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
28-08-2014, 01:43 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 02:02 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 03:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  It strikes me that 'No Wing' implies little more than a highly moderate centralised stance or complete indifference to politics altogether, as opposed to what Lumi is trying to make it mean...
Complete indifference is the ideal stance, most realistic. No politics means private sector solutions. People who are pro-politics are basically like this:
[Image: 10624998_707212875998899_6656179624412698341_n.png]

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, come on. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and truth - it doesn't create it.
Of course it does. Philosophy is limited by language. As better languages get invented, truth must be re-created by reflecting the first principles in new, better verbal forms. These languages and paradigms aren't always commensurable, so it is legitimate to say that truth gets created.
Can you even define knowledge and truth? Philosophy concerns definitions too. And don't answer just "yes", answer with full definitions.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: Well, you don't describe it at all! Anyone could say that.
I just did.
No, you didn't say HOW that disproves anything I have said. Where is no how or because, there is no argument.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  So kc's Calvinism is true by that definition.
You don't really know anything, do you? If you knew anything, you would make a brief description of KC's Calvinism, whatever it is, and prove by test how it relates to me.
Holy Christ on a pogo stick, have you ever passed a school test? Or given one?

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't know what a formal system is. You need to read a book. I suggest Mathematical Logic by Stephen Cole Kleene. Or Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
In my experience, every time people thought I don't understand something, I understood it so much better than they did not even recognize their own subject, but I lacked proper terminology at the time to prove it. By better I mean having derived the properties of the same area of reality by synthesis from multiple points of view. That is, for my very limited purposes, which is a correct philosophical location and classification of a field of knowledge, not using the field itself.
This is not a yes/no quiz. If you want me to read a book, you need to tell me why and what will happen when I do.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Philosophy is the only thing that rules human brains without damaging them.

That is incoherent.
Not an argument. Compared to what? Because what?
I based this assertion on the principle of causality (aka sufficient reason), without which sanity is impossible.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:
Atheism is a small example of philosophy.
No, it isn't. It is a result of the philosophy of skepticism.
I don't see a difference.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Philosophy is not something to be obeyed. It is a process, an activity, invented by humans.
Interesting. Plato would say that he did not invent a circle, he got reminded of the principle of a circle when looking at a vaguely lopsided ellipse.
I don't think we invented philosophy, I think we grew into it cerebrally. What we invented was the language to express the principles. Principles + language = philosophy. Principles are of course properties of all matter and energy in general, described in language.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: The only area where philosophy can be potentially non-present, is human brain.
The only place philosophy occurs is in minds.
Yes, so what? Principles occur everywhere in the universe, except people's minds, apparently.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  But things don't, in fact, behave identically. There is randomness as shown by quantum mechanics.

Things behave statistically.
Consider You will not believe me this, you will probably not understand, but it's useful to get down some thoughts in English. I'd say you mix together two different phenomena. Statistical macroscopic randomness which is an abstraction for complex interactions and quantum variability, which is a natural state.
Quantum mechanics is not randomness, it's capacity for variability. Both human brain and the quantum world have this property. Reason, digital computing and quantum level do not behave statistically, they have a capacity for variability, (with particles / waves it is called quantum superposition) for behaving in many ways, including as formal systems (I hope I've got this right) - that's why they are used for computing. Statistical phenomena do not have this variability, because they consist of parts or particles which have little capacity for variability (in the activities that we measure) and even less capacity for connection and interaction. So we can address them using a blanket statement - statistics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 01:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  It strikes me that 'No Wing' implies little more than a highly moderate centralised stance or complete indifference to politics altogether, as opposed to what Lumi is trying to make it mean...
Complete indifference is the ideal stance, most realistic. No politics means private sector solutions. People who are pro-politics are basically like this:
[Image: 10624998_707212875998899_6656179624412698341_n.png]

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, come on. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and truth - it doesn't create it.
Of course it does. Philosophy is limited by language. As better languages get invented, truth must be re-created by reflecting the first principles in new, better verbal forms. These languages and paradigms aren't always commensurable, so it is legitimate to say that truth gets created.
Can you even define knowledge and truth? Philosophy concerns definitions too. And don't answer just "yes", answer with full definitions.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I just did.
No, you didn't say HOW that disproves anything I have said. Where is no how or because, there is no argument.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  So kc's Calvinism is true by that definition.
You don't really know anything, do you? If you knew anything, you would make a brief description of KC's Calvinism, whatever it is, and prove by test how it relates to me.
Holy Christ on a pogo stick, have you ever passed a school test? Or given one?

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't know what a formal system is. You need to read a book. I suggest Mathematical Logic by Stephen Cole Kleene. Or Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
In my experience, every time people thought I don't understand something, I understood it so much better than they did not even recognize their own subject, but I lacked proper terminology at the time to prove it. By better I mean having derived the properties of the same area of reality by synthesis from multiple points of view. That is, for my very limited purposes, which is a correct philosophical location and classification of a field of knowledge, not using the field itself.
This is not a yes/no quiz. If you want me to read a book, you need to tell me why and what will happen when I do.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is incoherent.
Not an argument. Compared to what? Because what?
I based this assertion on the principle of causality (aka sufficient reason), without which sanity is impossible.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it isn't. It is a result of the philosophy of skepticism.
I don't see a difference.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Philosophy is not something to be obeyed. It is a process, an activity, invented by humans.
Interesting. Plato would say that he did not invent a circle, he got reminded of the principle of a circle when looking at a vaguely lopsided ellipse.
I don't think we invented philosophy, I think we grew into it cerebrally. What we invented was the language to express the principles. Principles + language = philosophy. Principles are of course properties of all matter and energy in general, described in language.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  The only place philosophy occurs is in minds.
Yes, so what? Principles occur everywhere in the universe, except people's minds, apparently.

(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  But things don't, in fact, behave identically. There is randomness as shown by quantum mechanics.

Things behave statistically.
Consider You will not believe me this, you will probably not understand, but it's useful to get down some thoughts in English. I'd say you mix together two different phenomena. Statistical macroscopic randomness which is an abstraction for complex interactions and quantum variability, which is a natural state.
Quantum mechanics is not randomness, it's capacity for variability. Both human brain and the quantum world have this property. Reason, digital computing and quantum level do not behave statistically, they have a capacity for variability, (with particles / waves it is called quantum superposition) for behaving in many ways, including as formal systems (I hope I've got this right) - that's why they are used for computing. Statistical phenomena do not have this variability, because they consist of parts or particles which have little capacity for variability (in the activities that we measure) and even less capacity for connection and interaction. So we can address them using a blanket statement - statistics.

Just checking to see if you've taken your meds yet.

Doesn't look like it.

Well, Cary on in fantasy land. Let me know when you've come back to the real world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like PKJoe's post
28-08-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 01:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, come on. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and truth - it doesn't create it.
Of course it does. Philosophy is limited by language. As better languages get invented, truth must be re-created by reflecting the first principles in new, better verbal forms. These languages and paradigms aren't always commensurable, so it is legitimate to say that truth gets created.
Can you even define knowledge and truth? Philosophy concerns definitions too. And don't answer just "yes", answer with full definitions.

I don't need to. We are arguing what philosophy is.
"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." -from the OED

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I just did.
No, you didn't say HOW that disproves anything I have said. Where is no how or because, there is no argument.

The meaning of the word 'philosophy' contradicts your argument.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  So kc's Calvinism is true by that definition.
You don't really know anything, do you? If you knew anything, you would make a brief description of KC's Calvinism, whatever it is, and prove by test how it relates to me.
Holy Christ on a pogo stick, have you ever passed a school test? Or given one?

If you were paying attention to anyone else you would know what Calvinism is.
It is a theology that is self-consistent, based on principles. It therefore follows your definition of 'truth'.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't know what a formal system is. You need to read a book. I suggest Mathematical Logic by Stephen Cole Kleene. Or Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
In my experience, every time people thought I don't understand something, I understood it so much better than they did not even recognize their own subject, but I lacked proper terminology at the time to prove it. By better I mean having derived the properties of the same area of reality by synthesis from multiple points of view. That is, for my very limited purposes, which is a correct philosophical location and classification of a field of knowledge, not using the field itself.
This is not a yes/no quiz. If you want me to read a book, you need to tell me why and what will happen when I do.

I told you why - you don't know what a formal system is. Don't you have even a sneaking suspicion that I suggested those books to educate you? Consider

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is incoherent.
Not an argument. Compared to what? Because what?
I based this assertion on the principle of causality (aka sufficient reason), without which sanity is impossible.

No, 'that is incoherent' means that what you wrote makes no sense. I am not making an argument against it because it is not clear there is even an 'it' there to argue.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it isn't. It is a result of the philosophy of skepticism.
I don't see a difference.

Why am I not surprised? You seem unable to differentiate cause and effect in general.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Philosophy is not something to be obeyed. It is a process, an activity, invented by humans.
Interesting. Plato would say that he did not invent a circle, he got reminded of the principle of a circle when looking at a vaguely lopsided ellipse.
I don't think we invented philosophy, I think we grew into it cerebrally. What we invented was the language to express the principles. Principles + language = philosophy. Principles are of course properties of all matter and energy in general, described in language.

A circle is not philosophy. You think that 'philosophy' is something that is out there? Another Platonic essence?

That explains a lot. Plato's philosophy is naive.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  The only place philosophy occurs is in minds.
Yes, so what? Principles occur everywhere in the universe, except people's minds, apparently.

No, principles are only observed in minds. They are derived from observation of reality.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 04:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  But things don't, in fact, behave identically. There is randomness as shown by quantum mechanics.

Things behave statistically.
Consider You will not believe me this, you will probably not understand, but it's useful to get down some thoughts in English. I'd say you mix together two different phenomena. Statistical macroscopic randomness which is an abstraction for complex interactions and quantum variability, which is a natural state.
Quantum mechanics is not randomness, it's capacity for variability. Both human brain and the quantum world have this property. Reason, digital computing and quantum level do not behave statistically, they have a capacity for variability, (with particles / waves it is called quantum superposition) for behaving in many ways, including as formal systems (I hope I've got this right)
You don't
Quote: - that's why they are used for computing. Statistical phenomena do not have this variability, because they consist of parts or particles which have little capacity for variability (in the activities that we measure) and even less capacity for connection and interaction. So we can address them using a blanket statement - statistics.

Statistics is the measure of variability. Yet another subject of which you are not just ignorant but have a daft 'understanding' of it.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
28-08-2014, 06:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 06:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Statistics is the measure of variability. Yet another subject of which you are not just ignorant but have a daft 'understanding' of it.
It very well may be, but how do you call a passive or potential capacity for variability, regardless if expressed, measured or fulfilled? In human brain we call it intelligence, I suppose. I don't know how do we call it on the quantum scale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 06:18 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 06:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 06:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Statistics is the measure of variability. Yet another subject of which you are not just ignorant but have a daft 'understanding' of it.
It very well may be, but how do you call a passive or potential capacity for variability, regardless if expressed, measured or fulfilled? In human brain we call it intelligence, I suppose. I don't know how do we call it on the quantum scale.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

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
28-08-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 01:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Statistical macroscopic randomness which is an abstraction for complex interactions and quantum variability, which is a natural state.
Quantum mechanics is not randomness, it's capacity for variability. Both human brain and the quantum world have this property. Reason, digital computing and quantum level do not behave statistically, they have a capacity for variability, (with particles / waves it is called quantum superposition) for behaving in many ways, including as formal systems (I hope I've got this right) - that's why they are used for computing. Statistical phenomena do not have this variability, because they consist of parts or particles which have little capacity for variability (in the activities that we measure) and even less capacity for connection and interaction. So we can address them using a blanket statement - statistics.

This is all wrong.

Statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics do not work like that.

Wave/particle duality is a semantic dichotomy, not a real phenomenon; superposition is most definitely a probabilistic effect, statistical mechanics is the most obviously emergent domain of physics, the precepts of quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible with classical rulesets, and randomness is an intrinsic, inescapable, component of our universe.

I'd say "stick to what you know", but, uh...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
28-08-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 01:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Quantum mechanics is not randomness, it's capacity for variability. Both human brain and the quantum world have this property. Reason, digital computing and quantum level do not behave statistically, they have a capacity for variability, (with particles / waves it is called quantum superposition) for behaving in many ways, including as formal systems (I hope I've got this right) - that's why they are used for computing. Statistical phenomena do not have this variability, because they consist of parts or particles which have little capacity for variability (in the activities that we measure) and even less capacity for connection and interaction. So we can address them using a blanket statement - statistics.

Goddam Luminoodle you got some balls talking about the interpretation of quantum mechanics when you ain't a physicist. And if in the highly improbable event you become a physicist, you would know better than to try to interpret it.

"Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem (Physics Today, April 1989, page 9). I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that 'If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut
up and calculate!" ' " - David Mermin

(28-08-2014 08:01 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics do not work like that.

Wave/particle duality is a semantic dichotomy, not a real phenomenon; superposition is most definitely a probabilistic effect, statistical mechanics is the most obviously emergent domain of physics, the precepts of quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible with classical rulesets, and randomness is an intrinsic, inescapable, component of our universe.

I'm going with the physicists here Luminoodle, you got zero credentials or qualifications to discuss this, and yet you feel compelled to do so. Check your meds.

[Image: randomness1.png]
[Image: randomness2.png]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like GirlyMan's post
29-08-2014, 02:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-08-2014 04:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm going with the physicists here Luminoodle, you got zero credentials or qualifications to discuss this, and yet you feel compelled to do so. Check your meds.
Yes, I must be crazy if I talk about metaphysics to people who don't know metaphysics.
My shields of crazy must be weakening! Must... stop... giggling... Drooling

One trend that might surprise and scare you all. There seems to be a zombie outbreak in United States and Canada and it's growing!
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%...fg6&cmpt=q
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(29-08-2014 02:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I must be crazy if I talk about metaphysics to people who don't know metaphysics.

Metaphysics huh? Must be 'cos we're all into science and y'know, actual physics, that we're not on the same page. Rolleyes

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
29-08-2014, 05:04 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(29-08-2014 02:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 04:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm going with the physicists here Luminoodle, you got zero credentials or qualifications to discuss this, and yet you feel compelled to do so. Check your meds.
Yes, I must be crazy if I talk about metaphysics to people who don't know metaphysics.
My shields of crazy must be weakening! Must... stop... giggling... Drooling

One trend that might surprise and scare you all. There seems to be a zombie outbreak in United States and Canada and it's growing!
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%...fg6&cmpt=q

In what sense can anyone 'know' metaphysics?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: