Opinion of this debate... Me and Bono... I have permission to post this BTW
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:57:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Opinion of this debate... Me and Bono... I have permission to post this BTW
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Opinion of this debate... Me and Bono... I have permission to post this BTW  (Read 2746 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 06, 2008, 04:55:22 PM »

supersoulty (4:57:35 PM): Time for more Fun with Alcon

FreedomBono (4:57:42 PM): Oh?

supersoulty (4:58:02 PM): In this episode, we piss him off by not answering the philosophical question with one of the two options provided

FreedomBono (4:58:19 PM): Lol you mean with gustaf?

supersoulty (4:58:41 PM): Yeah, but Alcon is the one I am going back and forth with now

FreedomBono (4:58:51 PM): Yea i just saw
FreedomBono (4:59:25 PM): And a trained money can pick an answer, but he cant answer the question because he doesnt actually understand it

supersoulty (5:00:27 PM): Not so.  Apes can be trained to understand possitive and negative consequences of their actions.  What seperates us from them is that we don't need as much training and that we can imagine other possibilities.

FreedomBono (5:00:55 PM): uh yes but they can0t understand a question

supersoulty (5:01:05 PM): They can understand the situation
supersoulty (5:01:38 PM): If you took them out to show them a demonstration then they could grasp what would happen
supersoulty (5:02:14 PM): If you did that, and tied their ape friends to a track and said, okay JimJim... chose

supersoulty (5:02:20 PM): The ape woudl get it

FreedomBono (5:03:06 PM): hm
FreedomBono (5:03:16 PM): they wouldnt understnad the philosophical implications of it though

supersoulty (5:04:50 PM): Oh... wow... because contemplating Kant is really important to the question as possed.  I know that, shoudl this happen, I would be thinking "what would Plato think" as I decided what to do

FreedomBono (5:05:05 PM): but that's no the point
FreedomBono (5:05:36 PM): that isn't supposed to be a real situation--que question is about what a person should do, not about what they bwould do if actually posed with the situation

supersoulty (5:06:27 PM): Well, if the situation isn't real, then of what good is it to bring a totally abstract concept to light by introducing it as a real world decision?

FreedomBono (5:06:44 PM): because it serves to better illustrate something
FreedomBono (5:07:00 PM): i think you're having some sort of positivist allergic reaction to philosophy

supersoulty (5:08:57 PM): I simply don't see the reason for possing a question that is not intended to be answered in a manner that makes it sound as though it were.  I'm more than capable of discussing it, but then I would be admiting defeat by accepting the premise of the question, which someone should never do unless they have exhusted all other options

FreedomBono (5:09:24 PM): Why do you have to turn everything into a zero sum game
FreedomBono (5:10:06 PM): As Gustaf said, a philosophical example isn't a game where you're supposed to find out the catch
FreedomBono (5:10:41 PM): he world isn't out to get you

supersoulty (5:11:00 PM): See, this is why I hate mathmatics... the second you ask "why" the whole system breaks down

FreedomBono (5:11:14 PM): not relly, it's self evident

supersoulty (5:12:14 PM): No, it really isn't.  If calculus were so self-evident, then people would struggle through it.

FreedomBono (5:12:37 PM): the basics of it are self evident--everything else is just an elaboration upon the self evident permoses
FreedomBono (5:12:39 PM): *permises

supersoulty (5:13:01 PM): And if it were slef-evident, then people would be able to explain it, rather than just saying "its self-evident"
supersoulty (5:13:15 PM): When things are self-evident, you don't need to learn a process to understand them

FreedomBono (5:13:30 PM): can you explain why an infinite number of straight lines ass through a point
FreedomBono (5:13:44 PM): no, axioms can't be demonstrated, they can only be shown

supersoulty (5:14:03 PM): I think we are talking about two seperate things here.
supersoulty (5:14:13 PM): If it can be shown then it can be explained.
supersoulty (5:14:22 PM): Calculus is purely abstract

FreedomBono (5:14:36 PM): can you explain why an infinite number of straight lines pass through a point?
FreedomBono (5:14:44 PM): calculus is purely a development of algebra
FreedomBono (5:14:51 PM): and algebra is based on axioms

supersoulty (5:15:22 PM): Eitherway, I don't know why you think everyone is out to get me.
supersoulty (5:15:29 PM): Or why you think I think that
supersoulty (5:15:37 PM): That was out of nowhere

FreedomBono (5:15:51 PM): supersoulty (22:09:13): I simply don't see the reason for possing a question that is not intended to be answered in a manner that makes it sound as though it were.  I'm more than capable of discussing it, but then I would be admiting defeat by accepting the premise of the question, which someone should never do unless they have exhusted all other options

supersoulty (5:16:05 PM): So?

