Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Petrarch of the VBB on October 16, 2002, 01:01:15 pm
-
Well what do you think? Personally I believe that the galss is neither half full nor half empty, simply twice the size it needs to be.
-
Edit:
Thread re-opened. The point of this is to see wether people are optimists or pessimists (sp? meh..) Lets not have hundreds of old jokes about half-empty glasses ok? ;)
-
Thank you, your holiness. All bow down to Thunder!
-
Oh shush ;)
Anyway, I am for the most part an optimist, although it greatly depends on the situation. I rarely find myself thinking something can never be done about a situation.
-
Pretty much always half-empty here; I always look at what is wrong with something rather than what is right with it, because that gives incentive to improve it. :D
-
The orderly lady told me that it had to be completely full.
-
Guess what i voted - i dare ya!
-
the glass is smashed and broken on the ground.
-
twice as big as needed
-
half full and therefore needs to be filled up to the top.
-
There is no half, as its magical and is always full.
-
Originally posted by Thor
There is no half, as its magical and is always full.
strange, same here :P
-
whereas mine is currently depressingly devoid of alchohol. :(
-
Originally posted by Carl
the glass is smashed and broken on the ground.
you're pessimist!!!
lol, that's one way of thinking about it
-
to correctly answer this question, you need to know what's it's half full of!!!
also you need to know how to say "glass" in Chinese!
-
Both, obviously.
-
The point is, my glass was full when I went to the bog, and now I've only got half a pint - frankly, I'm pointing the finger at you, matey boy
*smashes end off bottle on bar*
-
hahahaha lol
enough fun now, we're turning this OT again, and Thunder's going to get pissed :D
-
Not on my bloody pint he's not...
Anybody wanna go for some slammers?
-
Hell if i know, i'm pretty sure it's in my dishwasher..had to clean out that nasty stain form the... well lets not go there
-
What'd you call my mum?
*sways*
*hiccups*
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
What'd you call my mum?
*sways*
*hiccups*
*hic*
Mabel
*slams head against bar*
-
The glass contains 50% of its maximum capacity of liquid.
Problem solved.
-
Other: It's both half empty and half full!!
-
Half-full, so there's enough room for the whipped cream and the strawberry :yes: ;)
-
Neither. Regardless how accurate your measurment system, you cannot know for a fact that it contains precisely 50% of capacity, and the odds are fantastically against such being the case in any event.
-
It's a GIVEN that it's got 50% of the original... CP, explain what "given" means to them...
-
The glass is half empty.
Optomists are often disappointed, but Pessimists are sometimes pleasantly suprised!
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
The glass is half empty.
Optomists are often disappointed, but Pessimists are sometimes pleasantly suprised!
exactly.
even if you do earn the title "most depressing b*stard on the planet"
-
*slides under table*
*begins to snore*
-
In order to understand the nature of "fullness", and the accompanying concept of "emptiness", one must first recognize that they are mere subjective descriptions, neither actually in existence except as a reference to other items exhibiting the same properties of fullness and emptiness- thus, in order to even begin to define them, one must understand the context of the terms- in this case, what is defined by "glass"? You cannot just measure it's form and properties and claim to understand the glass, but must understand ALL of the glass, down to the most fundamental level. In order to do this properly, in fact, one must understand the Universe fully, to appreciate not only the nature of the glass, but it's context, and how it relates to the rest of the universe- and considering the interconnectivity of all things (which one must assume in arguments such as these), that means understanding EVERYTHING on the most basic and the most complex level. How will the state of the glass affect things further in time? Consider the possibilities- if the glass is broken, someone may cut themselves on it. To use the cliched example used in most chain-reaction time theory, this person may then develop gangrene and die, while in another potentiality (were the glass whole, or not in so many little shards, all over the floor, or if the pieces were arranged differently), they would develop a cure for cancer. Which, in turn, may have saved the life of a local despot of some island nation in time for him to develop tactical nuclear weapons, which he then may fire at the Earth in such a way as to knock it completely out of orbit and into the Sun- and so, you may see, much may depend on the status and the nature of the glass. Moreover, this is not a one-sided force- the glass acts, and is acted upon, in true physics style. A quark shaking in a nebula a million light-years away may set off a chain of events resulting in a slight flaw in the glass, or the arrangement of certain stones on Mars may inspire a glassmaker to become flamboyantly homosexual and create the glass as one of those cheesy, garishly-colored martini glasses with the corkscrew stem. Granted, these are unlikely possibilities, but possible all the same, and if something is possible, it must be considered and understood in relation to the glass- not only must one know the glass, and the universe it is in, but all glasses it could have been, with all of their parallel universes. Naturally, this is impossible for any human- or indeed any being who is not, by definition, omniscient. Thus, the answer to your question can only be truly answered by one authority (the presence of a single omniscient/omnipotent being negates the existence of another), who may or may not even exist, and who certainly is not available to answer questions on fullness and emptiness.
[pinches diamondgeezer's wallet]
-
Depends if you're drinking from it, or filling it :P
-
Paragraphs are A-1 SUPAR! :D
It depends on whether you're filling it or you're emptying it. If you're in the process of filling it and you stop halfway, it's half full. If you're drinking the contents and you stop halfway, it's half empty.
If you run across it with no knowledge of how it got to be that way, it's half full. :yes:
-
That is a paragraph.
-
Does anyone fancy a kebab?
-
does it make a difference if the glass has a tippee lid on it?
-
I meant paragraph *separations*. That's awfully long to read in one stretch. :p
-
This isn't my glass! It was bigger and full!
-
meh, water from a hose is best. ;7
mmmmmmm lead & calcium concentrates .. *drools*
-
*calls for a refill*
-
I always just say it's half
-
Half what? that's well n' good, but it doesn't work as well as it should?
"How tall are you abe?"
"Well Gabe, i am half."
"say wha? Abe you tripp'n"
"only half man, only half"
;)
I need to get more sleep, eh?
-
half you're size
-
:p
By the by, what the hell does seeing the glass as being empty or full have to really do with Optimist/pessimist ?
So say i think the glass is empty.. as compared to not full. That makes me a negative person? Only a ninny would go around saying to people saying "My glass was not full, can i have some water?"
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
meh, water from a hose is best. ;7
mmmmmmm lead & calcium concentrates .. *drools*
ewwwww....you would love New Orleans' heavily chlorinated tap water (http://kier.3dfrontier.com/smilies/squeeze.gif)
Scary thought for the day: it was voted third best-tasting tap water in the country (http://www.uniquehardware.co.uk/server-smilies/contrib/blackeye/ugone2far.gif)
-
Chlorine in tap water??
uck.
A good dose of Iron is in my water is the only way for me. ;)
Scary thought for the day: it was voted third best-tasting tap water in the country
lol they had a vote for this? :lol: :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
A good dose of Iron is in my water is the only way for me. ;)
And so gentle on the stomach :shaking:
lol they had a vote for this? :lol: :wtf:
*throws hands up* I know, I know :rolleyes:
-
I actualy like the slitely metalic taste of a little clorine, it's more refreshing
-
Rainwater straight from the tank is the absolute best water. No question.
-
"There is no glass."
