Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?

How does an absolutist conception of "identity" apply to language? Language is meaningful insofar as common usage agrees; there is no intrinsic meaning or identity to any vocabulary or grammar.
What do you mean by intrinsic meaning?

If identity is not intrinsic then the law of identity is a meaningless tautology.

(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I know of no such thing, except first principles which are rather trivial. BUT there is a CAPACITY FOR MEANING IN LANGUAGE, and this capacity is accessible if you learn the language. And you can (in principle) learn the language because there are some very trivial but important properties of reality which are expressed in all languages. You can learn and decipher any language as long as you have the pieces of reality it refers to. And you can be reasonably sure that words in principle do not change meaning for no reason at all, otherwise the language will not even be recognized as a language but as bird droppings painting. That's what language is, a reference to reality that has a capacity for meaning. Not that this capacity is always fulfilled, you need philosophy for that.

So what?

"First principles, therefore I am right" is not an argument.

Although it is all you've ever managed to come up with.

(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Same ol' Lumi, same ol' vacuous circlejerk.

Words do not have identities. They have meanings imparted by common usage, as do all languages and linguistic elements.

In what sense is absolutist objective "identity" meaningful in an uncertain probabilistic universe? "Identity" can no longer mean "it is what it is"; it must mean only "it is what we think it seems to be". Which is valid, so far as it goes, but also meaningless tautological. No inferences may be drawn from it. It leads nowhere. It is pointless.
Common usage does not change the identity of reality or identity of words.

Common usage is the only thing defining the identity of words.

So there's that.

(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It only changes the convention by which one is linked by another. That is true, but this process is not done by reason or evidence.
It's a cultural whimsy for which philosophers are forced to compensate, so it is not a valid argument against language but rather for using it consistently.

Again, so what? Do you have a point?

(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, the language changes due to science and technology, which does not disprove language either, because science is derived from philosophy. In principle, the language is a valid concept. In practice, this concept is corrected by linguists and historians, which is a final empirical correction, nothing wrong with that. That does not disprove the principle. Words have identity. I used words with identity to say that.

Are you going somewhere with this?

(27-08-2014 10:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If there is any doubt that rational objects such as words have their absolute, non-ambiguous identity? We can perform a test!
In this test I will use a magic switch for a while and suspend the principle of identity for a moment. Brace yourself:
Relativism relativism? Relativism, relativism... Relativism relativism; relativism -relativism relativism. Relativism + relativism = relativism! Relativism: relativism, relativism' relativism, relativism. Rela-relativism! Re-la-tiviiiiism!!!
You see, without the first principle of identity, the words in there mean exactly what I want them to mean. And I just wrote a couple of the most beautiful haikus in the entire universe. Similarity to Pokemon is purely coincidental.

But that's a pointless non sequitur.

Still waiting on a coherent point out of this, ol' Lumi.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 06:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is utterly wrong. That is not how it works.

You are confusing formal systems with reality. A statement within a formal system that is not inconsistent with the premises of that system is true.
Formal proofs take place within that system and apply only within that system.
Mathematics and logic are formal systems, real life is not.

And those statements are not the equivalent of rational arguments. They are absolute within that system.
Rational argument can include probability, possibility, and that mystery of mysteries - nuance.
There is a formal system that describes the properties which are common for all reality as a whole. It is called philosophy. Rational arguments of real life and reality take place within philosophy.

That is utterly daft. That is not what philosophy is.

Quote:We know reality as a whole has principles which hold true in all of it, otherwise it would be a whole different reality. Philosophy is THE discipline based on these knowable first principles and therefore it refers to the reality as a whole.

You need to invent a new word because 'philosophy' isn't what you describe.

Quote:Define "real life" (surely you don't mean in the biological sense?) and prove why is it not subject to the formal system of philosophy and first principles of thinking.

First you need to prove that reality adheres to your 'first principles'.

Quote:I say it is, philosophy is all about recognizing the formal system of real life, it is a natural part of the discipline.

First you need to prove that reality is a formal system. Hint: It's not.

Quote:Shit, without philosophy you can't even define what do you mean by "real life", because philosophy rules concepts and definitions!
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

Philosophy rules nothing. Philosophy is a human invention.

