No,I meant a discussion of the role of alcohol in connection with finding a potential sex partner in another thread.

Regina wrote:No,I meant a discussion of the role of alcohol in connection with finding a potential sex partner in another thread.

Ah. I see. That might be a thread I would like to read. If you point me to it, I will return a favour and tell you the punchline of the joke, assuming you haven't already sussed it.

Seems fair.
Join us for a coffee.
It starts with this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/fun-g ... l#p1284960

Regina wrote:Seems fair.
Join us for a coffee.
It starts with this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/fun-g ... l#p1284960

Ok, it's beddie byes for me now though. I will look in tomorrow.

Regarding the joke, the two lovers are lying breathless on the carpet after the event, and he says 'did you enjoy that?' and she says, 'yes, but I would have enjoyed it even more if you hadn't started before I had time to take off my pantyhose'.

Ah, that one! I heard it before, but didn't make the connection with the toe curling!

archibald wrote:
Unless 'Jose' is Spanish for 'hoisery'.

Hoisery? What's 'hoisery' English for? Looking archly over one's shoulder and saying "Hoi!"?

Well, this is the philosophy forum....

lobawad wrote:Let's have idealism, solipsism, pick your ism, jettison your jism, expressed in a non-verbal manner.

As this is an internet forum, links to other media would be fine, and verbal descriptions of non-verbal expressions will patently have to do in certain cases. For example, to a claim that I do not exist, I would propose that I smack you upside the head as a counterargument, and so on.

Do a dance, drop your pants, plant some plants, toot your flute.

By "verbal" I'm specifically referring to what is known as "natural language". Math or some symbolic logic is fine- if you claim that A > ~A, let's see your supporting argument in the same symbolic language, and of course "natural language" explanation for those less versed in those languages is fine, as long as what is expressed is expressed in that symbolic language.

edited for spellllling.

Intuitionism. From wikipedia

In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans. That is, mathematics does not consist of analytic activities wherein deep properties of existence are revealed and applied. Instead, logic and mathematics are the application of internally consistent methods to realize more complex mental constructs.

Here's some symbols to go with it:

Γ ⊢ f : P → Q, Δ ⊢ x : P => Γ, Δ ⊢ f x : Q

Γ, x : P ⊢ y : Q => Γ ⊢ λx. y : P → Q

For more, check out Martin Loef's Constructive Type Theory.

Steve wrote:

I was just thinking that I had wandered into some kind of weird alternate universe, given the posts preceding this one, but that has brought me down to earth and back to reality.

Nice one, Steve.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:The Tao symbol looks cool an' all but I've two problems.

The symbol is symmetric but good and 'evil' aren't.

Lao Tsu wrote:
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

Secondly, in Taoism this symbol is used to represent the universe as a whole. They make the classic mistake of projecting mankind on to the cosmos.

There is no anthropomorophism in Taoism.

I would need another circle for the universe. A blank one, not even white, with no boundry.

http://seansturm.wordpress.com/2009/07/ ... -to-wanwu/

The taijitu is a nice diagram, but it presents a claim, an assertion, a conclusion. What are the arguments for the validity of this (very grand) claim?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Some of my other non-verbal beliefs can be found here:
http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patt ... lbulb.html

I think there are some poignant arguments "made" by fractals. They also make a pretty foundation for fanciful ravings, but what doesn't.

They're very pretty, aren't they? I play with ChaosPro to make many such images. It's freeware, and you can download the program here: http://www.chaospro.de/

lobawad wrote:I think there are some poignant arguments "made" by fractals. They also make a pretty foundation for fanciful ravings, but what doesn't.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxV13ycfG4[/youtube]

[nerdgasm]Who needs psychedelic drugs when we have visualisations of mathematical objects? [/nerdgasm]

The particularly beautiful thing about the Mandelbrot set is that it arises from asking some very straightforward mathematical questions.

You start by talking about quadratic sequences. These are sequences where each value is generated as a fixed quadratic function of the predecessor. For example, if you take the quadratic function

[math]f(x) = 2x^2 + 5x - 3

And you start with 0. Then you get the sequence 0, -3,30, 1647, ...

Now you want to know how these sequences behave in the long term. The main question you ask is: for which formulas and for which initial values does the sequence grow without limit?

It turns out that you can reduce the problem to asking about the behaviour of sequences whose quadratic formula has the form

[math]f(x) = x^2 + c

Thus, we only need to concern ourselves with values of c. So our question is: given a value of c, what starting values keep the sequence from growing without limit?

The answer is a class of fractals called the Julia sets. These sets are profoundly beautiful in their own right, but an interesting feature of them is that some are made of disjoint pieces and some are not. So the next question is: for what values of c are the Julia sets made of one solid block?

The answer is the Mandelbrot set.

Simple questions. Infinitely complex answers.

That Mandelbrot Corner is sweet.

Simple questions. Infinitely complex answers.

That's sweet too.

archibald wrote:

Yes, once you've decided which way he's turning, it's hard to get him to go the other direction.

For all those who have difficulty getting the dancer to switch directions, this composite from the twittersphere should help:
https://twitter.com/mandardhulubulu/sta ... 4532952064