFLUENCES but we don't COPY that is a very different issue !

[rbloemink]

Originally Posted by mcoenen

I don't think Andre admits that the intro is copied since it is not !
Ofcourse we all have our INFLUENCES but we don't COPY that is a very different issue !

Andre said the "comparison with LTE and sedation is obvious". That sounds almost as "it's a copy", since 'obvious' means that you can't get away from it. Don't you think?

The intro of Sedation influenced by LTE, but too obvious, ok that's means not a copy, I admit. But everbody who listened to both intro's (even my mother and she don't listen often to music) could hear the similarity between the guitarpart and the snaredrum of the same intro of LTE.
I think that you're all technical and creative enough to make a very good intro without refering to LTE.

[Borkdude]

Originally Posted by rbloemink

I think that you're all technical and creative enough to make a very good intro without refering to LTE.

I have made a song about these kinds of situations where someone proposes to: "let's leave it at this" and the other persons keep blabbing.

It is called STFU and you can download it here:

http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~borken...ecordings.html

It is the link most near the bottom and the message is somewhere in the song.

Enjoy!

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

...and Nietzsche is right! There is no truth, just perspective (or point of view).

Really? How do you know that's true?

You are claiming a truth in the process of denying it. Sounds
like a BIG contradiction to me.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

So opinions differ, hence there is no real truth.

The argument you are trying to make here is called a "Non sequitur".
See here: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#nonseq

This is:

"an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't
logically connected with it".


From your observation that "opinions differ" does not naturally follow that there is no such thing as a "real"?? truth [I can not imagine what an unreal truth would be].

If I have a discussion with my brother about you being the singer of SC, that in itself is no reason to asume that I can not ever proof that you are indeed the singer of SC. This would mean that if there was a difference of opinion about WWII it would not have happend!??? According to your reasoning:

Opinions differ about say, the holocaust hence it never truely happend.
I know you probably never meant it this way. But that's the logical end of this methode.

[cagedvoice]

If you read carefully, you'll see that I was talking about opinions being mistaken for truths, not facts.

Words have been taken out of contex here, I was talking about opinions. If you take away the first part of my posting then the remaining words should say: "Opinions differ, hence there is no real truth in an opinion."

I can imagine what an unreal truth would be, but until we discover everything about the universe there is to know, no one can know the real truth.
But don't take my word for it, because it might not be the truth.

You compare my statement with the following: "Opinions differ about the holocaust hence it never truely happend.", which is no comparison.
There are evidences and facts that state the oposite. If you would make this statement a comparison to my earlier statement, then it should read: "Opinions differ about the holocaust hence any opinion not backed by evidence or fact is a potential untruth.

Let's leave it at that, I feel very uncomfortable with your example of WWII, although I know you didn't mean it that way.
Don't read to much into my words and let's be friends.

[cagedvoice]

Hmmmm... can't stop thinking about it anymore, you got me intriged...

Let's talk truths and untruths. I will use a different but also "heavy" example.

One person believes in God and the other doesn't. the first one claimes he knows for sure that God exists, because he sees it in everyday life and feels his presence, he also claimes to have his prayers answered a few times. The other says he has science to prove that all live started by the big bang, evolving from tiny organisms that... bla, bla, bla.

they then try to convince eachother of the "real truth", but for every "fact" the atheist has against God, the other finds an explanation to convince him God is behind everything.

In the end there are several different conclusions:
1. Person1 is right and God does exist and the atheist is stuck with a untruth which he thinks is the truth.
2. Person2 is right and God doesn't exist, so the believer is stuck with an untruth.
3. They are both correct and wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle and maybe God isn't the God person1 thought that he would be and science isn't as cold and just plain facts as person2 thought it would be.

Point is that until solid proof and facts are complete every truth is a potential untruth. unfortunatly no one knows if all facts have been found, or if all proof is complete.

Let's take another example:
The world today is a totally different "thruth" then the world 200 years ago and there will be another "thruth" in the next 200 years.
One could say that we are always a few "untruths" from the truth.

I will stop blabbering now.

It seems you are helping me out with some new lyrics Hawk, thnx...

[SaTriaNi]

LOL

[Borkdude]

Hmm, I on purpose left it at:
"Lol - so what's Nietzsche says is true... right? " and thougth that would be clearly enough, but apparantly nobody got that.

[mcoenen]

Go andre sounds indeed like fun stuff to write about so now you people know the new concept of the forthcoming album

[Borkdude]

No! I was just going to... aah well, ok - we'll make something else up then.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

If you read carefully, you'll see that I was talking about opinions being
mistaken for truths, not facts. .

Words have been taken out of contex here, I was talking about opinions.
If you take away the first part of my posting then the remaining words
should say: "Opinions differ, hence there is no real truth in an opinion."

Andre ik ga verder in het Nederlands dat laat me meer ruimte voor nuancering.

Je laatste uitspraak:

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

"Opinions differ, hence there is no real truth in an opinion."

Heb ik geciteerd zonder context en terecht.
Je brengt deze uitspraak als een absoluut.
Je kwalificeert hem nergens.
“Meningen verschillen; *dus* er is geen waarheid in een mening”.

En dat klopt dus niet. Er zijn meningen die kant nog wal raken en er zijn meningen die wel kloppen. Meningen die te onderbouwen zijn met goede argumenten. Argumenten die verwijzen naar feiten.

Voorbeeld: de Cock en Vledder zijn het oneens over wie van Duinhoven heeft vermoord. De Cock verdenkt Jan en Vledder denkt dat Piet het gedaan heeft. Beiden verschillen van mening. Volgens jouw stelling zou, omdat ze van mening verschillen, nu de waarheid niet meer te achterhalen zijn. En daar reageerde ik op.

Het verschil van mening kan opgelost worden door een DNA test of verschillende getuigen verklaringen die gelijkluidend zijn.

Volgens mij zijn er enkele problemen met jouw benadering.

Ten eerste beweer je iets zonder er een argument voor te geven. In feite zeg je simpelweg: zo is het. Maar dat is niet voldoende. Moet ik dat op goed vertrouwen aannemen? Zo werkt dat dus niet.

Ook neem je als vanzelfsprekend aan dat een mening per definitie subjectief is. Dat is echter niet altijd zo. Een mening kan met goede verifieer bare argumenten onderbouwd worden. Er zijn onderwerpen waarbij dit heel moeilijk is. Kunst is een voorbeeld. Nu kan je misschien zeggen dat de discussie inderdaad over een kunst vorm ging. Maar dat is het punt niet. Het punt is dat jij beweerde dat alle meningsverschillen *per definitie* subjectief waren. Daarom kon ik ook met een goed geweten alleen je uitspraak citeren waarin je dat beweert.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

I can imagine what an unreal truth would be, but until we discover everything about the universe there is to know, no one can know the real truth.

Dit is een erg onduidelijke passage. Wat bedoel je hier met een “real truth”. Zou je dat begrip voor me kunnen definieren? En wat is het verschil tussen een echte waarheid en een onechte waarheid? Als een waarheid niet “echt” is waarom noemen zouden we het dan een waarheid noemen?

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

You compare my statement with the following: "Opinions differ about the holocaust hence it never truely happend.", which is no comparison.

Waarom niet? Jij doet een absolute uitspraak; en ik pas die qua absolute uitspraak binnen een gevoelige context toe. Terecht. Ik wil je namelijk laten zien hoe die uitspraak van jou misbruikt kan worden. De holocaust is namelijk een onderwerp waarover mensen van mening verschillen. Toch is de mening van de ene kant van het argument waar en de mening van de andere kant niet waar/onjuist.

Logica en rationele argumenten zijn een middel om achter de waarheid te komen. En de waarheid over de holocaust is dat hij werkelijk heeft plaatst gevonden. Dit is dus een voorbeeld waarbij een mening niet per definitie subjectief is.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

There are evidences and facts that state the oposite. If you would make this statement a comparison to my earlier statement, then it should read: "Opinions differ about the holocaust hence any opinion not backed by evidence or fact is a potential untruth.

Waarom een potentiële onwaarheid? Het lijkt me eerder dat een mening die niet onderbouwd is door argumentatie die naar bepaalde feiten verwijst gewoon niet waar is. Ik moet dit wel nuanceren door te zeggen dat het niet altijd even duidelijk te bepalen is. Nogmaals het feit dat bij *bepaalde* meningsverschillen sprake kan zijn van waar of niet waar impliceert niet dat dit ook voor all andere meningsverschillen zou moeten gelden.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Hmmmm... can't stop thinking about it anymore, you got me intriged...

Let's talk truths and untruths. I will use a different but also "heavy" example.
One person believes in God and the other doesn't. the first one claimes he knows for sure that God exists, because he sees it in everyday life and feels his presence, he also claimes to have his prayers answered a few times. The other says he has science to prove that all live started by the big bang, evolving from tiny organisms that... bla, bla, bla.
they then try to convince eachother of the "real truth", but for every "fact" the atheist has against God, the other finds an explanation to convince him God is behind everything.

In the end there are several different conclusions:

1. Person1 is right and God does exist and the atheist is stuck with a untruth which he thinks is the truth.
2. Person2 is right and God doesn't exist, so the believer is stuck with an untruth.
3. They are both correct and wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle and maybe God isn't the God person1 thought that he would be and science isn't as cold and just plain facts as person2 thought it would be.
Point is that until solid proof and facts are complete every truth is a potential untruth. unfortunatly no one knows if all facts have been found, or if all proof is complete.

Onze discussie ging over jouw uitspraak dat als meningen verschillen, zij *per definitie* subjectief zouden zijn. Ik beargumenteer hierboven dat bepaalde meningen waarheid kunnen zijn en dat we logica en rationaliteit moeten gebruiken om daar achter te komen. Het voorbeeld dat je hier neemt staat echter per definitie buiten de logica en rationaliteit. Theologen willen niets te maken hebben met logische argumenten voor wat "god" genoemd wordt. Thomas van Aquinio was de laatste die dat geprobeerd heeft. Sindsdien wil de katholieke kerk niets meer van dat soort argumenten weten.

Veel belangrijker is echter de premisse waar jij je denken over waarheid op baseert. Je zegt:

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

“Point is that until solid proof and facts are complete every truth is a potential untruth. unfortunatly no one
knows if all facts have been found, or if all proof is complete.”

Dit is het aloude sceptische argument dat de mens alwetend moet
zijn om de waarheid te kennen. Alhoewel we heel veel dingen nog
niet weten kunnen we van een aantal dingen 100% zeker zijn. De
wetten van de zwaartekracht bijvoorbeeld, of dat mijn nick op dit
forum Hawk is.

Het is belangrijk om te beseffen dat *juist* omdat we niet alles weten en omdat wel feilbare wezens zijn, we een kennis methodiek nodig hebben,
zoals gespecificeerd in de epistemologie [kennisleer]. Omdat we feilbare wezens zijn hebben we ook een begrip als "waarheid" nodig. Als we alwetend waren konden we het begrip waarheid niet gebruiken. We zouden ons nooit vergissen. We hebben echter het begrip waarehid nodig om verschil te maken tussen juiste en onjuiste kennis. Het berip waarheid is dus onlosmakelijk verbonden aan het geven dat we feilbare wezens zijn. Sterker nog, het begrip waarheid *impliceert* dat we feilbare wezens zijn. Jij zet de functie van dat begrip op zijn kop.

In de kennisleer leren we om logica te gebruiken bij onze beredeneringen.
Als iemand twijfelt aan een propositie dan moet hij
die twijfel beargumenteren. Twijfel moet gefundeerd zijn in een oorzaak.
Als ik met jouw in een straat wandel en ik zou tegen jou zeggen dat ik twijfelde aan het bestaan van die straat, dan zou je denk ik, wel in de verleiding komen om mij te vragen waarom ik daaraan twijfelde.
M.a.w. waar die twijfel op gebaseerd was.
Het idee dat all onze kennis twijfelachtig is omdat we “nu eenmaal niet alles weten" is trouwens ook een kennis claim. Je vervalt hier in je oude vergissing. Je claimt zeker te weten dat al onze kennis onzeker is
zoang we niet alles weten.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Let's take another example:
The world today is a totally different "thruth" then the world 200 years ago and there will be another "thruth" in the next 200 years.
One could say that we are always a few "untruths" from the truth.
I will stop blabbering now.
It seems you are helping me out with some new lyrics Hawk, thnx...

