TopCat wrote:

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

TopCat wrote:I just read through this whole thread. Does that make me eligible for some kind of award?

The lolz are their own reward.

I was thinking two paracetamol and a glass of water.

I needed that after the first page.

Just out of historical curiosity, and at risk of getting badgered, may I ask if JamesT has ever conceded being wrong in any of the many exchanges like the one in this thread? My headache is bad enough not to want to do my own research, if you get my drift.

Not that I can recall.

He did once make an admission relating to nonspecific historic events that he'd "talked quite a lot of shit over the years" or something like that. That's the only one I can remember.

ETA: Here, possibly:
jamest @ Should creationism be taught in British schools?

jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.

Hermit wrote:

jamest wrote:Why did you report my post, Richard, having only (by your owm admission) read a fraction of it?

Because that's where all the rants are supposed to go. A man who proclaims to be neither naive, stupid nor unintelligent shouldn't even have to ask.

Your sour tone underlying your question is a surprise for the same reason. You should be grateful. Once your ranty post has been removed, the brilliance that is your concept of Truth Mills will really shine. Yes, I really mean that. The thesis that the output is not contingent upon the input is truly revolutionary, and the clarity with which you explain why this is so is unsurpassed. Cognitive and neuroscientists will make progress in their respective fields at last, if only they can be persuaded to read all about it and are not distracted by that one sustained false note. You should be really, really grateful for me having reported that post. It was an act of kindness and support.

By the way, I have reported the post I am replying to as well. Like the other one it distracts from rather than contributes to the valuable thesis you have developed. No need to thank me. Just appreciate my action for what it is: constructive.

You know, I cannot tell if you're taking the piss or not. That's the problem right there, since I automatically expect everyone to take the piss or give me a hard time. Not without justification, as I've been conditioned to expect this for close to two decades.

I guess that's my truth mill in action, processing everyones' responses as though they are definitely taking the piss. So, yes, when doing philosophy I've become sour and jaded. You have however made me become aware of the automaton I have become, so I owe you many thanks. I mean, I don't wanna be any kind of slave to my truth mill.

I also apologise for misunderstanding your reasons for reporting this thread, I guess for the same reason as stated above. However, since there is sound philosophical thinking at the heart of it all, I really don't want the thread moved from philosophy.

I will try hard from now on not to be automatically sour/jaded when doing philosophy here. If I succeed, which won't be easy, I'll send you a free robe and sandals. Thank you, squire.

jamest wrote:
I will try hard from now on not to be automatically sour/jaded when I start doing philosophy here. If I succeed, and that might be soon, who knows which though I know itwon't be easy compared to my past efforts, I'll send you a free robe and sandals. Thank you, squire.

FIFY

felltoearth wrote:

jamest wrote:
I will try hard from now on not to be automatically sour/jaded when I start doing philosophy here. If I succeed, and that might be soon, who knows which though I know itwon't be easy compared to my past efforts, I'll send you a free robe and sandals. Thank you, squire.

FIFY

You can shove that response up your Thanks mate.

I might colour code those later too, in reference to whether this topic is being taken seriously.

For now, perhaps it's just worth pointing out: 2 posts tonight (and counting), 2 posts with no attempt to be on topic, or to make a cogent philosophical point whether seriously or otherwise.

PS: I should add that I'm not saying anyone should, or has, to take this seriously. I'm merely trying to communicate an obvious truth about who does not, in fact, take it seriously. It is perfectly acceptable to me that the resolution to this thread ends up being a simple recognition of that truth, even if further on topic, constructive, well-argued posts would be preferable.

Thommo wrote:I might colour code those later too, in reference to whether this topic is being taken seriously.

For now, perhaps it's just worth pointing out: 2 posts tonight (and counting), 2 posts with no attempt to be on topic, or to make a cogent philosophical point whether seriously or otherwise.

There was actually a philosophical point made in response to Hermit, which is that truth mills can affect your demeanour sufficient to dictate your style of output. You probably have the same condition as me, as you've probably been worried about your arsehole every time you talk to me for the last few years which has probably affected the tone of your output to me. I mean, my truth mill has turned me into a grumpy cunt when I do philosophy, I'll concede that fact. As I said, I've been conditioned to expect piss-taking etc. nearly all of the time, to the extent that my truth mill yields an output of sour/jaded (and angry) responses.

I'm now ashamed of that fact, because I don't actually want to sound like a hurt cunt every time that I speak. I don't want to be a soft touch either, but for the most part I don't want to be a slave to my truth mill. I can only hope that I have the resources to turn this around for the better. Only time will tell.

Three out of three.

Thommo wrote:Three out of three.

I don't know what you mean squire, but if it's a piss take gimme a hug and if it's not then gimme a hug. Hermit has given me a lot to think about, so give me some time to think about it.

So what would it look like if you were a slave to your truth mill, jamest? Isn't your philosophy your truth mill? It seems like you run pretty much everything through it.

I mean that's three (now four) posts tonight, added together to the seven last night which make no attempt to make a cogent philosophical argument and are instead wholly given over to matters of self-indulgence, self-reflection, self-congratulation or insult.

This is counting from the point at which you expressed offence at the suggestion you weren't taking the topic seriously (as a matter of philosophy that would change the entire world).

I think I can probably glean (although with some degree of uncertainty) that today's usage of "truth mills" probably isn't the "bigoted cunts" one, from your self-reference of the concept, but that doesn't seem to add constructively to any of the open issues that were raised:

What precisely is a truth mill?
When a truth mill is present (negatively) or malfunctioning, how is that to be discerned?
What added value does the concept of a "truth mill" bring?
Why does the assertion that the output of skulls does not depend on the input to them not matter?
Why is the concept of "truth mills" a challenge for evolutionary theory?
Why did you assert (again falsely) that identical brains can think different things?
etc.

PS: And I know I'm straying from my attempt to keep this on topic: The fact you felt that Hermit's post, which dripped with sarcasm and was one of the most obvious piss-takes of the entire thread has allegedly led to you pausing for thought genuinely made me spill my drink with laughter. I did wonder whether this was merely some kind of reaction to your realisation that he reported you for offtopic rather than moderator intervention on a personal level too.

I don't know about Truth Mills, but if you bring up Heather Mills you don't have a leg to stand on.

SafeAsMilk wrote:So what would it look like if you were a slave to your truth mill, jamest? Isn't your philosophy your truth mill? It seems like you run pretty much everything through it.

My philosophy seeped through the truth mill of both religion and science. That speaks for itself, as I'm definitely no parrot. I therefore thought I had more-or-less dismantled it, but now see that it's still there affecting my demeanour/attitude.

I don't want to be a soft touch, as stated, but I am being genuine when I say that I'm ashamed to have realised that it has negatively affected my tone over the years. I mean, I don't want to dismantle the humour/banter/attitude in my posts, but I no longer want to feel angry and jaded every time I enter this particular sub-forum. If I can rid myself of those feelings, I'll be happy.

Five out of five.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:So what would it look like if you were a slave to your truth mill, jamest? Isn't your philosophy your truth mill? It seems like you run pretty much everything through it.

My philosophy seeped through the truth mill of both religion and science. That speaks for itself, as I'm definitely no parrot.

That's not really an answer to the question, though. Your philosophy is, by your own definition, your truth mill. So what would it look like if you were a slave to that truth mill?

I therefore thought I had more-or-less dismantled it, but now see that it's still there affecting my demeanour/attitude.

I don't want to dismantle the humour/banter/attitude in my posts,

If calling people names and then pretending you're beer buddies with them is the humour/banter/attitude in your posts, then it needs a tune-up at least!

If I can rid myself of those feelings, I'll be happy.

Not sure if you can, I think it'll take a certain amount of self-reflection, but I'm definitely rootin' for ya.

And I know I'm straying from my attempt to keep this on topic: The fact you felt that Hermit's post, which dripped with sarcasm and was one of the most obvious piss-takes of the entire thread has allegedly led to you pausing for thought genuinely made me spill my drink with laughter. I did wonder whether this was merely some kind of reaction to your realisation that he reported you for offtopic rather than moderator intervention on a personal level too.[/size]

I'm going to bed soon so only have time to respond to this bit of your post.

I'm a genuine bloke. I don't do politics. If I see a cunt I'll get the badger out. That's the way it's always been with me. I've even been in the feedback forum in recent times telling LIFE to get his finger out of his arse, so I don't lick arse if that's what you're asking.

Secondly, I also questioned Hermit's post, as evident, but it doesn't really matter whether he's taking the piss because I personally have realised something valuable from it either way. That's why he deserves my thanks, whether he wants them or not.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Your philosophy is, by your own definition, your truth mill.

No, that's not correct, since I have never stated that. My bottom-line is that truth mills usually fuck-up our output. but I have not anywhere stated that anyone of us cannot transcend them. That's what I've been talking about tonight, for instance - transcending my automated anger/frustration/jadedness produced by my truth mill.

Anyway, must hit the pillow now. Fare thee well, fellows.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Your philosophy is, by your own definition, your truth mill.

No, that's not correct, since I have never stated that.

Yes, you did:

Anyway, for me the term was meant as a reference for the approach/method in which we address and process any input or idea. This is usually dictated by previously accepted dogma residing within the skull, such that the incoming idea is processed in that light.

Post #12.

My bottom-line is that truth mills usually fuck-up our output.

Yeah, I get that. So I'm trying to figure out why you're so sure that your philosophy, your truth mill, is not fucking up your output.

but I have not anywhere stated that anyone of us cannot transcend them. That's what I've been talking about tonight, for instance - transcending my automated anger/frustration/jadedness produced by my truth mill.

So you're saying you need to transcend your philosophy?

Thommo wrote:
PS: And I know I'm straying from my attempt to keep this on topic: The fact you felt that Hermit's post, which dripped with sarcasm and was one of the most obvious piss-takes of the entire thread has allegedly led to you pausing for thought genuinely made me spill my drink with laughter. I did wonder whether this was merely some kind of reaction to your realisation that he reported you for offtopic rather than moderator intervention on a personal level too.

At this juncture I feel compelled to confess that I have not reported any post in this thread. My lies were playful means to make a point, perchance to help James take a step back in order to gain a wider perspective on what he is doing.

Also, my posts may or may not have contained traces of peanuts sarcasm for the same reason. I've kind of worked out that ad homs are singularly unhelpful in any debate (still listening, James?), so I'm trying to wean myself off indulging in them. This is a difficult thing to do, at least for me. Sarcasm is becoming my methadone, a sort of halfway house between direct insults and sticking strictly and sometimes boringly to whatever issue is being discussed.

jamest wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

jamest wrote:
I will try hard from now on not to be automatically sour/jaded when I start doing philosophy here. If I succeed, and that might be soon, who knows which though I know itwon't be easy compared to my past efforts, I'll send you a free robe and sandals. Thank you, squire.

FIFY

You can shove that response up your Thanks mate.

I'll decline but you're most welcome.

So, this "truth mill" ... how exactly is it defined, again? Only deciphering the wibble of JamesT's posts adds an inordinate amount of extra effort that probably isn't worth expending.

However, if this concept is simply a shorthand for force-fitting data to presuppositions, in the manner that has been subject to much discoursive ordnance by myself and others here, then all he seems to be doing, is admitting that our critiques of this process are entirely right and proper, though, as per usual, in his own hilariously idiosyncratic manner. But he probably doesn't want to go down that road unless forced to, because this would require him to turn the weapon on his own assertionist bollocks.

Though there's another problem that looms large here, namely, that his outpourings contain within them, an implicit inability to differentiate between ideas that are mutually reinforcing because they are both logically valid and in accord with observational data, and ideas that are reinforced by the use of rectal fabrications as mortar between the bricks.