Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:04 pm
You've already designed the experiment, and the results are in, you just spent 3 pages of a conversation disagreeing with the results of your own experiment.
That's a rather uncharitable. In fact - I'd go as far as to call it a strawman.
I wasn't disagreeing with my own experiment.
I was disagreeing with your interpretation of my own experiment.
You were speaking out of turn about what I was saying and I wasn't saying. You were trying to think for me.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:05 pm
I interpret language the way I interpret language.
You interpret language the way you interpret language.
You might try to pass it off as a "everyone goes through this" type scenario, but I think you have a uniquely strong problem with this one.
Yes, everyone has a different take on various words, but some people have such an exceptionally unique take that conversing with them becomes a chore, and even when they agree with each other, it's hard to tell because the person is just using words in such a drastically different way that no common ground can be found.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:08 pm
You might try to pass it off as a "everyone goes through this" type scenario, but I think you have a uniquely strong problem with this one.
I mean... you view it as "problematic" and I don't.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:08 pm
Yes, everyone has a different take on various words, but some people have such an exceptionally unique take that conversing with them becomes a chore, and even when they agree with each other, it's hard to tell because the person is just using words in such a drastically different way that no common ground can be found.
If your error detection/error correction algorithms were up to scratch you would be able to wrap the distributed consensus problem fairly rapidly.
If dumb computers can do it...it's just synchronisation.
I'd even go as far to say that the reason we veered off into the bushes is because your descriptive claims make no testable/falsifiable predictions.
No grounding of the words with any concrete actions.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:09 pmI'd even go as far to say that the reason we veered off into the bushes is because your descriptive claims make no testable/falsifiable predictions.
No grounding of the words with any concrete actions.
But we did test it. We tested it with a program you wrote. You wrote the test, and proved me right!
I think you're getting a bit too pedantic on that point, lmao. Yes, you're right, "prove" doesn't quite mean that. Loosen up a bit on your language and think about what I might have meant. It'll be good practice for you.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:41 pm
I think you're getting a bit too pedantic on that point, lmao. Yes, you're right, "prove" doesn't quite mean that. Loosen up a bit on your language and think about what I might have meant. It'll be good practice for you.
I loosen up on the language when I am banging my wife; or drinking beer with my friends.
But this is a philosophy forum, and apparently rigour matters?
For it always begs the question "To what end are you using language in this very instance?"
And if the reason is not to identify common cause and synthesize a plan of action then your words contain no ideas.
idea noun 1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:53 pm
For someone who wants to talk about ideas, you certain spend a lot of posts just talking about *words*, and not ideas.
You're saying a lot of random stuff it feels like. Something I've noticed in many of your threads -- you have some particular train of thought, and you say something that, in your mind, I'm sure is entirely within context and makes sense, but if someone else reads it, they have no idea how it's relavant to anything else being discused. This is one of those examples. "Algorithms describe actions." Who cares? What does that have to do with anything?
You want to talk about ideas, you can do more of that if you get better at expressing your ideas, and you can only do that by getting a better handle on words and language and how everybody else is using them.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:58 pm
You're saying a lot of random stuff it feels like. Something I've noticed in many of your threads -- you have some particular train of thought, and you say something that, in your mind, I'm sure is entirely within context and makes sense, but if someone else reads it, they have no idea how it's relavant to anything else being discused. This is one of those examples. "Algorithms describe actions." Who cares? What does that have to do with anything?
The criteria for something to be an idea is as per its definition ,no? It Proposes a course of action.
If it doesn't propose a course of action - it doesn't contain any ideas.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 6:58 pm
You want to talk about ideas, you can do more of that if you get better at expressing your ideas, and you can only do that by getting a better handle on words and language and how everybody else is using them.
And thus the crux of our disagreement, you see! Most people don't use language to express ideas. In fact - very very few people do.
They use language descriptively - to state facts and opinions on what is thus, and wht's true, but no ideas (as per the actual definition).
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.