In de bovenstaande passage is je taalgebruik erg onduidelijk.
De wereld is een waarheid???

De wereld of de realiteit dat is, datgene wat we waarnemen door middel van perceptie en identificeren en integreren door middel van rede, behoort in de metafysica.

Terwijl het begrip waarheid, de correspondentie tussen een propositie en de realiteit, een ken theoretisch begrip is. Je haalt hier twee
belangrijke filosofische takken door elkaar.
Wat ik hieruit kan halen is dat je bedoeld dat men 200 jaar geleden anders dacht over waarheid en wetenschap dan nu. Wat toen voor waarheid gehouden werd is verkeerd gebleken. Dat is echter nauwelijks een reden om de moderne conceptie van “waarheid” overboord te zetten. 200 jaar geleden werd veel van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek door religieuze dogma’s beïnvloed. De zg. waarheden van toen zijn nooit waar geweest.

Als echter nu nieuwe feiten aan het licht komen worden de geldende wetenschaps modellen [ook wel paradigma’s genoemd] bijna nooit geheel en al overboord gezet. Nieuwe ontdekkingen sluiten meestal naadloos aan op wat we al wisten. Ook nu nog is veel van wat Newton ontdekte geldig. Zeker, er zijn wat elementen van zijn theorie verkeerd gebleken maar een belangrijk deel van zijn theorieën blijken te kloppen.

De onderzoek methoden van de laatste 100 jaar geven genoeg garantie
dat er sprake is van een progressieve vooruitgang. Oude bestaande modellen worden beetje bij beetje aangepast aan nieuwe kennis.

Er is dus geen sprake van complete waarheden die uit het raam gedonderd worden. Sterker nog, het blijkt dat ken theoretische fundamenten zoals de wet van non-contradictie, de wet van identiteit ed na 2500 jaar nog steeds opgeld doen. Tja, die ouwe Aristoteles was zo gek nog niet

[SaTriaNi]

haha dit gaat me echt boven m'n kop Heb ook niet echt de moeite gedaan het zorgvuldig te lezen

[cagedvoice]

My God Hawk!?
Do I really have to read al you typed there?

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but are you a schoolteacher currently without a job that suddenly feels the need to teach on this board? Because you make me feel like I'm in school again.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm only kidding...

I'm not a preacher Hawk, I'm just fooling around with ideas and concepts, of which none should be taken really serious, so lighten up man!

Just a few responses then:
An opinion is a potential untruth until it is backed by facts, don't you agree? In the later example of person1 and person2 you can see that I didn't say that an opinion couldn't be the truth at all.
In fact your example of de Cock en Vledder (For all readers, "de Cock" is a valid dutch name) isn't that far from my person1 and person2. One of both is potentionaly right and potentionaly wrong, until proven right or wrong. I don't see your problem!?

Let me define a few unreal truths (or what is in my opinion an unreal truth, because you can't be to carefull with words these days as I learned from you)

Someone has lived his life believing in something, that something could be God, the laws of nature, love or something else. In the end he finds that the one true thing he has always believed in isn't the truth at all. So all his life he lived with an untruth (or unreal truth) which he believed was a truth. (you should see things a bit more abstract, an unreal truth is a contradiction, but not in the abstract sense)
The world today has a few truths that will not be a truth in a few years. A few hundred years back the world was flat. a few decades ago they found that the laws of nature don't apply on the rings of saturn. See where I'm heading?

The world you're living in today defines a certain thruth for you, that could be totally different in a few years. I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying, because you seem like a real intelligent man.
I get the impression you like an argument just for the sake of it, which is O.K., but don't be too serious, I know I'm not!

Try to see my words a bit more abstract.

And, yes... it is true that your nick is Hawk, but that's a known fact and not an opinion.

[Borkdude]

Hawk wrote:

Onze discussie ging over jouw uitspraak dat als meningen verschillen, zij *per definitie* subjectief zouden zijn. Ik beargumenteer hierboven dat bepaalde meningen waarheid kunnen zijn en dat we logica en rationaliteit moeten gebruiken om daar achter te komen. Het voorbeeld dat je hier neemt staat echter per definitie buiten de logica en rationaliteit. Theologen willen niets te maken hebben met logische argumenten voor wat "god" genoemd wordt. Thomas van Aquinio was de laatste die dat geprobeerd heeft. Sindsdien wil de katholieke kerk niets meer van dat soort argumenten weten.

Dat is denk ik niet omdat "de katholieke kerk" niet zo van logica houdt, maar meer omdat je met pure logica en logisch redeneren an sich niets over de wereld te weten kunt komen. Alledaagse logica vind meestal in een vorm zoals:

A impliciceert B
We denken te weten dat A het geval is
Dus mogen we B concluderen.
etcetera

Nu zit het probleem volgens mij bij, hoe kom je aan een betrouwbare waarheidswaarde voor A. Daar kom je niet aan door pure logica en je kunt ook niets echt strikt bewijzen door te redeneren - slechts heel erg aannemelijk maken.

Nog iets over een Godsbewijs:

Misschien ken je de incompleetheidsstellingen van Godel wel. Een daarvan zegt onder andere dat je in de "taal" van een systeem altijd een logische bewering kan verzinnen die niet te bewijzen is. Dit vind ik een mooie analogie voor deze wereld (= het wiskundige systeem met taalelementen) en beweringen daarover.

Een site (http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html) zegt het volgende:
"Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths".

Daar kan ik me wel in vinden. Zoals een computer niet zo slim kan worden als een mens, die namelijk ook andersoortige dingen kan voelen, ruiken, denken etc, denk ik ook dat een mens niet zo slim kan worden als God en Zijn bestaan ook niet kan bewijzen (in wiskundige zin zeg maar). Ik denk namelijk dat je met de elementen uit dit systeem, namelijk aardse gedachten, taaluitdrukkingen, etc niet kunt bewijzen of er een God is of niet - als er een God zou zijn, wat ik trouwens zelf wel geloof, dan zou Ie waarschijnlijk deel zijn van onder andere zaken die zich buiten ons systeem afspelen en zeker niet binnen het systeem te bewijzen zijn.

Voor meer informatie over de stelling van Godel:
http://www.mtnmath.com/book/node56.html

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

My God Hawk!?
Do I really have to read al you typed there?

[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

No you could have ignored them. But I am very happy you did not. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but are you a schoolteacher currently without a job that suddenly feels the need to teach on this board? Because you make me feel like I'm in school again. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm only kidding...

[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

You did not hurt my feelings, you are giving me a complement!
I *am* a school teacher employed though. [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I teach history, economics, and social studies.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

I'm not a preacher Hawk, I'm just fooling around with ideas and concepts, of which none should be taken really serious, so lighten up man!

[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Aha! Part of the reason why I reacted the way I did was that the ideas you are playing with can have *very* serious consequenses. What do you think Socialism, Fascism and National-Socialism are? They are indeed ideas!

All of those totalitarian ideas benefit from the idea that there is no such thing as a true proposition or idea. Remember that concepts like "right' " "equality before the law" and "demorcraty" are also ideas if they can not be proved to be true, everything goes. Of course I am not saying you hold those political ideas it's just that I see the connection between epistemological relativism and subjectivism on one hand, and those political ideas on the other.

Philosophy is not just playing with words. A philosophy can determine the course of history. Sez the history teacher [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Just a few responses then:

I think you love philosophy more than you know or care to admit Andre.
You can not help but try and answer me and I think that's great! I would love to discuss philosophy with you at a Sun Caged concert after I just banged my head of!!! ![img]images/smilies/headbob.gif[/img]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

An opinion is a potential untruth until it is backed by facts, don't you agree? In the later example of person1 and person2 you can see that I didn't say that an opinion couldn't be the truth at all.

I believe you when you say that, thats is what you meant to say. But it surly did not come over that way. You made a pretty absolute statement Andre.

But I am in full agreement with what you say here, except I would not put it in the negative [potential untruth] but in the positive. Every proposition could potentially be a truth.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

In fact your example of de Cock en Vledder (For all readers, "de Cock" is a valid dutch name) [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] isn't that far from my person1 and person2. One of both is potentionaly right and potentionaly wrong, until proven right or wrong. I don't see your problem!?

The funny thing about de Cock and Vledder is that Vledders first name is Dick!!! [img]/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif[/img]

But seriously now. I reacted to this statement:

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Opinions differ, hence there is no real truth in an opinion

As you can see, this is a statement in an absolute form.

In my previous post I tried to explain that I disagreed with this statement and why. Sorry if I sounded like I was lecuring you but that's an occupational hazzard when you debate a history teacher.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Let me define a few unreal truths (or what is in my opinion an unreal truth, because you can't be to carefull with words these days as I learned from you)

[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Someone has lived his life believing in something, that something could be God, the laws of nature, love or something else. In the end he finds that the one true thing he has always believed in isn't the truth at all. So all his life he lived with an untruth (or unreal truth) which he believed was a truth. (you should see things a bit more abstract, an unreal truth is a contradiction, but not in the abstract sense)

I can see here that you are using the term/concept "abstract" in a different way as I do.

I would say that the rules of logic apply to abstract statement just as well as concrete statements. May even more, because abstract statements are more sweeping in that they cover more ground.

In that it is even more importand to be as exact as possible in uttering abstract staments. As an example:

An concrete statement: *This* history teacher is boring.

Abstract statement: *All* history teachers are boring.

You see that the abstract statement covers a lot more ground.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

The world today has a few truths that will not be a truth in a few years. A few hundred years back the world was flat. a few decades ago they found that the laws of nature don't apply on the rings of saturn. See where I'm heading?

Sure and I am with you to a certain degree. But I don't believe they discovered that the laws of nature did not aply to the rings of Saturn. What they discovered is that the laws of nature did not apply to the rings of nature *as they expected*. There's an importand difference here.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

The world your living in today defines a certain thruth for you, that could be totally different in a few years. I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying, because you seem a real intelligent man.

Well Andre I *do* understand what you are saying and you are saying it very clear. It's just that I don't find myself in complete agreement with you. I do not believe that it could be "*totally* different in a few years".

The operative word being "totally" here. As I tried to explain in my previous post things are very different from a few hunderd years ago.

200 years ago most people were motivated by superstition [christian or otherwise]. They held ideas based on a very bad intellectual foundation.

Since the industrial revolution this has fundamentally changed. For the first time in human history science has a explicit *rational* basis. Religious dogma's have been swept away. The very idea that scientific ideas will undergo fundamental changes is in fact based upon the day's when science has a bad supersticious base dating from the middle ages. In those day it indeed happend that the whole base of scientific "reasoning" had to be discarded. I have no reason to assume that such will take place in our modern time.

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

I get the impression you like an argument, which is O.K., but don't be to serious, I know I'm not!

[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Well, I can not help but take some of it serious. it's kinda second nature. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Originally Posted by cagedvoice

Try to see my words a bit more abstract.

And, yes... it is true that your nick is Hawk. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Since we are talking now I'd like to say that it been a loooong time since I heard a singer as good as you. The SC album will be head for my top 3 in the end of the year. It's one of the best albums I heard; ever! I hope you guy's will stay together and keep making music for a long time. I have selfish reasons for wishing that. The longer you guy's keep making music, the longer I can keep enjoying it. [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ![img]images/smilies/headbob.gif[/img]

All the best Andre. Keep singing and thinking about philosophy!

[cagedvoice]

Thnx Hawk!
It was a pleasure debating with you and I hope we can elaborate after a concert one day. You have given me lots to think about and that is what I need because i treat my lyrics as poems.

...and you are right, I just love pilosophy!

greetings and hope to see you one day.

[Borkdude]

I love philosophy too, but I love playing around with idea's in a semiserious way (like Andre) too.
Are you going to react on my Godel argument or will you leave it at that?