jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#141  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 21, 2018 9:46 pm

SkyMutt wrote:
The superb (and almost universally forgotten) writer George Ade used capitalization for comic effect in his "fables in slang." For example, The Fable of How the Fool-Killer Backed Out of a Contract.


Mose Allison. that noted philosopher, raconteur and jazzman, apparently also weighed in on the Foolkiller:

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#142  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 21, 2018 9:57 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Truth is whichever Nature happens to be fundamental.
Attachments
Somewhat Skeptical.jpg
Somewhat Skeptical.jpg (93.97 KiB) Viewed 1026 times
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#143  Postby surreptitious57 » Feb 21, 2018 10:05 pm

Destroyer wrote:
If the fact that Nature exhibits incompatible behaviors which ALL scientists are well aware of means that there
is ghost minds I guess you need to ask them about that then

Nature does not exhibit incompatible behaviours at all. The incompatibility is with the models that humans have
devised to explain how Nature functions. So you are confusing the map with the territory. They are not the same
One is merely an approximation of the other. That is where the incompatibility arises. If Nature was incompatible
it could not actually function and so there are no such things as ghost minds
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#144  Postby surreptitious57 » Feb 21, 2018 10:23 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Unity is a faith that will never ever be demonstrated
Why? Nature happens to be paradoxical that is why. How do I know? I just do

Once again : there is no paradox or incompatibility in Nature. Only in the models used to describe it. And making a
claim that you cannot actually demonstrate proves absolutely nothing. Even if the claim is actually true [ it is not ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#145  Postby Sendraks » Feb 21, 2018 11:17 pm

Destroyer wrote: How do I know? I just do.


I missed this fantastic turd of a comment earlier and it is worth bearing down on, despite the stench.

No, you do not "just know" this. You do not "just know" anything. No one does.
Knowledge is demonstrable.
If you cannot show how you know something, then you do not know something. If you cannot provide evidence of what it is you know, then you do not know it.

If evidence of what you claim to know cannot be shown, period, then it cannot be known.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#146  Postby Keep It Real » Feb 22, 2018 3:08 am

Sendraks wrote:
Destroyer wrote: How do I know? I just do.

No, you do not "just know" this. You do not "just know" anything. No one does.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:Knowledge is demonstrable.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If you cannot show how you know something, then you do not know something.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If you cannot provide evidence of what it is you know, then you do not know it.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If evidence of what you claim to know cannot be shown, period, then it cannot be known.

Bullshit.


Well; that about wraps it up I believe fam.
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#147  Postby Greyman » Feb 22, 2018 7:36 am

Ah, the pigeon chess strategum: Knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and declare that you won.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#148  Postby Sendraks » Feb 22, 2018 9:21 am

Keep It Real wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Destroyer wrote: How do I know? I just do.

No, you do not "just know" this. You do not "just know" anything. No one does.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:Knowledge is demonstrable.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If you cannot show how you know something, then you do not know something.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If you cannot provide evidence of what it is you know, then you do not know it.

Bullshit.

Sendraks wrote:If evidence of what you claim to know cannot be shown, period, then it cannot be known.

Bullshit.


Well; that about wraps it up I believe fam.


Great argument KIR, you've convinced me.
:coffee:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#149  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 3:52 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
If the fact that Nature exhibits incompatible behaviors which ALL scientists are well aware of means that there
is ghost minds I guess you need to ask them about that then

Nature does not exhibit incompatible behaviours at all. The incompatibility is with the models that humans have
devised to explain how Nature functions. So you are confusing the map with the territory. They are not the same
One is merely an approximation of the other. That is where the incompatibility arises. If Nature was incompatible
it could not actually function and so there are no such things as ghost minds

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If the models do not demonstrate compatibility in Nature, then compatibility cannot simply be assumed. If the territory only has the appearance of Reality, but Reality actually happens to differ (because there is deliberate deception in Nature, for example) then no matter how hard one tries, the models will always show this discrepancy. So to say that the models are not the territory, is complete and utter nonsense. Without first knowing what the territory actually is - despite how it appears to be - one simply cannot assume that the models are not accurate descriptions.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#150  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 3:54 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Unity is a faith that will never ever be demonstrated
Why? Nature happens to be paradoxical that is why. How do I know? I just do

Once again : there is no paradox or incompatibility in Nature. Only in the models used to describe it. And making a
claim that you cannot actually demonstrate proves absolutely nothing. Even if the claim is actually true [ it is not ]

Once again, your ignorance is glaring.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#151  Postby SafeAsMilk » Feb 22, 2018 3:58 pm

Yeah, I mean nature intentionally trying to deceive you is WAY more likely than the two models not being complete enough to overlap. Great argument.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14261
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#152  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 4:02 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...
Yes, only two.

For information only:
Only definition, without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only.

source

ETA source.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity just won't succumb to reconciliation, no matter how hard scientists strive... Maybe there really are two distinct behaviors within a single entity. How strange and irrational is that!!!
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#153  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 4:04 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yeah, I mean nature intentionally trying to deceive you is WAY more likely than the two models not being complete enough to overlap. Great argument.

Not actually an argument, just a snippet. Maybe intelligence is just disguised/dressed-up as electrical impulses.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#154  Postby Sendraks » Feb 22, 2018 4:06 pm

Destroyer wrote:. Maybe there really are two distinct behaviors within a single entity. How strange and irrational is that!!!


Or maybe we just don't have fully working models yet.
:coffee:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#155  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 4:12 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Truth is whichever Nature happens to be fundamental.

I think you know me well enough by now, Cito.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#156  Postby SafeAsMilk » Feb 22, 2018 4:13 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Yeah, I mean nature intentionally trying to deceive you is WAY more likely than the two models not being complete enough to overlap. Great argument.

Not actually an argument, just a snippet. Maybe intelligence is just disguised/dressed-up as electrical impulses.

That must be the nice thing about spitballing, you don't have to actually defend any positions you can't defend because you're just "putting it out there". Might want to familiarize yourself with Occam's Razor, you'd find the amount of assumptions necessary to propose a deceptive disembodied intelligence is far more than simply incomplete modeling.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14261
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#157  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 4:19 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Yeah, I mean nature intentionally trying to deceive you is WAY more likely than the two models not being complete enough to overlap. Great argument.

Not actually an argument, just a snippet. Maybe intelligence is just disguised/dressed-up as electrical impulses.

That must be the nice thing about spitballing, you don't have to actually defend any positions you can't defend because you're just "putting it out there". Might want to familiarize yourself with Occam's Razor, you'd find the amount of assumptions necessary to propose a deceptive disembodied intelligence is far more than simply incomplete modeling.

It sure is a good thing that I know all the moves then, eh.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#158  Postby SafeAsMilk » Feb 22, 2018 4:20 pm

Well as long as you've got yourself convinced then that's all that really matters then, eh.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14261
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#159  Postby newolder » Feb 22, 2018 4:21 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...
Yes, only two.

For information only:
Only definition, without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only.

source

ETA source.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity just won't succumb to reconciliation, no matter how hard scientists strive... Maybe there really are two distinct behaviors within a single entity. How strange and irrational is that!!!

I know something about GR & QM and both are strange but I do not accept they are irrational. To what "single entity" do you refer. Each of GR & QM has zones of applicability but their union requires further understanding that is not yet apparent. Physicists just have to 'strive' harder. How is this problematic for your philosophy?

How does any of this relate to your misuse of only?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7308
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: jamest: a Q&A session for serious questions

#160  Postby Destroyer » Feb 22, 2018 4:24 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...
Yes, only two.

For information only:
Only definition, without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only.

source

ETA source.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity just won't succumb to reconciliation, no matter how hard scientists strive... Maybe there really are two distinct behaviors within a single entity. How strange and irrational is that!!!

I know something about GR & QM and both are strange but I do not accept they are irrational. To what "single entity" do you refer. Each of GR & QM has zones of applicability but their union requires further understanding that is not yet apparent. Physicists just have to 'strive' harder. How is this problematic for your philosophy?

How does any of this relate to your misuse of only?

They can strive all they want! The models are already telling them all they will ever find out. Nature is paradoxical. It's appearance of uniformity is misleading.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest