Axiom

Take a lump some of miscellaneous information. Subtract all the falsehood from it. That gives you just the facts. Removing what is false and reducing the total information, leaves you with a net gain in what is understood to be true. +1 knowledge.

Don't know if you missed completely or purposefully ignored Act's point. Using your cognitive faculties to research the finer points of an issues before arising at an conclusion. Awesome. But, when new information renders a previous position invalid. It's reasonable to change your viewpoint. You seem completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that you might be wrong, because you are to busy believing in the things you're saying. Appose to applying proper thought to them.

I'm wrong about things all the fucking time dude. The trick is to learn from it. Use that lesson to better your understanding of said things. Which is what these guys have been telling you.

almightywood

True wisdom begins with acknowledging that we know little.
We become wiser still when we realize that the things we do know can easily change.

The only thing any man can ever state with certainty is his own viewpoint.
Hence whenever someone claims that something can not be, it is just evidence that they are unwise in my opinion.

This is the philosophy that I apply to all my discussions (unless I get pissed off and lose sight of it lol) both on my part, and on the part of the people I am discussing with.

Another way to put it is that every man is fallible, And out of recognition of this fact I don't eliminate possibilities. You could claim that I have learned that something isn't true. But I don't believe I have, I have learned that someone thinks something is untrue, which is not the same and more often than not turns out to be different in the end. If there was absolute assurance that the possibility was impossible, then I would agree, but such a thing isn't possible, so elimination is just a waste of time.

Axiom

Soooooo. What you're saying is. 1+1 can indeed equal banana?

almightywood

Lol, no.

Well, maybe, by the way you worded it.
I would be wiling to say that someone could probably generate a premise that would make it so.

I don't, however, tend to imply my philosophy to things that constitute laws such as the laws of mathematics, I tend to apply it only to things that are up for debate still.

Human Rasengan

LSS










you learn from your mistakes

process of elimination

Scientific Method


Is this thread going ot make a course correction after this derailment or is the discussion dead.. let me know so I won't look into it any further




PS 1+1 = Bananas when you deal with one banana plus 1 banana equals 2 Bananas

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

almightywood

Since there was question of where zip codes applied, I went and found a link about it. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...h/zip_code.htm

Mal

Are you trying to be funny, or are you actually that stupid?



I tried to respond properly to this. I really, truly did. I just cannot fathom how someone can believe that accepting magic fairy dust as a possible cause of flight makes them more intelligent than an aerophysicist.

ACt

OK - first off, bullshit. We know a whole fucking lot. I hate the whole "we really don't know anything" statement. Humans are an impressive bunch when it comes to how much they have figured out about the world around them and used that information to manipulate it. Then we even have manged to create external memories (books, computers, etc) that provide us with the brain capacity to learn more! We are fucking intelligent beasts (and yes, I know that is oxymoronic with my utter opinion that we are fucking stupid beasts but that is more about information use and the fact that we could be doing so much better). Humans know a lot, there is just a lot to know. Wisdom comes from the acknowledgement that your knowledge is not complete.

This basically boils down to a scene from Dumb and Dumber when Jim Carey finally confronts the woman of his obsession with his odds of ever being with her:

Carey: What are the odds, like 1 in a 100?
Woman: More like one in a million.
Carey: ... ... ... so you're saying there's a chance!!

You're argument style, if I'm understanding it, means that you will never be definitive on anything. If one person believes in the Easter Bunny and you don't, you'll accept that there is a slim chance the Easter Bunny does exist, work that into your argument so as not to perclude the existence of the Easter Bunny, grinding the entire discussion to a halt because your opponent believes he does and you, though unbelieving, won't deny it.

You, sir, are a fence sitting douchebag.

Arguments/discussions cannot progress along those lines. In this case, you are not adding anything and crafting a stance that prevents you from being wrong, which limits your ability to challenge anyone. Ignoring the fact that it is inheritly true we cannot fully disprove the existence of an actual Easter Bunny, the evidence is wholy on the side of his non-existence (right down to parents saying so.) The burden on proof is, again, on the believer, but you won't challenge them because you accept the slight possibility that you could be wrong in argument. The believer in the Easter Bunny then wins the argument because you don't reject their hypothesis that he exists, you actually accept it.

