| Feb 8th, 2004 10:57 PM |
| mesobe |
the reason why I gave up on this thread a week ago. I think the only thing that needs to be locked up is OAO's keyboard.
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 04:01 PM |
| kellychaos |
A sociology instructor I had once pointed out that, in the successful and efficient societies, people tended to have more time to reflect and turn more toward the humanities after the power struggle is over. Things like military might and a technological edge have been theirs for long that the effort to continue furthering them isn't put forth after a while. These socities eventually become less concerned with retaining their power and efficiency become apathetic.
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 03:45 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
For the record, I didn't expect my thread to end up anything like this. I just wanted a simple clarification. And OAO raped my thread until it was all loose and saggy and oily. Artificial (may I call you Artifical, Brandon?) and the others didn't help with encouraging our resident 15 year old mandark-wannabe  |
Mea culpa. 
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 01:31 PM |
| Helm |
For the record, I didn't expect my thread to end up anything like this. I just wanted a simple clarification. And OAO raped my thread until it was all loose and saggy and oily. Artificial (may I call you Artifical, Brandon?) and the others didn't help with encouraging our resident 15 year old mandark-wannabe
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 07:57 PM |
| Drew Katsikas |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Protoclown
Thanks OAOAOA for ruining another perfectly good thread.
Say the word, folks, and I'll lock it.
|
THE WORD
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 07:43 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kellychaos
Much of logic was develop by Aristotle and is based on truth tables, diagrams, ect. Much of the rigorous thereoms of mathematics are proven in the "if then" structure of logical inductive proofs because it's the way Nature has conditioned our minds to think. I'd even add that our minds, being a part of nature, have evolved to think most naturally, in this (mostly) "black and white" world of logic. I have to hear any convincing ... nay, valid ... logical arguments about the metaphysical in which some concept of "faith" wasn't involved.
|
Your confusing the concept of logic with the process of logic. Logic, as it is defined, does not necessarily have to be bound by natural laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?
|
I'm not following this. Time is merely what events pass through in the natural world. That does not mean that events must be caused.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
The basic ingredients of the planet at it's original state ... throw in some physical laws ... and, yes, throw in a little probability ... and you have both the way our planet and ourselves evolved. I'd say that the planet has more to do with the way we evolved than any dent we could make the other way around ... and when we're gone, the planet will hardly remember our existence at all. The way in which we evolved wasn't predistined ... such is the flavor I'm getting from your writing. The path we, or the world, took could have been changed completely by just the change of a few insignificant variables.
|
True, but what I am saying is that it is unprobable that we would have naturally evolved to a superior state that matched the capabilities we have gained with technology had we never made technological advancements.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Wha?  Prove it! For want of a nail, another OAO kingdom has fallen. |
I already pointed out that the argument only works if you accept the first premise. You don't have to do so - but, so far as we can tell, it would seem that all things are caused by virtue of an extremely large induction.
There are very few things which can be proven beyond a doubt.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 07:14 PM |
| Brandon |
I think we need to let this thread die lest it turn into a lumbering beast.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 06:58 PM |
| theapportioner |
Yeah, OAO's argument isn't a very strong one. Who is to say that the natural world (presumably, the universe) necessarily had to be caused? One could imagine the Big Bang being an uncaused event; to my layman's knowledge, this idea hasn't been rejected. Of course, if the universe is uncaused, then the first premise is also untrue.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 06:56 PM |
| kellychaos |
I was going to say that something like temperature was a more objective phenomena but I guess it isn't, is it?
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 06:49 PM |
| theapportioner |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kellychaos
Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?
|
Well, these are just varying units for measuring time. How is this any different from the diversity of scales for measuring space, temperature, etc.?
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 06:06 PM |
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only
Logic is bound by no such thing.
|
Much of logic was develop by Aristotle and is based on truth tables, diagrams, ect. Much of the rigorous thereoms of mathematics are proven in the "if then" structure of logical inductive proofs because it's the way Nature has conditioned our minds to think. I'd even add that our minds, being a part of nature, have evolved to think most naturally, in this (mostly) "black and white" world of logic. I have to hear any convincing ... nay, valid ... logical arguments about the metaphysical in which some concept of "faith" wasn't involved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Time is what all natural events occur in. It has nothing to do with principles of causuality.
|
Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Probability theory has a lot to say about it.
|
The basic ingredients of the planet at it's original state ... throw in some physical laws ... and, yes, throw in a little probability ... and you have both the way our planet and ourselves evolved. I'd say that the planet has more to do with the way we evolved than any dent we could make the other way around ... and when we're gone, the planet will hardly remember our existence at all. The way in which we evolved wasn't predistined ... such is the flavor I'm getting from your writing. The path we, or the world, took could have been changed completely by just the change of a few insignificant variables.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
"All existing things are caused"
|
Wha? Prove it! For want of a nail, another OAO kingdom has fallen.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 06:02 PM |
| Protoclown |
Thanks OAOAOA for ruining another perfectly good thread.
Say the word, folks, and I'll lock it.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 05:40 PM |
| theapportioner |
Okay. How do you argue it, then?
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 04:17 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?
|
Yes, I understood. But you should have read my rebuttal.
Also, the principle of universal causation is not so much an axiom as it is an inductive argument.
|
| Feb 5th, 2004 01:43 AM |
| Vibecrewangel |
Yup
Quote:
|
No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.
|
My work here is done. 
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 11:58 PM |
| Helm |
In fact, read Beyond Good and Evil for the book club thing and pay special attention to the mentionings of reductio ad absurdum... you're doing a pretty good job at that.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 11:37 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused
|
Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 09:46 PM |
| The One and Only... |
And just to point something out - I post all this crap on the board because I want you guys to point out inconsistencies in my arguments, such as the one regarding terminology which was just pointed out. Did it ruin the argument? No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 09:38 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Update: Posts changed so that the meaning of exists is consistent.
In responce to the criticism of my theory (which, as I said before, is more or less obselete since I discovered the cosmological argument), I was operating under different meanings for reality.
Change the argument so that it reads...
All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused
Note that this is different from the argument I've been making in this thread, which is based on time. Rather than showing the inconsistency of infinite time, the argument makes its basis on the principle of universal causuality.
As far as for what you just posted, that would change a lot of the terminology which I have used. Because I don't feel like editing my posts again - realise that the principle of universal causation only applies to things which exist within the natural world, rather than in reality. Time is similar - it only applies to things which exist inside the natural world.
You may note that because time cannot be natural, the principle of universal causation cannot be applied to time itself. But this is not the basis of the argument - rather, an infinite time would be inconsistent with the natural world's processes.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 09:33 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
Exist (v.) "To have actual being; be real."
|
That was the defintion we were all using. You suddenly narrowed it down with "to have being in a naturalistic context" to save face when your lousy syllogism proved unsound.
And no, I don't think this "proves" my point, but I'm not willing to discuss anything more with you until you grow up and cut this sleight-of-hand bullshit.
So, like I said, go to town on that twinkie, fatty.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 09:24 PM |
| The One and Only... |
You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 09:13 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
The supernatural doesn't exist, you fuckwit. It is merely real. Existence implies being within space and time, which the supernatural is not.
|
You're changing your argument now, asshole:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pompous Fatass
Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must exist, not how it could exist.
|
Oh, but now you're going to act like you never claimed it existed at all, only that it was "real." You're a master bullshitter, nothing more, and until you can stick with your original terms, this discussion is finished. Go fuck yourself. Or better yet, go cram another twinkie in your gaping pie-hole, you fat, useless, chronically alienated, psuedo-intellectual pile of shit.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 08:05 PM |
| The_Rorschach |
Eh, she was sitting at a table by herself drawing shitty little porno-type pictures, and I let her know that if she was really interested in a train me and my boy Jon would happily oblige.
I guess she was offended or something. Moral turpitude is a bust you know.
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 07:53 PM |
| Vibecrewangel |
Drink
Why did she throw a drink at you?
|
| Feb 4th, 2004 06:56 PM |
| The_Rorschach |
I hit Long Beach the weekend before last, but I was on a borrowed board and the waves were shitty. . .And a girl I was talking to at the Queens Surf threw a margarrita (sp?) at me so I left dejected. But the weather was great for Febuary
I think I am just going to bury myself in work until St Patricks day before trying again 
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
