Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 07:41:24 pm »

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 07:29:17 pm

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm
Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?
That makes no sense ... unless you feel that fatalism is the only thing outside of your preferred philosophical bases of thoughts/actions. If that's the case, I can see why you're confused.

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm
As to the "98% sure" qualification, does it or does it not imply some form of measurement? If it does, then wouldn't you agree that it is a singularly inapt way to discuss your "feeling" of suspicion that Thorsten is lying?
It does not.
I think its clear to all involved when a turn of phrase is being used, though thankfully Tleilaxu has clarified and confirmed as well, so at least this specific case has been cleared up.

In generally, a % is a unit-less number, but that doesn't mean that it can be applied to all ideas with any amount of accuracy, implied or explicit. A % is a calculated value of some portion of some whole amount. When used outside of the framework it was intended - ie mathematically - its little more than an adjective.

Are some adjectives more precise than others? Of course.
But I'd say its a pretty big leap from 'I like to use this phrasing rather than that' to calling someone out as bogus, claiming some kind of egregious behavior, and calling them singularly inapt. All of which are personal insults that inflame the situation, all for a mild disagreement on preferred grammar.
As you've so masterfully demonstrated, words are important. After all, how many have we used now to examine the three symbols "98%"? So for someone who has, in the past, so easily taken offense at particular words and ideas, I'd suggest curtailing your word choice to allow/promote civil conversation that will likely be more palatable to all involved.

In no particular order:

1. My reference to egregious behavior was not towards Tleilaxu, but towards the presumed nefarious behavior of Thorsten. To expand my original sentence: "Claiming expertise falsely is egregious behavior, and if Thorsten did so, shame on him." Honestly, Wilshire, how could you read that sentence within the context of the discussion of Thorsten's putative expertise as a reference to Tleilaxu?

2. I did not personally insult Tleilaxu. The word "bogus" was referring to his false precision of certainty within a thread that is explicitly dealing in concepts such as measurement, the status of free will, et al. Similarly, I referred to his metaphor as "singularly inapt", in other words, way off target. Neither of these references are personally directed.

3. The "98% sure" qualification does, in fact, imply measurement. The whole point of choosing between metaphors is to choose between implications. That was the reason why I began this entire interrogation. What struck me originally was "Why 98%? Why not 90%?"; hence the unnecessary/false/bogus precision.

4. Fatalism is not determinism.

1-3: Learn to interact better/more-precisely, please. Thanks though, for the clarity.

4. Exactly.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 07:29:17 pm »

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm
Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?
That makes no sense ... unless you feel that fatalism is the only thing outside of your preferred philosophical bases of thoughts/actions. If that's the case, I can see why you're confused.

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm
As to the "98% sure" qualification, does it or does it not imply some form of measurement? If it does, then wouldn't you agree that it is a singularly inapt way to discuss your "feeling" of suspicion that Thorsten is lying?
It does not.
I think its clear to all involved when a turn of phrase is being used, though thankfully Tleilaxu has clarified and confirmed as well, so at least this specific case has been cleared up.

In generally, a % is a unit-less number, but that doesn't mean that it can be applied to all ideas with any amount of accuracy, implied or explicit. A % is a calculated value of some portion of some whole amount. When used outside of the framework it was intended - ie mathematically - its little more than an adjective.

Are some adjectives more precise than others? Of course.
But I'd say its a pretty big leap from 'I like to use this phrasing rather than that' to calling someone out as bogus, claiming some kind of egregious behavior, and calling them singularly inapt. All of which are personal insults that inflame the situation, all for a mild disagreement on preferred grammar.
As you've so masterfully demonstrated, words are important. After all, how many have we used now to examine the three symbols "98%"? So for someone who has, in the past, so easily taken offense at particular words and ideas, I'd suggest curtailing your word choice to allow/promote civil conversation that will likely be more palatable to all involved.

In no particular order:

1. My reference to egregious behavior was not towards Tleilaxu, but towards the presumed nefarious behavior of Thorsten. To expand my original sentence: "Claiming expertise falsely is egregious behavior, and if Thorsten did so, shame on him." Honestly, Wilshire, how could you read that sentence within the context of the discussion of Thorsten's putative expertise as a reference to Tleilaxu?

2. I did not personally insult Tleilaxu. The word "bogus" was referring to his false precision of certainty within a thread that is explicitly dealing in concepts such as measurement, the status of free will, et al. Similarly, I referred to his metaphor as "singularly inapt", in other words, way off target. Neither of these references are personally directed.

3. The "98% sure" qualification does, in fact, imply measurement. The whole point of choosing between metaphors is to choose between implications. That was the reason why I began this entire interrogation. What struck me originally was "Why 98%? Why not 90%?"; hence the unnecessary/false/bogus precision.

4. Fatalism is not determinism.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 05:15:31 pm »

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

Well, the manipulative intent doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious decision. I do think claim of expertise holds a lot of weight. I'm generally going to take a physicists word on things relating to physics (which the Argument does) over an average Joe's words, so if I see a purported physicist writing something I do not usually associate with physicists my alarm bells start ringing.

I see what you're saying. To be fair, Thorston did spend much time relating his experience to the topic at hand though.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that his claim is wrong, I just find it to be... mysterious. Would you say he's right though? Would you say that physics is more about what we experience rather than what things really are? He himself said something that goes against this when he said something about everything just being fluctuating quantum fields or something.

The arguments are there, and he made them better than I could.

I don't have a deep understanding of physics, just a cursory one. I would say yes, I agree with him.
Since you said you just skimmed, let me badly summarize:
The argument made is basically that things that don't exist on some minute scale, like mass (yes, mass doesn't exist), have an affect on things that do exist: ie an object will kill you even though its mass is an illusion. The point, essentially, being that the existence of a phenomenon on one scale, and its non-existence on another scale, does not make for a bulletproof argument. What are we really saying when we say its 'not real', when you can take literally any idea or concept and make it 'not real' in a specific enough circumstance?
(another quick example. No such thing as a circle, or a line. Just points drawing infinitely close together. Their shape arises by taking in the whole, and we can use the whole for meaningful purposes even though 'they don't exist'. We could go all day. Language a series of incomprehensible finite sounds. Music, a series of individual notes. The whole is not always equal to the sum of its parts.)

Really whacky phenomenon do arise in quantum physics.
A human physically observing the double slit experiment, either directly or remotely without any interference whatsoever, physically changes the outcome. Not by interference, not by vibrations, or absorption, or throwing off the experiment in any measurable or discernible way. It simply is changed by the act of observation.

Billions of dollars are being spent on quantum computer research, and a huge part of that money is spent by keeping the weird super-imposed state of existence shielded from observance. IMO, its basically magic, and I've not heard an explanation that I can offer to you as to why.

But what makes the DSE so interesting is its simplicity and replicability. Why does looking at something stop it from existing? We don't know, AFAIK.

Is physics more about what we experience than what is? Yes. From my reading, there is not conflict in his statements throughout, its very consistent.

Does that mean he's right? Not at all, but it does make for a compelling argument.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

With new-age I mean new-age spirituality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
There's a ton of videos and webpages where these people claim that the double slit experiment proves that the mind is somehow active in determining reality or something, but as far as I understand it it's basically about how you measure things.

While I wouldn't say that I'd start a religion around physics, I'd agree that observing the universe changes it. You can't disagree with that any more than you can disagree with gravity.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm
In that case, there's no point going further with this one either, much to my chagrin .
What other evidence?

Lots in this thread, for one, that you haven't addressed but outright dismiss. You can't claim there isn't evidence, however you can rebuke. Objectively, there is plenty of evidence.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

Would you say that a single protein flexing and vibrating, probing different conformations according to the thermodynamic potential is free?

Would I? No. But by that logic, medicines don't have potentiating affects (they do).
The absence of knowledge does not make for a good argument.
That you can't understand something doesn't make it any less valid or invalid.

But you've tasked me with arguing for someone that isn't here. The arguments were made here already, upthread, should you choose to read them.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

If not, then how could an ensemble of such molecules become free?

In the same way that a multicellular organism exists as an accumulation of interconnected single cells. Complex phenomenons emerge from systems that you can't see if you look too closely.

Just because you can't see it or measure it at one level, doesn't mean its not there at another.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm

The fact that there's nothing more to discuss is kind of a point in itself. Using evolution again (low hanging fruit, I know) as an example, discussing whether or not it's true might be interesting from some points of view, but it doesn't change the fact that it absolutely is true according to all existing evidence. The fact that some people, some very smart people at that, still do not believe in this fact says something about our predicament, the way that e.g. intragroup relations, demands for certainty and a fundamental feeling of being ontologically different from the rest of the world characterizes our psyche.

Ignorance doesn't a good argument make.
Right now, the jury is out. You could still find yourself on the flat earth side of the debate. Your certainty that you are correct doesn't make it so.

No hard feelings either way, Tleilaxu. I don't have much of a personal investment in this, in that my identity isn't tied closely to the results. I'm probably more on your side as it were, but I probably see more shades of grey.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm »

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am
Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm
Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.
Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.
Quote
I am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).

This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.
That's certainly one interpretation. But, I typically try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Rather than assume manipulative intent, I take it as polite conversation. Also, again to me I don't think the claim of expertise holds a lot of weight on the conversation. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think the arguments are no less valid with or without whatever purported expertise.

Even without the claim, we're either going to assume the person we're talking to has equal grounds as us to be involved in the conversation, or we will dismiss them outright regardless of what is said. Since the former leads to more interesting conversations, I don't bother with the latter.

Well, the manipulative intent doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious decision. I do think claim of expertise holds a lot of weight. I'm generally going to take a physicists word on things relating to physics (which the Argument does) over an average Joe's words, so if I see a purported physicist writing something I do not usually associate with physicists my alarm bells start ringing.

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am
Quote
(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).
This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").
I'm not really sure how you can claim to not know anything about the subject, but then claim with absolute certainty that someone's claim is wrong. It also pretty much ends the conversation. Where do we go from here?

From my understanding, he's absolutely right.
Besides, the double slit experiment only has new-age interpretations, its basically the foundation of a brand new science that didn't exist previous. Using "new-age" as a qualifier doesn't add anything but confusion, unless you've got some Aristotle interpretations of the Double Slit Experiment that I'm not aware of. (For clarity, imo 1927 is pretty new-age in terms of science and human history).

I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that his claim is wrong, I just find it to be... mysterious. Would you say he's right though? Would you say that physics is more about what we experience rather than what things really are? He himself said something that goes against this when he said something about everything just being fluctuating quantum fields or something.
With new-age I mean new-age spirituality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
There's a ton of videos and webpages where these people claim that the double slit experiment proves that the mind is somehow active in determining reality or something, but as far as I understand it it's basically about how you measure things.

Quote from: Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am
Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm
Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?
Yes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.
In that case, there's no point going further with this one either, much to my chagrin .
When you start your claim by defining yourself as correct and all other evidence as incorrect, there's no room for constructive conversation. Same as if I said "God tells us that my way of thinking is right, therefore I'm right". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's nothing left to discuss when that's your basis.

What other evidence? That's kind of a point in itself. There's probably tons of interesting stuff about discoveries in neuroscience that I'm not familiar with or qualified to accurately talk about, but even without that knowledge, if you take a biological point of view, we are all born with a set of genes into a certain environment. The space for free will shrinks. Going beyond that, looking at individual molecule. Would you say that a single protein flexing and vibrating, probing different conformations according to the thermodynamic potential is free? If not, then how could an ensemble of such molecules become free? They are chemicals interacting with each other as parts of a complex system, still not free, they are acting according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
The fact that there's nothing more to discuss is kind of a point in itself. Using evolution again (low hanging fruit, I know) as an example, discussing whether or not it's true might be interesting from some points of view, but it doesn't change the fact that it absolutely is true according to all existing evidence. The fact that some people, some very smart people at that, still do not believe in this fact says something about our predicament, the way that e.g. intragroup relations, demands for certainty and a fundamental feeling of being ontologically different from the rest of the world characterizes our psyche.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by Wilshire on January 03, 2018, 03:17:17 pm »

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm
Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.
Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.
Quote
I am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).

This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.

That's certainly one interpretation. But, I typically try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Rather than assume manipulative intent, I take it as polite conversation. Also, again to me I don't think the claim of expertise holds a lot of weight on the conversation. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think the arguments are no less valid with or without whatever purported expertise.

Even without the claim, we're either going to assume the person we're talking to has equal grounds as us to be involved in the conversation, or we will dismiss them outright regardless of what is said. Since the former leads to more interesting conversations, I don't bother with the latter.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am

Quote
(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).
This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").

I'm not really sure how you can claim to not know anything about the subject, but then claim with absolute certainty that someone's claim is wrong. It also pretty much ends the conversation. Where do we go from here?

From my understanding, he's absolutely right.
Besides, the double slit experiment only has new-age interpretations, its basically the foundation of a brand new science that didn't exist previous. Using "new-age" as a qualifier doesn't add anything but confusion, unless you've got some Aristotle interpretations of the Double Slit Experiment that I'm not aware of. (For clarity, imo 1927 is pretty new-age in terms of science and human history).

Quote from: TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm
Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?
Yes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.

In that case, there's no point going further with this one either, much to my chagrin

.
When you start your claim by defining yourself as correct and all other evidence as incorrect, there's no room for constructive conversation. Same as if I said "God tells us that my way of thinking is right, therefore I'm right". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's nothing left to discuss when that's your basis.

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm

Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?

That makes no sense ... unless you feel that fatalism is the only thing outside of your preferred philosophical bases of thoughts/actions. If that's the case, I can see why you're confused.

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm

As to the "98% sure" qualification, does it or does it not imply some form of measurement? If it does, then wouldn't you agree that it is a singularly inapt way to discuss your "feeling" of suspicion that Thorsten is lying?

It does not.
I think its clear to all involved when a turn of phrase is being used, though thankfully Tleilaxu has clarified and confirmed as well, so at least this specific case has been cleared up.

In generally, a % is a unit-less number, but that doesn't mean that it can be applied to all ideas with any amount of accuracy, implied or explicit. A % is a calculated value of some portion of some whole amount. When used outside of the framework it was intended - ie mathematically - its little more than an adjective.

Are some adjectives more precise than others? Of course.
But I'd say its a pretty big leap from 'I like to use this phrasing rather than that' to calling someone out as bogus, claiming some kind of egregious behavior, and calling them singularly inapt. All of which are personal insults that inflame the situation, all for a mild disagreement on preferred grammar.
As you've so masterfully demonstrated, words are important. After all, how many have we used now to examine the three symbols "98%"? So for someone who has, in the past, so easily taken offense at particular words and ideas, I'd suggest curtailing your word choice to allow/promote civil conversation that will likely be more palatable to all involved.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 01:28:39 pm »

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm

Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?

Wat

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by BeardFisher-King on January 03, 2018, 01:20:59 pm »

Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?

As to the "98% sure" qualification, does it or does it not imply some form of measurement? If it does, then wouldn't you agree that it is a singularly inapt way to discuss your "feeling" of suspicion that Thorsten is lying?

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by TLEILAXU on January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am »

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm

Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.
Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.

Quote

I am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).

This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.

Quote

(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).

This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm

Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am
In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?

Yes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.

Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 02, 2018, 09:22:58 pm

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:45:43 pm
Whose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?

But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.

Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.

When someone chooses a certain idiom as opposed to another, I think it is interesting to analyze that choice. In this case, to use a mathematical percentage to describe a level of certitude might display a desire to ground one's view in the firm terrain of science. Of course, I'm certainly (well, almost certainly... ) over-interpreting the remark, but if you actually consider the matter, why write "98% sure" when "pretty sure" fits the bill? Well, especially given the nature of the topic under discussion, perhaps there was a subconscious desire to be extra precise.

I don't find anything in my post that demonstrates any ire or that proposes that I desire to arbitrate any usage. I'm merely pointing out an interesting rhetorical device (the faux measurement of certainty) that actually is no more informative than the use of qualifiers like "somewhat and "very". God knows I've used it myself unthinkingly. "I'm about 75% sure that M--- will be late." So, yeah, just a verbal tic. But there's always deeper ways to look at things.

I appreciate TLEILAXU's reference to the necromancy of dead threads. He's a sharp and attentive reader.

It's just another way of saying "nearly absolutely certain" I guess. Now, the real thing I don't understand is why you would think I were trying to "science" up my claim when feeling somebody is lying is kind of like, inherently subjective

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by BeardFisher-King on January 02, 2018, 09:22:58 pm »

Quote from: Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:45:43 pm

Whose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?

But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.

Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.

When someone chooses a certain idiom as opposed to another, I think it is interesting to analyze that choice. In this case, to use a mathematical percentage to describe a level of certitude might display a desire to ground one's view in the firm terrain of science. Of course, I'm certainly (well, almost certainly...

) over-interpreting the remark, but if you actually consider the matter, why write "98% sure" when "pretty sure" fits the bill? Well, especially given the nature of the topic under discussion, perhaps there was a subconscious desire to be extra precise.

I don't find anything in my post that demonstrates any ire or that proposes that I desire to arbitrate any usage. I'm merely pointing out an interesting rhetorical device (the faux measurement of certainty) that actually is no more informative than the use of qualifiers like "somewhat and "very". God knows I've used it myself unthinkingly. "I'm about 75% sure that M--- will be late." So, yeah, just a verbal tic. But there's always deeper ways to look at things.

I appreciate TLEILAXU's reference to the necromancy of dead threads. He's a sharp and attentive reader.

Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten

« Last post by Wilshire on January 02, 2018, 07:54:47 pm »

Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.

Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.

I'm particularly fond of the god/toaster analogy. I felt that the inducting of 'the feeling of god' was a good proof against its existence, but changing it to 'toaster' makes it far more clear that it doesn't really disprove anything.

Quote from: TLEILAXU on December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am

In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10