FreedomBono (5:16:37 PM): so its not as if the person asking the question is looking to win over you

supersoulty (5:16:46 PM): I didn't say that.
supersoulty (5:16:51 PM): Did I?

FreedomBono (5:17:15 PM): it's implied

supersoulty (5:18:10 PM): I was simply saying that not exploring all possible options and sticking to a purely linear thought pattern leads to situations where you don't win, because you confine yourlself to limited thinking and thus never afford yourself the best possible option
supersoulty (5:18:29 PM): Most people defeat themselves
supersoulty (5:18:36 PM): They don't need others to do it for them
supersoulty (5:20:45 PM): Of course, those who believe in free will are bound to approuch a subject differently than those who do not...
supersoulty (5:20:49 PM): .

FreedomBono (5:20:57 PM): *rolls eyes*

supersoulty (5:21:06 PM): Well, its true.
supersoulty (5:21:37 PM): I didn't intend it as a dig

FreedomBono (5:21:43 PM): hmm

supersoulty (5:22:13 PM): If one doesn't believe in free will, then one is more inclined to trust the process.  Is that not the case?

FreedomBono (5:22:30 PM): Not necessarily
FreedomBono (5:22:39 PM): I admit there may be an inclination, but not a necesity

supersoulty (5:23:13 PM): Perhaps not all the time, but ultimately, not placing faith in the process means an inconsistancy of thought

FreedomBono (5:23:31 PM): not really, we can just be predetermined to be screed
FreedomBono (5:23:33 PM): *screwed

supersoulty (5:23:54 PM): In which case, you are stating that you think there si a process to your failures

FreedomBono (5:24:07 PM): that doesnt mean i rust it though

supersoulty (5:24:45 PM): I didn't mean "trust" as in you love it, stroke it and think its great... simply that you feel that the process exists and that all things follow it

FreedomBono (5:25:14 PM): ok, in this case, you might be predetermined to find a fault in the process
FreedomBono (5:25:16 PM): happy?

supersoulty (5:25:31 PM): I wasn't attacking you
supersoulty (5:25:38 PM): You are the one being defensive
supersoulty (5:25:42 PM): Not me
supersoulty (5:25:57 PM): I was just trying to open up the discussion

FreedomBono (5:26:39 PM): i thought you were trying to show an inherent flaw in the determins worldview

supersoulty (5:27:03 PM): Well, I was hoping to eventually, but I was just making conversation
supersoulty (5:27:26 PM): I was more explaining my viewpoint that anythign else
FreedomBono (5:27:27 PM): see, it was just a preentive strike
supersoulty (5:29:30 PM): Dude... calm down.  You are acting defensive, because you thought I was being defensive and I wasn't.  I'm simply stating that I don't accept the premise that a stupid ass "real, but theoretical" question can ever really get to the heart of truth.

FreedomBono (5:30:18 PM): that's because you have an empiricist bias
FreedomBono (5:30:35 PM): you don't like theorethical thinking because you think it vindicates rationalis
FreedomBono (5:30:37 PM): m
FreedomBono (5:30:48 PM): hence your dislke of math

supersoulty (5:31:02 PM): No... I don't like rationalism because I think its all bullhunk
supersoulty (5:31:31 PM): Rationalism works of the claim that things are the way they are because I think they are that way
supersoulty (5:31:58 PM): As opposed to my view which is that I think the way I think because of the way things are

FreedomBono (5:32:27 PM): accepting the way things are is iself a thinking process

supersoulty (5:32:42 PM): Yes, but it isn't an imagined one
supersoulty (5:33:02 PM): And I also work off the assumption that I can change the way things are.
supersoulty (5:33:11 PM): As can anyone else.
FreedomBono (5:34:57 PM): I'm not sure i understand what you're getting at. Rationalism simply claims that reason is the source of knowledge, not that we create our own reality or whatever
supersoulty (5:36:11 PM): But that is ultimately what the rationalist concludes, because the rationalist believes that the process of finding and creating knowledge is based largely on ideas.  I contend that the scource of ideas is what is known.

FreedomBono (5:36:39 PM): and i contend that without reason, sensory information is meaningless

supersoulty (5:37:28 PM): With out sensory infomation, reason woudl be meaningless, since the very notion of reason without sensory infomation is uslessly abstract at its core.
supersoulty (5:38:47 PM): BTW... this woudl be a good thread, mind if I post this convo?

FreedomBono (5:41:09 PM): but moderate rationalists don't deny that. to quote kant, just because knowledge begins with experience, it doesn't follow that it arises from experience
FreedomBono (5:41:13 PM): and i don't mind, go ahead
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2008, 05:10:09 PM »

And still more:

supersoulty (5:41:42 PM): Sure, rationalism can be moderate, but you arent affraid to accuse any other theory of being reductionist
supersoulty (5:45:04 PM): I was even fair and gave you the last word

FreedomBono (5:45:16 PM): ha well thanks i guess

supersoulty (5:47:27 PM): Well, what say you about the point I raised.  How is the rational view point not reductionist.  Why is it ammune from extremes
supersoulty (5:47:42 PM): immune

FreedomBono (5:48:34 PM): well, i didn't see you positing any middle ground empiricism, while I am drawing in a position with a great hitorical precedent
supersoulty (5:50:30 PM): Oh, please.  Appeal to authority, you shoudl know better.  We are debating... we don't have to cart out other theorists and claim their superiority to debate.  And I rarely ever use the reductionist argument unless I see an obvious logical flaw which leads to it, such as someone saying "nothing can be known"... you use it as a weapon all the time
FreedomBono (5:50:50 PM): you notice i didn'tthis time
FreedomBono (5:51:19 PM): anyway, then by all means articulate your 'moderate' empiricism away

supersoulty (5:52:49 PM): I kinda did already.  By admiting that people can draw on the known to imagine something that doesn't have a real basis in reality, I allowed moderate empiricism into the picture
supersoulty (5:53:07 PM): I didn't hail that I had used it, but I rarely ever use lingo, you know that

FreedomBono (5:53:40 PM): see but there is the difference right there
FreedomBono (5:54:04 PM): i claim that knowledge arrises from reason despite starting with experience
FreedomBono (5:54:24 PM): you seem to think, and corret me if i'm wrong, that experience actually creates reason

supersoulty (5:55:24 PM): It creates thought patterns, yes
supersoulty (5:56:43 PM): If I were locked in a closet for 15 years and had no expirience with the world, then I could not imagine anything in existance beyond those four walls unless the notion were somehoe placed into my head by a divine presence or otherwise
supersoulty (5:57:05 PM): God is a rationalist, people are not

FreedomBono (5:57:31 PM): if you accept that all knowledge comes from God one way or another, then people have to be rationalists too

supersoulty (5:58:00 PM): No... I accept all knowledge comes from God's creation.  Not directly through him
supersoulty (5:58:47 PM): Except for, perhaps the most basic and latent notions... what one might call the "collective conscious"

FreedomBono (5:59:02 PM): but that is the basis of everything else

supersoulty (5:59:05 PM): But that's psychology
supersoulty (5:59:43 PM): True... but the collect conscious is not, well, consciousness.
supersoulty (6:00:02 PM): We can't just dip in and out of it and study it as we please
supersoulty (6:00:29 PM): More over you can't build or add to it

FreedomBono (6:00:29 PM): what you call the colective consciousness is actually what enalbes us to understand sensory experience and derive knowledge from it

supersoulty (6:00:55 PM): On an extremely basic level
supersoulty (6:01:18 PM): It's kinda like the starting gun as opposed to the actual race.
supersoulty (6:02:04 PM): It's what tells us to go, but not how we build our concepts of our world
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2008, 05:43:44 PM »
« Edited: May 06, 2008, 05:46:43 PM by Snowguy716 »

Very interesting.  Of course Soulty makes more sense.

You think about things too much Bono.  There isn't an elaborate maze to the answer to every question. 

And I'm afraid Soulty is correct, the second you ask "why" in Math class, the whole system breaks down.  I've never heard anything more than simply a slightly more elaborate explanation to something that is still based on sound, but nonetheless unproven theories.

The answer to "why does 2+2=4?" is the same to "Why does it take 3 women with PMS to change a light bulb?"

IT JUST DOES!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To better explain:

It's like asking a Creationist "how do you know the earth was created by God" and they answer "because creation is so complicated.  Only an intelligent being could create this."

When you believe the only logical answer is A, then somehow, magically, A becomes the only logical answer.  And we all live our merry little lives until we discover "well, sh**t!  B makes sense as well... and C does too a little bit.. or maybe it's D, all of the above!"
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2008, 12:34:12 AM »

The first three times I read that I thought Bono was calling me dumber than a trained monkey.  Sad

I think where I stand on this (not with Bono) has been pretty clear from what I've posted in the past, so I won't re-hash.

If you and Vasco get going, Chris, would you mind if I jump in?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2008, 12:39:32 AM »
« Edited: May 07, 2008, 12:42:14 AM by Supersoulty »

The first three times I read that I thought Bono was calling me dumber than a trained monkey.  Sad

I think where I stand on this (not with Bono) has been pretty clear from what I've posted in the past, so I won't re-hash.

If you and Vasco get going, Chris, would you mind if I jump in?

I will do my best.  There is no real way of knowing when the daily BS conversations me and Vasco have will break out into something substantial.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2008, 04:45:03 PM »

The answer to "why does 2+2=4?" is the same to "Why does it take 3 women with PMS to change a light bulb?"

IT JUST DOES!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually 2+2 = 11 to people who think that there are three sides to every problem.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2008, 12:27:16 AM »

The answer to "why does 2+2=4?" is the same to "Why does it take 3 women with PMS to change a light bulb?"

IT JUST DOES!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually 2+2 = 11 to people who think that there are three sides to every problem.

except that 11 = 4 so YOUR JOKE IS NOT FUNNY Angry
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2008, 09:44:13 AM »

FreedomBono (5:13:30 PM): can you explain why an infinite number of straight lines ass through a point
FreedomBono (5:13:44 PM): no, axioms can't be demonstrated, they can only be shown
That's one way of conceiving of mathematical axioms, but it's not the only one. In my opinion, it is preferable not to treat the axioms as absolute, self-evident truths. Instead, a more sound approach would treat the axioms as assumptions. Theorems, then, are the consequences of those assumptions--they tell us what would be true if the axioms were applicable.

Indeed, I can't imagine how one might argue that something like the axiom of choice is self-evident. To many people, the negation of the axiom of choice is far more intuitive.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2008, 03:09:31 PM »

Very interesting.  Of course Soulty makes more sense.

You think about things too much Bono.  There isn't an elaborate maze to the answer to every question. 

And I'm afraid Soulty is correct, the second you ask "why" in Math class, the whole system breaks down.  I've never heard anything more than simply a slightly more elaborate explanation to something that is still based on sound, but nonetheless unproven theories.

The answer to "why does 2+2=4?" is the same to "Why does it take 3 women with PMS to change a light bulb?"

IT JUST DOES!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To better explain:

It's like asking a Creationist "how do you know the earth was created by God" and they answer "because creation is so complicated.  Only an intelligent being could create this."

When you believe the only logical answer is A, then somehow, magically, A becomes the only logical answer.  And we all live our merry little lives until we discover "well, sh**t!  B makes sense as well... and C does too a little bit.. or maybe it's D, all of the above!"

Because we (originally) defined '2' and '4' in terms of quanities, the amount of crops or goods for instance (so we are back on apples and oranges). So in that system of course 2 (of something) added to another 2 of something which is the same is equal to 4. Once you deal with the abstraction of pure arithmetic then you run into those problems..
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 12 queries.