That all seems silly, but it is supposed to because it is made to make you seem silly. I could have easily used god, which is the common go to mythical being that likes to be debated. In actual truth, I do not believe in a god but cannot, on current evidence, reject the idea of a god existing. However, I believe god does not exist because all evidence I have encountered reject the hypothesis of a god above men. Therefore, for me, the only arugment that I can pursue is that god does not exist and I act accordingly to that. It then pressures the believing side to prove themselves while I stand in opposition to it, improving the field of knowledge.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

almightywood

If you hate the "I don't really know anything" statement, it's because you are young enough that you just haven't lived long enough to have the majority of things that you not only deduced, but have been taught get changed.
To think that there is any sort of permanence to the knowledge you currently possess is simply a failing of the youth, believe it or not. As you will get older you will find yourself over and over saying. 'Man I can't believe how stupid I was that I used to believe that.' And that isn't just me, that happens to everyone, get ready for it. People are much smarter when they acknowledge their own stupidity from the get-go. If you don't realize you're an idiot, fine. Don't try and convince me of it. I'll continue to believe that we all are. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who doesn't preface their statements with "I am an idiot" or something of the like, since I know that person is usually trying to impart knowledge instead of taking it.

I'm 34 years old man, I have scored in the top percentile of almost every test I have ever taken. When I take an IQ test today I still score around 150. My knowledge is based on experience. In other words it is wisdom. To put it in layman's terms, I'm no dummy. I am an idiot. You are an idiot. We are all idiots. Don't try and talk to me with authority about anything that you've read. I don't care if you can provide me a link on the internet that says something or not. It could still be bullshit while being on the net, it could still be 100% true while not being on the net. Give me your deductions, not what someone else says. Give me something you came up with, not something you destroyed. Tell me what happened to you, not what's on the news.


Way to aptly put exactly what I stated was my point. If you want to throw attitude because you don't like to do that that's fine.
I would say that the idea that either you or the other guy's belief must be proven instead of just you agreeing to disagree would make you a douchebag, but to each their own.

First off, I don't have arguments. How many times must I say that before it penetrates into you numskulls. A discussion requires no agenda to progress, hence why I use those, and never arguments. I challenge people with new ideas, not by attacking their foundation. I want a new possibility they came up with at their best, I don't want to destroy what they believe for shits and giggles. In other words, I like to have an intelligent discussion, not a scathing teardown session. Oh I know you hot-headed invincible types must tear down any and all opposition, cool, leave me out of it.
When it comes down to it the only thing that is precluded by acknowledging our own stupidity is speaking with authority about other people's thoughts. I have seen some of the most marvelous ideas spawned from the heads of people who can hardly even speak, so I know that presentation doesn't mean a damn thing either.
For the last decade I have been taking care of people with traumatic brain injuries.
Before that I did a variety of different things. At one point I started a cult, kind of petered out after getting to about 14 members. I hitch-hiked around for a couple of years. I have had jobs in construction, factories, food and otherwise. I have spent a couple years in prison, and a couple years in jail on various charges. About the only walk of life I could have been down that I haven't is that of a high powered executive type, and believe me, I don't want to be one. That would go against my whole philosophy in life.


Here you stated that this was your viewpoint. Way to go. People seem to be incapable of taking a stance on these forums without claiming that what they know is the absolute truth. I, however, feel absolutely no pressure to even begin to talk about my own beliefs on the subject, since you have already proven that you are the kind of person that doesn't respect another person's beliefs.

You always have to tip-toe when you are talking about other people's beliefs. They are the most useful and the most dangerous thing in the world. If you ignore or dispute them, they could end up killing you, but if properly nurtured could cause the birth of something new and potentially wonderful to this planet.

Attacking someone's beliefs is the same thing as pointing a gun at them in many ways. The things that keep someone going are much more mental than physical in my opinion.

Miburo

Oh, he's one of these guys.

The worst kind of pseudo-intellectual. He doesn't comprehend the fact that no one is claiming absolute truth in any of their statements due to the inherent philosophical Descartes-like level of doubt thing in knowledge, which is a constant that should never even be considered in 'real life' due to it's utter uselessness. We all know about this shit. Everyone who has taken a philosophy 101 course knows it. It's just completely and utterly useless in every non-philosophical discussion (And useless in most of those as well) and detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge.

Simply put, we're trying to get as close to truth as we can get. We are usually operating on what is most logical based on all current knowledge. We're never claiming absolute truth. We're not implying anything is set in stone. If new information is ever found we can simply absorb it and use it to better our understanding of things, even if it means discarding previous conclusions. That is the entire basis of science, and how we learn.

Being a goddamn coward who is too afraid of drawing the most logical conclusion because of the inherent chance of it being wrong isn't wise. It's cowardly, stupid, and useless. No one has ever made any progress by being a fence-sitting pussy. Even Descartes eventually manned up and took a stance. Grow a pair.

almightywood

It's a concept that should be applied to everything you encounter in life, if you are really pursuing knowledge. If you were only pursuing understanding, then I would say you were correct.
Oh whatever, I simply have more possibilities available to choose from than you do, hence there is a higher probability that the one I choose to believe will be correct.
So you're saying I should go make outlandish unproven statements for no other reason other than to let you all be able to prove me wrong, otherwise I'm a coward?
Rock on, good perspective.
Of course, just, you know, keeping neutral on something is retarded.

I still do all my proper deductions in deciding what to believe, I just don't ever eliminate anything so I don't have to go find it when it becomes "possible" again.

Anyone who thinks they can state with authority that something is not so or unimportant is the worst kind of moron, one who thinks they aren't one.

Numinous

Oh god, just say you're a theist and you dislike them atheists for making you feel awkward about yourself!

Also, attacking beliefs SHOULD be encouraged. Or if some US loony State Governor decides to legalize the Inquisition, you think the right thing to do is to let him do it because it's his belief? Fuck no, nobody in their right mind wants the phrase "Nobody expects the Wisconsin Inquisition!" to be actually a reason for concern.

Now that the cold turkeys are being dropped, allow me to drop yet another one (someone quote me if he doesn't get it):

almightywood, you like to fuck chicks? Or dudes? Or kids? Or dogs? Or dead bodies? Or trees? Or don't you fuck at all? Or are you to give an "I consider all possibilities and don't eliminate any but don't take a stance on any" answer? Just give me a fucking answer that isn't a completely washed-out Descartes' philosophical load of crap.

Edit: I know, not the best example, but I want to hear some certainty from this pansy.

__________________

Miburo

Add probabilities to the list of things you suck at. More chances of being wrong isn't a good thing. You literally just implied 1 in 100,000,000 would be better odds than 1 in 10.

And your response doesn't address what I said. No one in here is really ever stating anything as absolute unyielding truth. If you think they are then you're the one misunderstanding how shit works. Not us. Like I said, everyone you're ironically calling a fool (while proclaiming yourself as some wise sage) in this thread would willingly admit that we don't live on the earth as we know it if they suddenly found out we were all in the goddamn matrix and in the true reality we lived on the moon of some gas giant or some shit. No one is claiming anything is set in stone. No one is being an idiot when they say we live on earth. You'd be an idiot to call them on that, or anything else, based on your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

I will agree that the worst kind of moron is the kind that doesn't realize he is one though.

almightywood

Actually no, I literally just implied that 1 in 1,000,000 is better odds than 0 in 10.

Ah, but if I identify my stance as my opinion, and they challenge it, then that is indeed exactly what they are doing. If I make an uncertain statement the only way someone could ever proclaim it wrong is with a proclamation of absolute truth. People are just having a hard time grasping what they are arguing against. The only way an opinion can possibly be wrong is if it goes against absolute truth, otherwise the simple fact that is an opinion makes it impossible to be wrong. If someone tells you they like the color blue, how can you possibly tell them they are wrong?
Good thing I've already Identified MYSELF as an idiot, can't say that applies to everyone in this thread. Let's see that makes everyone in this thread but me, HR, and axiom fit with this statement, since we all acknowledged OUR own stupidity.

Numinous

Opinions can be wrong, next.

That's not an opinion, that's a preference. An opinion would be "I think blue is the best color" or something in those lines. Jesus, you suck at analogies.

That's because you are the only idiot!

Edit: Thanks for reminding me HR also posts, so you're not the only idiot. And dude, don't put axiom on your side, he's actually intelligent and actually disproved your silly position with logic.

__________________