Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:31 am
Some of them are. Those aren't the problem huh.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:00 pm my scientifically, empirically and evidence-backed claims
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Missing Thread
Page 8 of 13
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:16 am
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:59 am
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:07 am
Except the dozens of claims I've shown to be half-true or wrong.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:59 amAll of them are
Happy to provide you with citations on anything that is confusing to you.
But most of the time you aren't even addressing the topic at hand, and your citations aren't relevant.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:12 am
Like you "showed" that Shannon entropy is not the same as the arrow of time ?
The arrow of time is Thermodynamic entropy. Thermodynamic information is exactly the same as Shannon information. Here is the Principle of maximum entropy for your educational convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
And here is the relevant quote:
If you think you understand statistical mechanics better than E.T.Jaynes, I would love to see some of your actual work. That is more than just empty contrarianismThe principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957 where he emphasized a natural correspondence between statistical mechanics and information theory.
The topic at hand is ALWAYS our KNOWLEDGE of objective reality - past, present and future. And so any topic you are discussing does not exist in a vacuum. This is a mistake you often make - you forget about the broader context.
So when I am showing you evidence from beyond the horizon of the "topic at hand" which contradicts your claims - I think it's very relevant?
If your premises are bullshit - what's the point of further discussion?
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:09 am
Right, basically the same way how the number two is the "same" as two rocks. You even stated it repeatedly that you don't see a need for an abstracta vs concreta distinction, it's a "distinction without difference".
Senselessly mixing things together, and forcing all of philosophy strictly into the framework of Information theory, then strawmanning almost every topic on the forum. That's all very funny, but maybe no need to put me on a public opinion court for it.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:14 am
Well. I can prove it to you.
Philosophy is about getting answers to life's questions. Agree or disagree?
Rhetorical. You MUST agree. What is the point of asking questions if you don't expect any answers!
And so this is my foundation: Answers don't exist in a vacuum! Answers are PRECEDED by questions!
The most BASIC question a human can ask is a Yes/No question. And I put it to you that ALL POSITIVE STATEMENTS ONE CAN MAKE can be decomposed or reworded in the form of a yes/no question. If you are skeptical - I am willing to demonstrate.
The universe exists. Does the universe exist?
There is a distinction between the abstract and concrete: Is there a distinction between the abstract and concrete?
On and on and on I can go.
And you know what you need to answer 1 yes/no question? 1 bit of INFORMATION. Are you thirsty?
And by this point I trust you will see the parallels between scientific experimental hypothesis testing and ASKING QUESTIONS.
So you tell me if philosophy is not information theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problemAnd you better have a good counter-argument.
This is the evidence that would convince me (e.g what you need to produce to claim victory - see, I am giving you the keys to my kingdom):
1. Produce a simpler question than a yes/no question.
2. Produce a non-ontological question that cannot be reduced to a series of one or more yes/no questions.
It must be very unnerving when an entire field of enquiry gets re-invented from under your nose/feet.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:39 am
The classical laws of thought work just fine for that purpose. If you want to overcomplicate things, then open threads with the premise: philosophy based on Information theory.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:43 am
Are you willing to be transparent about the criteria by which you ASSERTED that the "classical laws work".
Are you willing to be transparent about the 'purpose' you seem to have in mind?
All I have been doing since I joined this forum is demonstrating how the "classical laws" fail in practice!
By demonstrating contradictions in your 'logic'.
So if you truly adhere to the "classical laws" you only seem to pay lip service to LNC.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:53 am
All you have done is redefine objectivity. That kind of consensus-based pseudo-objectivity is also available without Information theory.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:43 amAre you willing to be transparent about the criteria by which you ASSERTED that the "classical laws work".
Are you willing to be transparent about the 'purpose' you seem to have in mind?
All I have been doing since I joined this forum is demonstrating how the "classical laws" fail in practice!
By demonstrating contradictions in your 'logic'.
So if you truly adhere to the "classical laws" you only seem to pay lip service to LNC.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:55 am
So I have re-defined objectivity, but the objectivity I have re-defined is pseudo-objectivity? Science is pseudo-obectivity.
Show me any "objectivity" you have arrived at and I will show you the yes/no questions you've taken for granted.
Actually. I already have one
Is TimeSeeker's 'objectivity' more objective than Atla's 'objectivity'?
1 bit of information required
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:59 am
Once more for the hard of thought and(much as I'm loathe to do it) to provide some context for my actions.
I am not paid for this 'job', I have a life elsewhere, as such I cannot monitor the forum 24/7, I have been given much leeway from the Admin to moderate this forum as I see fit and so far I think I've allowed this place to be very loosely moderated compared to other philosophy forums around the web. What I do ask for and would like to see is that those whose posts create a thread take a little responsibility in how they develop, so reporting off-topic posts, making sure their post in in the right section, etc, as if they don't then I don't get to notice them until after a lot of replies have been made and it is a chore to go through removing them without damaging the flow as there are re-quotes to deal with. Since most haven't bothered reporting such things I've decided not to bother either and just delete the whole thread despite the collateral damage done to other posts and whether it upsets others.
The recent deletions have been due to what I see as people playing politics upon this forum and using it as a platform for their politics rather than philosophizing about political events and that galls me with respect to a forum that is supposed to be about Philosophy and philosophising even though I do understand the thin line between philosophy of politics and politics.
With respect to the complaints about the mods behaviour to the users: Rick Lewis in his munificence uses some of the, presumably, meager profits from the PN magazine to fund this forum and has, so far, allowed great leeway with respect to the behaviour here despite it at times hurting the reputation and sales of the magazine. Take a close look this forum, it has no ads it is one of the cleanest on the net, he does not monetise it in anyway and I don't know about you but I find that so refreshing upon the eye and would like to keep it that way. As such I consider users who post here who do not actually subscribe to the magazine as your basic free-loading interweebs who live under the delusion that information is free, that their content somehow profits the forum and that their thoughts are somehow sacrosanct gems of knowledge, they aren't. You want me to waste more of my time explaining my actions to you then subscribe to the magazine and contribute to the upkeep of this forum and maybe I'd take you more seriously. Personally I think Rick should find a way to make this a forum for PN magazine subscribers only and make this a useful adjunct to the magazine and it's aim of promoting Philosophy to the broader public but I doubt this will happen as the technical challenges are probably not worth the effort. If you are puzzled as to why a thread or your post has been deleted, re-read my introduction post and apply that to solving the problem as to why your post went, as since you are posting in a Philosophy forum you presumably think of yourself as having a considerable intellect, so apply it.
AMod.
p.s. You can whinge and wail about it all you like but try to do it in a philosophical manner.
I am not paid for this 'job', I have a life elsewhere, as such I cannot monitor the forum 24/7, I have been given much leeway from the Admin to moderate this forum as I see fit and so far I think I've allowed this place to be very loosely moderated compared to other philosophy forums around the web. What I do ask for and would like to see is that those whose posts create a thread take a little responsibility in how they develop, so reporting off-topic posts, making sure their post in in the right section, etc, as if they don't then I don't get to notice them until after a lot of replies have been made and it is a chore to go through removing them without damaging the flow as there are re-quotes to deal with. Since most haven't bothered reporting such things I've decided not to bother either and just delete the whole thread despite the collateral damage done to other posts and whether it upsets others.
The recent deletions have been due to what I see as people playing politics upon this forum and using it as a platform for their politics rather than philosophizing about political events and that galls me with respect to a forum that is supposed to be about Philosophy and philosophising even though I do understand the thin line between philosophy of politics and politics.
With respect to the complaints about the mods behaviour to the users: Rick Lewis in his munificence uses some of the, presumably, meager profits from the PN magazine to fund this forum and has, so far, allowed great leeway with respect to the behaviour here despite it at times hurting the reputation and sales of the magazine. Take a close look this forum, it has no ads it is one of the cleanest on the net, he does not monetise it in anyway and I don't know about you but I find that so refreshing upon the eye and would like to keep it that way. As such I consider users who post here who do not actually subscribe to the magazine as your basic free-loading interweebs who live under the delusion that information is free, that their content somehow profits the forum and that their thoughts are somehow sacrosanct gems of knowledge, they aren't. You want me to waste more of my time explaining my actions to you then subscribe to the magazine and contribute to the upkeep of this forum and maybe I'd take you more seriously. Personally I think Rick should find a way to make this a forum for PN magazine subscribers only and make this a useful adjunct to the magazine and it's aim of promoting Philosophy to the broader public but I doubt this will happen as the technical challenges are probably not worth the effort. If you are puzzled as to why a thread or your post has been deleted, re-read my introduction post and apply that to solving the problem as to why your post went, as since you are posting in a Philosophy forum you presumably think of yourself as having a considerable intellect, so apply it.
AMod.
p.s. You can whinge and wail about it all you like but try to do it in a philosophical manner.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:02 am
So when somebody is caught playing politics (e.g INTENTIONALLY LYING) despite evidence and citations to scientific sources then calling them out for uncouth behaviour and justifying all my accusations WITH EVIDENCE.... allowed or not allowed?AMod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:59 am Once more for the hard of thought and(much as I'm loathe to do it) to provide some context for my actions.
I am not paid for this 'job', I have a life elsewhere, as such I cannot monitor the forum 24/7, I have been given much leeway from the Admin to moderate this forum as I see fit and so far I think I've allowed this place to be very loosely moderated compared to other philosophy forums around the web. What I do ask for and would like to see is that those whose posts create a thread take a little responsibility in how they develop, so reporting off-topic posts, making sure their post in in the right section, etc, as if they don't then I don't get to notice them until after a lot of replies have been made and it is a chore to go through removing them without damaging the flow as there are re-quotes to deal with. Since most haven't bothered reporting such things I've decided not to bother either and just delete the whole thread despite the collateral damage done to other posts and whether it upsets others.
The recent deletions have been due to what I see as people playing politics upon this forum and using it as a platform for their politics rather than philosophizing about political events and that galls me with respect to a forum that is supposed to be about Philosophy and philosophising even though I do understand the thin line between philosophy of politics and politics.
With respect to the complaints about the mods behaviour to the users: Rick Lewis in his munificence uses some of the, presumably, meager profits from the PN magazine to fund this forum and has, so far, allowed great leeway with respect to the behaviour here despite it at times hurting the reputation and sales of the magazine. Take a close look this forum, it has no ads it is one of the cleanest on the net, he does not monetise it in anyway and I don't know about you but I find that so refreshing upon the eye and would like to keep it that way. As such I consider users who post here who do not actually subscribe to the magazine as your basic free-loading interweebs who live under the delusion that information is free, that their content somehow profits the forum and that their thoughts are somehow sacrosanct gems of knowledge, they aren't. You want me to waste more of my time explaining my actions to you then subscribe to the magazine and contribute to the upkeep of this forum and maybe I'd take you more seriously. Personally I think Rick should find a way to make this a forum for PN magazine subscribers only and make this a useful adjunct to the magazine and it's aim of promoting Philosophy to the broader public but I doubt this will happen as the technical challenges are probably not worth the effort. If you are puzzled as to why a thread or your post has been deleted, re-read my introduction post and apply that to solving the problem as to why your post went, as since you are posting in a Philosophy forum you presumably think of yourself as having a considerable intellect, so apply it.
AMod.
p.s. You can whinge and wail about it all you like but try to do it in a philosophical manner.
I was LITERALLY doing your job. So you don't have to. Is THAT allowed or not allowed?
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:02 pm
Oh! I get what you're asking about now. So no, I'm not inclined to allow specific posts about spates between users. Keep it to PM - bearing in mind of course what I've said about those.
AMod.
p.s. and btw I don't think playing politics is about intentionally lying.
AMod.
p.s. and btw I don't think playing politics is about intentionally lying.
Re: Missing Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:15 pm
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what it is then
Because Nietzche's will to power is the only definition comes to mind.
Irrespective of whether you categorize it as "politics" or not - you seem to be rather tolerant of outright lying?