Philosophy - The Game

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu May 28, 2015 10:24 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:It boggles my mind how a man with 200 IQ would set his life trying to prove the existence of god.

Even if such a god were real, why would he need to be proven? He's completely useless actually, and if he was real he would rather have someone spend their 200 IQ talents elsewhere, rather than proving the existence of a mysterious being that wishes to remain anonymous and do little to nothing to alter the world, save anyone or reveal his identity in any matter.


You can be a dumbass regardless of how high your IQ is.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Thu May 28, 2015 11:01 pm

I'm not aware of any man with a 200 IQ who solely sought to "prove" the existence of God. The four theologians I mentioned earlier sure didn't.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu May 28, 2015 11:05 pm

I believe that may be referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Amorphos » Thu May 28, 2015 11:47 pm

I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.


True. Equally true; you can ‘truly’ believe in what your emotions tell you more than the knowledge of them. Possibly same concerning all senses in some measure.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 12:06 am

Amorphos wrote:
I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.


True. Equally true; you can ‘truly’ believe in what your emotions tell you more than the knowledge of them. Possibly same concerning all senses in some measure.


We can truly "believe" in what our emotions tell us, but what do you mean by "More than the knowledge of them?" Lets say, we are happy. Are you saying, it is more useful to believe why we are happy than to know we are happy? Why can't we simply just know why we are happy, and not need to believe in why we are happy?
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 12:11 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

Do you believe in any of these things?:

1. Love
2. Right and Wrong
3. Truth
4. Beauty in Art

Because you can't know any of them without some degree of belief.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Lev Muishkin » Fri May 29, 2015 12:14 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Amorphos wrote:
I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.


True. Equally true; you can ‘truly’ believe in what your emotions tell you more than the knowledge of them. Possibly same concerning all senses in some measure.


We can truly "believe" in what our emotions tell us, but what do you mean by "More than the knowledge of them?" Lets say, we are happy. Are you saying, it is more useful to believe why we are happy than to know we are happy? Why can't we simply just know why we are happy, and not need to believe in why we are happy?


Emotions tell us nothing, in terms of knowing. Emotions are feelings, not information.
When we are happy we usually make up convincing stories about why we are happy. Mostly its because the sun is shining; someone smiled at you; the dog did something funny; you are in love. None of these things necessarily result in happiness, but when we feel that way we like to try to point the finger at something. Same for when we are pissed off, which could also be the result of the sun shining, the wring person smiling at us and the dog acting in a way that others might find funny, but just pisses you off. Being in love, also can have negative repercussions.

But one thing is for sure' emotions don't tell us anything.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Lev Muishkin » Fri May 29, 2015 12:18 am

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

Do you believe in any of these things?:

1. Love
2. Right and Wrong
3. Truth
4. Beauty in Art

Because you can't know any of them without some degree of belief.


What do you mean "believe"?
You don't have to know anything except what they are to believe: that's why its belief and not knowledge.

I know enough about 2, 3 & 4 to know they are not subjects for belief, but opinion.
As for 1 this is a feeling you can have about something, I don't see what the role of belief would do here.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 12:24 am

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

Do you believe in any of these things?:

1. Love
2. Right and Wrong
3. Truth
4. Beauty in Art

Because you can't know any of them without some degree of belief.

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

Do you believe in any of these things?:

1. Love
2. Right and Wrong
3. Truth
4. Beauty in Art

Because you can't know any of them without some degree of belief.


Love is a concept, in what manner would I believe in Love? I experienced love, as described through this concept. I know love. I don't see why I need to believe it first. You haven't made that clear.

Right and wrong, is a judgment. I assume you mean morality here, not something like true/false. There is knowledge of morality, and judgment of morality, which lead to us to think is a certain moral claim true, such as "Its evil to kill babies". Do I believe I am right when I make a moral claim? OR do I know I am right? Right and wrong are not subject to being true or false in a pragmatic sense of what it means to be true or false. Each moral claim is subject to values. It would be true that it would be evil to kill babies if we value babies, yes, from our perspective. But to someone who doesn't value babies, and finds them.. evil, would it be true? The subjectivity of morality and the sense of the word believe when dealing with morality somewhat obfuscates the matter. In this sense, it would be to hold an opinion of your moral claim; not necessarily that it is fact.

