It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. It's obviously there, as numerous people have pointed out. If you're going to pretend that you singlehandedly overcome the collective intelligence of the HT personnel, then you may as well stay in ATOT where you belong because you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.
Again this is NOT reasoning now you're being idiot plain and simple and I'm going to call you on it, true statements stand independently of what someone thinks, regardless of their status, regardless of what you think of the "collective intelligence of AT", the collective intelligence of GENERATIONS of PHD's in science has been shown to be wrong. Einstein practically launched relativity by himself, against the hordes of PHD's. I really doubt the people at AT can compete with those people. Knowledge is endless, and that is why Socrates said "All I know is that I know nothing" he realized how huge and endless the truth about things were and how hard it was to grasp things clearly, and was constantly questioning people and getting their concepts to the surface to see if they held up under scrutiny.
I've worked out the logic behind it all, this is what I hate about AT, status based tribal thinking out the ying yang, there is no humility, there is only status based credentialist racism - i.e. you are smart because you have a PHD bla bla bla bla, anyone who is smart and has a PHD level degree knows -- we are all fucking stupid as hell, our world is filled with ignorance, war, poverty, etc, and this shows how well "reasoned" we all are.
And now you are comparing yourself to Einstein, as well as continuing to attack people that disagree with you.
I apologize for my previous posts and for even attempting a rational discussion with you. It is obvious that you suffer from a mental disorder and require professional assistance to deal with your problems. Your statements are borderline incoherent and you are close to megalomania in references to yourself. There is no point at reasoned discourse here, and I truly hope that you seek out some help for your problems and can find some comfort in the future.
Good luck in your travels,
Scott
The difference between Einstein and you is that he could actually explain his theories in the absence of cheap insults, broken English, and he was actually right. Your idea is poorly conceived, miserably explained, and most likely wrong. I can't say for sure whether or not you're right because you've yet to make a coherent statement of it that a single member of this forum can understand. In short, quit spamming the forum with your gibberish and go find some traffic to play in.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
Note I was not comparing my self to einstein (again assuming on your part), I was showing that one/few people can be right and everyone else can be incorrect, regardless of anything else. Notice how everyone here takes everything I say as a personal attack on their ego, this is not what I meant.
Nice ad hominem, "most likely wrong" but yet you have not yet demonstrated where it is wrong. Demonstrate it or just don't reply.
All you need to do is explain where there is no overlap in this venn diagram, if you can't explain where there is a disconnect you don't have a case, none of you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...05/2793607515/sizes/o/
So guys, point out where there is one or don't bother.
I think the root of the problem is that how you perceive yourself is totally skewed with how others perceive you. I'm not sure if intentional or not but your OP was severely lacking in definitions, reference frames, point of views and justifications. Let me break down how I perceived your OP.
1. Thoughts are real - duh (pretty obvious)?!?
2. In one definition of the word, objective (has existence), thoughts are objective - duh (pretty obvious)?!?
3. Conclusion - thoughts can't be subjective (no definition given) - wtf(what are you smoking)?!?
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply concluding that our thoughts cannot be non-existing, they are real. Using a word, which typically is used in different fashion, is not being specific, rather trying to elicit confused responses.
Here is where the perception part comes in. When you respond to such confused responses, you also state your opinion about the poster for posting their response. Regardless of your intentions, you are showing that you are an arrogant prick. Unintentional does not cut it as an excuse for what people are perceiving about your character. Crime does not forgive ignorance, nor do people's perceptions about their reality.
Then the topic shifts from the OP, to disassembling your character, conduct and how you perceive reality. Now you find people trying to figure out what makes your brain tick rather than trying to discuss about the OP (with no assumptions and given definitions, nobody is arguing against).
I knew a guy just like you in college (don't tell me your name is Josh...) who might have been brilliant if not for his inability to communicate his ideas to the rest of the world. In that sense, he was trapped in his own mind/world. I would've felt a little pity for the guy if it weren't for his huge ego and arrogance.
1. Thoughts are real - duh (pretty obvious)?!?
2. In one definition of the word, objective (has existence), thoughts are objective - duh (pretty obvious)?!?
3. Conclusion - thoughts can't be subjective (no definition given) - wtf(what are you smoking)?!?
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply concluding that our thoughts cannot be non-existing, they are real. Using a word, which typically is used in different fashion, is not being specific, rather trying to elicit confused responses.
Here is where the perception part comes in. When you respond to such confused responses, you also state your opinion about the poster for posting their response. Regardless of your intentions, you are showing that you are an arrogant prick. Unintentional does not cut it as an excuse for what people are perceiving about your character. Crime does not forgive ignorance, nor do people's perceptions about their reality.
Then the topic shifts from the OP, to disassembling your character, conduct and how you perceive reality. Now you find people trying to figure out what makes your brain tick rather than trying to discuss about the OP (with no assumptions and given definitions, nobody is arguing against).
I knew a guy just like you in college (don't tell me your name is Josh...) who might have been brilliant if not for his inability to communicate his ideas to the rest of the world. In that sense, he was trapped in his own mind/world. I would've felt a little pity for the guy if it weren't for his huge ego and arrogance.
Of course but when people aren't capable of grasping what you're saying that's going to happen, people misunderstand each other all the time non-intentionally.
Ok let me explain further
First of all, apparently what I find trivial to understand from generalities, you need specifics.
It's fairly basic, here let me point out where the frames are:
1. We detect (observe), change, and modify our thoughts (we are reference frame 1, "2"), since the reference frames exist simultaneously and we can measure them for ourselves objectively and trivially.
We are two frames at the same time, because of self recursive nature of consciousness. i.e. we are capable of observing a thought and modifying it, therefore we are observing an idea of a type.
Consider the question: Do you exist? The only way you could know that is if have 2 frames to begin with. Or would you dispute that?
2. We know other people have thoughts and we can ask them (reference frame "2" (technically 3))
We know thoughts exist objectively, we can ask the question:
Can you detect, modify and change your own thoughts?
Not only that, they have to be true by necessity. Regardless of what anyone thinks else we couldn't think, navigate, write posts, etc.
Devices are merely mental prosthetics, we are the measuring device in the end, all of our tools to measure reality are merely prosthetics for our minds, so our minds are the true measuring tool.
Look I was being specific, I'm sorry I didn't explain it in a way you could follow but there is no way I was not being specific. I will give you the concepts you need to understand. Each person reasons in a different way, hence my bringing up Mr. Lakoffs comments, here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfC-2-BYuQQ
I did diagrams to help you guys get it visually, i.e. the inheritance line, which was pretty damn obvious since I drew out the relationship for you visually. i.e. but apparently no one knows how to read venn diagrams or can derive meaning from those diagrams.
Concepts that you need to understand:
Inheritance
Reality inherits the properties of reality, i.e. if you are derived from matter and energy/existence (objective), and since any 'child' is always connected to the former, any child must be objective by definition, since it is the same thing merely remolded.
Inheritance is a way to form new classes of stuff (instances of which we call objects) using classes that have already been defined (pre-existing matter and energy)
The new classes, known as derived classes, take over (or inherit) attributes and behavior of the pre-existing classes, which are referred to as base classes (or ancestor classes).
Detection
A fact of observation, is a fact of detection, how can you detect "subjectively existing things", when you know the prior concept -- the inheritance of reality from itself.
Fractal recursion, shapes within shapes, patterns within patterns.
An algorithm, or shape, characterized by self-similarity and produced by recursive sub-division; more generally the branch of mathematics named ...
www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/envis/Ervin_book/html/glossary/glossary.htm
That distinct objects, are merely distinct not separate, i.e. surface of reality is unified ultimately
The myth that things are separate in the absolute sense.
To sum up, here's how it is: A piece of the surface of reality (us) is recursively feeding back into the surface of reality, in a recursive loop. That is the only way we could be self conscious, and detect things is if there is no absolute disconnection.
I drew the diagrams for the relationships, it's not my fault no one was capable of grasping the relationships from the images.
I can draw a diagram too.
o <-----Your ass
o <-----A hole in the ground
Can you tell the difference? My diagram is clearly labeled with well-defined terms, whereas yours use ambiguous (at best) vocabulary. You have yet to offer a coherent definition for objective or subjective, which is what the entire thread is about. If you're not prepared to do that, kindly stop posting.
I've already defined them multiple times, you're claiming nonsense once again.
i.e. existence = empirical reality
objective = empirical reality
You guys aren't connecting the concepts I display, once you detect and change your own thought, it empirically exists, it's game over. That was the whole point of the detection objection.
The whole point is to show the concepts are INCOHERENT because the people who formed them were ignorant of aspects of reality they were unaware of, i.e. reality is ultimately all connected, one all connected kind of surface.
This whole thread is about examing and attacking the process of conceptualization (i.e. the definitions) words are defined by a process of conceptualization, just because we invent words doesn't mean their concepts (meanings, definitions) were formed correctly, that was the whole point that is lost upon you.
Your definitions are the only thing nonsensical here. No one else would define objective as existence. Given your ridiculous definitions, then of course you're right and all thoughts are objective simply because they exist. No one has argued that.
Now, the real problem in this thread. "Objective" usually connotes things that are true independent of perception, and not everything that exists is necessarily intrinsically true in this sense. Its existence is true, but that does not imply that a given relationship is true. For example, given that y=x+1, y<5. This is conditionally true depending on the value of x. If we know the value of x objectively and it causes y<5, then it is objectively true. However, if x depends on the perceptions or whim of a person, it may have any value and y becomes subjective in that it does not have an intrinsic value independent of an observer.
Where do definitions come from? How were they formed, from where? Ask those questions before you start spouting nonsense. That was the whole point you're telling me I'm using different definitions but you can't demonstrate that I am.
Either way you don't have the background to take part in this debate, you don't understand venn diagrams, you don't understand the process of conceptualization, so your handwaving over "you're not using definitions" or "you're using improper" definitions is your error.
The whole point of this thread was that the words are conceived, from the world itself, if they were conceived before a part of reality was not understood then the whole concept will become incoherent. Just like in ages past when people thought things were made of elements of fire, etc. The definition is the concept. The concept was derived from a persons understanding of the world. This is totally lost on you.
Definitions come from common usage. If you are straying from those standard definitions, you need to define your terms. Your Venn diagrams are a joke, just like all of your posts. You are simply using circular rhetoric to ensure that you can always claim that no one else understands what you're saying. In the process, you've made it clear that the only person lacking the background to discuss these things is you. /thread
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Definitions are informed from the world, you can't begin to use something until it is conceptualized.
Where do definitions come from? How were they formed, from where? Ask those questions before you start spouting nonsense. You're judgement is still in error until you answer those questions. Until then there can be no valid claim from you.
Thoughts are not real. You can under your own volition cease a thought. Conservation of mass would therefore dictate that thoughts are not physical entities but a collection of relationships and orientations of electrical patterns in your cortex. Any orgainization is as good as anyother so thoughts are therefore subjective.
BTW you can detect things that are not there. Happens all the time. Typically called a hallucination. Research in neuroscience has demonstrated that perception only has a superficial congruency to reality. However since you have no way of detecting actual reality. One must assume that the reality that you perceive is the actual reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKTNg0Z35go
If they are not real you can't be conscious right now, it's a contradiction, most thought happens in subconscious processes you don't have access to and yes the are very real.
The problem with your claim is that you detect your own thoughts, you can't detect something that is not really there.
You're misunderstanding, you're using another definition of "not real". A hallucination is physical event, it is merely distortion of information, the information still exists, I can write a program to swizzle my screen into a hallcinatory pattern, the pattern still exists. Check out the split brain experiments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnyQewsB_Y
Thought is non-material, it is not evolved out of matter. Let's say you are feeling hungry, you think the brain sends signals telling "it is hungry and it needs some food to survive" but the question arises - how did the brain first started to work without food? if you think it was using some alternate source of energy then there must have been a change to that pattern because now it is asking you to eat something up. Obviously this will drag on to non welcoming subjects which I can discuss if you PM me.
Am not religious, but I do believe strongly in God. And I did work at a Physics research lab writing computer code for three years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter