ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:28 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:14 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 315
Location: Somewhere In The Space-Time Continuum
Mestro wrote:
Forrest, first, i was refering to ri]]3r not you, and 'value judgements' refer to judgements on what should or should not be, what is better and what is worse. The knowledge that both sniper rifles and machine guns are rifles does not allow one to judge whether the sniper rifle or the machine gun is better at being a rifle. As you say, a human brain, an alien brain and an AI could all be 'intelligent' but empirical science cannot say which is 'better' or which is sentient and which is not, which is a person and which is not a person. That's where the value judgements come in.


I disagree that calling something sentient or a person is necessarily a value judgement. Certainly, if you ascribe some sort of value to sentience or personhood, then when you attribute such qualities to something you are going to value it more. But just answering the question "what is it to be sentient?" or "what is it to be a person?" does not in itself ascribe any value to anything, without the separate premise that sentience or personhood is valuable. You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."

_________________
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Forrest wrote:
You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."

And if you did, your name would be Kurt Vonnegut. He expresses that viewpoint in one of his newer, more depressing novels.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:19 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
Mestro wrote:
If there is no evidence for something, you cannot believe that it exists and remain sane.

Not necessarily. That's what cognitive dissonance is for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Mestro wrote:
If there is no evidence for something, you cannot believe that it exists and remain sane.

Hmmm . . . problem is, this is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but means very little in practice. What constitutes "evidence?" What does "sane" mean in this context? Are we talking about abstract belief, casual belief, pragmatic belief, actionable belief, or something else?

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:07 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:59 am
Posts: 83
BloodHenge wrote:
Mestro wrote:
If there is no evidence for something, you cannot believe that it exists and remain sane.

Not necessarily. That's what cognitive dissonance is for.


Nix, cognitive dissonance is two-part,
a) you believe something that contradicts another thing you already believe in
b) you examine the contradiction. (or it is brought to your attention)

Boss Out of Town wrote:
Hmmm . . . problem is, this is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but means very little in practice.


Well, it wasn't a quote. Begging pardon for fallible memory of course..

Well, evidence in this case refers to any kind of knowledge (that is itself justified) that justifies the existence for that something. I'm basically refering to the difference between a belief and knowledge; i think there was an ok explanation on wikipedia about it.

Well, in practice, if the statement makes sense to you, it means that believing that something exists because you want it to, or because it seems it ought to, without being able to justify it, (using whatever form of justifiable knowldege), means you've just brought a little more insanity into your soul.

Forrest wrote:
I disagree that calling something sentient or a person is necessarily a value judgement. [snipe] You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."


The position that sentience sui generis is valuable is itself a value judgement. However, identifying whether something is or is not intelligent or sentient by usnig the attributes of "X, Y and Z" is not a value judgement, only a description (although one that is based on the premise of another value judgement).

Logic wrote:
But the second sentence sortof states otherwise if you have a different frame of mind? What?


Oh sorry if i was confusing, I didn't mean to be, should have expanded more on the sentence.

It is possible to determine the existence of something by stating everything that it is not, i.e negatively. However, you need to be able to describe an infinity of "this is not x" before being to describe any real object. So to describe something negatively, you need an infinite mind.

Logic wrote:
There's no proof of God, yet ninety percent of the world believe there is one. Is the whole planet apeshit nuts?


They do not know how to think rationally and probably haven't even truly examined their beliefs. So most just don't know themselves. Second, if they have examined their beliefs and do not reject them, are although not 'apeshit nuts' are just a little bit insane. 'course, by this, we are all everyone of us including myself a little insane as we are not infinite minds and are only possessed of a bounded rationality.

About the brain, we are more than the sodden mess of cells of the brain, we exist in the changing of patterns and the interplay of ideas, we change everytime we have a new thought and everytime we change, we make I anew.

Just because you want there to be a 'soul' driving the brain, whatever you think the soul is, does not mean that there must be one. We are all no longer children, wanting something doesn't mean someone will give it to you.

Science can't account for many thing because people either haven't properly applied science to it yet or because science as an epistemology cannot be applied there. You don't expect a soundcard to start working as your videocard do you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:02 am 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:19 am
Posts: 15
[delurk]

Quote:
There's no proof of God, yet ninety percent of the world believe there is one. Is the whole planet apeshit nuts?


Yep, but there is no value in sanity because:

Quote:
Life is nothing but a grand version of Speak and Spell? All that we do amounts to nothing, because no matter what we're going to die and that's the end?


is quite true, at least in my opinion,

and because sanity and insanity are not based on objective reality, but subjective reality, a fun topic all of itself.

[/delurk]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:53 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Far, far away
Mestro wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Hmmm . . . problem is, this is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but means very little in practice.


Well, it wasn't a quote. Begging pardon for fallible memory of course..

Well, evidence in this case refers to any kind of knowledge (that is itself justified) that justifies the existence for that something. I'm basically refering to the difference between a belief and knowledge; i think there was an ok explanation on wikipedia about it.

Well, in practice, if the statement makes sense to you, it means that believing that something exists because you want it to, or because it seems it ought to, without being able to justify it, (using whatever form of justifiable knowldege), means you've just brought a little more insanity into your soul.


There's a problem with this reasoning. Using god for an example:

Do you have evidence of god's existance? I doubt it. So you'd believe he doesn't exist. But do you have evidence that he doesn't exist? That is actually impossible to have. So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.

Even more basic, though. Do you have any evidence that reality exists? Do you have any evidence that you are not a brain in a jar? According to you, you'd be insane to dismiss this possibility. You have no evidence that this is not the case.

Going back to Boss out of Town's quote, I think this is what he means by saying that the phrase is meaningless. The stricter you are with the meaning of evidence, the less you can accept as fact. We don't have irrefutable proof of anything. Knowlodge boils down to how much you want to believe in your evidence.

Science, for instance, attempts to be descriptive of the world arround us, and internally consistent. If the theories and the world coincide and there are no obvious contradictions, that is considered good enough evidence. Religion often is more lax with what constitutes evidence, going as far as faith being belief without evidence. And regular people fall in somewhere in between.

If you were to truly belive that there's the possibility that you are a brain in a jar because you don't have evidence either way, you'd be considered insane. We need a little insanity to remain sane.

_________________
I got nuthin'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:05 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:59 am
Posts: 83
Kian wrote:
There's a problem with this reasoning. Using god for an example:

Do you have evidence of god's existance? I doubt it. So you'd believe he doesn't exist. But do you have evidence that he doesn't exist? That is actually impossible to have. So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.


No... just because we do not have evidence of 'god's' existence does not mean that he does not exist. Proclaiming that he does not exist is just as insane as proclaming that he does exist. Since we have no clear answer, we can at the most say that we do not know. More below.

Kian wrote:
Even more basic, though. Do you have any evidence that reality exists? Do you have any evidence that you are not a brain in a jar? According to you, you'd be insane to dismiss this possibility. You have no evidence that this is not the case.


Keeping in mind the difference between 'apeshit nuts' and just being insane, it is true that we have no hard evidence that reality exists. We really could just be a brain in a jar or constructs in a simulation or figments of the dreaming goddess. However, the fact that there is a 'I' that can think defines the first thing that is undeniably true. I exist. I don't know that any of the rest of you exist, maybe I am god, dreaming of the rest of you. Asserting without knowledge the existance of anything is insanity akin to telling people that "purple is bitter."

If you look only on the surface, what I just said seems to mean that I deny the existance of everything but myself. This is not true, I only said, that the only thing I know for certain is that I exist. Everything else is contingent. Meaning that I can only have differing levels of confidence for the existence of everything else. I can be fairly certain that I exist in a world with up and down, with other things there look kinda like me and that I can treat as being in the same class of being as myself and that I feel hunger and need to eat. On the other hand, I have very very good evidence for all these things, mainly based on something akin to the verification bias. Do you need to treat that thing as being real?

Kian wrote:
We don't have irrefutable proof of anything. Knowlodge boils down to how much you want to believe in your evidence.


True knowledge boils down to when you cannot reject your epistemology without also rejecting that you exist. Religion is the assertation of belief in something that cannot be proven, in essence, god may or may not exist so I think he exists. Where assertations to the tune that god does not exist have as much impact on existence as the former, the question is meaningless and assertations either way is insane.

kian wrote:
If you were to truly belive that there's the possibility that you are a brain in a jar because you don't have evidence either way, you'd be considered insane. We need a little insanity to remain sane.


I do not reject the possibility we are all brains in a jar, but then I do not need to believe either for or against it since it effects not my existence either way. Not rejecting the possibility of something is not the same as accepting its existence mind you.

Thus my line of reasoning is that asserting either way whether a thing exists when it is not necessary to know so in order to back up your own existence, then doing so is insanity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:57 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:25 am
Posts: 144
Location: Out playing CalvinBall.
You guys are approaching Zen Logic Land.

Have fun with the insane circular logic. It gets really fucked up when you get into the equalities and truths of opposites.

And it's true as long as you're using fucked up Zen Logic.

_________________
Rar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:12 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
KurtDunn wrote:
You guys are approaching Zen Logic Land.

I look at this question in the same way as mathematicians changed the fundamentals of how they prove theorems.

Before the advent of intuitionistic logic, they were using the equivalent of "Since we can't prove god exists, then god must exist". Well, that fucked up many theorems making them inconsistent with others, and they realized something had to change.

With intuitionistic logic, it became "That we cannot disprove god's existence does not imply god exists". Much rejoicing, yet much grumbling as they realized how much work was going to be needed re-proving all those theorems they'd built up over the past thousands of years.

Why this history lesson? Well... It is because I wanted to point out that this isn't an unique problem with theological philosophy. The difference is in how the mathematicians treat that unknown. When trying to prove a theorem, you can assume the unknown is true, or false, and see if that helps prove the theorem. It is in fact one of the most powerful tools available in logic.

The difference between this and the question about the existence of god is that some of you are assuming, then handing the theorem to some poor engineers that want to build bridges. Yet you never thought it was that important to prove the theorem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:08 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Far, far away
Mestro wrote:
Kian wrote:
There's a problem with this reasoning. Using god for an example:

Do you have evidence of god's existance? I doubt it. So you'd believe he doesn't exist. But do you have evidence that he doesn't exist? That is actually impossible to have. So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.


No... just because we do not have evidence of 'god's' existence does not mean that he does not exist. Proclaiming that he does not exist is just as insane as proclaming that he does exist. Since we have no clear answer, we can at the most say that we do not know. More below.


Hmm.... You are not reading what I write, yet you are quoting it and replying to it nonetheless. Even going as far as splitting my post into smaller bits. I can already tell this is going to be fun.

Mestro wrote:
Kian wrote:
Even more basic, though. Do you have any evidence that reality exists? Do you have any evidence that you are not a brain in a jar? According to you, you'd be insane to dismiss this possibility. You have no evidence that this is not the case.


Keeping in mind the difference between 'apeshit nuts' and just being insane, it is true that we have no hard evidence that reality exists. We really could just be a brain in a jar or constructs in a simulation or figments of the dreaming goddess. However, the fact that there is a 'I' that can think defines the first thing that is undeniably true. I exist. I don't know that any of the rest of you exist, maybe I am god, dreaming of the rest of you. Asserting without knowledge the existance of anything is insanity akin to telling people that "purple is bitter."


"I think, therefore I am", I believe goes the quote for that one, right? However, I could argue that statement. Consider a recording of a speech. The recording is clearly a copy of an original. The sound coming from the recording, while identical to the sound that happened at the original speech, is different.

Now, imagine thoughts could be recorded. When those thoughts are played back, do they constitute a mind? Imagine they were recorded while thinking "I think, therefore I am." Are they, truly, or do they just think they are, unable to see from their perspective that they are not.

I suppose one would have to then define what 'existing' means. But the fact remains that one cannot ascertain whether they are an original consciousness or a copy of a conciousness. And if you are a copy, then "I am" does not actually mean the "I am" you think it does, even if a machine playing back those thoutghs exist.