Truth - I know of truth. Believing in the truth isn't really knowing the truth, it seems you have room for some doubt; if that is the case, then why believe something to be true if you don't know?

Beauty in art, another subjective issue similar to morality. It depends on our perception yes? If I find a painting beautiful, I know I find it beautiful, I don't really believe I find it beautiful if so, then I wouldn't be sure of my judgment of beauty, which wouldn't make much sense would it? But is it true that the painting is beautiful? In this sense, truth does not apply. It is neither true nor false that a painting is beautiful, it is true to me that it is beautiful, but not necessarily for everyone else.

I hope that answers your question? Perhaps I am amiss on how or what you wanted me to answer.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 12:26 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:Emotions tell us nothing, in terms of knowing. Emotions are feelings, not information.
When we are happy we usually make up convincing stories about why we are happy. Mostly its because the sun is shining; someone smiled at you; the dog did something funny; you are in love. None of these things necessarily result in happiness, but when we feel that way we like to try to point the finger at something. Same for when we are pissed off, which could also be the result of the sun shining, the wring person smiling at us and the dog acting in a way that others might find funny, but just pisses you off. Being in love, also can have negative repercussions.

But one thing is for sure' emotions don't tell us anything.



They certainly do tell us something. Perhaps it depends on how much insight you have..
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 12:32 am

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

Do you believe in any of these things?:

1. Love
2. Right and Wrong
3. Truth
4. Beauty in Art

Because you can't know any of them without some degree of belief.

Lev Muishkin wrote:What do you mean "believe"?
You don't have to know anything except what they are to believe: that's why its belief and not knowledge.
I know enough about 2, 3 & 4 to know they are not subjects for belief, but opinion.
As for 1 this is a feeling you can have about something, I don't see what the role of belief would do here.

Please read the entire post before answering. I was directly addressing WWW III's separation of knowledge and belief:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

So, your last post was entirely irrelevant to the argument of my post.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 12:42 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Love is a concept, in what manner would I believe in Love? I experienced love, as described through this concept. I know love. I don't see why I need to believe it first. You haven't made that clear.

How do you know love if you don't even know what it is. You believe in love and you believe you know it, but you can't prove you know either. So, you do believe it it, and you do value belief. So, you're condemnation of belief was hypocritical.
Right and wrong, is a judgment.

Again, that means you believe in it but you don't know it. You certainly haven't proven you know it. So, again, your condemnation of belief is hypocritical.
I assume you mean morality here, not something like true/false. There is knowledge of morality, and judgment of morality, which lead to us to think is a certain moral claim true, such as "Its evil to kill babies".

How exactly do you know what morality is? You just believe what morality is. Again, your condemnation of belief is hypocritical.
Do I believe I am right when I make a moral claim? OR do I know I am right? Right and wrong are not subject to being true or false in a pragmatic sense of what it means to be true or false. Each moral claim is subject to values. It would be true that it would be evil to kill babies if we value babies, yes, from our perspective. But to someone who doesn't value babies, and finds them.. evil, would it be true? The subjectivity of morality and the sense of the word believe when dealing with morality somewhat obfuscates the matter. In this sense, it would be to hold an opinion of your moral claim; not necessarily that it is fact.

Thank you, you just showed us another thing you believe in, but don't know. So, again, your condemnation of believing in things one doesn't know was hypocritical.
Truth - I know of truth. Believing in the truth isn't really knowing the truth, it seems you have room for some doubt; if that is the case, then why believe something to be true if you don't know?

You don't fully know anything to be true. Nobody does. So, again if you ever say something is true, you are again showing you believe in something you don't know.
Beauty in art, another subjective issue similar to morality. It depends on our perception yes? If I find a painting beautiful, I know I find it beautiful, I don't really believe I find it beautiful if so, then I wouldn't be sure of my judgment of beauty, which wouldn't make much sense would it? But is it true that the painting is beautiful? In this sense, truth does not apply. It is neither true nor false that a painting is beautiful, it is true to me that it is beautiful, but not necessarily for everyone else.

It is not true to you it is beautiful; it is true you find it beautiful. You may believe its beautiful, but that doesn't make it so. Again, you believe in something you don't actually know. So, this post you made was untrue:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

You clearly find intelligence in believing--or I hope you do--since I have shown you believe in many things you don't know. So, I'd rethink whaty you said about believing essentially being assuming. Considering you do obviously believe in things, you know what that would make you.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 12:57 am

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Love is a concept, in what manner would I believe in Love? I experienced love, as described through this concept. I know love. I don't see why I need to believe it first. You haven't made that clear.

How do you know love if you don't even know what it is. You believe in love and you believe you know it, but you can't prove you know either. So, you do believe it it, and you do value belief. So, you're condemnation of belief was hypocritical.
Right and wrong, is a judgment.

Again, that means you believe in it but you don't know it. You certainly haven't proven you know it. So, again, your condemnation of belief is hypocritical.
I assume you mean morality here, not something like true/false. There is knowledge of morality, and judgment of morality, which lead to us to think is a certain moral claim true, such as "Its evil to kill babies".

How exactly do you know what morality is? You just believe what morality is. Again, your condemnation of belief is hypocritical.
Do I believe I am right when I make a moral claim? OR do I know I am right? Right and wrong are not subject to being true or false in a pragmatic sense of what it means to be true or false. Each moral claim is subject to values. It would be true that it would be evil to kill babies if we value babies, yes, from our perspective. But to someone who doesn't value babies, and finds them.. evil, would it be true? The subjectivity of morality and the sense of the word believe when dealing with morality somewhat obfuscates the matter. In this sense, it would be to hold an opinion of your moral claim; not necessarily that it is fact.

Thank you, you just showed us another thing you believe in, but don't know. So, again, your condemnation of believing in things one doesn't know was hypocritical.
Truth - I know of truth. Believing in the truth isn't really knowing the truth, it seems you have room for some doubt; if that is the case, then why believe something to be true if you don't know?

You don't fully know anything to be true. Nobody does. So, again if you ever say something is true, you are again showing you believe in something you don't know.
Beauty in art, another subjective issue similar to morality. It depends on our perception yes? If I find a painting beautiful, I know I find it beautiful, I don't really believe I find it beautiful if so, then I wouldn't be sure of my judgment of beauty, which wouldn't make much sense would it? But is it true that the painting is beautiful? In this sense, truth does not apply. It is neither true nor false that a painting is beautiful, it is true to me that it is beautiful, but not necessarily for everyone else.

It is not true to you it is beautiful; it is true you find it beautiful. You may believe its beautiful, but that doesn't make it so. Again, you believe in something you don't actually know. So, this post you made was untrue:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Although that is not is sole purpose, nor do I think was necessarily his purpose or even made an attempt to do so.. But nonetheless, he's a "believer". I find no intelligence in "believing". I find it in knowing, and knowing when you do not know. Believing is essentially assuming, without knowing, and we all know what they say about assuming.

You clearly find intelligence in believing--or I hope you do--since I have shown you believe in many things you don't know. So, I'd rethink whaty you said about believing essentially being assuming. Considering you do obviously believe in things, you know what that would make you.


Hmm, your first response is a little weird "How do I know love if I don't know what it is".

-I said I know what love is, why would you assume I don't? I don't need to prove I know love to you, nor anyone else. But I can attempt to convince you that I know love, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll understand either. You simply are assuming I believe in love, without making much of a case as to how or why. You should word your critique more carefully and ask questions before you place a judgment like you did, because you're simply assuming.

Your second response is:
"Again that means you believe in it, but you don't know it."

-Really, how did you come to that conclusion? You're lacking clarity of your judgment here. This applies to your statement on my response morality as well. You're just making claims, not providing reason to back your claims.

No, I don't find intelligence in believing. Perhaps you will find the same when this conversation is done, but by the way it is going, you seem to be a believer by default. Something I would critique as not very intelligent. You have shown this to me through your hasty assumptions, through your lack of reason in your judgments, and still somehow expect that you provided a valid response that would make me change my mind.. I have minimal hope that this conversation will be going far at this point.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 1:28 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Hmm, your first response is a little weird "How do I know love if I don't know what it is".

My response isn't "a little weird," but your saying it is sure is. My response was cogent and logically sound.
-I said I know what love is, why would you assume I don't? I don't need to prove I know love to you, nor anyone else.

I know you said what love is, but you didn't show me how. You yourself admitted love is just a concept that has no proven basis in reality. So, I don't just assume you don't know it. i know you don't know it just like I know someone doesn't know God. And yes, you do need to prove you know it if you want to convince anybody. Until you do, all you can truly say is you believe what love is.
Your second response is:
"Again that means you believe in it, but you don't know it."
-Really, how did you come to that conclusion? You're lacking clarity of your judgment here. This applies to your statement on my response morality as well. You're just making claims, not providing reason to back your claims.

You, yourself, correctly said "right and wrong, is a judgment." So, you yourself admitted you don't actually know right or wrong. So my clarity of judgement was perfectly fine and I perfectly backed my claim with your own statement. Thank you. And right and wrong can't be fully known, so you were right to say it depends on belief.
No, I don't find intelligence in believing. Perhaps you will find the same when this conversation is done, but by the way it is going, you seem to be a believer by default.
Something I would critique as not very intelligent.

If you don't, then you don't think you're very intelligent. And at this point, I don't blame you. You have shown you believe in love, right and wrong, truth, and beauty in art without knowing any of them at all. So, you are the believer by default, and I wouldn't blame your critique of yourself as such... :wink:
You have shown this to me through your hasty assumptions, through your lack of reason in your judgments, and still somehow expect that you provided a valid response that would make me change my mind.. I have minimal hope that this conversation will be going far at this point.

I have made no hasty assumptions nor shown any lack of reason in my judgment. Now you, yourself, are making false hasty claims you don't and can't back up in any way. So, thank you for showing you can't even counter my sound and cogent arguments and critiques of your "thinking." All I've done is show what a complete hypocrite you are. I certainly haven't been impressed with your conversation or poor "argument," so I have no reason to continue this conversation any further.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 1:52 am

Peripheral wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Hmm, your first response is a little weird "How do I know love if I don't know what it is".

My response isn't "a little weird," but your saying it is sure is. My response was cogent and logically sound.
-I said I know what love is, why would you assume I don't? I don't need to prove I know love to you, nor anyone else.

I know you said what love is, but you didn't show me how. You yourself admitted love is just a concept that has no proven basis in reality. So, I don't just assume you don't know it. i know you don't know it just like I know someone doesn't know God. And yes, you do need to prove you know it if you want to convince anybody. Until you do, all you can truly say is you believe what love is.
Your second response is:
"Again that means you believe in it, but you don't know it."
-Really, how did you come to that conclusion? You're lacking clarity of your judgment here. This applies to your statement on my response morality as well. You're just making claims, not providing reason to back your claims.

You, yourself, correctly said "right and wrong, is a judgment." So, you yourself admitted you don't actually know right or wrong. So my clarity of judgement was perfectly fine and I perfectly backed my claim with your own statement. Thank you. And right and wrong can't be fully known, so you were right to say it depends on belief.
No, I don't find intelligence in believing. Perhaps you will find the same when this conversation is done, but by the way it is going, you seem to be a believer by default.
Something I would critique as not very intelligent.

If you don't, then you don't think you're very intelligent. And at this point, I don't blame you. You have shown you believe in love, right and wrong, truth, and beauty in art without knowing any of them at all. So, you are the believer by default, and I wouldn't blame your critique of yourself as such... :wink:
You have shown this to me through your hasty assumptions, through your lack of reason in your judgments, and still somehow expect that you provided a valid response that would make me change my mind.. I have minimal hope that this conversation will be going far at this point.

I have made no hasty assumptions nor shown any lack of reason in my judgment. Now you, yourself, are making false hasty claims you don't and can't back up in any way. So, thank you for showing you can't even counter my sound and cogent arguments and critiques of your "thinking." All I've done is show what a complete hypocrite you are. I certainly haven't been impressed with your conversation or poor "argument," so I have no reason to continue this conversation any further.


"i know you don't know it just like I know someone doesn't know God."

No, you don't. Love is not comparable to "God, gods or god".

Love is an emotion. We experience it. You assume to know I don't know love, simply because I haven't elaborated enough. It's a hasty judgment, an assumption as such.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 2:01 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:"i know you don't know it just like I know someone doesn't know God."
No, you don't. Love is not comparable to "God, gods or god".

It's absolutely comparable to God. You have no idea "Love" really exists. It could just be a chemical reaction you have that you call "Love." You have no idea it' is actually love and you have no idea what love really is.
Love is an emotion. We experience it. You assume to know I don't know love, simply because I haven't elaborated enough. It's a hasty judgment, an assumption as such.

No, love is more than just an emotion. When people say they "Love" someone they aren't just saying they have an emotional feeling for someone; they are saying they are feeling something great deeper than just emotion. And how do you know you experience love? As, I said before, your body may just be going through some weird chemical reaction.

And I made no hasty judgment or assumption. Again you make your unsupported hasty claims. i don't just assume you don't know love; I know you don't because you have failed to even show you know exactly what love is. So, thanks for supporting my argument.

Try again, dude. You seem to like the conversation... :wink:
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 2:44 am

No, its not comparable to God. God is a conscious entity that may or may not exist, that created the universe. Love is a concept that describes an emotion humans feel, just like hate. Love exists as an abstraction of actual physical and conscious experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Just like any emotion, hate, jealousy, anger. Do you find those as mysterious as well, or is it just love? Perhaps you are the one who doesn't know love, and this is merely your projection. If so, that would be unfortunate.

Anything you "Feel" on that level is an emotion. I recommend you learning what love is, perhaps the wiki link will help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

While there are different aspects of love and type of love, the one I am referring to is the emotion. If you are referring to another sense of the word, then we're speaking two different languages. Namely : It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.[1]

Whether "chemical reactions" are involved are irrelevant to knowing what love it, by experiencing it or having love. Just the same with anger, terror, happiness, hate. Chemical reactions and feelings are involved in those, and there are varying degrees of intensity, but nonetheless, intense love is still love, and love, is still love.



"i don't just assume you don't know love; I know you don't because you have failed to even show you know exactly what love is"

That is not knowledge; that is an assumption. Simply because I haven't shown you exactly what love is, doesn't mean I don't know what it is, this is a hasty judgment on your part. My knowledge of knowing love is not dependent upon me showing you. I have shown it to others; typing it online the definition of it and description of it, is knowledge of love; experiencing it, well, Is knowing love. You expect me to show you that through the internets? It seems you don't even understand what kind of "proof" you are asking for.

I will tell you that one of the purest forms of love I have experienced is the love of my children. That is where the empathy and sacrifice of love comes to fruition the most for me. It's different from the love of a woman, in that there isn't sexual desire attached to it, which isn't necessarily love but can be confused as such. Most parents should be able to agree with the sentiment of this statement, as is probably unable to be understood entirely by most non parents. Of course, parents who aren't involved in their child's life are an exception, they're not really parents... so much.

When you receive joy and happiness from vicariously seeing the person you love experiencing joy and happiness, it is an indication of love. It is even a greater indication of love when the person you love experiences joy and happiness at the cost of your own self sacrifice. Perhaps you understand that yes? Perhaps you don't. If not, I would say you truly do not know what love is, and assume to think that everyone else must not know either.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Peripheral » Fri May 29, 2015 3:26 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:No, its not comparable to God. God is a conscious entity that may or may not exist, that created the universe. Love is a concept that describes an emotion humans feel, just like hate. Love exists as an abstraction of actual physical and conscious experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Just like any emotion, hate, jealousy, anger. Do you find those as mysterious as well, or is it just love? Perhaps you are the one who doesn't know love, and this is merely your projection. If so, that would be unfortunate.

Yes, it is comparable to God, even though you keep erroneously saying it's not. And you just supported my argument for me. Thanks. The fact love is an abstraction of unclear physical and conscious experiences means it can't be fully known. At this point, I'm not surprised you can't grasp that. And, as I said before, love is more than just an emotion. You really need to look up the world. And I feel love from my wife and kids every day. I saw you brought up your kids below. Based on your terrible arguments so far; I have no doubt mine are much smarter and more remarkable than yours.
While there are different aspects of love and type of love, the one I am referring to is the emotion. If you are referring to another sense of the word, then we're speaking two different languages. Namely : It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.[

You don't get to decide the definition of love. Again, as I said on another thread, I have serious doubts about your education levels. Love applies to all of its definitions, not just your limited ones. And its clear you don't full know any of them.
Whether "chemical reactions" are involved are irrelevant to knowing what love it, by experiencing it or having love. Just the same with anger, terror, happiness, hate. Chemical reactions and feelings are involved in those, and there are varying degrees of intensity, but nonetheless, intense love is still love, and love, is still love.

No, chemical reactions are not irrelevant. Now you are revealing your ignorance about biology and chemistry as well. As long as unknown chemical reactions are involved in love, you can't fully know them...end of story.
That is not knowledge; that is an assumption. Simply because I haven't shown you exactly what love is, doesn't mean I don't know what it is, this is a hasty judgment on your part.

Yes it is knowledge, something you have shown a considerable lack of. I have given you numerous chances to show you know exactly what love is, and you haven't done so. So, you clearly don't know what love is and can't show otherwise. That's not a hasty judgment, its cold hard truth.
My knowledge of knowing love is not dependent upon me showing you. I have shown it to others; typing it online the definition of it and description of it, is knowledge of love; experiencing it, well, Is knowing love. You expect me to show you that through the internets? It seems you don't even understand what kind of "proof" you are asking for.

Blah, Blah, Blah. You still can't prove your knowledge of it. If you could have done so, you would have. You haven't, so you clearly can't. And I don't care about your kids. As I said earlier, i'm sure they're not as special as mine. And this is is the end of our conversation. Honestly, I've grown bored of your constantly repeating your same erroneous "arguments" over and over. i have already shown you have been completely wrong, so I have no reason to speak with you further. So, I'm putting you on my Foes list and on ignore. Goodbye.

P.s. If you truly love yourself, you should actually take a philosophy course. It might help.
User avatar
Peripheral
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: Tessier-Ashpool Spindle

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri May 29, 2015 4:05 am

Putting someone on ignore because you don't like their argument, how weak and spineless.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Only_Humean » Fri May 29, 2015 12:17 pm

Moved to Sandbox
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri May 29, 2015 9:23 pm

Peripheral, you state "The fact love is an abstraction of unclear physical and conscious experiences means it can't be fully known"

Nothing can be fully known. I disagree it is unclear as well, it is clear enough. Simply because we don't know how many atoms make up a tree, or know all the molecules inside the tree, doesn't mean we don't know if its a tree or not. You're standard for knowing love is as ridiculous as that, which shows the ridiculous nature of your entire argument.

The rest of your comments are only indicative of your assuming nature, which is what got you in this mess in the first place.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby Gamer » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:18 pm

I like where I was going with this, but not how I went about it. I've had some years to reformulate it.

What I was apparently after was "informal fallacies."

I have no interest in building software that detects formal fallacies such as if all cows are animals, and dogs are animals, ergo dogs are cows.
I'm not interested in unraveling those in popular dialogue.

What I'm interested in doing is creating a conversational AI that can take a user along a path in a conversation about a given topic, and quickly determine
if the user is engaging in an informal fallacy, i.e. "when the contents of an argument's stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion."

While some informal type fallacies can be expressed as a syllogism, I'm not interested in coding for that. I'd rather provide multiple choice answers for
where the user lies on the spectrum, in a way that lays bare the exact fallacy being employed to take on the assertion. It also wouldn't be a dead end,
but rather a Socratic journey that self-cleanses until you get to assertions that don't have informal fallacies attached; or perhaps the best we can do is minimize them.

Example: An Israeli friend is visiting you in New York. You advance an observation about how Israel should handle a given policy. Your friend deems your observation incorrect, simply on account of you not living in Israel, and therefore having no "right" to comment.

I think this might be called Argument From Authority, i.e. legitimizing or illegitimizing a claim based on the claimer's authority or lack thereof instead of examining the content of the claim itself.

I think argumentum ad populum, tu quoque, ad hominen, excluded middle, argumentum ad absurdem, red herring, confirmation biases, equivocations, generalization, hasty decision, argumentum ad hitlerum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, moving the goalpost, and an unkindness of others, maybe over a hundred, flocking our rhetoric, each fallacious vulture with its own name and subtlety, are used and abused daily in places as common as home and school, but also in important places like media and govt.

We know that the outcome of our world closely relates to the quality of our conversations. We also know that our conversations are riddled with informal fallacies. We have the ability to create software that can unravel the latter, so why don't we build it, and use it to "certify" our leaders and commentators, if not ourselves? Again, not talking about formal logic.

Having this be handled by AI might take the emotional and defensive reaction out of the equation.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2143
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:14 pm

Having this be handled by AI might take the emotional and defensive reaction out of the equation.


Won't happen ... history is abundant and consistent across all disciplines ... some truth(s) must be avoided at any cost. :D
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby gib » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:32 pm

The function of philosophy in society is to help society move through periods of intellectual transition--periods when the people are beginning to question the basic assumptions and values of their culture, and look towards those who can erect new assumptions and new values, or show a path from the old assumptions and values to new ones. If philosophy seems "dead" at a certain time and place in history, it's because the people are comfortable with their traditional assumptions and values, and they say to the philosopher: we don't need you.

A perfect example of this is the Italian Renaissance and Enlightenment; philosophy began to flourish during this time because the new science that was spreading across Europe was throwing the old religion into question. Copernicus flipped the geocentric model of the universe on its head, ushering in the heliocentric model, Galileo discovered entire new worlds (other planets), Newton overthrew the 2000 year old physics of Aristotle... and so the people were beginning to question the assumptions of the old religion; they began to feel misguided by it, insecure and lost in their grip on knowledge and truth. What were they to do? Answer: turn to the philosopher; help us rebuild a worldview, a new set of values, such that we restore that sense of security in knowing the truth and the right way to live.

But that time has come and gone, and the people of today, comfortable in the new science, feel that they no longer need help building or fixing their current assumptions and values, and so philosophers must endure the current intellectual recession, awaiting the next great revolution when they are called upon to help man through intellectual change.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Philosophy - The Game

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:27 am

Thanks Gamer for resurrecting this thread ... the timing feels appropriate.

Thanks Gib for putting the 'game' in it's proper perspective/context ... ergo the big picture ... god how I love the big picture. :-)

The ancient Chinese label your profound insight "The Reversion of Extremes" . It feels good to see the overlap ... particularly when it's elucidation comes from one steeped in Western Philosophy. :-)

Anything that develops extreme qualities will invariably revert to the opposite qualities: “Reversion is the movement of the Dao” (Laozi)


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Daoism ... -of-Daoism

Begs the question:

Are we on the threshold of yet another reversion of extremes?

If so ... Gib ... would you prefer to carry the torch in the vanguard or report from the rear?
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users