Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:41 pm Absolutely not because I am simply accepting that there are limitations to what can be done

There are only two ways to determine where that limitation is (because if you are honest with yourself, you don't really have an idea where the line is)

1. Proof of impossibility.
2. Try and fail.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:41 pm I am not an idealist but a pragmatist and there is nothing remotely cynical about that at all

The only limits are resources: time, space, energy, willpower, laws of physics (few others maybe)

Skepdick wrote:
Is sooner extinction better than later extinction ?

So sooner extinction would be less consequential would it not ?
Later extinction would involve a higher population presumably ?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:09 pm It's not obvious to me. Do you mind explaining?

The guy who doesn't believe in reason is trying to reason with me.
The guy who believes reality is in the mind is attempting to argue that my view fails to reform to the reality he thinks is totally "mutable".
Those views are not refutable -- not because they are so true, but because they are so self-contradictory that they are incorrigible...they cannot be corrected because so irrational.
There's no conversation possible on such terms. Even the a priori elements are all wrong -- so wrong that they contradict the performance required in order to generate the conversation.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:46 pm So sooner extinction would be less consequential would it not ?
Later extinction would involve a higher population presumably ?

That's a treacherous strategy you've chosen there!

If you conclude that sooner extinction kills less people
Later extinction kills more people.
Therefore sooner extinction is better than later extinction.

Lets launch the nukes tomorrow morning!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:48 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:09 pm It's not obvious to me. Do you mind explaining?

The guy who doesn't believe in reason is trying to reason with me.
The guy who believes reality is in the mind is attempting to argue that my view fails to reform to the reality he thinks is totally "mutable".
Those views are not refutable -- not because they are so true, but because they are so self-contradictory that they are incorrigible...they cannot be corrected because so irrational.
There's no conversation possible on such terms. Even the a priori elements are all wrong -- so wrong that they contradict the performance required in order to generate the conversation.

Those are not the terms on which the conversation has been happening. Please stop lying.

The ENTIRE conversation has been happening on YOUR terms.

I adopted YOUR Logic.
I adopted YOUR definition of Rationality.
I adopted YOUR definition of consistency.

Using YOUR terms and YOUR language, I have demonstrated a contradiction.

So what kind of correction can I expect from you?

Did I mis-understand you? How?
Did I mis-represent you? How?

What went wrong?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:48 pm The guy who doesn't believe in reason is trying to reason with me.

I don't have to "believe in" reason to practice it, do I?

It's a verb, not a noun.

It's imperative and mutable. Not declarative.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:50 pm Using YOUR terms and YOUR language, I have demonstrated a contradiction.
So what kind of correction can I expect from you?

None. Your position is inherently incorrigible. It doesn't even recognize the rational criteria require to criticize it.

That's what shuts down conversation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:01 pm None. Your position is inherently incorrigible.

Does my position need to be corrected?

If you believe the answer to be "yes" then you should be able to point out a rule-violation.

You should be able to point out an "error".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:01 pm It doesn't even recognize the rational criteria require to criticize it.

That's a lie. I provide falsifiability criterions (upon request) for ALL my declarative statements.

Science.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:01 pm That's what shuts down conversation.

You are the one working your ass off trying to shut the conversation down.

I am the one working my ass off to keep the conversation going.

I am sure the contradiction/error in your belief-system is causing you some discomfort. Lets unpack it?

Skepdick wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Absolutely not because I am simply accepting that there are limitations to what can be done

There are only two ways to determine where that limitation is

There are limitations to what can be done at any one point in time I should have said
And as limitations change over time they cannot be determined in any absolute sense

What was once considered impossible is now possible
What is now considered impossible will be possible at some future point in time
[ this only applies to some impossible things not all impossible things but even so ]

So limitation is therefore always a moving goalpost and is never static

There are maybe some absolute limitations but even so knowledge increases over time
Imagination increases when knowledge increases ... which leads to greater imagination
Two points on the same spectrum working in harmony with each other for the benefit of mankind

Skepdick wrote:
If you conclude that sooner extinction kills less people
Later extinction kills more people
Therefore sooner extinction is better than later extinction

I want absolutely nothing to do with the extinction of the human race
And that is because I am only responsible for my life and no one elses

I was merely answering a hypothetical question

The definition of a unicorn precedes the ESSENCE of Unicorns.

no, the fella who made up unicorns comes first, made up unicorns come second, and unicorns, as fiction, are not immutable


Like the definition of a woman preceded the ESSENCE of a woman.

no, the thing we call woman came first, was recognized and named

categorization: recognizing what is and naming it

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:49 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:47 pm like a dog with a bone: you worry at it, thinkin' others want it

When did you start caring about what others want, Harry?

I don't; you do

you worry over that: keep it

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:10 pm categorization: recognizing what is and naming it

Yeah. That's what we tell toddlers.

Put the thing in the "right box".

Usually, when they get to their early 20s we tell them that the game is a tad over-simplified, and that things are a little more complex than we let them on.

That's usually when we tell them about Type I and Type II errors.

Mis-classification - the dark secret of categorisation.

Put the thing in the "right box".

nope, see it recognize it, name it

get it right, timeseeker: thing, recognition of thing, naming of thing

one more time, logik: thing is first, recognition of thing is second, naming is third

last time, skep: I see sumthin' new, I recognize it as new, I name it

I'd reiterate for all your handles but I can't recall them

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:03 pm You should be able to point out an "error".

Done. Self-contradiction.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:25 pm nope, see it recognize it, name it

get it right, timeseeker: thing, recognition of thing, naming of thing

one more time, logik: thing is first, recognition of thing is second, naming is third

last time, skep: I see sumthin' new, I recognize it as new, I name it

I'd reiterate for all your handles but I can't recall them

Yeah, That's the over-simplification I mentioned

We saw "it", we recognized "it" - we called it Harry.

We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it an American.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it a human.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it a caucasian.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it a mamal.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it a libertarian.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it inconsistent.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it irrational.
We also saw "it", we recognized "it" and called it inflexible.

I'd also iterate for all your other names, but I forget them all.