I suppose one could then modify the phrase to go "I think, therefore something is." I'm not sure I can debate that one, but it would be awesome if someone could.

Mestro wrote:
If you look only on the surface, what I just said seems to mean that I deny the existance of everything but myself. This is not true, I only said, that the only thing I know for certain is that I exist. Everything else is contingent. Meaning that I can only have differing levels of confidence for the existence of everything else. I can be fairly certain that I exist in a world with up and down, with other things there look kinda like me and that I can treat as being in the same class of being as myself and that I feel hunger and need to eat. On the other hand, I have very very good evidence for all these things, mainly based on something akin to the verification bias. Do you need to treat that thing as being real?

Kian wrote:
We don't have irrefutable proof of anything. Knowlodge boils down to how much you want to believe in your evidence.


True knowledge boils down to when you cannot reject your epistemology without also rejecting that you exist. Religion is the assertation of belief in something that cannot be proven, in essence, god may or may not exist so I think he exists. Where assertations to the tune that god does not exist have as much impact on existence as the former, the question is meaningless and assertations either way is insane.


Well, I already argued that you cannot truly know you exist from just circumstantial evidence as your thoughts. So, as I said, we don't have irrefutable evidence of anything, not even our own existance. You simply choose to believe in your existance as definite, and use that as a starting point. As I said, that's where knowlodge starts. Choosing to believe in your evidence.

Mestro wrote:
kian wrote:
If you were to truly belive that there's the possibility that you are a brain in a jar because you don't have evidence either way, you'd be considered insane. We need a little insanity to remain sane.


I do not reject the possibility we are all brains in a jar, but then I do not need to believe either for or against it since it effects not my existence either way. Not rejecting the possibility of something is not the same as accepting its existence mind you.

Thus my line of reasoning is that asserting either way whether a thing exists when it is not necessary to know so in order to back up your own existence, then doing so is insanity.


See, you need some insanity to remain sane. You've decided that your existance is the only thing that is certain. However, believing we exist is fundamentally insane, because we can't prove it, not even to ourselves. We simply believe that because it is necessary to function as individuals and a pragmatist's approach to existance.

_________________
I got nuthin'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Forrest wrote:
You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."

And if you did, your name would be Kurt Vonnegut. He expresses that viewpoint in one of his newer, more depressing novels.

Ahhhhhgggghhhh!

I mentioned his name and he dropped dead the next day.

A fine, fine, gentleman, and a talented writer. His view of the world was not one I always agreed with, but his basic decency and sincerity were rare enough in the greater world, let alone in the world of great writers.

You will hear a lot in the press about Slaughterhouse Five, Cats Cradle, and all the other big time Vonnegut novels, but I recommend this rare gem: The Big Space Fuck, originally published in Harlan Ellison's Again, Dangerous Visions in 1972. Not only was this the first mainstream short story using the word "fuck" in the title, I consider it the single most prescient science fiction story ever written. Never mind the giant lampreys and the space shot, there has never been a story that so perfectly predicts the future of its writer's culture three decades in the future.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Mestro wrote:
Nix, cognitive dissonance is two-part,
a) you believe something that contradicts another thing you already believe in
b) you examine the contradiction. (or it is brought to your attention)

Boss Out of Town wrote:
Hmmm . . . problem is, this is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but means very little in practice.

Well, it wasn't a quote. Begging pardon for fallible memory of course..

:-o It wasn't a quote?
:oops: Aaawwkward . . .

Mestro wrote:
Well, in practice, if the statement makes sense to you, it means that believing that something exists because you want it to, or because it seems it ought to, without being able to justify it, (using whatever form of justifiable knowldege), means you've just brought a little more insanity into your soul.

Yeah, this just goes back to my original point.

As the French philosophers noted in a moment of rare clarity, "insanity" is culturally defined. The fact that certain kinds of insanity (for example, banging your head repeatedly against the wall to make the demons come out) are almost universally understood to be so does not invalidate this statement.

Most people who believe in the supernatural, the lack of the supernatural, or anything in between, feel perfectly justified by the evidence as they see it. Your statement is valid only within the context of your own variety of Greek rationalism, in which observable nature is generated by non-sentient mechanisms. Its analysis of the evidence does not support the existance of the supernatural. Therefore, you may define someone as insane if they do not reach the same result after looking over the same evidence. On the other hand, someone who has analyzed the evidence following a model of assigning sentient intent to all aspects of observable nature might consider you either insane or willfully blind to what occurs around you.

Leading me to the observation that, yes, as much sympathy as I like to have for other cultures, people who tell me I need to become one with the spirits of nature "just like the Native Americans before the White Men came" are just as smug and patronizing as any other smiling religious zealot.

"So it goes." (Kurt Vonnegut)

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:43 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:59 am
Posts: 83
Kian wrote:
Mestro wrote:
Kian wrote:
There's a problem with this reasoning. Using god for an example:

Do you have evidence of god's existance? I doubt it. So you'd believe he doesn't exist. But do you have evidence that he doesn't exist? That is actually impossible to have. So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.


No... just because we do not have evidence of 'god's' existence does not mean that he does not exist. Proclaiming that he does not exist is just as insane as proclaming that he does exist. Since we have no clear answer, we can at the most say that we do not know. More below.


Hmm.... You are not reading what I write, yet you are quoting it and replying to it nonetheless.


Urrmm.. I thought I was answering your point, you said that since I (myself, me, the guy writing this post) don't have evidence for god's existance, I believe he does not exist. The paragraph you quoted is my refutation to your accusation and sums up as me agreeing with So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.. The most of the rest of my post is back-up for my refutation in the first paragraph.

You say there is no difference to the observer between a recorded thought of "I think therefore I am" and you thinking "I think therefore I am." The difference is, one is an observed event that the observer cannot be certain is real and the other is you thinking. Spot the difference.

If I am a copy of a preceeding me and I think, then to me, I exist but I couldn't be sure about the other guy. It doesn't matter how I think it is sufficient that I do.

My existence is the only thing that is certain and the proof is that it is necessary and sufficient to have an entity that thinks to be able to be thinking. This is the proof that we exist. Everything else is an addendum. I am thinking, on a mess of organic squishyness, therefore I am. I am thinking, as a figment of the dream of a sleeping goddess, therefore I am.

KurtDunn wrote:
Have fun with the insane circular logic.

Circular logic my ass, all I got concluded was a philosophical argument for admitting to "Insufficient Data" for everything we are not certain about.

As Rakshasa says, it is important to be able to admit to not knowing something.

Boss Out of Town wrote:
Most people who believe in the supernatural, the lack of the supernatural, or anything in between, feel perfectly justified by the evidence as they see it.


And I say they are insane for concluding whatever they are concluding because they are basing it on nothing that is truly real where the only conclusion that can be valid is "Insufficient Data". No matter how much they feel their evidence is real, as you say, their conclusions are real, but only for themselves and whoever they can dupe into believing as they do.

Consider the one who assigns sentient intent to all around him, it is the assignment of sentient intent that allows him to conclude that there is sentient intent all around him.

ps. np i know it suonded like a quote. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:31 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Far, far away
Mestro wrote:
Urrmm.. I thought I was answering your point, you said that since I (myself, me, the guy writing this post) don't have evidence for god's existance, I believe he does not exist. The paragraph you quoted is my refutation to your accusation and sums up as me agreeing with So you are left unable to know whether there is a god or not.. The most of the rest of my post is back-up for my refutation in the first paragraph.


My mistake. For further posts though, keep in mind I make an argument over a whole paragraph, not sentence by sentence. You starting with "No" and then arriving to the same conclusion I did is what threw me off.

Mestro wrote:
You say there is no difference to the observer between a recorded thought of "I think therefore I am" and you thinking "I think therefore I am." The difference is, one is an observed event that the observer cannot be certain is real and the other is you thinking. Spot the difference.

If I am a copy of a preceeding me and I think, then to me, I exist but I couldn't be sure about the other guy. It doesn't matter how I think it is sufficient that I do.

My existence is the only thing that is certain and the proof is that it is necessary and sufficient to have an entity that thinks to be able to be thinking. This is the proof that we exist. Everything else is an addendum. I am thinking, on a mess of organic squishyness, therefore I am. I am thinking, as a figment of the dream of a sleeping goddess, therefore I am.


Ah, but then you're cheating. The first "I" of the sentence does not mean the same thing as the second "I". "I [Mestro] think, therefore I [Mestro, figment of the dream of a sleeping godess, recording of Mestro, whatever] am."

To use "I" as a wildcard to mean whatever is appropiate is the same as saying "The warfunkle girbies the schluber." The statement will always be true in a universe where the words mean something that makes it true. However, to the person saying it, they provide no information other than that something does something to something else. It's a meaningless statement.

Which goes to show what I said earlier. Knowlodge boils down to how much you trust your evidence.

On one extreme, being as strict as possible and trusting only irrefutable proof, you can have no knowlodge. You know, at most, that something exists, but you have no idea what that something is. To ascertain that something exists is meaningless.

On the other extreme, you could accept everything you can imagine and even things you haven't imagined as being true. You have loads of knowlodge, but that knowlodge will often contradict itself. You know everything that is true, but you also know things that are wrong.

People fall somewhere along that scale. Science tries to stick closer to the strict side, but far enough that it can actually get things done. Religion falls closer to the other side, beliving stuff without any evidence but staying away from things that could be easily disproven. In the end, they're just different degrees of crazy, but the same kind of crazy.

_________________
I got nuthin'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:44 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:25 am
Posts: 144
Location: Out playing CalvinBall.
Mestro wrote:
Circular logic my ass, all I got concluded was a philosophical argument for admitting to "Insufficient Data" for everything we are not certain about.


Err, I was just saying that you're fast approaching circular Zen logic.

Yeep, Meeeyow!

_________________
Rar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Speaking of zen logic, why does Youka's face turn orange when she travels to The Twelve Kingdoms? And why does everyone think she looks so different? Her cheeks might be puffy, but that's probably just a reaction to the alien pollen in those woods.

Oh, sorry, what was the topic?

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Last edited by Boss Out of Town on Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:43 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
Mestro wrote:
we are all everyone of us including myself a little insane

If everyone is insane, then nobody is sane, and both words are meaningless.

Mestro wrote:
Keeping in mind the difference between 'apeshit nuts' and just being insane

And what would that be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:44 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:25 am
Posts: 144
Location: Out playing CalvinBall.
BloodHenge wrote:
Mestro wrote:
we are all everyone of us including myself a little insane

If everyone is insane, then nobody is sane, and both words are meaningless.


See that's the shit I'm talking about.

I called it!

Self fulfilling prophecies For The Win!

_________________
Rar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:34 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:29 am
Posts: 227
Location: by the river
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Forrest wrote:
You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."

And if you did, your name would be Kurt Vonnegut. He expresses that viewpoint in one of his newer, more depressing novels.

Ahhhhhgggghhhh!

I mentioned his name and he dropped dead the next day.

A fine, fine, gentleman, and a talented writer. His view of the world was not one I always agreed with, but his basic decency and sincerity were rare enough in the greater world, let alone in the world of great writers.

You will hear a lot in the press about Slaughterhouse Five, Cats Cradle, and all the other big time Vonnegut novels, but I recommend this rare gem: The Big Space Fuck, originally published in Harlan Ellison's Again, Dangerous Visions in 1972. Not only was this the first mainstream short story using the word "fuck" in the title, I consider it the single most prescient science fiction story ever written. Never mind the giant lampreys and the space shot, there has never been a story that so perfectly predicts the future of its writer's culture three decades
in the future.


Excellent stories - I wore out my copy of ADV. KV was also a great guy and a brilliant writer - SH5 is one of the best books of the last 50 years, IMO. Although I came to figure him as an American Isolationist rather than ant-war per se.

This thread seems to have reached it's logical conclusion: arguing over that fictional construct god, the mirror of man's mind. The word man here is not used as a stand-in for humanity. So the two are related - although - what were we talking about again? Ah, cute little hunger strike. Listen, I've got something here she can nibble on if she's that hungry :wink:

_________________
Shiny!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group