|
|
#41 | |||||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AREN'T ALWAYS CONNECTED! [img]Highly meaningful response. Absolutely stunning refutation. Especially noteworthy because of clear understanding of concept to which it was responding[/quote] No really, learn to recognize distinctions. I don't care if you think they're entirely language based and not real, but if you're just going to keep conjoining 6 or seven different concepts and some emotion into a hypocritical mutation of reason I'm not even going to bother. And you call me a sophist. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |||||||
|
FFR Hall of Fame
|
When you're smart enough to actually understand what I'm saying, then you can get back to me with points. Until then, try not saying anything.
Here, let me bring out an example of how absolutely fucking retarded you are so maybe you (or everyone else) can understand how much of a brain you lack. Quote:
Quote:
So I've got an idea for you, shut the fuck up and actually understand the points I make before you start rattling out some halfassed comeback to my responses, because it's hard to debate a point with someone when they aren't even debating what I said. And for those few times you actually do understand what I'm saying, let's try not to contort what I said into such a disfigured shape that it has no bearing to what I originally said any more: Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and probably the funniest example of how fucking stupid you are: I said Quote:
Quote:
"Hold on, I'll probably have to make it black and white for you:" and then went on to explain it in the next paragraph where you responded with more keyboard jacking off: "Here's a direct example of the relativity of positive and negative I was talking about earlier. Haha jesus christ, you said this and can't even notice what is going on. Also, it's hilarious as hell that you're arguing against causality with scientific empricism when every single bit of scientific discovery ever made pretty much underlies the notion that events occur as causal phenomenon. You should really listen to some of the crap you're saying some time." Seriously, use your fucking brain, not just the stem. Edit: One more since I couldn't resist. Especially since you're saying this to someone whose had 2 years of symbolic logic. Quote:
Let's assume that in our universal domain, there exists at least some property that A that holds for some object in the domain (∃A)(∃x)[Ax] Hold on, watch out, I'm about to do something really mystical here. I'm going to define another predicate that represents ~Ax BUT DOESN'T REQUIRE NEGATION TO SAY SO. (∃B)(∀x) (~Ax -> Bx) So Bx says that x does not have property A all the while not using negation to make the claim. Oh my god, my claim certainly brought the world of formal logic onto it's knees yessiree. But wait, I hear, you're going to gloss over this and respond "BUT APERSON I STILL SEE A ~ YOU ARE LYING THERE IS NEGATION DUMMY." To which, I will elegantly respond, "Okay, then we can define our predicate B as: (∃C)(∀x) Cx (∃B)(∀x) [Cx -> Ax] xor Bx " Q.E.D.
__________________
Last edited by aperson; 05-31-2007 at 05:45 PM.. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
somehow I knew this topic would escalate into something like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well we can't all be penguins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
I give up. Half of the conversation has moved beyond my ability to address and the other half is based on misinterpretation. So...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Well, I went back through the topic, and I can accept responsibility for some misinterpretation and subsequent sidetracking. However, I still consider myself to be correct, at least in spirit if not in letter.
Also yes, I am an idiot. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 06-1-2007 at 04:30 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Ok, revised statements.
1. Even if everything that exists is in an intricate blanket of causality, the specifics of how that blanket are woven remain unknown to a large extent. 2. The basis of the "JND" isn't arbitrary, merely subjective. It reduces to preference, or perhaps more broadly culture, but then the issue is over whether or not preference or culture can be valid bases for forming rules. Since there aren't any other bases that I'm aware of, I don't see the problem. Cross evaluation of these bases determined by the merits or demerits of various systems and their effects, as judged by careful observation and preference, seems like the best method to go about such determinations. "innocent until proven guilty" may reduce to a cultural artifact, but the effects of this cultural artifact, even if not the artifact itself, would be supported by virtually all parties within the culture that adopted it. So, unless you were meaning to argue that the interconnected nature of reality makes it acceptable to punish anyone for anything, I don't think I need to take this any further. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | ||
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
So why don't we punish anyone for anything? Well, there is a thing known as free will...you know...the thing that makes you responsible for your actions (or in-actions). As a human, you have free will to do (or not to do) whatever it is you please. The future isn't set in stone. In fact, if anything, the future is constantly being altered by the actions (and inactions) preformed by people and their interaction with their environment (in other words, an infinite number of futures are born and die every nanosecond). Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | ||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 06-5-2007 at 01:28 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Knowledge doesn't come down from this ceiling you've labeled "culture", it springs up among individuals, then is tested in the proper evolutionary manner and, in terms of single generations, in a manner which is artificially (and perhaps imperfectly) evolutionary in nature by whether it confers some benefit (although this doesn't mean the benefit implies there's truth in it. Religion is probably successful for instance because of the psychological benefits and perhaps a handful of benefits in interpersonal interaction if nothing else). If it does work, it sticks around, if not, then not. That's how knowledge works. As for truth, no one knows how the **** that works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Ok, having given myself time to cool down from earlier, I see the following basic problems.
Quote:
Let's take the mutually exclusive actions breathing and drowning, for example. It could be expressed D -> ~B or D =/= B. Seems pretty elementary to me. The quantum physics thing is also very vaguely done. You didn't so much explain how not pulling a lever means killing a person as you did how sneezing causes child molestation. While it is entirely possible that something the person is doing, like breathing, or maybe even thinking, causes some sort of series of events to unravel which transcends standard conceptions of space-time to cause the person's death, this is clearly unrelated to the specific action of pulling the lever. Also what does that fact that different people will label the same thing differently have to do with anything? I think you might be trying to argue things for which you need additional premises. Maybe you are trying to argue that since we will never have perfect epistemic access to the workings of the world, differences in perspective mean we shouldn't hold any of them since none can be substantiated. Are you a logical positivist, by chance? Last edited by Kilroy_x; 10-26-2007 at 05:29 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|