-
I have not drank water by itself in years; it's always gatorade for me... :p :D
-
Well, that all depends... If you drank from the glass when it was full, it's now half-empty. But if you filled the glass hafl-way when it was empty, it's now half-full. ^^;;
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Well, that all depends... If you drank from the glass when it was full, it's now half-empty. But if you filled the glass hafl-way when it was empty, it's now half-full. ^^;;
Originally posted by Goober5000
It depends on whether you're filling it or you're emptying it. If you're in the process of filling it and you stop halfway, it's half full. If you're drinking the contents and you stop halfway, it's half empty.
I said it first! I said it first! :ha: :D
-
Who says it's fulla water? I thought it was bathtub gin.
Anyway. We don't drink the water out where I live, and with good reason.
...I hear that in most places, if you boil the water, you won't end up with water condensation and half a pound of nasty-looking powdery substance...
-
have not drank water by itself in years; it's always gatorade for me...
powdered or bottled? bottled gets helluv expensive after a while.
...I hear that in most places, if you boil the water, you won't end up with water condensation and half a pound of nasty-looking powdery substance...
we talkin' high quality powder, or the ucky, excesse, wipe off the table with a sponge junk?
-
Dunno, never snorted it.
Come to think of it, I DO live close enough to DC...
Thanks, I may have just found a new income source!:D
-
careful:
make sure it ain't pixie stick ****.. wow, get enough o' dat candy up in there and snot starts to come out yo eyes
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I said it first! I said it first! :ha: :D
I said it one post before you :wtf:
-
we don't even have to boil our water to see the substances that remain visibly suspended in it :shaking:
-
It's flavoring
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I said it one post before you :wtf:
Whoops, so you did. Didn't read carefully enough. Sorry about that. :o
-
Originally posted by Stealth
It's a GIVEN that it's got 50% of the original... CP, explain what "given" means to them...
I deny that such can be given. Any attempt to state that the glass is filled to 50% capacity without perfectly accurate measurement thereof produces a non-real account of the situation. If we are dealing with a non-real account of the situation, then whatever answer one might give has no bearing on the real state of the glass, and can thus be dismissed as irrelevant.
-
Now wait a minute. *Assume* we have a glass with 50% of its capacity occupied by something, then what do we call it. It's a hypothetical scenario, not a bloody physics experiment. :wtf:
-
Now wait a minute. *Assume* we have a glass with 50% of its capacity occupied by something, then what do we call it. It's a hypothetical scenario, not a bloody physics experiment.
well on the topic of making scientific (:drevil:) combacks, nobody fills there glass to 100% percent of it's capacity/volume, so you are all wrong in assuming that.
-
I deny that such can be given. Any attempt to state that the glass is filled to 50% capacity without perfectly accurate measurement thereof produces a non-real account of the situation. If we are dealing with a non-real account of the situation, then whatever answer one might give has no bearing on the real state of the glass, and can thus be dismissed as irrelevant.
Come on, anything can be given. :p We are not interested in a "real state" here, but an approximation to the real state, since it is impossible to get an exact value by direct observation. If you think that anything that is not a perfectly real account is irrelevant, you might as well call all of science irrelevant. :p But of course, that is all the more reason to get into pure math; you will not find any such "real" and "non-real" junk there, since you decide what is real and what is not. ;7 :D
-
Well, if you want to talk in hypothetics, go ahead. But that wasn't the question. The question was whether the glass was half full or half empty. To fulfill the function you want it to, it has to be reformulated to "Assuming the hypothetical situation that the glass is filled to 50% of its capacity, is it half full or half empty?" Asking whether the glass is half full or half empty can only be a meaningful question after it is determined that it is in fact filled to 50% capacity.
Originally posted by CP5670
If you think that anything that is not a perfectly real account is irrelevant, you might as well call all of science irrelevant. :p
*In the interests of logical consistency and intellectual facetiousness, Sesq. first declares "ALL SCIENCE IS IRRELEVANT!" Then he decides to explicate his position slightly and addend the stipulation "TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PHENOMENAL SITUATIONS!" since scientific laws, describing nature in approximation as they do, can only give us general concepts and principles regarding the ways of nature, whereas the consideration of any particular circumstance is a matter of observation, not application of principle. Sesq. goes on to consider bringing up Hiedelberg's famous principle, but decides against it, as it wouldn't really add anything further to the argument, anyway.*
Edit: For those wondering about the use of the word phenomenal in the preceeding, click on this (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phenomenal). Meanings a and b are the important ones here.
-
Now now..
Any party-goer knows that the fullness of the glass is not the question.
Now whether or not the KEG is half full or half empty.. Ahh, that's the question.
To drink, or not to drink, that is the question. Is it nobler in the mind's eye to dance, or to run back before Jeff goes for a refill... ;)
-
The answer is simple, the glass is both half empty and half full...
-
or maybe, it's just half.
or half liquidated, even
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of th VBB
Thank you, your holiness. All bow down to Thunder!
:doubt:
Make me! :p :drevil:
-
Well, if you want to talk in hypothetics, go ahead. But that wasn't the question. The question was whether the glass was half full or half empty. To fulfill the function you want it to, it has to be reformulated to "Assuming the hypothetical situation that the glass is filled to 50% of its capacity, is it half full or half empty?" Asking whether the glass is half full or half empty can only be a meaningful question after it is determined that it is in fact filled to 50% capacity.
That is true, but I think it was dropped because we have all probably heard this question before several times, although it would have been a good idea to include that anyway. (but you do not need to have anything on "hypothetical situations," since it does not have to be a real glass) Your first post was correct, but the others were not. :D
*In the interests of logical consistency and intellectual facetiousness, Sesq. first declares "ALL SCIENCE IS IRRELEVANT!" Then he decides to explicate his position slightly and addend the stipulation "TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PHENOMENAL SITUATIONS!" since scientific laws, describing nature in approximation as they do, can only give us general concepts and principles regarding the ways of nature, whereas the consideration of any particular circumstance is a matter of observation, not application of principle. Sesq. goes on to consider bringing up Hiedelberg's famous principle, but decides against it, as it wouldn't really add anything further to the argument, anyway.*
Alright, so now you are saying that all experimental science is irrelevant; cool deal. :D The phenomenal situation only attains its meaning in the first place from the theory; without the theory, the "particular circumstances" would not only be disconnected and jumbled up, but would have no meanings in themselves either. :p (you must have read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery; this stuff is in there) Come on, I think you know that you messed up this time but you are just dragging this on into absurdity. :p
-
Perhaps his luminescance (sp?) the great Thunnder should have closed it after all, this is getting silly.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is true ... Your first post was correct, but the others were not. :D
Make up your mind ;)
Alright, so now you are saying that all experimental science is irrelevant; cool deal. :D The phenomenal situation only attains its meaning in the first place from the theory; without the theory, the "particular circumstances" would not only be disconnected and jumbled up, but would have no meanings in themselves either. :p (you must have read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery; this stuff is in there) Come on, I think you know that you messed up this time but you are just dragging this on into absurdity. :p
Balderdash! :D I don't need any theories regarding the visocity of liquids, gravitation, chemical bonding or whatever else to determine whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity. I might need some or all of those to predict what would happen if I knocked the glass over, but to simply assess whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity I need reference none of those. The principles describe (and predict) patterns of change, not states of being.
The relationship between the phenomenal situation and the theory is unidirectional. The theory doesn't confirm or deny the phenomenal: regardless how "jumbled up" it might be in our minds, the phenomenal is nevertheless just there. We assess the phenomenal situation before and after the relevant actions are performed, and the results of that observation confirm or deny the theory. That is the purpose of experimental science, silly fellow! ;)
-
Silence...
-
Sleep deprivation conduces to aphasia. :nod:
...silly fellow ;)
-
Balderdash! :D I don't need any theories regarding the visocity of liquids, gravitation, chemical bonding or whatever else to determine whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity. I might need some or all of those to predict what would happen if I knocked the glass over, but to simply assess whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity I need reference none of those. The principles describe (and predict) patterns of change, not states of being.
Of course, the principles can still can be used to predict from certain other events whether or not the glass is half full. You don't need to use them but they can still work. And a state of being is a form of change. :p
The relationship between the phenomenal situation and the theory is unidirectional. The theory doesn't confirm or deny the phenomenal: regardless how "jumbled up" it might be in our minds, the phenomenal is nevertheless just there. We assess the phenomenal situation before and after the relevant actions are performed, and the results of that observation confirm or deny the theory. That is the purpose of experimental science, silly fellow! ;)
In practice, it is bidirectional; we assign the phenomenal situation a meaning in the first place from yet another theory. (a different one than the theory that arises from the analysis of these particular events) The theory will not change the properties themselves, but it will change any relative quantities in our minds, and the interpretation of the properties is one of those. Also, the theory has the potential to be more accurate than a direct observation (not usually true in practice, but hypothetically possible), because a fully precise direct observation is known to be impossible while no such thing is known to hold for an indirect, theoretical observation.
But forget about that; all this really has nothing to do with what you were saying earlier. You said that any observation that is not absolutely exact is meaningless, so there goes experimental science. :p :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course, the principles can still can be used to predict from certain other events whether or not the glass is half full. You don't need to use them but they can still work. And a state of being is a form of change. :p
Not without making some other observation, you can't, whic puts us right back in the same boat. And change can happen only through temporal extension. The issue is whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity at a particular moment. If we want to talk about change, we need to measure it once, and then again later. But then we aren't asking the same question at all.
In practice, it is bidirectional; we assign the phenomenal situation a meaning in the first place from yet another theory. (a different one than the theory that arises from the analysis of these particular events) The theory will not change the properties themselves, but it will change any relative quantities in our minds, and the interpretation of the properties is one of those.
The actual realm of applicability of the point you raise lies elsewhere. That our hypotheses inform our choices of what phenomena are relevant to consider in evaluating a theory is something I would certainly not dispute (I believe I brought up the same in an argument of ours many moons ago). But that is inapplicable here -- the only relevant criteria for the observation have already been determined: whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.
Wait, but perhaps you are lumping the fundamental axioms of identity and such together with quantum mechnics, optics, general relativity, the rules governing viscosity, and other theories of that type into some sort of general and undefined blob called "theory." Then your comment about bi-directionality could perhaps be considered true in this case, but to use the word "theory" in this way would be such a debasement of the word as to render it merely a synomym for "mental involvment," no longer meaning theory any more at all, so surely you can't mean that.
Also, the theory has the potential to be more accurate than a direct observation (not usually true in practice, but hypothetically possible), because a fully precise direct observation is known to be impossible while no such thing is known to hold for an indirect, theoretical observation.
Not hypothetically possible. No matter what one would still have to start with observation, and can thus only be as accurate as the observations with which one started. If one is dealing with purely hypothetic situations, then and only then can one be perfectly accurate, but that brings us back to where we started.
But forget about that; all this really has nothing to do with what you were saying earlier. You said that any observation that is not absolutely exact is meaningless, so there goes experimental science. :p :D
No I didn't. I said 1) that the question regarding the glass's being half full or half empty was meaningless until it had been shown that it was in fact filled to 50% capacity, and 2) that the scientific laws by which we describe change through time are irrelevant to our assessment of the situation of the glass and its contents. Go read it again. ;)
-
Not without making some other observation, you can't, whic puts us right back in the same boat. And change can happen only through temporal extension. The issue is whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity at a particular moment. If we want to talk about change, we need to measure it once, and then again later. But then we aren't asking the same question at all.
Exactly, but when did I say anything about not making other observations? I simply said that this direct one you talk of was not necessary. The very fact that we are measuring it once and getting a meaningful result out of it means that there is change right there; remember that we need some control to measure, so we must have seen a similar thing before.
The actual realm of applicability of the point you raise lies elsewhere. That our hypotheses inform our choices of what phenomena are relevant to consider in evaluating a theory is something I would certainly not dispute (I believe I brought up the same in an argument of ours many moons ago). But that is inapplicable here -- the only relevant criteria for the observation have already been determined: whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.
:wtf: I never said that it was not so; I was talking about the general concept of observation at the elementary particle level, where the theory is just as accurate as any practical observation. Since our theories are far less developed at this larger level than are our observational capabilities, it would usually be more accurate to directly observe in some way, but what I am saying is that this is not true as a general rule. (although why you brought that up here in the first place is beyond me)
Wait, but perhaps you are lumping the fundamental axioms of identity and such together with quantum mechnics, optics, general relativity, the rules governing viscosity, and other theories of that type into some sort of general and undefined blob called "theory." Then your comment about bi-directionality could perhaps be considered true in this case, but to use the word "theory" in this way would be such a debasement of the word as to render it merely a synomym for "mental involvment," no longer meaning theory any more at all, so surely you can't mean that.
That is still a theory; what more than mental involvement and analysis is a theory then? Are you saying that it is some fully tangible thing? Although this is true to some extent, the theory can be interpreted in too many different ways (using different axioms) to call it anything more than an ideal analysis.
Not hypothetically possible. No matter what one would still have to start with observation, and can thus only be as accurate as the observations with which one started. If one is dealing with purely hypothetic situations, then and only then can one be perfectly accurate, but that brings us back to where we started.
um, we are talking about this particular observation; all you have to do here is to use an observation that has been done with better precision to theorize about another event that cannot be accurately observed so easily. I did not say that it is possible to get an exact result, but that it is possible to get a more accurate result. Also, anything is hypothetically possible since it is just a hypothesis; that first sentence is messed up. :p
No I didn't. I said 1) that the question regarding the glass's being half full or half empty was meaningless until it had been shown that it was in fact filled to 50% capacity, and 2) that the scientific laws by which we describe change through time are irrelevant to our assessment of the situation of the glass and its contents. Go read it again.
That amounts to the same thing; it was given (or rather, implied, since I think he assumed that you had heard the question before) that the glass was 50% full. Of course, I still think that this given statement should be been explicitly stated there, but this has nothing to do with real/non-real glasses, hypothetical situations or whatever else you brought up; it is a simple logical problem that it is intended to reveal the second assumption, which varies from person to person. And what exactly do you mean by "shown?" The second statement would be correct for an "ideal" thinking machine that only has a one-way link between the knowledge store and the analytic portion, but it does not apply to humans unfortunately.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, but when did I say anything about not making other observations? I simply said that this direct one you talk of was not necessary. The very fact that we are measuring it once and getting a meaningful result out of it means that there is change right there; remember that we need some control to measure, so we must have seen a similar thing before.
I did. I'm not interested in what is happening to the glass, whether liquid is going in or out or anything else you care to imagine. I care only about whether the thing is filled to 50% capacity at the present moment. Whatever changes might be happening and whatever rules govern those changes are irrelevant: I care only for whether the glass and its contents are in this state, not how they got that way.
:wtf: I never said that it was not so; I was talking about the general concept of observation at the elementary particle level, where the theory is just as accurate as any practical observation. Since our theories are far less developed at this larger level than are our observational capabilities, it would usually be more accurate to directly observe in some way, but what I am saying is that this is not true as a general rule. (although why you brought that up here in the first place is beyond me)
I never said you did say so. I don't think we've been on the same page this whole time. My entire concern is with the state of the glass at a particular moment. Changes occuring through time are of no importance, becasue I don't care how the glass was 1 second ago, nor how it will be 1 second from now -- I care only whether at this present instant it is 50% full.
That is still a theory; what more than mental involvement and analysis is a theory then? Are you saying that it is some fully tangible thing? Although this is true to some extent, the theory can be interpreted in too many different ways (using different axioms) to call it anything more than an ideal analysis.
Theories involve propositions. Categories of thought do not. A theory is something like "If I eat this sandwich, I won't be hungry anymore," or "Force equals mass times acceleration." A category of thought is merely a basic, irreducible mental concept like "quantity," "identity," "causality," "substantiality," etc. We make propositions using these, and can even make self-referential propositions about them, but in themselves they are basic.
um, we are talking about this particular observation; all you have to do here is to use an observation that has been done with better precision to theorize about another event that cannot be accurately observed so easily. I did not say that it is possible to get an exact result, but that it is possible to get a more accurate result.
We are still left with an inaccurate description of the situation. As long as we are willing to admit that our description of the glass's state is only an approximation of reality, I have no problem with anything.
Also, anything is hypothetically possible since it is just a hypothesis; that first sentence is messed up. :p
Touche.
That amounts to the same thing;
No it doesn't. Experimental science is used to check whether our theories roughly correspond to reality, and in that sense it is very useful. But it's purpose is to keep theory close to reality. If we could get perfect measurements we could keep theory perfectly in line (not necessarily true, but in line) with reality, and could also dissolve the basis for my original objection. But the fact that we cannot get perfect measurements does not negate the meaingfulness of experimental science to its intended purpose -- getting an accurate as possible measurement of the contents of the glass would only be a means to the end, not the end itself.
it was given (or rather, implied, since I think he assumed that you had heard the question before) that the glass was 50% full. Of course, I still think that this given statement should be been explicitly stated there, but this has nothing to do with real/non-real glasses, hypothetical situations or whatever else you brought up;
It has everything to do with them. If we are making an assumption about the glass and then discussing it, we are no longer talking about the real glass, but about the ideal glass. We're talking about a hypothetical situation.
it is a simple logical problem that it is intended to reveal the second assumption, which varies from person to person.
I know what it is for, I'm just being a pain in the ass. ;7
And what exactly do you mean by "shown?"
Demonstrated with complete certitude.
The second statement would be correct for an "ideal" thinking machine that only has a one-way link between the knowledge store and the analytic portion, but it does not apply to humans unfortunately.
That we interpret data through our categories to render them intelligible to our minds I do not dispute. I don't agree that the theories (i.e. propositional statements, see above) we hold are necessary to the raw processing of the data by our senses, and now that we've distinguished them I'm sure you'll see what I mean in that regard.
But in the entire discussion I have have been precisely unconcerned with how we assume the glass to be, and entirely concerned with how the glass is in itself.
Anyway, now that I've had my fun (see "pain in the ass" comment above), I'll point out the real flaw in all my argument from the beginning, and thus depart: In all my brouhaha about the real vs. the assumed glass, I was talking nonsense, since there never was a real glass! The existence of the glass was already a hypothetic, so quibbles about being able to determine its precise fullness never applied -- there was nothing to inaccurately measure. :lol:
-
Sesquipedalian thinks the glass is half full. He's been saying "filled to 50% capacity" all along. End of discussion. :p :ha:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Sesquipedalian thinks the glass is half full. He's been saying "filled to 50% capacity" all along. End of discussion. :p :ha:
Give that man a cookie! I was wondering if anyone was going to pick up on that. :lol:
My other objection to the question was going to simply be that even pessimists say the glass is half full, because "half empty" is just plain awkward English. A better version of the question would be "Is the glass half full, or only half full."
-
I did. I'm not interested in what is happening to the glass, whether liquid is going in or out or anything else you care to imagine. I care only about whether the thing is filled to 50% capacity at the present moment. Whatever changes might be happening and whatever rules govern those changes are irrelevant: I care only for whether the glass and its contents are in this state, not how they got that way.
I never said you did say so. I don't think we've been on the same page this whole time. My entire concern is with the state of the glass at a particular moment. Changes occuring through time are of no importance, becasue I don't care how the glass was 1 second ago, nor how it will be 1 second from now -- I care only whether at this present instant it is 50% full.
okay...so why did you bring up the topic of change in the first place then? :p
Theories involve propositions. Categories of thought do not. A theory is something like "If I eat this sandwich, I won't be hungry anymore," or "Force equals mass times acceleration." A category of thought is merely a basic, irreducible mental concept like "quantity," "identity," "causality," "substantiality," etc. We make propositions using these, and can even make self-referential propositions about them, but in themselves they are basic.
eh...what does this have to do what I said? :wtf:
We are still left with an inaccurate description of the situation. As long as we are willing to admit that our description of the glass's state is only an approximation of reality, I have no problem with anything.
Once again, why must it be a real glass? It can just as likely be a theoretical glass, since it was never stated which type it is.
No it doesn't. Experimental science is used to check whether our theories roughly correspond to reality, and in that sense it is very useful. But it's purpose is to keep theory close to reality. If we could get perfect measurements we could keep theory perfectly in line (not necessarily true, but in line) with reality, and could also dissolve the basis for my original objection. But the fact that we cannot get perfect measurements does not negate the meaingfulness of experimental science to its intended purpose -- getting an accurate as possible measurement of the contents of the glass would only be a means to the end, not the end itself.
That is all beside the point; you said a while ago that a measurement that is not absolutely accurate is non-real and non-real things are irrelevant to real stuff, which, while having nothing to do with the topic of the glass, implies that you think that an absolutely critical process of experimental science (that of observation) is irrelevant, making any further deductions from these observations also irrelevant. :p
It has everything to do with them. If we are making an assumption about the glass and then discussing it, we are no longer talking about the real glass, but about the ideal glass. We're talking about a hypothetical situation.
Exactly, but there is no need to write that down explicitly, just as one need not write that the glass is real if it was so.
I know what it is for, I'm just being a pain in the ass.
I can see that... :p
Demonstrated with complete certitude.
But that is impossible for a real glass anyway.
That we interpret data through our categories to render them intelligible to our minds I do not dispute. I don't agree that the theories (i.e. propositional statements, see above) we hold are necessary to the raw processing of the data by our senses, and now that we've distinguished them I'm sure you'll see what I mean in that regard.
Actually a different theory would be indeed be necessary since this "raw processing" is impossible without some existing knowledge, but that is all beside the point here.
But in the entire discussion I have have been precisely unconcerned with how we assume the glass to be, and entirely concerned with how the glass is in itself.
The glass is whatever we assume it to be; it has no identity or properties other than those which we give it, since it is an imaginary glass in the first place.
Anyway, now that I've had my fun (see "pain in the ass" comment above), I'll point out the real flaw in all my argument from the beginning, and thus depart: In all my brouhaha about the real vs. the assumed glass, I was talking nonsense, since there never was a real glass! The existence of the glass was already a hypothetic, so quibbles about being able to determine its precise fullness never applied -- there was nothing to inaccurately measure.
That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time!! bah, you ruined my fun at the last minute when I might have won this... :p :D
My other objection to the question was going to simply be that even pessimists say the glass is half full, because "half empty" is just plain awkward English. A better version of the question would be "Is the glass half full, or only half full."
I think that would depend on which the direction of change in the glass. (nothing to do with the change discussed earlier) If it is being filled, it would be "half full" and if it is being emptied, "half empty."
-
Originally posted by CP5670
okay...so why did you bring up the topic of change in the first place then? :p
Because of what you said: Of course, the principles can still can be used to predict from certain other events whether or not the glass is half full. You don't need to use them but they can still work. And a state of being is a form of change.
I insisted that theories 1) deal with change, which we aren't looking at, just an instantaneous state, and 2) still require some observation at some point to start with for making their predictions, and thus on both counts I argued that scientific theory could not get us out of the quandry posed by our inability to perfectly measure the situation.
eh...what does this have to do what I said? :wtf:
You were trying to use an argument based on the need for the mind's active involvment in the observational process as a support for your argument regarding theory and its usefulness in assessing the real state of the glass. I said what I said as a rebuttal, pointing out the difference between theory and mental category to do so.
Once again, why must it be a real glass? It can just as likely be a theoretical glass, since it was never stated which type it is.
You never quite said that before the last post. The closest you got was We are not interested in a "real state" here, but an approximation to the real state, since it is impossible to get an exact value by direct observation
but that isn't quite the same thing. In your original statement quoted here, you are talking about approximating the real glass, not simply dropping reference to the real glass that never was.
That is all beside the point; you said a while ago that a measurement that is not absolutely accurate is non-real and non-real things are irrelevant to real stuff, which, while having nothing to do with the topic of the glass, implies that you think that an absolutely critical process of experimental science (that of observation) is irrelevant, making any further deductions from these observations also irrelevant. :p
It is precisely the point, and has everything to do with the topic of the glass. It is the point because my stated position on the relevance of experimental science from the beginning has been 1) that it is entirely and deeply relevant to the task of keeping our theories as closely approximate to reality as possible, but 2) irrelevant to the question of how things actually are, because it can only approximate. (Indeed, there is nothing that humans can do except approximate, but that doesn't change the situation re: experimental science.)
It has to do with the topic of the glass because the state of the glass, as a real phenomenon, is precisely one of the situations discussed in point 2 above.
Exactly, but there is no need to write that down explicitly, just as one need not write that the glass is real if it was so.
Don't we? But the language is so ambiguous that way, and I thought ambiguity was to be avoided at every turn in a language, CP5670! ;7 (We never did finish that one did we? Of course, it was getting pointless.)
Demonstrated with complete certitude.
But that is impossible for a real glass anyway.
Thank you, I rest my case. If the discussion in this thread had been talking about the glass here on my desk instead of an already imaginary one, all my points would have been valid, and the question whether this glass here on my desk was half full or half empty would have been meaningless.
*Kicks feet back in satisfaction*
*Falls asleep*
*Falls off chair*
Actually a different theory would be indeed be necessary since this "raw processing" is impossible without some existing knowledge, but that is all beside the point here.
Most technically what is needed are mental categories such as space, glass, full, and half. Armed with these categories, I can filter my sensory experience into a meaningful situation, with no heed to any propositional theories. Take the example of a newborn child: it is born without any theoretical knowledge in its head, not a single proposition about the world. As it learns to develop mental categories, it begins to be able to interpret its experiences, so that "Mother" comes to be recognisable as "Mother." Theories don't come until much later, after abstract thought has sufficiently developed. This is proof positive that theory is not necessary for basic "raw processing" of experience.
That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time!! bah, you ruined my fun at the last minute when I might have won this... :p :D
Mwahaha!
Although again I would point out that you never quite said that at any point prior to the last post. Up until now you've been arguing that the approximation of the real glass was the proper object of concern, as opposed to arguing that in this case the ideal glass was the only one there was (since there was no glass sitting on a desk being spoken about by Petrarch).
Anyway, I'm done with this thread now. It's gotten boring. :blah:
-
I insisted that theories 1) deal with change, which we aren't looking at, just an instantaneous state, and 2) still require some observation at some point to start with for making their predictions, and thus on both counts I argued that scientific theory could not get us out of the quandry posed by our inability to perfectly measure the situation.
I posted this after you said the original thing about states of being and change, Hiedelberg's principle (whatever that is), and a bunch of other irrelevant things. :p
You were trying to use an argument based on the need for the mind's active involvment in the observational process as a support for your argument regarding theory and its usefulness in assessing the real state of the glass. I said what I said as a rebuttal, pointing out the difference between theory and mental category to do so.
Where did the "mental category" come from? (I am assuming that by this you mean a non-absolute arbitrary distinction in an ideal continuum made for deductive purposes) That is quite unrelated to the perceptual analysis I was talking about.
You never quite said that before the last post. The closest you got was
but that isn't quite the same thing. In your original statement quoted here, you are talking about approximating the real glass, not simply dropping reference to the real glass that never was.
Look around more closely; right here:
(but you do not need to have anything on "hypothetical situations," since it does not have to be a real glass)
It is precisely the point, and has everything to do with the topic of the glass. It is the point because my stated position on the relevance of experimental science from the beginning has been 1) that it is entirely and deeply relevant to the task of keeping our theories as closely approximate to reality as possible, but 2) irrelevant to the question of how things actually are, because it can only approximate. (Indeed, there is nothing that humans can do except approximate, but that doesn't change the situation re: experimental science.)
Okay, you are just trying to cover up your mistake by playing with the words. :p The whole point of our approximate methods is to understand what the things really are. If our approximations are irrelevant to what the things really are, that contradicts the first assumption of any kind of science right there (that an absolute reality exists and that humans are capable of fully understanding it).
Don't we? But the language is so ambiguous that way, and I thought ambiguity was to be avoided at every turn in a language, CP5670! (We never did finish that one did we? Of course, it was getting pointless.)
Ah, so now you finally agree with me! ;7 Actually, this is a limitation in English and not language in general; it should be decided that if the value of a particular property of something is not given, it can take any of the values in the domain of possible values of that property, and which particular one it takes is not of any importance. (in this case, the property is "realness," and the value can be at either end of the spectrum there) Unfortunately, there is no such rule in any of the common languages, so the absence of this value could mean a bunch of other things as well, such as any one of the specific values.
Most technically what is needed are mental categories such as space, glass, full, and half. Armed with these categories, I can filter my sensory experience into a meaningful situation, with no heed to any propositional theories. Take the example of a newborn child: it is born without any theoretical knowledge in its head, not a single proposition about the world. As it learns to develop mental categories, it begins to be able to interpret its experiences, so that "Mother" comes to be recognisable as "Mother." Theories don't come until much later, after abstract thought has sufficiently developed. This is proof positive that theory is not necessary for basic "raw processing" of experience.
These things that you call mental categories are more like properties of an object, but to distinguish between these properties and give them distinct meanings yet another theory is required. ("space" and "glass" do not mean anything and could well be said to be the same thing unless you have seen patterns in the properties of other such objects and analyzed those patterns to get the general rule, or meaning, of the property; the meanings of all properties stem from this procedure)
Although again I would point out that you never quite said that at any point prior to the last post. Up until now you've been arguing that the approximation of the real glass was the proper object of concern, as opposed to arguing that in this case the ideal glass was the only one there was (since there was no glass sitting on a desk being spoken about by Petrarch).
See above.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread now. It's gotten boring.
bah, you started it, once again. :p :D
-
My brain! What are you doing to my brain??!?
:blah:
-
The glass isn't half full nor is it half empty. It just has contents...
Well, actually, by now the glass is totally empty.
-
Mine is.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Mine is.
*breaks Kellans glass*
Ow, really?
:devil:
-
Hey, I'm a student. I can't afford to replace that!
*drinks out of shoe for rest of year*
-
*Notices renewed activity in the thread, wanders in, sees CP (of course) had to make a last reply, doesn't really care. Peruses the post just for the heck of it anyway. Notices this bit:*
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah, so now you finally agree with me! ;7
:ha:No, I was making fun of your inconsistency between arguments, silly fellow. :wink::rolleyes::lol: Sarcasm, remember? "The use of words to convey a meaning opposite to their literal meaning."
As for the rest of the post: No.
Originally posted by Tiara
The glass isn't half full nor is it half empty. It just has contents...
Well, actually, by now the glass is totally empty.
Ah! A fellow wise person and seer of truth.
Originally posted by Kellan
Hey, I'm a student. I can't afford to replace that!
*drinks out of shoe for rest of year*
:lol:
-
*Notices renewed activity in the thread, wanders in, sees CP (of course) had to make a last reply, doesn't really care. Peruses the post just for the heck of it anyway. Notices this bit:*
bah, that's just because you lost (yet again). :D :D
:ha:No, I was making fun of your inconsistency between arguments, silly fellow. :wink::rolleyes::lol: Sarcasm, remember? "The use of words to convey a meaning opposite to their literal meaning."
so...what's the inconsistency there? And how can I determine what is intended to be sarcasm and what is not? :p
-
Religion debate away back when: argued back and forth until we came to the rock-bottom axiomatic beliefs we each held -- ended in stalemate.
Recent language debate:
- CP5670's original position "We can and should construct a language with exact ‘mathematical' precision, no ambiguity, and no semantic overlap."
- Sesquipedalian's initial position "Language requires a degree of ambiguity and semantic overlap in whatever expressive system it uses if it is to function at all."
- CP5670's position at time when RL forces Sesq. to discontinue active involvement: "The need for ambiguity can perhaps be accommodated if we use functions instead of discreet numbers."
- Sesquipedalian's position at time when RL forces Sesq. to discontinue active involvement: "Language requires a degree of ambiguity and semantic overlap in whatever expressive system it uses if it is to function at all."
Thus, state of the debate at time of premature termination: 1) that ambiguity (i.e. semantic range) was necessary had been settled (Sesq. always perfectly happy to allow the use of numbers/functions as the symbols of expression, so long as ambiguity was maintained, CP willing to admit need to include such in any language that used numeric symbols as it medium of communication); 2) the need for semantic overlap was still in active contention.
Glass "debate":
- Sesq. makes facetious objection to a question, one which is based upon the assumption that the glass under discussion is a real one.
- CP objects to Sesq.'s objection but seems fuzzy on precise nature of the problem, as evidenced by vacillation in the course of debate between argumentation that denies the assumption and argumentation that accepts it. (E.g. the original counter-objeciton of CP was
We are not interested in a "real state" here, but an approximation to the real state, since it is impossible to get an exact value by direct observation,
a sentence which at once recognises that the state of the real glass is not the proper object, but which still believes the statement is linked to a real glass.)
- Sesq. gets bored, decides to crystalise the true nature of the problem underlying his original facetious remarks (which CP was on the track of, true enough, but not quite to yet).
Score? Looks pretty inconclusive, with a stalemate, a sort of half-baked "win" for CP5670, and an incomplete debate where CP5670 had made concessions while Sesquipedalian had not.
so...what's the inconsistency there? And how can I determine what is intended to be sarcasm and what is not?
"Exactly, but there is no need to write that down explicitly, just as one need not write that the glass is real if it was so," as over against an insistence upon exactitude and the expunging of all inexplicity.
And sarcasm is understood via the non-literal levels of communication: in this case, context. It's not my fault if you weren't so good at picking it up!
-
Score? Looks pretty inconclusive, with a stalemate, a sort of half-baked "win" for CP5670, and an incomplete debate where CP5670 had made concessions while Sesquipedalian had not.
um, you lost those two older ones quite clearly, since in both threads you just backed out and did not post anything further at all at the very times that my arguments were at their strongest peaks and I was certain there was little more you could say, while you did still visit the forums and posted in other threads at the same time; a bit suggestive, eh? :p at least I have the guts to admit defeat when I know I have lost... :p :D
"Exactly, but there is no need to write that down explicitly, just as one need not write that the glass is real if it was so," as over against an insistence upon exactitude and the expunging of all inexplicity.
Read my last response to this again; every language carries its sentence-structural conventions with it. Of course this is ambiguous, which is the flaw of the language, since it would appear to be poor writing if the value of every property was given. As I said, it is fine if not every property is given provided that it is understood by convention that under such circumstances the meaning of the sentence is independent of that property, but this is of course not the case with today's English.
And sarcasm is understood via the non-literal levels of communication: in this case, context. It's not my fault if you weren't so good at picking it up!
I wouldn't really say that there was any sarcasm in that context, but that is the problem with the whole system; there is no way to know. Perhaps I intend sarcasm in this post; how are you to know? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
um, you lost those two older ones quite clearly, since in both threads you just backed out and did not post anything further at all at the very times that my arguments were at their strongest peaks and I was certain there was little more you could say, while you did still visit the forums and posted in other threads at the same time; a bit suggestive, eh? :p
Hmm, that kind of situation does seem a little bit familiar to me.
Originally posted by CP5670
at least I have the guts to admit defeat when I know I have lost... :p :D
Yeah, right. Last time you posted a 60K character long reply and then said you didn't even have the time to read my next post. What a glorious win that is.
-
Yeah, right. Last time you posted a 60K character long reply and then said you didn't even have the time to read my next post. What a glorious win that is.
DId I ever say I won that one? (was I even talking to you for that matter? :p) I actually consider that a semi-loss for me, the only one that I have lost around here; I would have continued but the posts were just taking too long to write, so you got the win there. (although I must hand it you; you really know how to drag a good argument into absurdity :D) It is indeed more "glorious" than simply not posting anything at all at any rate... :rolleyes:
-
That's nice, I'm glad we cleared things up. I was starting to get the feeling, from a couple of posts of yours, that you considered that discussion won.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
um, you lost those two older ones quite clearly, since in both threads you just backed out and did not post anything further at all at the very times that my arguments were at their strongest peaks and I was certain there was little more you could say, while you did still visit the forums and posted in other threads at the same time; a bit suggestive, eh? :p at least I have the guts to admit defeat when I know I have lost... :p :D
The religion thread got locked, putting an end to all further discussion. I did indeed have an answering post ready to go, but when I got there to put it in, it was too late. As I recall, your pirmary question at the end of that thread was why I believed in God and not in Vasudans and Shivans, to which my response was very simply that nothing in my expereince led me to think there was any reason for believing in Shivans, whereas I had had experiences in the course of my life whose only available explanation was God's action.
As for the second, of course I still came into the forums and made short posts; I didn't have time to continue writing small essays for no good reason when I had other essays that needed to be done, but a few minutes to put up a couple small posts is a different matter.
Btw, what led you to think that merely getting the last word in equates with winning an argument, CP?
Read my last response to this again; every language carries its sentence-structural conventions with it. Of course this is ambiguous, which is the flaw of the language, since it would appear to be poor writing if the value of every property was given. As I said, it is fine if not every property is given provided that it is understood by convention that under such circumstances the meaning of the sentence is independent of that property, but this is of course not the case with today's English.
Doesn't sound much to me like the pure "mathamatical" exactitude you were looking for in the beginning... ;)
I wouldn't really say that there was any sarcasm in that context, but that is the problem with the whole system; there is no way to know. Perhaps I intend sarcasm in this post; how are you to know? :p
The prior argument about language, where you'd been arguing for the removal of inexplicitness and inexactitude, and I for its necessity, provided the context. Knowing that I was not in favour of expunging inexpliciness and inexactitude, you should have been able to perceive my sarcasm even without the use of the ;7 smily, which is the internet's poor substitute for the "body language" that is such an important part of the non-literal aspects of communication.
-
The religion thread got locked, putting an end to all further discussion. I did indeed have an answering post ready to go, but when I got there to put it in, it was too late. As I recall, your pirmary question at the end of that thread was why I believed in God and not in Vasudans and Shivans, to which my response was very simply that nothing in my expereince led me to think there was any reason for believing in Shivans, whereas I had had experiences in the course of my life whose only available explanation was God's action.
It was locked after being open for almost five days with no activity. Although there were a number of other things I was saying there, this is a rather silly explanation for that point, as it falls back upon the existentialist argument that there is no absolute world not relative to individual perception, which contradicts the axioms of science. (also, you have not been able to reproduce these "experiences" at all) This is no better than the people who claim to have seen martians and whatever else; based on what we have seen, using your axioms, we cannot discard the existence of anything else even temporarily, thus greatly complicating our problem.
As for the second, of course I still came into the forums and made short posts; I didn't have time to continue writing small essays for no good reason when I had other essays that needed to be done, but a few minutes to put up a couple small posts is a different matter.
well, you could have then just said that you were dropping out of that; not posting anything at all is rather wimpy... :p
Btw, what led you to think that merely getting the last word in equates with winning an argument, CP?
This is pretty obvious; if it was not so, anyone who is losing could just bug out and leave things in a stalemate.
Doesn't sound much to me like the pure "mathamatical" exactitude you were looking for in the beginning... ;)
Yes, English is unfortunately not at all a language that carries this "mathematical exactitude" in its conventions.
The prior argument about language, where you'd been arguing for the removal of inexplicitness and inexactitude, and I for its necessity, provided the context. Knowing that I was not in favour of expunging inexpliciness and inexactitude, you should have been able to perceive my sarcasm even without the use of the ;7 smily, which is the internet's poor substitute for the "body language" that is such an important part of the non-literal aspects of communication.
It is possible that sarcasm was intended, but it is equally possible that no sarcasm was intended; for all I know, you might have changed your views since then, hence explaining why you dropped out of the last argument. As I said before, maybe this post is supposed to be sarcastic, but how are you to know for sure? :p
-
Someone please lock this thread, it's getting out of hand.
-
It would have died if you hadn't bumped it...
-
Yes, well....
I'd much rather be happy than right any day!
-
And I'd be much happier snorting cheap rock than doing work. So?
Thread... must... die. Thread must... die!
-
Originally posted by CP5670
It was locked after being open for almost five days with no activity.
Your point? I often had spaces of several days between posts in that thread. RL constraints on my time always have been and always will be present in my life.
this is a rather silly explanation for that point, as it falls back upon the existentialist argument that there is no absolute world not relative to individual perception, which contradicts the axioms of science.
Actually, it falls back on precisely the opposite. I believe in God because what I encountered "out there" in objective reality admits no other explanation. If I thought it was merely my own subjectivity, then I would not be making this argument. I am saying that these things actually happened, and that thus God is real. If all this were based on was some sort of subjective feeling or something, then my argument would have merely been that "to me, Christianity is a spritiually gratifying mystical philosophy." But that is not my argument, and thus the rest of your argument non sequitur.
well, you could have then just said that you were dropping out of that; not posting anything at all is rather wimpy... :p
Well, a thousand pardons, O forgiving one! :rolleyes:
This is pretty obvious; if it was not so, anyone who is losing could just bug out and leave things in a stalemate.
That is not so. If they bug out after losing, they've lost. Conversely, if the one winning has to leave, that does not change his status as winning. The last word does not win the argument, the winning word does. If after the argument has been won, the loser refuses to be gracious, that does not make him the winner.
Yes, English is unfortunately not at all a language that carries this "mathematical exactitude" in its conventions.
Nor is it possible for any human language to do so. If you want to disagree with me, the entire field of linguistics, and all of history, might I suggest that you prove your allegations.
It is possible that sarcasm was intended, but it is equally possible that no sarcasm was intended;
And it is equally possible that I am a fuzzy stuffed duck and that I am not a fuzzy stuffed duck. But the coment was sarcastic, and I am not a fuzzy stuffed duck. If by the exercise of your mental powers you have difficulty apprehending which is the case, that is not the fault of the statement...
As I said before, maybe this post is supposed to be sarcastic, but how are you to know for sure? :p
That is the beauty of sarcasm, and of irony generally. One knows by understanding more than the mere words. The meaning is greater than the words alone -- by employing sarcasm and irony, one is able to convey an emotional content that would not translate well into a straightforward, non-ironic statement.
-
Your point? I often had spaces of several days between posts in that thread. RL constraints on my time always have been and always will be present in my life.
Well, if you don't have the time why do you not say so before entering an argument? sorry, but this is just a poor excuse. :p
Actually, it falls back on precisely the opposite. I believe in God because what I encountered "out there" in objective reality admits no other explanation. If I thought it was merely my own subjectivity, then I would not be making this argument. I am saying that these things actually happened, and that thus God is real. If all this were based on was some sort of subjective feeling or something, then my argument would have merely been that "to me, Christianity is a spritiually gratifying mystical philosophy." But that is not my argument, and thus the rest of your argument non sequitur.
But we are not interested in what you encountered (and why is it that you cannot encounter it and show it before me?); we are interested in what exists, and that can be different. I say that all those things did not happen, and that thus god is fake. I say that what I encountered "out there" was the good old purple dragon (actually, I created him), so that would automatically guarantee his existence according to you.
Well, a thousand pardons, O forgiving one! :rolleyes:
I never forgive. wimp! :D
That is not so. If they bug out after losing, they've lost. Conversely, if the one winning has to leave, that does not change his status as winning. The last word does not win the argument, the winning word does. If after the argument has been won, the loser refuses to be gracious, that does not make him the winner.
eh? :wtf: Who decides who is winning? I say I was clearly winning, and I bet you would say the same for yourself, and so we get nowhere.
Nor is it possible for any human language to do so. If you want to disagree with me, the entire field of linguistics, and all of history, might I suggest that you prove it.
*cough* programming languages *cough*
And it is equally possible that I am a fuzzy stuffed duck and that I am not a fuzzy stuffed duck. But the coment was sarcastic, and I am not a fuzzy stuffed duck. If by the exercise of your mental powers you have difficulty apprehending which is the case, that is not the fault of the statement...
That is the beauty of sarcasm, and of irony generally. One knows by understanding more than the mere words. The meaning is greater than the words alone -- by employing sarcasm and irony, one is able to convey an emotional content that would not translate well into a straightforward, non-ironic statement.
In this case it is, because the statement is intended only for me to read it; I bet you would also have trouble determining the level of sarcasm in a statement of mine, since the whole concept of this sarcasm is silly, especially in a written context. :p It certainly conveyed no such "emotional content" to me. If you say you are a "fuzzy stuffed duck," I may well interpret it to mean that this is what you really think.
-
programming languages and mathematics lack any emotional content, other than what the observer implies onto them.
'nuff said.
Ignore it all you want, these states exist and cannot be linked to either quantum states within the brain or much else, to be honest.
Unfortunately for you, you are human. And as such, you have to take these unquantifiable states into account.
-
What does that have to do with what we are talking about here? :rolleyes: That same thing is the case for any language if you think about it. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, if you don't have the time why do you not say so before entering an argument? sorry, but this is just a poor excuse. :p
It is a fact to be dealt with. I was happily carrying on at the same pace I always had been when what was for me quite abruptly the thread was locked. If you are trying to imply that it is somehow a failing of my argument that I do not spend all of my time in this forum, I seriously question you.
But we are not interested in what you encountered (and why is it that you cannot encounter it and show it before me?); we are interested in what exists, and that can be different. I say that all those things did not happen, and that thus god is fake.
By that line of reasoning, If I disagree with the records of history and say Caesar did not cross the Rubicon in 49 BC, then it didn't happen, and the whole history of Rome after becoming an Empire is a fake.
I say that what I encountered "out there" was the good old purple dragon (actually, I created him), so that would automatically guarantee his existence according to you.
When did you encounter a situation which left you with no explanation except for the purple dragon? Why is he the only explanation? And again I ask, if you created the purple dragon, the dragon created God, and God created you and the rest of the world, where does this circle ever begin? It is a logical impossibility.
I never forgive. wimp! :D
Meh. Its your personality; be deficient if you want.
eh? :wtf: Who decides who is winning? I say I was clearly winning, and I bet you would say the same for yourself, and so we get nowhere.
Perhaps we need an adjudicator if a consensus is to be reached, but that does not somehow mysteriously make having the last word equate to winning an argument.
*cough* programming languages *cough*
*cough*So tell me a mystery story in C++*cough*
*cough*Go on, try it*cough*
*cough*Can't do it, can you?*cough*
In this case it is, because the statement is intended only for me to read it; I bet you would also have trouble determining the level of sarcasm in a statement of mine, since the whole concept of this sarcasm is silly, especially in a written context. :p It certainly conveyed no such "emotional content" to me.
Nope, it was sarcastic; if you couldn't pick that up, tough beans for your communication skills. And really, do you honestly mean to tell me that you didn't detect even a hint of mockery in the question? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by wEvil
programming languages and mathematics lack any emotional content, other than what the observer implies onto them.
'nuff said.
Ignore it all you want, these states exist and cannot be linked to either quantum states within the brain or much else, to be honest.
Unfortunately for you, you are human. And as such, you have to take these unquantifiable states into account.
I think that CP's position arises from his prestanding, axiomatic commitment to the idea that all the universe is ultimately reducible to mathematics. I've never seen him justify that in any way, but he does insist upon it. That's why he has such an odd view of things like this.
-
It is a fact to be dealt with. I was happily carrying on at the same pace I always had been when what was for me quite abruptly the thread was locked. If you are trying to imply that it is somehow a failing of my argument that I do not spend all of my time in this forum, I seriously question you.
It only took you around one or two days to respond before that, so why did it suddenly take five days this time? :p It is quite possible that something came up, but not likely given what I know so far. (likely from my point of view, that is)
By that line of reasoning, If I disagree with the records of history and say Caesar did not cross the Rubicon in 49 BC, then it didn't happen, and the whole history of Rome after becoming an Empire is a fake.
Exactly; you pointed out the problem yourself there. Now apply this to what you said earlier.
When did you encounter a situation which left you with no explanation except for the purple dragon? Why is he the only explanation?
You are finding the flaws in your argument for me. :D Here is my situation (I will not even bother with the point of its truth or falsehood): I saw and met a big purple dragon one day and he told me all this himself, and just like you, I can find no other good explanation. And of course, the situation cannot be reproduced. :D
(sorry, but you had some fun at my expense at the very beginning of that language argument, so I must now return the favor :D)
And again I ask, if you created the purple dragon, the dragon created God, and God created you and the rest of the world, where does this circle ever begin? It is a logical impossibility.
Well, god created everything but had to go back in time to create me so that I could create the purple dragon who in turn created him; sure it sounds like a logical impossibility, but god transcends all science and is not subject to any limitations like logic, so he can be perfectly illogical if he feels like it. :D (actually, I think this particular chain is possible in the quantum mechanics rules)
Now I am not trying to mock your beliefs here, but mock your arguments rather.
Perhaps we need an adjudicator if a consensus is to be reached, but that does not somehow mysteriously make having the last word equate to winning an argument.
Alright, but this adjudicator needs to be both completely impartial and knowledgeable on the subject, and also needs to give reasons why he is favoring one guy over the other; on a game forum on the internet, this is a bit hard to find. :p
I would say that the winning conditions are met if one guy admits defeat (of course, this is quite rare) or if one guy bails out and stops posting. The latter condition is for the reason I stated earlier; people should not be able to quickly bug out when they are losing.
*cough*So tell me a mystery story in C++*cough*
*cough*Go on, try it*cough*
*cough*Can't do it, can you?*cough*
Sure I could, if I knew the C++ syntax. (you may need to add a few extra core commands but that's about it) I can give you some basic ideas without turning them into the exact C++ commands though. There are actually a number of ways to do this. One I can think of it to give it all the natural physics laws, drop some input into it (the matter/energy), give some initial conditions, and let things progress. You can have a class or something with the definitions for a general human with several modifyable attributes. Then you define the scene in terms of those physics equations and let your pawns run in there. It would be just as meaningful as a conventional novel if you are used to it.
Nope, it was sarcastic; if you couldn't pick that up, tough beans for your communication skills. And really, do you honestly mean to tell me that you didn't detect even a hint of mockery in the question? :rolleyes:
Actually, the statement you quoted there was also sarcastic, but you didn't seem to detect that either, so "tough beans" for your communication skills as well. :D I certainly detected mockery there, but that does not necessarily mean sarcasm.
I think that CP's position arises from his prestanding, axiomatic commitment to the idea that all the universe is ultimately reducible to mathematics. I've never seen him justify that in any way, but he does insist upon it. That's why he has such an odd view of things like this.
um...yeah, of course that is my "axiomatic commitment." In fact, this is precisely what the "axiomatic commitment" of all of science is. My justification for this, as is that of any scientist, that I want to certainly try to reduce it into the simple form of math before giving up on method; if it somehow fails then other alternatives can be considered, but so far it has worked just wonderfully, and if it works the way it is supposed to, the results will be better than with any other method.
And I think that your position arises from your prestanding, axiomatic commitment to the idea that all the universe is ultimately not comprehensible to humans and a magic man exists to ensure just this. I've never seen you justify that in any way, but you do insist upon it. That's why you have such an odd view of things like this. :D :D