The concept of Truth Mills

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

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#21  Postby Keep It Real » Oct 20, 2018 7:05 pm

A truth mill is like a parachute - it only works if it's...erm...designed by scientists.
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#22  Postby jamest » Oct 21, 2018 12:33 am

Thommo wrote:
There is no mystery for evolution to solve here. Different, but similar structures behaving in different but similar ways is to be expected. Nobody thinks all human brains are identical, they obviously are not, they vary in mass by as much as 20% within a normal range, they have different fine level structures, and in some cases have larger structural differences observable in, say, an MRI.

It's bleedin' obvious that no two brains are identical just as no two faces are identical, but this is not an explanation for the diversity of opinions 'we' have about all manner of concerns.

Mr X's opinion about something can change in an instant, swapping belief B for belief C. The reason for this swap would be reason and/or empirical evidence. If X's brain believes B and then a few seconds later C, with the potential to change back to B or some other alternate DEFGH... ,then it is clear that any particular brain can be host to any particular idea at any time.

Further, numerous people share the same opinions about something (or indeed many things) and since they all have different brains this also puts paid to the notion that brain size/structure is responsible for the specific opinions that we have.

We can only gauge the formulation of someone's opinion about something by listening to their reasons for having that opinion. Within any detailed narrative we might observe assumptions, erroneous reasoning and/or knowledge, bias, bigotry, etc., such that ultimately we could comprehend how they came to have that opinion without actually agreeing with it. In other words we'd understand how their own particular truth mill had led them to have a bullshit opinion about something. Nothing to do with the guy or gal's brain as they have the potential to change their opinion in an instant using the exact same brain.

There is of course also the additional irony that having said in the OP that science is metaphysically impotent, you're here arguing for a metaphysical position based on science. Which is another, recurring, self-contradiction.

Your truth mill is in obvious need of a little oiling.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#23  Postby Thommo » Oct 21, 2018 1:01 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
There is no mystery for evolution to solve here. Different, but similar structures behaving in different but similar ways is to be expected. Nobody thinks all human brains are identical, they obviously are not, they vary in mass by as much as 20% within a normal range, they have different fine level structures, and in some cases have larger structural differences observable in, say, an MRI.

It's bleedin' obvious that no two brains are identical just as no two faces are identical


That's right, and it's why I wasn't suggesting otherwise, and why it's a mystery that you were.

jamest wrote:but this is not an explanation for the diversity of opinions 'we' have about all manner of concerns.


It is. A diversity of brains is indeed an explanation for a diversity of opinions.

For once I wish you'd argue, rather than assume and assert these propositions.

jamest wrote:Mr X's opinion about something can change in an instant, swapping belief B for belief C. The reason for this swap would be reason and/or empirical evidence. If X's brain believes B and then a few seconds later C, with the potential to change back to B or some other alternate DEFGH... ,then it is clear that any particular brain can be host to any particular idea at any time.


That's actually a non sequitur. That brains can at some time, subject to some background, some structure and some evidence hold a conclusion A is not evidence that the same brain at that time, subject to the same background, the same structure and the same evidence hold a contradictory conclusion B.

What you're stating here (badly) is a direct contradiction of what you at the head of this post you referred to as "bleedin' obvious". Any particular brain cannot hold any idea at any time. This is merely woolly thinking, and even woolier language for indeterminacy of what a particular brain thinks at a particular time.

That people can sometimes change their mind under some circumstances is completely distinct, rationally speaking, from people always changing their mind under all circumstances.

jamest wrote:Further, numerous people share the same opinions about something (or indeed many things) and since they all have different brains this also puts paid to the notion that brain size/structure is responsible for the specific opinions that we have.


Obviously not. That's just a non sequitur or "logic fail". People's brains have similarities as well as differences. It's moronic to suggest a priori that the similarities cannot explain the similarities and the differences also explain the differences.

jamest wrote: Nothing to do with the guy or gal's brain as they have the potential to change their opinion in an instant using the exact same brain.


That is merely presumption. You need to argue for these things if you want to aspire to philosophy, rather than fail at it.

There's a clue to your error here in your inclusion of the word "exact". Nobody's brain is "exactly" the same from one moment to the next. Nobody thinks that.

jamest wrote:
There is of course also the additional irony that having said in the OP that science is metaphysically impotent, you're here arguing for a metaphysical position based on science. Which is another, recurring, self-contradiction.

Your truth mill is in obvious need of a little oiling.


Why is that? Run me through exactly how science can be useless in arguing metaphysical postions, whilst simultaneously being useful in arguing for metaphysical positions that jamest happens to get a chubby for.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#24  Postby LucidFlight » Oct 21, 2018 2:12 am

God is giggling, trolling physicalists with confusing brains and metaphysically-impotent science.

Anyway, if you're looking for the earliest mention of "truth mill", look here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1828260.html?#p1828260
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#25  Postby Hermit » Oct 21, 2018 8:17 am

jamest wrote:...the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period...

I just put your assertion regarding the reach of the search engine to the test, using two words for the search criteria. They are 'psychology' and 'philosophy'. The search facility returned 1678 matches. The earliest one it found is dated Feb 26, 2010 2:47 am (Central Australian Daylight Saving Time), a day after this forum was opened to the public. Your assertion is false.

jamest wrote:...it's been several years since I first coined the term. I've just tried searching for the original post in which I mention it... If someone else can find it, that would be useful.

The earliest post in which you mention your 'truth mill' is dated Oct 14, 2013 8:43 pm (Central Australian Daylight Saving Time). Please note that the date matches what you wrote in the first sentence of your opening post in this thread well enough. :coffee:

So there. You got the message from several sources now. If that fails to convince you, you could always test it out yourself.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 70
Male

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#26  Postby Thommo » Oct 21, 2018 12:40 pm

Hermit wrote:
jamest wrote:...the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period...

I just put your assertion regarding the reach of the search engine to the test, using two words for the search criteria. They are 'psychology' and 'philosophy'. The search facility returned 1678 matches. The earliest one it found is dated Feb 26, 2010 2:47 am (Central Australian Daylight Saving Time), a day after this forum was opened to the public. Your assertion is false.


Weird. Four of us all investigated this claim of whether the forum search function has a five year limit: jamest, Thommo, LucidFlight and Hermit.

Three of us all easily ascertained by testing that it did not, when we put it through our "truth mill". One, mistakenly concluded (presumably after incomplete testing and faulty generalisation) that it did not, after putting it through his "truth mill".

It's notable that the one whose "truth mill" failed is the same person who is complaining that the "truth mill" of everyone else must be faulty because they disagree with his. It almost feels like a microcosm of the thread and many others like it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#27  Postby laklak » Oct 21, 2018 1:51 pm

The Truth Mill grinds slow, but it grinds fine. This is why "cogitate" rhymes with "constipate".
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 70
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#28  Postby jamest » Oct 21, 2018 11:48 pm

Thommo wrote:
Hermit wrote:
jamest wrote:...the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period...

I just put your assertion regarding the reach of the search engine to the test, using two words for the search criteria. They are 'psychology' and 'philosophy'. The search facility returned 1678 matches. The earliest one it found is dated Feb 26, 2010 2:47 am (Central Australian Daylight Saving Time), a day after this forum was opened to the public. Your assertion is false.


Weird. Four of us all investigated this claim of whether the forum search function has a five year limit: jamest, Thommo, LucidFlight and Hermit.

If I were in a bad mood I'd shove something frozen up all of your four asses, but instead I'll just calmly expose you all for the charlatans that you are.

I have made NO claims NOR assertions about the search engine here. Instead, I stated, in words/grammar which indicates explicitly my uncertainty on the matter that "I've just tried searching for the original post in which I mention it but the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period and didn't find it?"

For any cunt with a semblance of honesty/sincerity, those three important [highlighted] aspects of that sentence (especially the question mark) would/should serve to show to any average (of intelligence) person that I was both unsure of my searching skills and the results I obtained from them, as indeed I was as otherwise I wouldn't have used such grammar. When I'm certain of things, I'm not shy of letting you all know, as you all know. This, btw, was from post 12 on the first page, so go and fucking check for yourselves.

Since from experience I would personally judge the intelligence of 'the four' here to be relatively high, especially that of Thommo, you will have to forgive me for exposing these beings for what they are. Not to condemn them, but for a higher purpose. So...

Secondly, this thread has got fuck all to do with ratskep search engines, yet note how they all want to gang up and make it thus in order to undermine me. This is a common theme here, as I've often noticed during my years' tenure here and elsewhere: to undermine the poster in order to undermine his posts. Fucking childish and pathetic, not least moronic, even if effective in securing thumbs-ups from like-minded people - yet unsurprising since it's consistent with those of a bigoted nature. I've witnessed this kind of shit for years, from day one. Never EVER did one of them deter me from proceeding, as STILL they do not, but now I shall do my utmost to deter them, even if that includes you. There is no place for bigots in the future's grand plan and for those that haven't yet gleaned this fact, every victim of a truth mill is a fucking bigot.

I escaped the truth mill years ago. If this weren't true then none of my philosophy, including this thread, would have been possible. If I can do it then any cunt can. Including you.

Call in the engineers people, because you're all fucked. I said earlier in the thread that my concept of Truth Mills is as important to my philosophy as any other concept I have ever mentioned, including that of God, since there's no point in standing before any audience and presenting your case for God when the audience are all fucking victims/puppets of the machinery/mill that spews out their own retarded responses to it.


Thommo has been trying to make me look like a cunt for close to a decade. I don't give a fuck. I'd still buy him a pint tomorrow. I'd still buy any of you a pint tomorrow. What I've now realised more than anything here 'on Earth', is that we are nearly all slaves to our truth mills, even from birth. To the extent that even intelligent people will do and say anything to preserve the integrity thereof.

The evidence of this thread shows four intelligent people acting like cunts as a means to undermining me, not my idea. The evidence of every thread I've ever started exhibits the same theme. You'll find that evidence, if you look/search sincerely.


THE POINT of this thread is that philosophy is worthless unless discussed within a room full of people who have told the manager of their truth mills to fuck off. That is why, until you do, it is pointless for any of you to be here.

Two concepts will save the world. One is God, the other is truth mills, since acknowledgement of them will free us to find the former.
Last edited by jamest on Oct 22, 2018 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#29  Postby Thommo » Oct 21, 2018 11:51 pm

Uh-huh.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#30  Postby LucidFlight » Oct 22, 2018 12:03 am

I'm pretty sure that if God wanted to experience truth mills, God would experience truth mills.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#31  Postby Thommo » Oct 22, 2018 12:04 am

Oh my god, what have you done to your avatar! :cry:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#32  Postby jamest » Oct 22, 2018 12:10 am

LucidFlight wrote:I'm pretty sure that if God wanted to experience truth mills, God would experience truth mills.

I have no objection to the notion that 'God' allows for truth mills or even war, or any other shit you might care to mention. As long as you have no objection to the notion that God also allows for puppets like jamest to put an end to it all. Omega.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#33  Postby jamest » Oct 22, 2018 12:13 am

Thommo wrote:Oh my god, what have you done to your avatar! :cry:

He's been through the mill, give him a break.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#34  Postby jamest » Oct 22, 2018 12:25 am

Thommo wrote:Uh-huh.

What a swift and obviously cuntish riposte to such a serious post. Again.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#35  Postby SafeAsMilk » Oct 22, 2018 12:29 am

Thommo wrote:Oh my god, what have you done to your avatar! :cry:

I'm having a tough time with it as well.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 44
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#36  Postby SafeAsMilk » Oct 22, 2018 12:34 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Hermit wrote:
jamest wrote:...the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period...

I just put your assertion regarding the reach of the search engine to the test, using two words for the search criteria. They are 'psychology' and 'philosophy'. The search facility returned 1678 matches. The earliest one it found is dated Feb 26, 2010 2:47 am (Central Australian Daylight Saving Time), a day after this forum was opened to the public. Your assertion is false.


Weird. Four of us all investigated this claim of whether the forum search function has a five year limit: jamest, Thommo, LucidFlight and Hermit.

If I were in a bad mood I'd shove something frozen up all of your four asses, but instead I'll just calmly expose you all for the charlatans that you are.

I have made NO claims NOR assertions about the search engine here. Instead, I stated, in words/grammar which indicates explicitly my uncertainty on the matter that "I've just tried searching for the original post in which I mention it but the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period and didn't find it?"

For any cunt with a semblance of honesty/sincerity, those three important [highlighted] aspects of that sentence (especially the question mark) would/should serve to show to any average (of intelligence) person that I was both unsure of my searching skills and the results I obtained from them, as indeed I was as otherwise I wouldn't have used such grammar. When I'm certain of things, I'm not shy of letting you all know, as you all know. This, btw, was from post 12 on the first page, so go and fucking check for yourselves.

Since from experience I would personally judge the intelligence of 'the four' here to be relatively high, especially that of Thommo, you will have to forgive me for exposing these beings for what they are. Not to condemn them, but for a higher purpose. So...

Secondly, this thread has got fuck all to do with ratskep search engines, yet note how they all want to gang up and make it thus in order to undermine me. This is a common theme here, as I've often noticed during my years' tenure here and elsewhere: to undermine the poster in order to undermine his posts. Fucking childish and pathetic, not least moronic, even if effective in securing thumbs-ups from like-minded people - yet unsurprising since it's consistent with those of a bigoted nature. I've witnessed this kind of shit for years, from day one. Never EVER did one of them deter me from proceeding, as STILL they do not, but now I shall do my utmost to deter them, even if that includes you. There is no place for bigots in the future's grand plan and for those that haven't yet gleaned this fact, every victim of a truth mill is a fucking bigot.

I escaped the truth mill years ago. If this weren't true then none of my philosophy, including this thread, would have been possible. If I can do it then any cunt can. Including you.

Call in the engineers people, because you're all fucked. I said earlier in the thread that my concept of Truth Mills is as important to my philosophy as any other concept I have ever mentioned, including that of God, since there's no point in standing before any audience and presenting your case for God when the audience are all fucking victims/puppets of the machinery/mill that spews out their own retarded responses to it.


Thommo has been trying to make me look like a cunt for close to a decade. I don't give a fuck. I'd still buy him a pint tomorrow. I'd still buy any of you a pint tomorrow. What I've now realised more than anything here 'on Earth', is that we are nearly all slaves to our truth mills, even from birth. To the extent that even intelligent people will do and say anything to preserve the integrity thereof.

The evidence of this thread shows four intelligent people acting like cunts as a means to undermining me, not my idea. The evidence of every thread I've ever started exhibits the same theme. You'll find that evidence, if you look/search sincerely.


THE POINT of this thread is that philosophy is worthless unless discussed within a room full of people who have told the manager of their truth mills to fuck off. That is why, until you do, it is pointless for any of you to be here.

Two concepts will save the world. One is God, the other is truth mills, since acknowledgement of them will free us to find the former.

That was absolutely amazing. Thank you.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 44
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#37  Postby jamest » Oct 22, 2018 12:40 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
That was absolutely amazing. Thank you.

No need to thank the messenger/puppet. Indeed, no need to thank, just think.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#38  Postby Thommo » Oct 22, 2018 12:52 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Uh-huh.

What a swift and obviously cuntish riposte to such a serious post. Again.


It didn't read like a serious post to me at all. It read like an angry rant that contradicted previous posts, and turned others into not-so-thinly veiled personal attacks.

For example:
You here accuse the group of people "victims of truth mills" of being "fucking bigots:
jamest wrote:There is no place for bigots in the future's grand plan and for those that haven't yet gleaned this fact, every victim of a truth mill is a fucking bigot.

I escaped the truth mill years ago.

And say that you escaped (presumably do not have [a]) truth mills years ago.

And yet, in your inconsistent previous uses, you've variously accused members of being victims of truth mills, and hence being "fucking bigots":
jamest wrote:But the problem is, they're always run through the fucked-up truth mills of people like Cali and Rumraket, who think that observational evidence is of metaphysical (materialist) value.

jamest wrote: Making informed choices involves running the evidence through the 'truth mill', which involves having a belief about what constitutes evidence.

jamest wrote:I am also confident that they're not accepted because the truth mills of most individuals here are rusted to the point of seizure. Yours included.


And included yourself in the group of people who have a truth mill and are hence a "fucking bigot":
jamest wrote:My own truth mill has been utterly cleansed of all bollocks. The proof is in the pudding, since there is nobody else like me. Anywhere, on Earth. That's not a boast, it's a fact.


You also (in three-way mutual contradiction with the view that truth mills are the province of "fucking bigots" and truth mills being required for deciding what constitutes evidence) have declared that truth mills is "exactly like" the much better known concept of a Morton's demon:
jamest wrote:Just a quick point:

hackenslash wrote:
Fourth, and an informative exercise for you, I think, would be to investigate 'Morton's Demon'.

Having looked it up, it sounds exactly like my recent conception of a 'truth mill'. Did you witness that conversation/thread?


-----

What else did you say?
  • You confused a group of four people which included yourself with a group of four people that didn't include yourself, which I guess showed you weren't really paying attention to the post you tried to lay into.
  • You made a song and dance over whether you'd explicitly said "claim", even though nobody said you did - that didn't seem worth debating.
  • There was the usual sprinkling of personalisations, badgers, buying pints and grandiose proclamations that I've explained far too many times already bore me to tears.
  • You whined a bit about thumbs up, again, a familiar refrain.
  • You groundlessly accused me of trying to make you look like a cunt for a decade - I haven't, didn't seem worth saying though.
  • You then pick up again on your refrain of including yourself in a group you refer to as both cunts trying to undermine you and intelligent - a clear FUA violation, but not one I really care about, especially given the clear scattergun approach you're taking as you didn't even pay attention to the fact you were in that group.
  • You finally end up by saying that your thread is worthless given your audience - I don't disagree, although given that you knew your audience before you started, and hence must have realised in advance that it was worthless to create it... meh
  • Finally there's a meaningless overblown and ludicrously pompous claim that the half baked and inconsistently used term truth mills is going to save the world - I guess I can say "lol, no" to that if you like? Or "he who claims bears the burden of evidence"? :dunno:

So, uh yeah. Given I had made a post earlier in the thread specifically outlining my theoretical objections to the topic I wasn't impressed. Didn't seem worth getting into it, given that this seems like another late night post following a... certain pattern that's previously been commented on.

And all that led me to...

Uh-huh. I almost added :dunno:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#39  Postby SafeAsMilk » Oct 22, 2018 1:31 am

jamest wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
That was absolutely amazing. Thank you.

No need to thank the messenger/puppet. Indeed, no need to thank, just think.

Who would've thunk it.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 44
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The concept of Truth Mills

#40  Postby jamest » Oct 22, 2018 1:32 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Uh-huh.

What a swift and obviously cuntish riposte to such a serious post. Again.


It didn't read like a serious post to me at all. It read like an angry rant that contradicted previous posts, and turned others into not-so-thinly veiled personal attacks.

The badgers have remained in the freezer this night. I have been both calm and forgiving.

James has been struggling with his own strings for a few years, but he doesn't like to talk about it. He's still a puppet worthy of my interest though, so give him a break perhaps.

Good night, squire.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18934
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron