| SY, just leave khorven alone. All these topics he makes only for one purpose - to tell everybody that he wants a hardcore sadistic sex. |
 |
Esley said: SY, just leave khorven alone. All these topics he makes only for one purpose - to tell everybody that he wants a hardcore sadistic sex. all my responses are only for one purpose--to tell Khorven how much I enjoy hardcore sadistic sex without him. |
| I wanna meet this dic-kun and see how big he is. |
 |
| Selective Yellow: You don't seriously think a dictionary definition of a concept applies to academic debate do you? I believe I said that already. To cite a dictionary in an academic debate simply makes you appear well.. stupid and imprecise, dictionaries are not for academic discussion. |
| Yeah, SY, leave definitions out of this! Can't you understand that they hinder academic discussions by removing the ability to create your own definitions for the subjects you debate! How the hell are we going to move forward using defintions and facts, that's ludicrous, it makes it to easy for normal people to follow along. Guys, fyi, we mae hav ta resort ta usin bad spelin an gramar ta fitler out teh rest of tehese peple. Lol, stfu, gar, desu~, roflmao, bfe, pos, gtg. |
| Is there another word for synonym? |
| But it's not like the dictionary is some sort of all-knowing, always correct book of knowledge. Some dude(s) wrote all the info in there, and those dudes could very well be wrong. Khorven: I don't think consciousness exists, and this is why: [insert first post here] SY: No, I have this book that defines consciousness this way. My book > you. Therefore your argument is moot. |
khorven said: Selective Yellow: You don't seriously think a dictionary definition of a concept applies to academic debate do you? I believe I said that already. To cite a dictionary in an academic debate simply makes you appear well.. stupid and imprecise, dictionaries are not for academic discussion. Are you calling upon academic standards? Really? You? Here? How is there a problem with her using the definitions of the words you used to show you the answers to your questions? They're "imprecise" by what standard? Certainly when it's a debate centered so much around such tricky concepts, the very definition of the words and concepts is more precise than other, more subjective explanations. That you continue to just blow off the points she's bringing up in order to nitpick over something as trivial as academic form, on a non-academic forum no less, just shows a lack of willingness to seriously engage her in debate. |
  |
| The point is more that dictionaries do not contain definitions in the academic sense. They contain a way for some one unfamiliar with that word to infer its meaning. That vague description of 'consciousness' in that dictionary hardly qualifies as a definition in the scientific sense. Right or wrong is not an issue, it's simply equivalent to grabbing a dictionary for Acceleration: –noun 1. the act of accelerating; increase of speed or velocity. Opposed to: A property of a system, The vector vec{a} of such with dimension [vec{l}] / [t] / [t] being equal to the second-order derivative with respect to time to p-O where p and O respectively are the position and any point in the metric space (X,d) often called the origin for convention. url_elf said: Because the point was more or less ridiculous, I claimed a problem with conciousness was that it was still not possible to precisely define it and that then comes with a colloquial dictionary definition as an answer.khorven said: Selective Yellow: You don't seriously think a dictionary definition of a concept applies to academic debate do you? I believe I said that already. To cite a dictionary in an academic debate simply makes you appear well.. stupid and imprecise, dictionaries are not for academic discussion. Are you calling upon academic standards? Really? You? Here? How is there a problem with her using the definitions of the words you used to show you the answers to your questions? They're "imprecise" by what standard? Certainly when it's a debate centered so much around such tricky concepts, the very definition of the words and concepts is more precise than other, more subjective explanations. That you continue to just blow off the points she's bringing up in order to nitpick over something as trivial as academic form, on a non-academic forum no less, just shows a lack of willingness to seriously engage her in debate. It's not a definition, it's a colloquial indication of meaning. I it's a straw argument in effect, I said the concept had no rigorous definition yet, she attacks that by coming with a colloquial meaning to 'disprove' me. |
khorvenMay 28, 2009 12:17 AM
khorven said: Because the point was more or less ridiculous, I claimed a problem with conciousness was that it was still not possible to precisely define it and that then comes with a colloquial dictionary definition as an answer. It's not a definition, it's a colloquial indication of meaning. I it's a straw argument in effect, I said the concept had no rigorous definition yet, she attacks that by coming with a colloquial meaning to 'disprove' me. Well gee, it sure is convenient that you can just declare dictionary definitions as 'imprecise' and 'colloquial' and toss them out. Cherry picking much? |
|
url_elf said: They are. Every dictionary has a different definition (imprecise). Dictionaries add new definitions whenever they come into common use (colloquial).Well gee, it sure is convenient that you can just declare dictionary definitions as 'imprecise' and 'colloquial' and toss them out. Cherry picking much? Didn't you read his example of the dictionary definition of "acceleration"? Hardly scientifically rigorous. You seem to think that the dictionary is some sort of God that establishes the meanings of words. On the contrary - dictionaries simply adapt common definitions which people already use. When the meanings of words change in the common tongue, dictionaries change with them. |
url_elf said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition.Well gee, it sure is convenient that you can just declare dictionary definitions as 'imprecise' and 'colloquial' and toss them out. Cherry picking much? The problem demanded a solution that could formulaically test consciousness, a dictionary definition cannot simple as that. |
khorven said: url_elf said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition.Well gee, it sure is convenient that you can just declare dictionary definitions as 'imprecise' and 'colloquial' and toss them out. Cherry picking much? The problem demanded a solution that could formulaically test consciousness, a dictionary definition cannot simple as that. dictionary= for people who cant form their own arguments based on the accumulated knowedge to be able to extrapolate new ideas and thoery. i. e the bastion of the mind thats beaten. dictionary should only be used to correct spelling and finding out what a word means so you can enunciate it properly to form an argument of any kind. how ever i think you will find that alot of these people are obdurate in thier thinking there is not point in arguing with somone whos main point of reason is OMG LIKE BRO LIKE SEX STUFF CHILLAX AND PLAY GAME CUBE AND LIKE OVER 9000 SPARTA wahahahaha its like....i dunno when people start quoting dictionary its just really sad. especially when the actualy word itself it still under dabate. the whole idea of counscouness is thousands of years old and to quote a defintion it to try and win an argument is just reall really sad i dunno maybey if you did it in the form of an anime like an·i·me Pronunciation (n-m) n. A style of animation developed in Japan, characterized by stylized colorful art, futuristic settings, violence, and sex. Noun 1. anime - a hard copal derived from an African tree Zanzibar copal copal - a brittle aromatic resin used in varnishes 2. anime - any of various resins or oleoresins gum anime natural resin - a plant exudate i dunno doesnt really go too deep into anime really and i recon if anyone dismissed anime as briefly as that i wouldt give them time of day. so you see khorven your bashing your head agaist a wall or stupid narutards just stop THEY DONT WANT TO KNOW plus they define themseves through hwo much cock they suck so its not exactly a proper fourum for great debate LIKE OMG I HAVE SEX IM COOL BRO whahahaha you er.....to easy to bate khoven |
 LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
naikou said: You seem to think that the dictionary is some sort of God that establishes the meanings of words. Really? I never said that, but please, go on, this is entertaining. khorven said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition that you just so happen to be able to establish, so that your conclusion is the one that's reached Yoshi-Moto said: dictionary= for people who cant form their own arguments based on the accumulated knowedge to be able to extrapolate new ideas and thoery. Not quite. Yoshi-Moto said: i dunno when people start quoting dictionary its just really sad. especially when the actualy word itself it still under dabate. the whole idea of counscouness is thousands of years old and to quote a defintion it to try and win an argument is just reall really sad i dunno maybey if you did it in the form of an anime like How is it sad to use the meaning of the word in a discussion over the implications or limitations of humanity in proving whether or not it exists? |
|
url_elf said: naikou said: You seem to think that the dictionary is some sort of God that establishes the meanings of words. Really? I never said that, but please, go on, this is entertaining. khorven said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition that you just so happen to be able to establish, so that your conclusion is the one that's reached Yoshi-Moto said: dictionary= for people who cant form their own arguments based on the accumulated knowedge to be able to extrapolate new ideas and thoery. Not quite. Yoshi-Moto said: i dunno when people start quoting dictionary its just really sad. especially when the actualy word itself it still under dabate. the whole idea of counscouness is thousands of years old and to quote a defintion it to try and win an argument is just reall really sad i dunno maybey if you did it in the form of an anime like How is it sad to use the meaning of the word in a discussion over the implications or limitations of humanity in proving whether or not it exists? no no im saying that when the defintion becomes the bastion of the discussion there is no room for expansion. khorven just questioning his own existence etc w/e hes trying to form an idea that he is real because he cant prove it because its intangelble so he trying to form that somhow throough a disccusion for somone to just quote dictionary and go OH LOL DICTONARY SAY THIS END OF DISCUSSION I LIKE SEX HUR HUR its sad. i use dictonary to find out the meaning of the word like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis. it has no meaning untill i understand what it represents and it represnt and very complex biological disease that far more complex that a mere definiton of its fact. thats why its dumb to use dictionary to justify arguments that are still being had. its a starting point for discussion not an end to it. dictionary is also basically an agreement of the word how it is spelt and its BASIC meaning. for somone to qutoe dictonary means they have lost the ability to creat and form new and original theory. dicitonary is the foundation upson which ideas are formed you use it to build not just wallow in you own little understanding and them you form new ideas words and theory based on those foundations like Introduction to Supersymmetry new word new foundation new idea basic meaning DISCUSS EXPAND LEARN CREATE MOAR NEW limiting your self to a blinkered HUR HUR IT MEANS THIS LOL I LIKE SEX HUR HUR its sad...dumb...and sad |
LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
| Yes, I believe the human being and the fish can co-exist peacefully. |
| LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI LEGENDOFTHEGALACTICHEROESLEGENDOFTHEGALACTI |
Aeiou said: Yes, I believe the human being and the fish can co-exist peacefully.  |
LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
url_elf said: Is the difference of 'acceleration' and 'consciousness' hard for you to understand?khorven said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition that you just so happen to be able to establish, so that your conclusion is the one that's reached |
khorven said: url_elf said: Is the difference of 'acceleration' and 'consciousness' hard for you to understand?khorven said: Quite simply yes, as the problem demands a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition that you just so happen to be able to establish, so that your conclusion is the one that's reached  am i close |
LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
| Very satisfied. dic-kun said: sarcasm |ˈsärˌkazəm| noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at wit . Some extra help from my good friend dic-kun~: |
selective_yellow said: ^ that describes what my penis was like when I fucked this topic. Felt good Thank you for my new sig. |
|
Bambooji said: Because science is totally going for originality. Totally.wonderful, wonderful. All these pseudo-scientists and not one original point. |
| An 'original point' or 'original idea' in science just means a scientific idea that came from yourself as opposed from reading it in books. Which I believe the dropping of the consciousness-axiom in my case is. Kind of strange, that not having an axiom is original instead of making a new one. |
Bambooji said: Can't tell if you're being facetious or not. Mind being more obvious?well yes, science is concerned with the origin. |
| Well I'd say that's true for the majority. But then there is "Meditation"..... khorven said: Okay, I had an interesting debate yesterday on ##philosophy with a logician in which I put forth that it's actually a ridiculous assumption to make that humans are conscious based on, in short, these ideas: A: To assume that humans are 'conscious', whatever that is does not solve any questions, the model works perfectly well to just keep human cognition and signal processing to an advanced neural automated process that has been evolving and perfecting over millions of years and operates on the laws of physics, and just like a plant is a complex machine but does not realize what it's doing itself. B: To assume that humans are conscious creates a whole new tray of questions that need to be answered such as 'What is consciousness?', 'Why would an organism develop it?' and 'How can consciousness even manifest itself in our current physical laws.'? C: Humans may claim they are conscious all the time, but it's a common issue in philosophy that they cannot proof, nor define it, the model remains operational within the parameters and simplified even if it's just taken that they say so due to their neural programming but really aren't. That humans appear to have always acted to say that they are conscious even before the ages of science and philosophy indicates that they are highly biased to this unproven assumption and are an unfit candidate to judge the idea. more: http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/blog/archives/181/on-human-consciousness/#menu So yeah, one of those things I always believed without thinking but now it's quite clear to me, scientifically speaking it's a pretty far-fetched assumption to make that humans are conscious. According to"A" plants don't realize what they are doing? That's nothing more than a mere assumption. Well I think a human aware of what he/she does subconsciously is conscious. Meaning he is aware of the complicated real-time calculations his mind like when he crosses a busy street. How Jame Redfield's version of spiritual consciousness? Lol. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Celestine_Prophecy Why would an organism develop it? Restraint. Things like common cold not affecting you. It's your decision when you want to feel pain...I'm sure there a lot of other advantages as well. Now if you ask "What's the point of advantages?" That's the same as asking "Why do we live?" What? According to "C" I'm not human?Neither are you? "Humans claim they are conscious all the time" Lol. (JK) What makes them fit to judge anything at all? Humans are the most flawed creation to exist. Nice thread. You must have had fun discussing it with the logician. XD |
AshahoneeMay 29, 2009 3:15 AM
Warfaze said: Nope, it's an assumption that plants or humans DO have consciousness.khorven said: Okay, I had an interesting debate yesterday on ##philosophy with a logician in which I put forth that it's actually a ridiculous assumption to make that humans are conscious based on, in short, these ideas: A: To assume that humans are 'conscious', whatever that is does not solve any questions, the model works perfectly well to just keep human cognition and signal processing to an advanced neural automated process that has been evolving and perfecting over millions of years and operates on the laws of physics, and just like a plant is a complex machine but does not realize what it's doing itself. B: To assume that humans are conscious creates a whole new tray of questions that need to be answered such as 'What is consciousness?', 'Why would an organism develop it?' and 'How can consciousness even manifest itself in our current physical laws.'? C: Humans may claim they are conscious all the time, but it's a common issue in philosophy that they cannot proof, nor define it, the model remains operational within the parameters and simplified even if it's just taken that they say so due to their neural programming but really aren't. That humans appear to have always acted to say that they are conscious even before the ages of science and philosophy indicates that they are highly biased to this unproven assumption and are an unfit candidate to judge the idea. more: http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/blog/archives/181/on-human-consciousness/#menu So yeah, one of those things I always believed without thinking but now it's quite clear to me, scientifically speaking it's a pretty far-fetched assumption to make that humans are conscious. According to"A" plants don't realize what they are doing? That's nothing more than a mere assumption. Well I think a human aware of what he/she does subconsciously is conscious. Meaning he is aware of the complicated real-time calculations his mind like when he crosses a busy street. How Jame Redfield's version of spiritual consciousness? Lol. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Celestine_Prophecy Why would an organism develop it? Restraint. Things like common cold not affecting you. It's your decision when you want to feel pain...I'm sure there a lot of other advantages as well. Now if you ask "What's the point of advantages?" That's the same as asking "Why do we live?" What? According to "C" I'm not human?Neither are you? "Humans claim they are conscious all the time" Lol. (JK) What makes them fit to judge anything at all? Humans are the most flawed creation to exist. Nice thread. You must have had fun discussing it with the logician. XD There is no scientific principle at the moment which would suggest that any thing in this universe is 'conscious', it's just an extra axiom applied to humans or other things and often made. That doesn't mean that humans or other things are not conscious per se. It's just not assumed ex nihilo. I never said that I hold humans to not be conscious, I'm not just making the assumption ex nihilo that everyone makes that they are without any scientific proof thereoff. |
"scientifically speaking it's a pretty far-fetched assumption to make that humans are conscious" And so is this "it's an assumption that plants or humans DO have consciousness." "I never said that I hold humans to not be conscious" yeah : khorven said: The effect is the same, therefore to assume we are conscious does not provide any more answers or solves problems in the model but creates a whole new slew of complications with it. So scientifically speaking, to assume humans are conscious is absurd. This is just as out of the blue as any other assumption. |
Warfaze said: LOL,"scientifically speaking it's a pretty far-fetched assumption to make that humans are conscious" And so is this "it's an assumption that plants or humans DO have consciousness." "I never said that I hold humans to not be conscious" yeah : khorven said: The effect is the same, therefore to assume we are conscious does not provide any more answers or solves problems in the model but creates a whole new slew of complications with it. So scientifically speaking, to assume humans are conscious is absurd. This is just as out of the blue as any other assumption. You claim that saying 'I don't assume humans are conscious' is equal to 'I assume humans are not conscious'? God, this is one of the most often made fallacies people keep making, thinking 'to not think x is true' is the same as 'to think x is not true'. It's called independence. I simply make no statement about human consciousness, I don't state it true, I never stated it false. Most people state it true. It's not even in my universe of discourse. |
| You claim that saying 'I don't assume humans are conscious' is equal to 'I assume humans are not conscious'? Plz quote the part where I have claimed that. Ok.... so let me get this straight "I simply make no statement about human consciousness" right...you brought out something to discuss upon which you have no opinion. God I don't even feel like laughing. "So scientifically speaking, to assume humans are conscious is absurd." When you said that you made a statement. XP W/e I won't bother replying so...you might as well do the same... I have whatsoever no interest to discuss this any further with you. "You claim that saying 'I don't assume humans are conscious' is equal to 'I assume humans are not conscious'?" This too was one of your "assumptions. : ) |
Bambooji said: No, that's a very fundamental logical difference that a lot of people fail to appreciate as people tend to think in black and white.I dont assume God exists. I assume God dosen't exist. is the same principle and framework, just with a shift in semantics. For instance, Christians assume God exists. agnostics do not assume god to exist. Neither do atheists but they also assume that He doesn't exist. Agnostics do not do the latter. 'To not state x to be true' is fundamentally different in logic and science to: 'To state x is not true'. It's a thing humans find hard to work with as they like to work with that things are either true or not true. But it's not that simple, a formal theory, we can have: x is provably true x is provably false x is true, but not provable x is false, but not provable x is provably independent x is independent, but not provable x is inexpressible Most people only account for one and two. |
Bambooji said: Forget that chump, I will go all the way with you. Most people don't state anything as true with as much conviction as you are insinuating. for example I dont assume God exists. I assume God dosen't exist. is the same principle and framework, just with a shift in semantics. What you are assuming is too dependant on an unfacilitating meaning. When you try to back it up with anything mathematical you must disclaim that face-value. I agree with you, there is a pattern but it isn't all consuming and vice versa I just think what you are saying is somewhat ridiculous considering the many other mysteries of life that are, as I have said more beneficial. It matters not if we are "truly" conscious. What can you do about being unconscious if you are..in that state. Its oxymoronic. I think the indigenous symptoms of neuralgia, sadness, empathy are, in effect, conscious reactions. To state that you assume they are not is...just word mincing. There is a significant difference between "I don't assume God exists" and "I assume God doesn't exist". The first statement is uncertain, the second is uncertain. Problem: All information and information is the product of physical systems and processes. So claiming that something isn't conscious because it processes information through an automated physical systems means that it is impossible to claim that anything that exists and processes information is conscious. Which makes consciousness a meaningless term in your argument. So the argument you have above commenting on consciousness of people is, more or less, meaningless. So unless you assume that it is possible to think without physically existing, I'll go on considering people as conscious. |
Confucius say man who stand on toilet is high on pot. |
Warfaze said: You claim that saying 'I don't assume humans are conscious' is equal to 'I assume humans are not conscious'? Plz quote the part where I have claimed that. Ok.... so let me get this straight "I simply make no statement about human consciousness" right...you brought out something to discuss upon which you have no opinion. God I don't even feel like laughing. "So scientifically speaking, to assume humans are conscious is absurd." When you said that you made a statement. XP W/e I won't bother replying so...you might as well do the same... I have whatsoever no interest to discuss this any further with you. "You claim that saying 'I don't assume humans are conscious' is equal to 'I assume humans are not conscious'?" This too was one of your "assumptions. : ) Dear. Heard of Ockham's razor? That is what khorven is using here. To not assume x, because we do not need x for a full description of phaenomenon. To not take a stance on truth nor falsity is a stance too, or do you hold agnostics are impossible? You evidently do not comprehend either logic nor science. Bambooji said: I dont assume God exists. I assume God dosen't exist. is the same principle and framework, just with a shift in semantics. No, they are different. ~Assume (Exists x (God (x))) or Assume (~Exists x (God (x))) Logically they are half a world apart. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
khorven said: Bambooji said: No, that's a very fundamental logical difference that a lot of people fail to appreciate as people tend to think in black and white.I dont assume God exists. I assume God dosen't exist. is the same principle and framework, just with a shift in semantics. For instance, Christians assume God exists. agnostics do not assume god to exist. Neither do atheists but they also assume that He doesn't exist. Agnostics do not do the latter. 'To not state x to be true' is fundamentally different in logic and science to: 'To state x is not true'. It's a thing humans find hard to work with as they like to work with that things are either true or not true. But it's not that simple, a formal theory, we can have: x is provably true y is provably false z is true, but not provable n is false, but not provable p is provably independent Q is independent, but not provable m is inexpressible Most people only account for one and two. of course i dunno i just use differnt letters because every other word being X meaning the same thing and describing a different thin becomes oh i dunno STUPID |
LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
Yoshi-Moto said: of course i dunno i just use differnt letters because every other word being X meaning the same thing and describing a different thin becomes oh i dunno STUPID What is this, disrespect for polyvalent logic, which is superior and beautiful and very sexy? YE SHALL BURN IN HELL. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Yoshi-Moto said: khorven said: Bambooji said: No, that's a very fundamental logical difference that a lot of people fail to appreciate as people tend to think in black and white.I dont assume God exists. I assume God dosen't exist. is the same principle and framework, just with a shift in semantics. For instance, Christians assume God exists. agnostics do not assume god to exist. Neither do atheists but they also assume that He doesn't exist. Agnostics do not do the latter. 'To not state x to be true' is fundamentally different in logic and science to: 'To state x is not true'. It's a thing humans find hard to work with as they like to work with that things are either true or not true. But it's not that simple, a formal theory, we can have: x is provably true y is provably false z is true, but not provable n is false, but not provable p is provably independent Q is independent, but not provable m is inexpressible Most people only account for one and two. of course i dunno i just use differnt letters because every other word being X meaning the same thing and describing a different thin becomes oh i dunno STUPID Actually using x for all statements was correct. It was an expression of the possible truth (is that the right term?) values that x can take, not a list of seven definite values. |
| Confucius say man who stand on toilet is high on pot. |
Bambooji said: sigh:khorven said: . Agnostics do not do the latter. Well I am an agnostic and don't assume God to exist. Khorven said: For instance, Christians assume God exists. agnostics do not assume god to exist. Neither do atheists but they also assume that He doesn't exist. Agnostics do not do the latter. Like I said, agnostics do not assume God to exist. But they don't assume that he doesn't exist. It's a difference 'to not assume some thing is true' and 'to assume some thing is not true.' Kaiserpingvin said: No, they are different. ~Assume (Exists x (God (x))) or Assume (~Exists x (God (x))) Logically they are half a world apart. Almost, you meant: exist(God) versus {} Kudos' on understanding Ockam's razor though, a lot of people draw it out of context majestically. It's simply: Make as little assumptions possible to make it work. And a lot of people fail to understand the idea that not assuming x true is different from assuming x false. Bambooji said: Most people seem to lack the knowledge and the skill. But hey, I managed to get 2 people from the ILLC behind me already. Go check it out, the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, they are badarse. One of the raised an even more interesting point though, in his believe it's like this:most people as you can tell do not pay any mind to such an antiperplexed spinster of a topic. -------------- It's true that in the sense of an empirical model it's ultimately scientific to not assume humans have a consciousness, feelings, perception or any of those things. But I find it a more based conclusion to for myself conclude that I have them than to conclude for myself that what my senses say is 'true', but to prove it to others I cannot. -------------- But it was about the empirical model any way. |
khorvenMay 29, 2009 7:13 AM
Esley said: selective_yellow said: ^ that describes what my penis was like when I fucked this topic. Felt good Thank you for my new sig. you could at least make note in your sig that the little arrow up was pointing to irony. . . |
Bambooji said: It doesn't matter where they are from. On paper you have a point. In terms of meaning you are just meandering aimlessly and prolonging something that should be rhetoric. how about this one frankenstein, Theorem 13 of mechanical law, the associate clause. In fact, there are countless bi-products of algebra that would constitute a new assumed meaning for your perfect 'fractal.' Why should we apply, LIKE I HAVE SAID, a number crunching façade to an emotional response. You haven't el;aborated on this algorithm of yours. You have just skipped the maths and come up with something shockingly ambiguous. what I meant was, as an Agnostic I both...do not assume god is real...and also assume that god is not real. They MEAN the same thing. unless you can hatch a new meaning you can't deconstruct our old one. We like it because it is apt. Which part of consciousness do you not assume...sorry assume not to be real? was it the other way round? Its just a riddle to me at the moment. what will you do with your unconsciousness? cower away and brown nose your professors as if they have the answer. It is just a theory. Not even a slightly engaging one. "Life is but a dream" oh but wait you don't assume its not? but you don't assume it isn't a dream? fucking marvelous. Back to square one. assume makes an ass out of u and me |
LolitaDecay said: I have no idea. It was just a random thought. And now I can't stop reading people's posts with an accent. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html |
bambooji said: what I meant was, as an Agnostic I both...do not assume god is real...and also assume that god is not real. They MEAN the same thing. No they do not. If you assume there is no god, then you are an atheist. If you do not assume there is a god, you're likely an agnostic. See, the NO, the negation, rules over different words. Different meanings. "No god", "no assumption", those are very different things. Learn logic, maths, and perhaps writing, you are incomprehensible and/or just miscomprehending everything. It is just a theory. Not even a slightly engaging one. Ur. Look. Science aims to understand reality, reality being a certain set of phaenomenon. khorven says that this set does not need to contain consciousness, as it explains no other phaenomenon but only complicates it all. And no, this is engaging, because cognitive science, philosophy of mind, neuroscience and psychology are all concerned, more or less, about this question. In some ways even physicists are, like Roger Penrose, that blubbering fool. khorven said: Almost, you meant: exist(God) versus {} Isn't this a matter of how you want to write it? An empty set as opposed to not supposing there is something which answers to the praedicate "is god"? Or did I commit an actual error? |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Yoshi-Moto said: assume makes an ass out of u and me As stupid as it is, it did made me smirk. Reminds me of "asking" (Ass King). |
|
Bambooji said: I assume there is no god, because I don't know what to believe. I am indecisive. I also don't assume there is a god, because that assumption would be a decisive one. FAULT THAT logic. Its called emotional intelligence. learn maths, learn this...from which textbook? what have you designed with maths? what have you written? what instrument have you mastered? Non sequitura aplenty. First: Emotional intelligence has nothing to do with logic, okay, logic is a rigid, objective system of inference from premises. Emotional intelligence is the comprehension of other people's emotional states. May be hidden inference, what do I know, it's vague to begin with, what I do know is that even if so, that has little bearing on the rigidity, formality and strength of logic. Second, assuming there is no god is NOT being indecisive, you have made the assumption, you have done something, dear heavens, think human think. Assume may as well be called believe, have faith that, whatever. The core is that it is an axiom which is accepted not from rigid proving or anything. And on to the non sequitura: Which textbook is irrelevant, I suggest prowling Wikipedia and maths-related blogs for free knowledge. I have designed rudimentary, shitty translations of maths into rudimentary, shitty set theory, mostly for fun, I know it's ultimately impossible to make a complete system like thus. But I have not done anything unique or amazing in maths, and I see no reason I would have to. I have written a lot of fiction, from trash pulp to praetentious intellectual waffling, also philosophical treatises, joking expositions of the special theory of relativity and so on. I have mastered no instruments, I do not think many people manage to master an instrument in their lifetime. I do play the piano. If anything of this is relevant, well, wow. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |