"Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:27 pm

So, let me get this straight...You say, "Brother Andrew the Bible Smuggler," and I respond with a reference. THEN you say, "No, not THAT reference, something ELSE about it!"

Why not just say, "Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra!" and we can be done with it?!

So, it's you, again, with your CODE WORDS and PHRASES. And you wonder why I've lost patience.



BTW, the "Stupid Idea" was the concept of solipsism. I wish I had never come up with the idea of solipsism in the first place. It's a joke.


So...you (a devout Christian) were involved in a lesbian love affair with a Muslim, and you broke up over the concept of salvation and grace, and what, exactly miracles mean (even though neither of you had ever really experienced a miracle; not that they actually exist or ever existed). Excellent choice.

I married a Roman Catholic, who knew from the get-go that I am an atheist. She didn't feel much of a need to raise the kids R/C or Christian. And even after she lost what little remnants she had of her faith (after both her parents died within a short time of each other), *I* would still push her to attend Christmas Midnight Mass.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:53 pm

So, let me get this straight...You say, "Brother Andrew the Bible Smuggler," and I respond with a reference. THEN you say, "No, not THAT reference, something ELSE about it!"
Let me get this straight: I said "experiences as Bible Smuggler", and you thought "I know! experiences as an atheist soldier, those will be totally the same thing". Reading comprehension fail? Or trolling?
So, it's you, again, with your CODE WORDS and PHRASES.
"Your tricksy use of English made me think 'Smuggling Bibles' actually meant 'in the army'".

I married a Roman Catholic, who knew from the get-go that I am an atheist. She didn't feel much of a need to raise the kids R/C or Christian. And even after she lost what little remnants she had of her faith (after both her parents died within a short time of each other), *I* would still push her to attend Christmas Midnight Mass.
Which illustrates my previous point that people of faith do, in fact, have experiences that falsify their understanding of God; and fails to address the question of how you would have handled it if she hadn't lost her faith and had instead felt motivated to raise your children Christian. Would you have "let it go", or would you have looked down on them for "desperately needing a fantasy to be true"?
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Syphon the Sun » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:13 pm

lesbian love affair
Tee hee. Steve is calling you a girl, elf!
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:18 pm

I think it boils down to I like living in a world of reality. I happen to be good with reality, and I can quite often manipulate it to my will (again, see http://www.ka.com;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://youtu.be/OpeeTHUhEgU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). When faced with a partner with a different theistic bent, we actually DISCUSSED IT UP FRONT, so as not to have problems.

You appear to love to live in a world of theory. I guess it works for you. But you did seem to get all bent out of shape when you and your lesbian girlfriend disagreed on THEORY ALONE.

That's far too rarefied an atmosphere for me.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Dr. Mobius » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:30 pm

*puts on modhat*

Things are starting to get out of hand. Knock off the personal attacks, Steve.

I think you both need to take a step back and cool off a bit.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:32 pm

I'm good.

This was spinning all over the place, anyhow.



Actually: My Bad.

It wasn't Elf Prince whose gender was intentionally in question, it was Tiny Genius.

EP--sorry for the barbs re. that. But I'm still done. I hope you find find someone else here to read all your detailed posts as thoroughly as you require.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4451
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Luet » Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:09 pm

Sorry, but you believe what you do out of emotional necessity, and DON'T KNOW WHEN TO LET IT GO. You appear to be incapacitated, at times, by this fantasy belief.
Steve, this is your opinion and a fairly condescending one at that. Please keep it respectful.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:11 pm

Luet,

I agree. I've been bullying here lately, and I apologize to you, to Elf Prince, and to anyone else I might have offended.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:03 pm

When faced with a partner with a different theistic bent, we actually DISCUSSED IT UP FRONT, so as not to have problems.
Discussing things (like kids) before they happen is usually considered "up front".
I think it boils down to I like living in a world of reality. I happen to be good with reality, and I can quite often manipulate it to my will (again, see http://www.ka.com;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://youtu.be/OpeeTHUhEgU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). ... You appear to love to live in a world of theory. I guess it works for you. ...That's far too rarefied an atmosphere for me.
This sounds awfully like the YECy argument against evolution ("it's only a theory"). Theories work when they're backed by data.
lesbian love affair
Tee hee. Steve is calling you a girl, elf!
Actually: My Bad.

It wasn't Elf Prince whose gender was intentionally in question, it was Tiny Genius.

EP--sorry for the barbs re. that.
Heh. I had assumed it was one of your wacky jokes (and that you were possibly referencing Islamic law on restrictions on romantic relationships).
I hope you find find someone else here to read all your detailed posts as thoroughly as you require.
Me too. I'd like to have a sparring partner who can push my arguments to improve - most of the ones I've had thus far now either agree with me (at least as far as identifying potentially valid belief systems, even if we disagree on data interpretation), or have said they only wanted to change my mind and don't plan on changing their beliefs regardless of any arguments presented.
I agree. I've been bullying here lately, and I apologize to you, to Elf Prince, and to anyone else I might have offended.
In case you didn't see it in Club Philote, apology accepted. And I apologize if any of my responses were overly harsh.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:04 pm

What the smeg's all this about a lesbian love affair?
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:57 pm

What the smeg's all this about a lesbian love affair?
We may never know. 8)
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:40 am

I can't be a lesbian, I thought I'd already confirmed my gender in the "Who could you play?" thread or I'd never hear the end of it. I had it pointed out to me by Jason that with all the other info I'd supposedly given, I might as well tell you I'm male, but not my name. And if you are wondering about my sexuality, bi.
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:55 pm

TMI, TG. TMI!
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:11 pm

Yeah, sorry about that. Three reasons, though:
1. Some people in Club Philote seemed curious/confused about it.
2. You were the one who started making lesbian jokes.
3. I'd just come from Facebook where half the people I talk to seem to be obsessed with nothing but that stuff, my mind was still in that framework.

So yeah, sorry. Don't worry though, I won't mention it again.
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby CezeN » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:59 pm

I brought this up like 2 years ago, but again

All rational beings believe in their own existence, whether or not they actually exist. Harry Potter believes that he exists, but he is wrong. I believe I exist, hopefully I am right...God too believes in his own existence and his omniscience makes it impossible that he is mistaken. Therefore, God exists.

God exists as shown by this proof! lol
Thoughts?
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

User avatar
Mich
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2943
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:58 am
Title: T.U.R.T.L.E. Power
First Joined: 02 Apr 2002
Location: Land o' Ports
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Mich » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:16 pm

Uh...

Just thought I'd put this out there that I'm assuming it's satirical, going by your little drowning man there.
Shell the unshellable, crawl the uncrawlible.

Row--row.

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:44 pm

"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys..."

That's funny and I admire the logic that due to the type of being people believe God is, once someone has dreamed him up, he has to exist of necessity.

Good work, now prove that black is white!
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby CezeN » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:21 pm

Uh...

Just thought I'd put this out there that I'm assuming it's satirical, going by your little drowning man there.
It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument, though I don't actually believe that it works to prove God in any practical sense.
And, I can think of a few refutations.

Btw- I was confused initially since I'd never seen a "lol" referred to as a drowning man.... I think I like it though.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys..."

That's funny and I admire the logic that due to the type of being people believe God is, once someone has dreamed him up, he has to exist of necessity.

Good work, now prove that black is white!
I had to Google the reference here, too.

Black > Black is the absence of light > the absence of light means the absence of color > color is synonymous with pigment > pigment = color > albino is the absence of pigment > albino = white > White
Black is White. QED
(I googled it ;) )
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:35 pm

Brilliant work, if you'd done your Googling more thouroughly you would've been too busy dying to post this.
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby neo-dragon » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:03 pm

*bump*
Also, as far as it being a test of self control - James 1:13 'Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.' The question of why God allows bad things to happen (regardless of whether or not someone personally believes being born with a particular gene sequence to be one of those things) is called the "problem of evil". I don't want to derail your thread though, but if you feel like asking about it/discussing it, we can always do so in your "theorist" topic (or a new one).
I wouldn't mind hearing more about the "problem of evil".
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:29 pm

now I want to discuss the self-aware computer thing too!
Self-aware, evil, bisexual computers. That'd be messy.

Oh well, if a computer was self-aware, would it be allowed to vote, marry, do human stuff or not? Would it be human?
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby neo-dragon » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:49 pm

I think that before we can answer those questions we have to consider how "personhood" is defined. Are you and I defined as people because we are self-aware? And what exactly does "self-aware" mean, anyway? Is an infant self-aware? More so than a dog? Is an infant a person? But then again, neither an infant nor a dog can marry or vote. Do humans therefore not achieve personhood until we're 18 years old?
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:33 pm

The marrying/voting thing was just an example of human rights (when/if gay marriage is legalised), but probably a poor one.
I think, to be self-aware or conscious is the ability to percieve the world around you, percieve yourself and distinguish the difference and then act according not to logic but to what you wish to do. Computers' decisions are bound by programming and mathematics but ours, apparently, are not. Neither are those of dogs or infants.

I think if we made a computer capable of actually "wanting", "wishing" or just abstract thought, we'd have to treat it as human, to an extent. That extent is every aspect of being human that we know of that isn't immediately contradicted by the fact that we made it and it's a machine. If it found a way to kill someone and did so, we'd have to charge it with murder because, being self-aware, it'd be free to decide whether or not to kill them, regardless of the initial programming. It'd be responsible for its actions.
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby neo-dragon » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:17 am

So are you defining a dog as self-aware?

I'm not trying to be picky or obnoxious by continuing to ask you questions instead of trying to answer yours, but before I comment on a hypothetical A.I. I want to be clear on how we're defining self-aware.
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Dr. Mobius » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:40 am

I say we skip this boring crap and go straight to figuring out how the hell artificial reproduction would even work as to allow for the existence of a bisexual computer.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:52 am

I brought this up like 2 years ago, but again

All rational beings believe in their own existence, whether or not they actually exist. Harry Potter believes that he exists, but he is wrong. I believe I exist, hopefully I am right...God too believes in his own existence and his omniscience makes it impossible that he is mistaken. Therefore, God exists.

God exists as shown by this proof! lol
Thoughts?
Hmmm...all this activity, and me, nowhere to be found.

Cezen, there are some serious flaws in your theory there:

Let's start with the premise. If beings do not exist, then "they" are not capable of rational thought. Non-existent entities can be proposed, and the person proposing the non-existent being can make all sorts of claims FOR that being, but any claims that would put the non-existent "being" in to the realm of "existence" are, by their nature, false.

I can propose an elementary physical particle ("Boothby's Boson") and claim that it is small, wet, yellow, and blissfully unaware of its surroundings. I can also claim that it is the most "ideal" of all particles, and therefore it MUST exist (because a B-Boson that actually EXISTS is, of course, so much more ideal than a B-Boson that does NOT exist), but I'm really just full of crap.

So...Harry Potter, who does NOT exist as an actual entity, cannot "believe in his own existence." You can describe the fictional character as believing in his own existence, but those are two entirely different things. Same goes for the fictional character that many call "God."
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:00 am

Many animals are self-aware. Whales and apes play jokes on each other. I don't mean that whales play jokes on apes, or that apes play jokes on whales, but...

Actually, whales and apes DO play jokes on each other. The Orcas at Sea-World, on their own volition, will squirt water on their trainers (and other people by the pool-side, such as maintenance workers) in the absence of a "Show" environment, or commands from the trainers.

My dogs remember where things are placed, remember how to open doors, and remember certain individuals as different from other individuals. I don't think they'd pass the "mirror test", though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby CezeN » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:03 pm

I brought this up like 2 years ago, but again

All rational beings believe in their own existence, whether or not they actually exist. Harry Potter believes that he exists, but he is wrong. I believe I exist, hopefully I am right...God too believes in his own existence and his omniscience makes it impossible that he is mistaken. Therefore, God exists.

God exists as shown by this proof! lol
Thoughts?
Hmmm...all this activity, and me, nowhere to be found.

Cezen, there are some serious flaws in your theory there:

Let's start with the premise. If beings do not exist, then "they" are not capable of rational thought. Non-existent entities can be proposed, and the person proposing the non-existent being can make all sorts of claims FOR that being, but any claims that would put the non-existent "being" in to the realm of "existence" are, by their nature, false.

I can propose an elementary physical particle ("Boothby's Boson") and claim that it is small, wet, yellow, and blissfully unaware of its surroundings. I can also claim that it is the most "ideal" of all particles, and therefore it MUST exist (because a B-Boson that actually EXISTS is, of course, so much more ideal than a B-Boson that does NOT exist), but I'm really just full of crap.

So...Harry Potter, who does NOT exist as an actual entity, cannot "believe in his own existence." You can describe the fictional character as believing in his own existence, but those are two entirely different things. Same goes for the fictional character that many call "God."
Not my "theory".

Sounds to me like you're discrediting their own rational thought relative to them on the basis that they're following a script and not actually thinking for themselves. I'd argue that even me and you may be following a script made by a combination of our environment, genes, past experiences, ect.

Does that mean we don't have rational thought, either? Do we also not exist because our anger, emotions, self-identity, ect. are all originated from physical process that actually exist, while our personality and consciousness are self-made concepts constructed and controlled by them?

Furthermore, I disagree with your concept of existence. I believe there can be multiple mediums in terms of existence: Ender exists as a character in Ender's Game, CezeN exists as my username on the internet, nothing exists as the concept of nothing, ect. So, when I say that Harry Potter believes he exists - within the realm of the world Harry Potter and the canonical facts of his character - he believes he exists. It is also a canonical factual element of his character that he's apparently rational.

Last, your Boothby Boson point has little to do with the logic structure of the "logical proof" I proposed. I don't see how it is actually related.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:54 pm

Cezen, your "proof" is horribly structured. You claim full equivalence for two entirely separate concepts: existence as a living being in the real world, and "existence" as a character in a piece of fiction.

If you have to rely on that deceitful conceit in order to make your point, then you're just talking nonsense. And if you honestly cannot tell the difference, then you are insane, and the rest of us can move on.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Rei » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:41 pm

Many animals are self-aware. Whales and apes play jokes on each other. I don't mean that whales play jokes on apes, or that apes play jokes on whales, but...

Actually, whales and apes DO play jokes on each other. The Orcas at Sea-World, on their own volition, will squirt water on their trainers (and other people by the pool-side, such as maintenance workers) in the absence of a "Show" environment, or commands from the trainers.
I prefer my mental image of gorillas and orcas pulling pranks on each other. Probably in the form of the orca splashing the gorilla who then goes downstairs to pull faces at the orca.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby CezeN » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:13 pm

Cezen, your "proof" is horribly structured. You claim full equivalence for two entirely separate concepts: existence as a living being in the real world, and "existence" as a character in a piece of fiction.

If you have to rely on that deceitful conceit in order to make your point, then you're just talking nonsense. And if you honestly cannot tell the difference, then you are insane, and the rest of us can move on.
At what point did I claim equivalence for those two entirely separate concepts? The actual point of the structure of the proof is that it doesn't matter what medium the of "rational being", he/she believes that he/she exists. The matter of existence is irrelevant(till the end), the importance is the belief.

In the "proof", this works to eliminate the question of whether or not God exists, from the issue. And asserts that he believes he exists, regardless.

Also, I don't know why you're so overly aggressive in this thread or to my post. I didn't actually make up the proof; when I first heard it, I dismissed it for my own reasons. I don't take it seriously(as obvious by the language used in my post), however I think the structure of it is quite clever. That's why I wanted to hear what people thought about it.

Calm down a bit, eh?
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:10 pm

Cezen,

You're all over the place with this. You post it, then poke fun at it, then say, "No, but seriously...," then you claim it again...which is it?

And you say things like, "At what point did I claim equivalence for those two entirely separate concepts? The actual point of the structure of the proof is that it doesn't matter what medium the of "rational being", he/she believes that he/she exists. The matter of existence is irrelevant(till the end), the importance is the belief."

You're lost (I'm not saying, "You lose," though we're approaching that. You're lost, like a babe in the woods without a map.)

You imply you're NOT claiming equivalence, and then you immediately go and claim equivalence!

You don't want to acknowledge that it actually IS important to differentiate between the two types of "rational beings" because then it makes your whole discussion collapse. If you recognized that the two are NOT the same (and they are NOT the same), then you've got nothing to talk about.

This falls under the heading of Boothby's Five Laws of Theological Debate. You've just invoked "Rule #3":
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."

Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."

One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:12 pm

And then you go for Rule #6!!
To which I guess I should add #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important? It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:01 pm

Cezen,

In simple terms, then: The "Structure" of that proof is not clever. It is foolish. It needs to establish a false equivalency (something that I am growing tired of in both philosophy AND politics) in order to pick up any steam. If you FIND the false equivalency early on (as I have done, and as you either refuse to do, or are unable to see), then the argument collapses into a messy pile of words.*


* As in "your computer box needs more words": http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail118.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby CezeN » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:10 pm

Cezen,

1. You're all over the place with this. You post it, then poke fun at it, then say, "No, but seriously...," then you claim it again...which is it?

And you say things like, "At what point did I claim equivalence for those two entirely separate concepts? The actual point of the structure of the proof is that it doesn't matter what medium the of "rational being", he/she believes that he/she exists. The matter of existence is irrelevant(till the end), the importance is the belief."

2. You're lost (I'm not saying, "You lose," though we're approaching that. You're lost, like a babe in the woods without a map.)

You imply you're NOT claiming equivalence, and then you immediately go and claim equivalence!

3. You don't want to acknowledge that it actually IS important to differentiate between the two types of "rational beings" because then it makes your whole discussion collapse. If you recognized that the two are NOT the same (and they are NOT the same), then you've got nothing to talk about.

This falls under the heading of Boothby's Five Laws of Theological Debate. You've just invoked "Rule #3":

4.
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."

Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."

One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."
1. Interesting. I don't know why you're confused about this. My first post said
I brought this up like 2 years ago, but again

All rational beings believe in their own existence, whether or not they actually exist. Harry Potter believes that he exists, but he is wrong. I believe I exist, hopefully I am right...God too believes in his own existence and his omniscience makes it impossible that he is mistaken. Therefore, God exists.

God exists as shown by this proof! lol
Thoughts?
Bolded underlined portion clearly implies a lack of seriousness.

At the end of my previous post to you, I said
Last, your Boothby Boson point has little to do with the logic structure of the "logical proof" I proposed. I don't see how it is actually related.
Quotation marks around "logical proof" also further implies a lack of seriousness/disbelief in the legitimacy of the "logical proof" that I showed.

Further posts that also imply that I don't take it seriously?
Uh...

Just thought I'd put this out there that I'm assuming it's satirical, going by your little drowning man there.
It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument, though I don't actually believe that it works to prove God in any practical sense.
And, I can think of a few refutations.

Btw- I was confused initially since I'd never seen a "lol" referred to as a drowning man.... I think I like it though.
Is this overkill on my point?

If you take time to note the language used in my posts, then it's clear I don't believe it and it isn't meant seriously to prove God. Not really my fault you couldn't pick up on these not-so-subtle "clues", eh?

2. Please point out at which spot I claimed or implied equivalence. I remember specifically saying that all rational beings believe they exist, whether they exist(in the standard sense) or not - this sounds to me like I established two different categories of people who believe in their existence. At which point did I fail to acknowledge the difference? Go ahead and quote it.

3. Quite simply, it isn't important. "Acknowledge" implies ignoring some type of evident truth. I'm glad you're cocky in your opinion on what's true, but my opinion is that the difference between the two types of rational beings simply...doesn't matter. In fact, that's the cleverness of it.

I've already recognized that the two are not the same. And. Yet. Somehow. I find myself still talking about it and the fact that you seemingly missed the point of the proof.

4. Incorrect. Actually, I've essentially said "There is a difference between the earth and the concept of the earth, alas it doesn't matter for this 'proof' ".
And then you go for Rule #6!!
To which I guess I should add #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important? It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
5. Eh, now you're just reaching. At no point was the "logical proof" that I posted considered an important part of any discussion about God. I implied it wasn't serious in my first post, other people recognized it wasn't serious, I admitted it wasn't serious. The only person who apparently took it seriously was you. Your rule implies that a serious discussion was had as acknowledged by all. My suggestion: You shouldn't take everything so seriously. (See: Calm down)

In addition, there's a difference between being "hung up" on something, meaning overly involved or focused on it, and being overly aggressive when addressing the thing. Obsessing over something is not the same as raging about it.
I suggest you amend a clause into your rule to include when someone tells you to calm down and have some self-control in your posts.

Bonus:
"God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it).
I can't actually explain what this means, but I'll explain the concept of "an omnipotent entity is above the rules of logic". It means that though he may operate under them, he is also not limited by them. This includes miracles and the ability to do contradictory things at the same time, such as make a rock he can't lift, not lift it, and lift it at the same time. And being able to do anything AND not able to do something, at the same time.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 21 guests