Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:33 pm This nonsense about baseload power is more of the fossil fuel lobby's great myths delivered by Murdoch and other major fossil fuel friends and investors.

Is China is working furiously towards replacing coal with renewable energy because it's cheaper and easier to dig ever deeper holes in ever more remote areas than to simply harness the energy raining down on us daily?

The west is self destructing over a false ideological split confected and promoted by deliberately divisive bad actors like Murdoch, the Kochs and Trump. There is no logical reason why coal should be supported by conservatives and renewable energy by progressives.

In truth, those labelled "progressive" are the true conservatives, hoping to conserve more of our natural heritage and assets while those who disregard environmentalism are radical reactionaries. There is nothing conservative about converting lands of trees and hills to sterile areas of towers of bitumen, concrete, glass and steel as quickly as developer profiteering can allow, without checks or consideration of future generations.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:25 pm "It's the progressives (commie scum) who tend more not to simply believe the power-brokers (unless the power brokers are progressives), who dare to question authority (unless the authority is progressive)"

No depth or logic, just emotional tribal allegiances.

A good description of the Greta mind.

I'm not gonna disagree so much as give a different interpretation...

"Problem, Henry, is that Marxists are right in theory, and have failed in practice"

The practice fails, I think, cuz the theory is for shit. Marxism (in all its delightful strains) is distinctly anti-individual and human-hostile. It's just plain wrong about what motivates a body to 'do'. It can do nuthin' but fail.

#

"Capitalism is failing in theory and a roaring success in practice."

State Capitalism is for shit too and only succeeds cuz Free Enterprise makes its way into the mix (despite the best efforts of commies and capitalists).

#

"Marxism is based on centralized market tendencies; which suck."

Indeed, but deeper still is a notion the Marxist shares with the Capitalist, that being: human beings are resources to be directed, utilized, and spent.

#

"Capitalism is based on the Darwinist model of survival of the fittest, and therefore it is where it's at, baby."

And Free Enterprise, the echoes of which allow state capitalism to work, isn't about survival of the fit but about the autonomy of the one (and how the many can go pound sand).

Go Austrian Economics!

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:54 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:33 pmit's cheaper and easier to simply harness the energy raining down on us daily

CAREFUL. The amount harvested sucks energy away from other renewable resources. Harvesting solar energy deprives the chlorophyl in plant life to regenerate the atmosphere.

Indeed, I've noticed that no plants are growing on my solar panels or those of anyone else in my street.

It seems that many here wants to just stick with coal and oil and never even attempt to transition to renewable energy in case it's too difficult based on the untested ideology dismissed by all serious observers that only fossil fuels can handle the baseload energy needs of the future.

Cancerous.

"It seems that many here wants to just stick with coal and oil and never even attempt to transition to renewable energy in case it's too difficult based on the untested ideology dismissed by all serious observers that only fossil fuels can handle the baseload energy needs of the future."

Me, I wanna transition to the proven technology of ATOMIC POWER.

You, you just wanna live in a friggin' hut and sip at your gruel and congratulate yourself on how friendly you are to the trees, the grass, the slugs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:03 am "It seems that many here wants to just stick with coal and oil and never even attempt to transition to renewable energy in case it's too difficult based on the untested ideology dismissed by all serious observers that only fossil fuels can handle the baseload energy needs of the future."

Me, I wanna transition to the proven technology of ATOMIC POWER.

You, you just wanna live in a friggin' hut and sip at your gruel and congratulate yourself on how friendly you are to the trees, the grass, the slugs.

I love tech - hugely excited about AI and space. Meanwhile you are still yet to master the use of BB code quote tags.

Be my guest you just wanna live in friggin' Apartment #1,875 on the 63rd floor surrounded by concrete, glass and plastic, chewing at your oestrogen-infused factory-tortured animals while sipping at your fracking polluted water, and congratulate yourself on how friendly you have been to billionaires. But don'I don't want any part of it.

Nukes might be a mantra for you, but people actually should think when they make policy. Nuclear will soon be outclassed by thorium and perhaps eventually by fusion, so there's a real risk of blowing the bank on legacy technology - and those things have incredible running costs. Nukes are a terrible idea in Australia and other very dry places because nuke plants use insane amounts of water. What we have in such places is endless sun (damnable endless sun). To not harvest it as a resource is loopy.

That's why the Chinese are going so hard at solar now. They are notorious bargain hunters, so free energy raining down from the sky is obviously to their liking.

Thorium & fusion reactors are ATOMIC reactors.

And, you may recall: I'm the one sayin' we need to get up and out while you just wanna hug dirt.

Assuming either of us live long enough: I'll be out there and you'll be the one livin' in a concrete bunker.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:53 am Thorium & fusion reactors are ATOMIC reactors.

And, you may recall: I'm the one sayin' we need to get up and out while you just wanna hug dirt.

Assuming either of us live long enough: I'll be out there and you'll be the one livin' in a concrete bunker.

You are already out there - seemingly off with the fucking pixies. Where I live is none of your business but it's no concrete bunker.

The Earth's systems are interconnected, and that includes more local systems. Thus there needs to be caution in effecting further radical changes to natural environments before we understand the roles they play in larger systems.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:56 am

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:54 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:33 pmit's cheaper and easier to simply harness the energy raining down on us daily

CAREFUL. The amount harvested sucks energy away from other renewable resources. Harvesting solar energy deprives the chlorophyl in plant life to regenerate the atmosphere.

Indeed, I've noticed that no plants are growing on my solar panels or those of anyone else in my street.

It seems that many here wants to just stick with coal and oil and never even attempt to transition to renewable energy in case it's too difficult based on the untested ideology dismissed by all serious observers that only fossil fuels can handle the baseload energy needs of the future.

Untested "ideology"? That's a direct insult, Greta. It seems that according to you whatever you say and you believe is gospel, and whatever I say and I believe is demagoguism, if it does not align with your views. I deserved more respect, I believe.

I also believe that you actually know duck all about physics, energy transfer and energy amounts, as well as energy needs/consumption levels and energy delivery.

So please hold the sarcasm while you reveal your ignorance. And please hold the insults.

"serious observers"? Gimme a break. You start to sound like those Southern Baptists who claim "well the scientists I talk to deny the validity of the Darwinian evolutionary process." Serious observers, my foot.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:18 pm Well, my background is very heavy on linguistics, among other things. So it didn't take me much time at all to realize how important it was. It's very impressive, yes -- but for that reason, also easy to overestimate. "Language all we have" is not a carte-blanche claim that stands up well to some of the basic facts.

You are deviating from the problem I am pointing out (let me bring you back on-point). Since you are a linguist I am sure you are already aware of the regular vs non-regular languages (the Chomsky hierarchy).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:18 pm Actually, I really know no such thing; in fact, I can very easily show it's not true.

My proof goes like this: I believe that, with some justification, you are expecting me to read your words carefully, and interpret them courteously and well. Is that not true?

But how can I interpret well and with courtesy when your words "have no objective meaning"? How can I ever be "discourteous," when such words can have no definite meaning?

You aren't a mind reader. This will go a lot easier if you don't try to read my expectations. And in your failed attempt at mind-reading you have invented a straw-man too. I have no idea what YOU mean by “discourteous”.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:18 pm But if you're trying to say something, and believing you're going to communicate it to me or anyone else, you have to have some meaning behind your words, don't you?

The information (meaning) I encode in my words is probably not the information (meaning) you extract from my words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding/ ... munication

When I say “I went to the bank yesterday”. Do ask “which river?” or “which ATM?”
When I say “I want an apple”. Do I mean the fruit or the laptop brand? If you think words have objective meaning - consider the possibility that you are stuck in an illusion.

I do most of my thinking/perceiving/understanding in high-order logic. I am only translating into English. Which results in information loss. Which creates ambiguity. Spoken languages are a lossy form of compression (information is LOST in transmission) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

If you don’t agree with that. Consider the (strong) likelihood that you are mistaken.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:18 pm So the realization that language is flexible can tip over -- in cases of those first struck with it -- into a belief that language is INFINITELY flexible...which it clearly is not, or it would cease to have any language-function at all.

Again - I point you to the Chomsky hierarchy AND the symbol-grounding problem AND the field of semiotics. Unless symbols can be grounded - informal language is a CLOSED system. Unless symbols can be consistently interpreted - they can't be consistently grounded.

Informal languages ARE infinitely flexible. Philosophers like Derrida have shown this to be the case, but since you are a lniguist I shouldn't have to point you to philosophy and point you at the Chomsky hierarchy instead.

Here is my proof.

1+1 = 2 is true.
1 + 1 = 10 is also true.

How can this be?!?! Interpretation. Decimal vs Binary number system.

So by the transitive property in logic...

2 = 10. Of course it is true! In the context above.

You can't fix this in any language without type theory (Lambda calculus) and normative interpretation rules.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:18 pm To be Politically Correct is different from being factually correct. It means to let "politics," not truth, drive ones utterances.

You don't know what truth us.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:44 amnd perhaps eventually by fusion, so there's a real risk of blowing the bank on legacy technology - and those things have incredible running costs. Nukes are a terrible idea in Australia and other very dry places because nuke plants use insane amounts of water.

Greta, please say Yes or No or Don't Know to these questions to test your physics knowledge. You don't have to publish your answers here, you can check your answers by Wiki.
1, Fusion is NOT a nuclear reaction.
2, Heavy water is more abundant in sea water.
3. Heavy water is used in fission reactors, not in fusion reactors.
4. Australia is not surrounded by oceans and salt water seas in all sides.
5. Fission reactors cost way more in capital costs, fuel and upkeep, than they return in energy value.
6. Nuclear physicists are ninnies who like to lie to people as a sport.
7. China heavily invests in ALL energy sources including solar.
8, China heavily invests in solar energy only.
9. Dihydrogen Oxide, used in reactors, is an incredibly dangerous substance: it is found in ALL cancerous cells, can kill people within minutes, and it is a major component in Acid Rain.

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:29 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:56 am

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:54 pm
CAREFUL. The amount harvested sucks energy away from other renewable resources. Harvesting solar energy deprives the chlorophyl in plant life to regenerate the atmosphere.

Indeed, I've noticed that no plants are growing on my solar panels or those of anyone else in my street.

It seems that many here wants to just stick with coal and oil and never even attempt to transition to renewable energy in case it's too difficult based on the untested ideology dismissed by all serious observers that only fossil fuels can handle the baseload energy needs of the future.

Untested "ideology"? That's a direct insult, Greta. It seems that according to you whatever you say and you believe is gospel, and whatever I say and I believe is demagoguism, if it does not align with your views. I deserved more respect, I believe.

I also believe that you actually know duck all about physics, energy transfer and energy amounts, as well as energy needs/consumption levels and energy delivery.

So please hold the sarcasm while you reveal your ignorance. And please hold the insults.

"serious observers"? Gimme a break. You start to sound like those Southern Baptists who claim "well the scientists I talk to deny the validity of the Darwinian evolutionary process." Serious observers, my foot.

You went for quite a while without even coming close to providing substance. A career in politics may beckon.

It is fun watching people arguing over ought-claims.

Alternative sustainable energy is either possible or not. Only way to find out is to try and build it. Either we will succeed or we will fail.

Now. Who has resources they are willing to risk?
Vote with your wallet and influence - not with lip service.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:31 am You aren't a mind reader.

I don't have to be. All I have to ask myself is, "What is the performative function of the utterance." If your performative function is not to communicate information, that is, if you don't presume us to have any common linguistic reference point, then you wouldn't say anything. There'd be nothing to say.

When I say “I went to the bank yesterday”. Do ask “which river?” or “which ATM?”
When I say “I want an apple”. Do I mean the fruit or the laptop brand?

Ambiguity isn't the serious problem here. Things like context tell me more. For example, if you say, "Pass me that apple," then all I have to do is look to see whether you mean the fruit or the computer. Or if you say, "My apple is broken," there's no reasonable supposition you mean a Granny Smith green, because "broken" rules that out.

We must acknowledge linguistic variability, of course. But we must not allow ourselves to be dazzled by it to the point of thinking it's the whole story. Linguistics are more involved than the mere possible references of any one word. There's the semantic, the syntactic, the semiotic, the cultural context, idioms, and so on, just to get started. It's an illusion to believe that words exist in a vacuum.

If you think words have objective meaning - consider the possibility that you are stuck in an illusion.

I'll give that some thought.

You don't know what truth us.

You mean "is"? Now who's reading minds? One would have to be in a privileged state indeed to know what others know and don't know.

But do you mean, "It is an impossibility for human beings to know truth?" In that case, may I ask you if what you just said is true? Because if it's not, I ought to disregard it. But if it is, then you have uttered a truth, which you also claim to know is true; and what you have said about there being no truth is obviously false, by your own declaration.

In other words, epistemic relativism isn't even possibly true. It's self-defeating. It can't be true without being a truth, and then a truth exists, namely the truth of relativism; but relativism says there's NO truth, so if relativism is a truth, then relativism isn't true...

Well, I have a background in physics and a bunch of other fields more complex than linguistics and none of the people I work with know what “truth” is. Nor is anyone really pursuing the question...

So I have it on good authority that if you claim to know what it is - you are probably very ignorant.

You can’t even tell the difference between recursion and circular reasoning. You have accepted Aristotle’s “laws” of logic as sacrosanct with zero skepticism failing to recognise they don’t deal with modality or temporal phenomena; or multi-dimensionality.

Not understanding that logic doesn’t contain any truth and is fallible to “garbage-in:garbage-out”.

You have a long way to go before you give up the (man-made) “law” of non-contradiction.

I have practically convinced myself that philosophers/truth-seekers are the 21st century theists. Your language games are genuinely harmful to society.

I will conclude my interaction with you with the question all philosophers hate: If you were to discover “the truth” tomorrow - how would you recognise it for what it is? Since we have 20 theories of truth to choose from - how do we decide which one is “most true”?

I have settled on pragmatism. Let me know if you are on the same page.