Quote:I was taught to take the principle of identity and contradiction, derive logic from it, then reason from logic and then empirical method from reason. Without that epistemological proof, even science would not be a valid, predictably useful method of knowledge. Science is only trustworthy because it can be justified from the first principles, not because it makes iPads. You can not objectively prove that science is universally valid using the methods of science. You need philosophy to do that. The scientific method is a philosophical formulation and it is derived from the first principles by the epistemological proof. Everything else is just field-specific positivistic methods which can never prove the objectivity of science as a whole.

Science is trustworthy to the extent that it works. Science is also a human invention.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I'm still waiting to see how ol' Lumi gets from "A is A" to "therefore my subjective personal opinion is the only objectively and exclusively true worldview".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 01:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm still waiting to see how ol' Lumi gets from "A is A" to "therefore my subjective personal opinion is the only objectively and exclusively true worldview".

[Image: 175-Its_Magic.jpg]

Just a guess.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-08-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's simple as that Lumi, and I can't help but laugh at the ultimate irony; that for as much as you argue for freedom, you seem entirely ignorant of how your 'objective' principles ignore the consent of other people!
Laugh out load I just LOL'd. Nobody gets a free pass on objective principles. We can deny them verbally, but only because the social language has a capacity to put together words in illogical ways. In mathematics this would not compute. Because the social language is so primitive, we need philosophers to compute it and check for deviations from the principles, which are known as fallacies and sophistry. But whole culture is based on sophistry.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You argue that your property rights are logical and objective, and I merely point out that unless others consent to agree with you, they are meaningless in any real world sense.
Nope, they are not dependent on consent of others, they are a part of your identity, or integrity as it is also called. A principle may get broken, of course, but that also breaks your integrity and the thief's morality. It does not happen without consequences, which is the point. The principle says, one who breaks a principle loses morality, that is the consequence. The usual result is a widespread bloodshed and suffering, generally loss of freedom.
I derive, prove and express that in my Czech philosophical writings... Obeying the first principles (integrity, universality, variability) is the only way to maximize the overall variability of any system. In social world, sticking with the principles means maximum secure freedom for everyone and this secure freedom is its own reward, virtue and happiness, people never revert back to more enslaved state. Only systems based on violation of principles go through this boom and bust cycle of republics growing into democracies decaying into oligarchies and exploding in dictatorships, that's because they have no objectivity and no consistency within culture. That's right, having a consensus within a culture means jack shit, in long term.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now for as much as you whine against coercion, what is your option here? Will you coerce them to consent to your subjective interpretation of your claimed 'objective' property rights? What if they get by without ever having needed that concept, and it's entirely alien to them? Would you force them to consent to your viewpoint? Because unless you can convince them willingly to agree with you, then all of your reason, logic, and 'objective principles' mean fuck all in any real sense; they're nothing more than thought exercises.
Good point. Obviously, I can't force people to obey reason, that would defeat the argument. I can try to explain this stuff, but there is about 1 person in 200 who can consider a rational argument alone on its own merit without mixing it with cultural consensus. I can raise children philosophically (Alice Gopnik - The Philosophical Baby) which is what I want to do in any case.
But other than that, I just keep having these conversations as a sport, philosphy as a performance art, as Moly says.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And therein lies the ultimate irony, the massive flaw of all your arguments. That unless you can get them to agree, to get them all to consent to your principles, you would be in effect violating your own principle to impose them on others without their consent.

And I'm pretty sure your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) has argued that, in violating your own principles, you invalidate all of your own arguments. Laughat
There is actually a nifty trick in here. These first principles, this anarcho-capitalism, it is not actually a thing imposed on people. It is what is left when all imposing stops. You don't want to work at WalMart? Fine, find someone else to employ you. You don't want to buy an iPad? Fine, you get to keep your money (yay!) and I keep the iPad. Kenneth Minogue (no idea who was that) said, capitalism is what people do when you leave people alone. People can defend themselves well enough from other people. I heard there's even private police in Detroit now because the state police all but abandoned some parts of it. There are buses with wi-fi and beer in Detroit, private-run too.
I mean, none of that is a problem if everything is modular, you just buy or sell the things you want and don't impose anything on anyone else. This whole objective morality thing is actually completely passive, it has no positive "thou shalt make elections" or shit like that. It has no unchosen positive obligations. And when you choose something, that's between you and the person you're obliged to.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That isn't a problem for me because I argue that once you are part of a social group (even as small as a family, which ironically most of us are born into), a social contract, you implicitly consent to the fact that you might not always agree with everything that is done by the group or not always get your way.[/q]
No, that is where we actually differ. Social groups are just abstractions, they don't exist empirically, so they can not give people empirical obligations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know it sounds weird coming from me, but I have seen UFO, yet I have never seen a nation, a family, or a state. All I have actually seen were just people, buildings and sometimes a gun. That's all I can prove that really exists.
I don't say abstractions don't exist, they do, but not in the same way that my money. We say abstractions when we don't know or can't be specific and abstractions have no buttons to push to control them, they're just shadow images of what is really happening.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But by participating in the group, you are consenting to this implicitly, because it is the nature of human interaction; negotiation. There is always a give and take. Long ago we learned that trading some freedom to work collectively as a group greatly increased our chances of survival, and we have evolved accordingly ever since. You are born (not by your choice) to your parents (not of your choice) and are hopefully cared by them (also not your choice). There are a lot of things that we don't get to chose, by the nature of the reality that we live in.
Hey, I like groups. Groups are natural. I just make distinction between groups where power is involved. Power is like a gravity well, everything bends towards it and creates a hierarchy based on who's closer to it. Well, screw that. There is an alternative, such as flat network groups. Also, there are hierarchies based on other things than power - competence, skill, knowledge, written voluntary contract, objective things like that. I am OK with that too. Anything but a power hierarchy. Power is not reason or virtue, any asshole can be powerful.
Yes, there are big corporations like that, but this is what you get when people grow up in family where power, force and coercion are used for child upbrining, children are programmed with that pattern and learn to seek it or create it to feel secure. Just like I feel better when I face at least 20 enraged people on the forum.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Logic and axioms don't give a flying fuck about your vaunted first principles, you don't live in a logic simulator, you live in the real world; where things aren't always logical, fair, or rational. Fight against that all you want, be an petulant indignant little internet shit-stain all you want; it won't change the nature of the reality you live in.
Actually, they do, give a fuck, logic and axioms are closely related to first principles. Real world is a logic simulator, only most of this logic is fuzzy logic, a many-valued logic. We use empirical sciences to keep track of that. But the world we really live in is a world of conscious mind, in a way, we never really leave this world. And having clear logic and well-defined objective concepts in the world of mind is like having strong, hard muscles and a six pack in the world of beach volleyball. On the other hand, what we call culture is like a terrible gooey parasitic infestation in the world of mind. It has no shape, no solid argument, it's like a mist, you can't disprove it, but it you try to go against it, men in costumes will come and beat you up. You can say I am dogmatic and absolutist that I have principles, but well, that's the only thing anyone can really have in the world of mind. The gooey plague of culture oozes over everything until the only thing that's left is to elect someone into power who promises to fix everything.

The philosophy I do now is not a neat academic philosophy. It is like a crowbar of objectivity to the headcrab of culture. It's like amputating legs of dumbness on the battlefield of reason. People always squirm and scream that they don't wanna... As I said, it's not pretty and about one patient in 200 has a hope of survival.

It's not what I want, I am more at home at another branch of philosophy, which is metaphysics, and then philosophy of language, of science (I kid you not) and general systems theory, metatheory, metaanalysis, shit like that... It is basically being a glorified translator between worldviews, some of which want to kill each other. So I am really a man of peace. The world sucks, not me. You can wave away all my arguments, that's a small price for getting to rehearse them.

(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You either get enough people to agree with you, or all of your philosophy is nothing more than thought exercise with no real world impact. Society, human interaction and negotiation, is getting people to agree with; to consent to a particular argument, rationalization, or viewpoint.

So long as you interact with other human beings, you will be involved in this war of ideas.

And in a war, sometimes you lose.
No, nothing like that. In voluntary interactions, the result is always win-win, or there is no interaction at all. Either both parties are satisfied (or at least better off than they have been), or they look for other parties, that's the absence of power over the other. These win-win interactions are very different from everything we experienced with government and also in our family, but market is based on them. On the market, you never lose. I don't say you win much, but you always get something for your money and you know what it is and you choose that. With government, all money get pooled and you never get back more than you have put in.

I'd argue that we both actually never experience negotiation except when the goal is a win-win interaction, when power is rejected as an option, period. This is what peaceful parenting is about, negotiating with the child. The purpose of negotiation is arriving at a better deal than the ideas we had separately. People together voluntarily produce more than involuntarily. It's a synergic effect.

Frankly, I have never understood this war of ideas. In my teens I believed lots of New Age stuff and I went to atheist forums to enlighten people, or get enlightened. I have never seen this as a war and a loss. Until this kind of conversation.
Yes, THIS is a war, because people get to insult and slander me wholesale, I fight for my reputation. And frankly, you fight for your self-respect. We can't be so different yet both moral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, THIS is a war, because people get to insult and slander me wholesale, I fight for my reputation. And frankly, you fight for your self-respect. We can't be so different yet both moral.

Slander? We've thrown your own words back at you every single time, kiddo.

Your rep is in the toilet, bro, and it's not because of *slander*.

The point where I will disagree is the last one. Morals *are* relative, it is perfectly possible for two different people to have to completely opposed moral systems and yet both believe that they are right. Which is why morals totally suck as a basis for law or society.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There is a formal system that describes the properties which are common for all reality as a whole. It is called philosophy. Rational arguments of real life and reality take place within philosophy.
That is utterly daft. That is not what philosophy is.
Anyone could say that. You get no points if you don't actually say what is philosophy, for comparison.

(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:We know reality as a whole has principles which hold true in all of it, otherwise it would be a whole different reality. Philosophy is THE discipline based on these knowable first principles and therefore it refers to the reality as a whole.
You need to invent a new word because 'philosophy' isn't what you describe.
Well, you don't describe it at all! Anyone could say that.

(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Define "real life" (surely you don't mean in the biological sense?) and prove why is it not subject to the formal system of philosophy and first principles of thinking.
First you need to prove that reality adheres to your 'first principles'.
They are self-evident, they prove themselves, they are inherent in general properties of matter and energy. Merely formulating them in language is a sufficient proof.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html
All objective things are derived from these principles.

(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  First you need to prove that reality is a formal system. Hint: It's not.
If it has principles, it's a formal system. The rest is fuzzy logic.

(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Philosophy rules nothing. Philosophy is a human invention.
Philosophy is the only thing that rules human brains without damaging them. Atheism is a small example of philosophy.
All reality obeys philosophy, i.e. is naturally consistent with itself and never changes without a cause. The only area where philosophy can be potentially non-present, is human brain. Yet it could be said there is inherent rationality present in all forms of language and if children are natural scientists, they are also philosophers and linguists. They explore the properties of reality in much the same way in order to receive stimulation and live. Philosophical (real, consistent) stimulation is the only way to grow up with a healthy and sane brain.
Philosophy occurred naturally in various cultures and philosophers have independently thought of the same principles. Philosophy a human name given to properties of reality which apply to everything in general and are certain and necessary. We are walking nexi of reality in which mind and world intersects and philosophy must apply to both. It is the only way for us to be truly human and maintain our principal identity/integrity.

(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science is trustworthy to the extent that it works. Science is also a human invention.
"It works" is an argument from effect, consequentialism. It is a fallacy, because it has zero predictive power. It's an argument from iPad.
The real reason why science is trustworthy is the principle of identity. Things are what they are, under the same circumstances they behave identically, so we have certainty that they will work and if they don't, there is an empirical reason for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 01:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  Slander? We've thrown your own words back at you every single time, kiddo.

Your rep is in the toilet, bro, and it's not because of *slander*.

The point where I will disagree is the last one. Morals *are* relative, it is perfectly possible for two different people to have to completely opposed moral systems and yet both believe that they are right. Which is why morals totally suck as a basis for law or society.
Well, I haven't called people dimwits, idiots, retards, stupid cunt, dumbass, inane, and whatever. Did I say these first? Did I say these back at the same rate?
I really wish I could ban these people from this thread and have let in only new ones who can hold their verbal sphincter.

OK, list me some objective things on which all rational people can agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 02:19 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's simple as that Lumi, and I can't help but laugh at the ultimate irony; that for as much as you argue for freedom, you seem entirely ignorant of how your 'objective' principles ignore the consent of other people!
Laugh out load I just LOL'd. Nobody gets a free pass on objective principles. We can deny them verbally, but only because the social language has a capacity to put together words in illogical ways. In mathematics this would not compute. Because the social language is so primitive, we need philosophers to compute it and check for deviations from the principles, which are known as fallacies and sophistry. But whole culture is based on sophistry.

You're certainly well-acquianted with sophistry, all right...

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Obeying the first principles (integrity, universality, variability) is the only way to maximize the overall variability of any system.

Wait just a minute, ol' Lumi.

You said your first principles were indentity and non-contradiction.

Now you're saying something else. Which is it?

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In social world, sticking with the principles means maximum secure freedom for everyone and this secure freedom is its own reward, virtue and happiness, people never revert back to more enslaved state. Only systems based on violation of principles go through this boom and bust cycle of republics growing into democracies decaying into oligarchies and exploding in dictatorships, that's because they have no objectivity and no consistency within culture. That's right, having a consensus within a culture means jack shit, in long term.

Citation needed. That's a ridiculous new way of looking at history...

In the long term nothing means anything, ol' Lumi. The long term is the heat death of the universe.

So what?

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Good point. Obviously, I can't force people to obey reason, that would defeat the argument. I can try to explain this stuff, but there is about 1 person in 200 who can consider a rational argument alone on its own merit without mixing it with cultural consensus. I can raise children philosophically (Alice Gopnik - The Philosophical Baby) which is what I want to do in any case.
But other than that, I just keep having these conversations as a sport, philosphy as a performance art, as Moly says.

"1 in 200", eh?

Your messianic narcissism is so endearing. Please never change.

There's a shade of a point there, though, ol' Lumi; trolling is a art too.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is actually a nifty trick in here. These first principles, this anarcho-capitalism...

And now your "first principles" are an entire derived worldview. Whoops!

Why do I suspect you just call everything you like "first principles" to avoid ever having to justify forming a feels-based opinion out of a tautology?
(oh, right - because you've done so repeatedly)

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... it is not actually a thing imposed on people. It is what is left when all imposing stops. You don't want to work at WalMart? Fine, find someone else to employ you. You don't want to buy an iPad? Fine, you get to keep your money (yay!) and I keep the iPad. Kenneth Minogue (no idea who was that) said, capitalism is what people do when you leave people alone. People can defend themselves well enough from other people. I heard there's even private police in Detroit now because the state police all but abandoned some parts of it. There are buses with wi-fi and beer in Detroit, private-run too.

Congratulations - you can invent scenarios in which everything works out.

Now, as you no doubt refuse to recall from 800 god-damn posts ago, literally anyone can invent scenarios in which everything works out according to their ideology.

That's incredibly meaningless.

In an unregulated market, "freedom" is directly proportional to "capital". Most people will have neither.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I mean, none of that is a problem if everything is modular, you just buy or sell the things you want and don't impose anything on anyone else. This whole objective morality thing is actually completely passive, it has no positive "thou shalt make elections" or shit like that. It has no unchosen positive obligations. And when you choose something, that's between you and the person you're obliged to.

Your "objective" morality was horseshit every other time you stroked off to the idea, and it's horseshit now.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No, that is where we actually differ. Social groups are just abstractions, they don't exist empirically...

Oh my Jesus.

We've hit peak retard, folks. Pack it in and go home. There's nothing more to see here.

Protip: social groups most definitely exist, and that is a quite empirical fact.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... so they can not give people empirical obligations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know it sounds weird coming from me, but I have seen UFO, yet I have never seen a nation, a family, or a state. All I have actually seen were just people, buildings and sometimes a gun. That's all I can prove that really exists.

Well; you would claim to have seen a UFO, now, wouldn't you.

After all, the Reptiloids have to get here somehow.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't say abstractions don't exist, they do, but not in the same way that my money.

Hey, guys? Yeah. Who's going to be the one to tell ol' Lumi here that money is an abstraction...

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We say abstractions when we don't know or can't be specific and abstractions have no buttons to push to control them, they're just shadow images of what is really happening.

Hint: formal logic is an abstraction.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Just like I feel better when I face at least 20 enraged people on the forum.

That you think anyone else speaking to you is even remotely "enraged" is, and remains, a bad joke.

It's a special kind of special to insist despite all evidence that you know better than other people what they're thinking.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Actually, they do, give a fuck, logic and axioms are closely related to first principles. Real world is a logic simulator, only most of this logic is fuzzy logic, a many-valued logic.

Identity and non-contradiction become meaningless when uncertainy and probability are introduced.

But it's nice of you to acknowledge what you literally denied when I mentioned it to you...

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We use empirical sciences to keep track of that. But the world we really live in is a world of conscious mind, in a way, we never really leave this world. And having clear logic and well-defined objective concepts in the world of mind is like having strong, hard muscles and a six pack in the world of beach volleyball. On the other hand, what we call culture is like a terrible gooey parasitic infestation in the world of mind. It has no shape, no solid argument, it's like a mist, you can't disprove it, but it you try to go against it, men in costumes will come and beat you up. You can say I am dogmatic and absolutist that I have principles, but well, that's the only thing anyone can really have in the world of mind. The gooey plague of culture oozes over everything until the only thing that's left is to elect someone into power who promises to fix everything.

That's some top-quality paranoid fantasy you've got there, ol' Lumi.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The philosophy I do now is not a neat academic philosophy. It is like a crowbar of objectivity to the headcrab of culture. It's like amputating legs of dumbness on the battlefield of reason. People always squirm and scream that they don't wanna... As I said, it's not pretty and about one patient in 200 has a hope of survival.

Messianic narcissism is the best!

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not what I want, I am more at home at another branch of philosophy, which is metaphysics, and then philosophy of language, of science (I kid you not) and general systems theory, metatheory, metaanalysis, shit like that... It is basically being a glorified translator between worldviews, some of which want to kill each other. So I am really a man of peace. The world sucks, not me. You can wave away all my arguments, that's a small price for getting to rehearse them.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No, nothing like that. In voluntary interactions, the result is always win-win, or there is no interaction at all.

Some interactions are zero-sum, and many interactions are not voluntary.

"OOoh, but in my perfect idealized fantasy, blah blah blah..." is not compelling.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Either both parties are satisfied (or at least better off than they have been), or they look for other parties, that's the absence of power over the other. These win-win interactions are very different from everything we experienced with government and also in our family, but market is based on them. On the market, you never lose.

Yes. That must be why bankruptcies exist.

You should try engaging with reality some time. It's very interesting.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd argue that we both actually never experience negotiation except when the goal is a win-win interaction, when power is rejected as an option, period. This is what peaceful parenting is about, negotiating with the child. The purpose of negotiation is arriving at a better deal than the ideas we had separately. People together voluntarily produce more than involuntarily. It's a synergic effect.

Question: can you negotiate with an irrational actor?

Young children cannot reason the way an educated adult can.

(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Frankly, I have never understood this war of ideas. In my teens I believed lots of New Age stuff and I went to atheist forums to enlighten people, or get enlightened. I have never seen this as a war and a loss. Until this kind of conversation.
Yes, THIS is a war, because people get to insult and slander me wholesale, I fight for my reputation. And frankly, you fight for your self-respect. We can't be so different yet both moral.

I continue to reiterate that I never insulted you until you insulted and slandered me one too many times for my finite patience - and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Your dogshit reputation is of your own making.

That you can project nonsense about "fighting for self-respect" onto others' actions is once again illuminating.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, I haven't called people dimwits, idiots, retards, stupid cunt, dumbass, inane, and whatever. Did I say these first? Did I say these back at the same rate?
I really wish I could ban these people from this thread and have let in only new ones who can hold their verbal sphincter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ol' Lumi, irony incarnate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: