Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

[Eodnhoj7]

My first statement:

Reality exists as is, and the nature of mankind is one of reflection where we form the reality we are judged by and as such exist as extensions of the Logos through the Golden Rule.

In these respects the promulgation of a virtual technocratic way of being eliminates the human element for reflection, and the formation of values and the means to actualize them in a manner allowing for a quality life where the human being is fully integrated with the self and the community/environment around them.

Technology is a projection of how we perceive reality, and as such does not give grounding to how to achieve a balanced perspective when it in itself is a physicalization of a perspective that cannot give answer to itself without the human condition.

Pragmaticism claims all of philosophy is strictly semantics; but fails to see the foundation of the pragmatic movement in modern times (the computer programmer) is strictly a set of semantics in and of itself that seeks to quantify the human condition without giving the necessary balance of "quality" to it.

It is pure nonsense over a perceived belief one can control everything, and as such is purely "ego" embodied where "want" is emphasized over "need"; thus projecting a perceived existential crisis is claims to solve.

End of the first statement.

[Logik]

It is precisely because of the quantitative vs qualitative distinction is why your challenge is a strawman.

Man is the measure of all things. Or rather - man is the measure of most things.

As we get smarter and learn how to quantify/measure things we can build tools to do the measuring and quantification for us.

The qualitative decision-making remains our responsibility. I have neither hopes nor illusions that it will ever be any other way.

Till somebody quantifies Love, Moralty, Happiness etc I am squarely in the instrumentalist camp.

Reality is complex. We need tools to manage and understand it.

If you don’t want to manage or understand reality - nobody is forcing you to.

Go put on a loin cloth and grab a spear.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is precisely because of the quantitative vs qualitative distinction is why your challenge is a strawman.

Man is the measure of all things. Or rather - man is the measure of most things.

As we get smarter and learn how to quantify/measure things we can build tools to do the measuring and quantification for us.

The qualitative decision-making remains our responsibility. I have neither hopes nor illusions that it will ever be any other way.

Till somebody quantifies Love, Moralty, Happiness etc I am squarely in the instrumentalist camp.

Reality is complex. We need tools to manage and understand it.

If you don’t want to manage or understand reality - nobody is forcing you to.

Go put on a loin cloth and grab a spear.

So man is the measure of all/or most things...which is it? Quantify that statement.

If man is the origin of measurement, and he builds tools to replace his position as measurer, this process of "divergence" causes an inherent fracturing within the state of the human condition; thus leading to a forced unnatural entropy the tools are created to avoid.

Tools and technology are inevitable, but they exist as projections of how we not just percieve reality (we build tools not on just a nature of need but as an extension of want) but effectively are the means we exist through reality. The are the fundamental grounding of "culture", and as such technology cannot save when it originates from the problematic measurement itself.

You see you are just creating an infinite regression and claiming it as the solution.


Reducing truth to a strict extreme of quantification only is a straw man to the nature of quality and quantity. Delving in one extreme does not bring balance to the other. Add the simple philosophical fact that math is not only grounded in contradictions (as observed in the math threads), but is inherently dependent upon a qualitative origin, quantification as the primary element to truth seeking leads to a form of fragmentation in knowledge.

Now, because these tools will always be subject to a qualitative decision making process, the tools cannot save us in the long run can they? I mean we need them of course, but idolizing them is strictly just to idolize some wanton choice. And choice is the problem isn't it? Because it is the ghost in the machine, a loophole of "randomness" so to speak, directing the invention one way or another effectively making it irrational by its own nature.

Choice will always be the ghost in the machine, as well as the nature of how quantification "unfolds" in determining the nature of the machine itself.


As to me?

I think I will use a spear; strict linear reasoning and run it through the assumptive heart of modern logic.

Until man is able to put into his perspective his own nature as forming reality around him, relying on technology to do the job merely serves as the distraction.

[Logik]

It is precisely because of the quantitative vs qualitative distinction is why your challenge is a strawman.

Man is the measure of all things. Or rather - man is the measure of most things.

As we get smarter and learn how to quantify/measure things we can build tools to do the measuring and quantification for us.

The qualitative decision-making remains our responsibility. I have neither hopes nor illusions that it will ever be any other way.

Till somebody quantifies Love, Moralty, Happiness etc I am squarely in the instrumentalist camp.

Reality is complex. We need tools to manage and understand it.

If you don’t want to manage or understand reality - nobody is forcing you to.

Go put on a loin cloth and grab a spear.

So man is the measure of all/or most things...which is it? Quantify that statement.

If man is the origin of measurement, and he builds tools to replace his position as measurer, this process of "divergence" causes an inherent fracturing within the state of the human condition; thus leading to a forced unnatural entropy the tools are created to avoid.

Tools and technology are inevitable, but they exist as projections of how we not just percieve reality (we build tools not on just a nature of need but as an extension of want) but effectively are the means we exist through reality. The are the fundamental grounding of "culture", and as such technology cannot save when it originates from the problematic measurement itself.

You see you are just creating an infinite regression and claiming it as the solution.


Reducing truth to a strict extreme of quantification only is a straw man to the nature of quality and quantity. Delving in one extreme does not bring balance to the other. Add the simple philosophical fact that math is not only grounded in contradictions (as observed in the math threads), but is inherently dependent upon a qualitative origin, quantification as the primary element to truth seeking leads to a form of fragmentation in knowledge.

Now, because these tools will always be subject to a qualitative decision making process, the tools cannot save us in the long run can they? I mean we need them of course, but idolizing them is strictly just to idolize some wanton choice. And choice is the problem isn't it? Because it is the ghost in the machine, a loophole of "randomness" so to speak, directing the invention one way or another effectively making it irrational by its own nature.

Choice will always be the ghost in the machine, as well as the nature of how quantification "unfolds" in determining the nature of the machine itself.


As to me?

I think I will use a spear; strict linear reasoning and run it through the assumptive heart of modern logic.

Until man is able to put into his perspective his own nature as forming reality around him, relying on technology to do the job merely serves as the distraction.

Huh?

Measurement is just standardization of human experience.

100 degrees Celsius == "Water boils"
1 second == 1/86400th the time it takes for Earth to rotate around its axis.
1 bit == answer to 1 yes/no question
1 kg == the weight of a solid chunk of man-made platinum blob called the Big K.

It's useful to standardize measurement so that we can agree on things when we talk about the world.

It's no good having two thermometers show different temperature, is there?

If you don't like the SI units - you are welcome to invent your own. But I imagine they aren't going to be very useful if they aren't widely adopted.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is precisely because of the quantitative vs qualitative distinction is why your challenge is a strawman.

Man is the measure of all things. Or rather - man is the measure of most things.

As we get smarter and learn how to quantify/measure things we can build tools to do the measuring and quantification for us.

The qualitative decision-making remains our responsibility. I have neither hopes nor illusions that it will ever be any other way.

Till somebody quantifies Love, Moralty, Happiness etc I am squarely in the instrumentalist camp.

Reality is complex. We need tools to manage and understand it.

If you don’t want to manage or understand reality - nobody is forcing you to.

Go put on a loin cloth and grab a spear.

So man is the measure of all/or most things...which is it? Quantify that statement.

If man is the origin of measurement, and he builds tools to replace his position as measurer, this process of "divergence" causes an inherent fracturing within the state of the human condition; thus leading to a forced unnatural entropy the tools are created to avoid.

Tools and technology are inevitable, but they exist as projections of how we not just percieve reality (we build tools not on just a nature of need but as an extension of want) but effectively are the means we exist through reality. The are the fundamental grounding of "culture", and as such technology cannot save when it originates from the problematic measurement itself.

You see you are just creating an infinite regression and claiming it as the solution.


Reducing truth to a strict extreme of quantification only is a straw man to the nature of quality and quantity. Delving in one extreme does not bring balance to the other. Add the simple philosophical fact that math is not only grounded in contradictions (as observed in the math threads), but is inherently dependent upon a qualitative origin, quantification as the primary element to truth seeking leads to a form of fragmentation in knowledge.

Now, because these tools will always be subject to a qualitative decision making process, the tools cannot save us in the long run can they? I mean we need them of course, but idolizing them is strictly just to idolize some wanton choice. And choice is the problem isn't it? Because it is the ghost in the machine, a loophole of "randomness" so to speak, directing the invention one way or another effectively making it irrational by its own nature.

Choice will always be the ghost in the machine, as well as the nature of how quantification "unfolds" in determining the nature of the machine itself.


As to me?

I think I will use a spear; strict linear reasoning and run it through the assumptive heart of modern logic.

Until man is able to put into his perspective his own nature as forming reality around him, relying on technology to do the job merely serves as the distraction.

Huh?

Measurement is just standardization of human experience.

100 degrees Celsius == "Water boils"
1 second == 1/86400th the time it takes for Earth to rotate around its axis.
1 bit == answer to 1 yes/no question
1 kg == the weight of a solid chunk of man-made platinum blob called the Big K.

It's useful to standardize measurement so that we can agree on things when we talk about the world.

It's no good having two thermometers show different temperature, is there?

If you don't like the SI units - you are welcome to invent your own. But I imagine they aren't going to be very useful if they aren't widely adopted.

You really should just stay in the math/logic section considering that is what you push. All the contradictions in your religion I point out there, while observing universal laws not subject to strict quantity alone.

Eventually each measurement system becomes a formation of perspectives and we are led to Neitzchian Perspectivism...and all you are arguing ends up in a whirlpool.

[Logik]

You really should just stay in the math/logic section considering that is what you push. All the contradictions in your religion I point out there, while observing universal laws not subject to strict quantity alone.

Yeah. "Laws" that only you are privy to. "Laws' that you can neither seem to communicate, nor teach anybody else to apply. "Contradictions" that only you can detect.

Eventually each measurement system becomes a formation of perspectives and we are led to Neitzchian Perspectivism...and all you are arguing ends up in a whirlpool.

Huh? Nitzchean Perspectivism? Can you give an example where in 2 different contexts "1 meter" means 2 different things?

[Eodnhoj7]

You really should just stay in the math/logic section considering that is what you push. All the contradictions in your religion I point out there, while observing universal laws not subject to strict quantity alone.

Yeah. "Laws" that only you are privy to. "Laws' that you can neither seem to communicate, nor teach anybody else to apply. "Contradictions" that only you can detect.

The laws are already applied in all phenomenon, thus necessitating order is inevitable and all phenomena exist as true in existence, but false as self-sustained, thereby are fundamentally neutral.

As to "law":

All Laws are Localizations of Unified Phenomenon, Hence a Projection of the Observer And Random
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25803

The Point, Line, Circle as the Foundation of All Phenomenon; Hence Definition of God as Proof of God
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25295

Solution to Munchhausen Trillema
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24726

Monadic Calculus
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25503


9 prime directives (last page)
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24514&hilit=13+pri ... s&start=60

Eventually each measurement system becomes a formation of perspectives and we are led to Neitzchian Perspectivism...and all you are arguing ends up in a whirlpool.

Huh? Nitzchean Perspectivism? Can you give an example where in 2 different contexts "1 meter" means 2 different things?


Yes:

When one meter stick is a fraction off from another.
When one aspect of laser calculation is a fraction off from another.
When the nature of meter means one thing to one group and a seperate thing to another.
When the group standard of measurement changes.


A meter also can change when observing itself as a progressive change relative to another progressive change.

One meter, as compose of strictly a movement from point A to point B is longer or shorter when the meter is observed in a different rate of time.

[Logik]

You really should just stay in the math/logic section considering that is what you push. All the contradictions in your religion I point out there, while observing universal laws not subject to strict quantity alone.

Yeah. "Laws" that only you are privy to. "Laws' that you can neither seem to communicate, nor teach anybody else to apply. "Contradictions" that only you can detect.

The laws are already applied in all phenomenon, thus necessitating order is inevitable and all phenomena exist as true in existence, but false as self-sustained, thereby are fundamentally neutral.

As to "law":

All Laws are Localizations of Unified Phenomenon, Hence a Projection of the Observer And Random
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25803

The Point, Line, Circle as the Foundation of All Phenomenon; Hence Definition of God as Proof of God
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25295

Solution to Munchhausen Trillema
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24726

Monadic Calculus
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25503


9 prime directives (last page)
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24514&hilit=13+pri ... s&start=60

Eventually each measurement system becomes a formation of perspectives and we are led to Neitzchian Perspectivism...and all you are arguing ends up in a whirlpool.

Huh? Nitzchean Perspectivism? Can you give an example where in 2 different contexts "1 meter" means 2 different things?

I've read all your posts.

I have read over your posts for 2 months now. Over and over. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you are self-taught, but there's no pattern there. Or no pattern that I can see.

Re-reading that which I didn't understand is not going to make me understand it.

It is gibberish. Show me how to use it in the real world!

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah. "Laws" that only you are privy to. "Laws' that you can neither seem to communicate, nor teach anybody else to apply. "Contradictions" that only you can detect.

The laws are already applied in all phenomenon, thus necessitating order is inevitable and all phenomena exist as true in existence, but false as self-sustained, thereby are fundamentally neutral.

As to "law":

All Laws are Localizations of Unified Phenomenon, Hence a Projection of the Observer And Random
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25803

The Point, Line, Circle as the Foundation of All Phenomenon; Hence Definition of God as Proof of God
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25295

Solution to Munchhausen Trillema
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24726

Monadic Calculus
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25503


9 prime directives (last page)
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24514&hilit=13+pri ... s&start=60




Huh? Nitzchean Perspectivism? Can you give an example where in 2 different contexts "1 meter" means 2 different things?

I've read all your posts.

I have read over your posts for 2 months now. Over and over. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you are self-taught, but there's no pattern there. Or no pattern that I can see.

Re-reading that which I didn't understand is not going to make me understand it.

It is gibberish. Show me how to use it in the real world!

Show me what use is first.

[Logik]

Show me what use is first.

Use: the fulfillment of one's expectations/needs/wants/desires/goals/objectives.

I want to hang a painting on the wall. I hammer in a nail.
I want to clean my house. I use a vacuum cleaner.
I want to cook dinner. I use a stove.
I need to wipe my ass. I use toilet paper.

[Eodnhoj7]

Show me what use is first.

Use: the fulfillment of one's expectations/needs/wants/desires/goals/objectives.

I want to hang a painting on the wall. I hammer in a nail.
I want to clean my house. I use a vacuum cleaner.
I want to cook dinner. I use a stove.
I need to wipe my ass. I use toilet paper.

So explain:

expectations/needs/wants/desires/goals/objectives.

Otherwise you are just making up stuff noone understands but you.

[Logik]

So explain:

expectations/needs/wants/desires/goals/objectives.

Otherwise you are just making up stuff noone understands but you.

I gave a particular example for each one of the above concepts. Did you miss those. Let me try again.

I took a shit - need to wipe my ass. Tools required: toilet paper.
I desire a month-long holiday in Spain. Tools required: an airplane
I want to replace the brakes on my car this weekend. Tools required: jack, spanners.
I've set a goal for myself to cut my coffee consumption by 50% in the next month. Tools required: willpower.

Objective is synonymous with goal.

Do you not understand what I mean when I say any of those things?

[Eodnhoj7]

So explain:

expectations/needs/wants/desires/goals/objectives.

Otherwise you are just making up stuff noone understands but you.

I gave a particular example for each one of the above concepts. Did you miss those. Let me try again.

I took a shit - need to wipe my ass. Tools required: toilet paper.
hands, water jets, leaves, pinching it off correctly, etc. are other options

I desire a month-long holiday in Spain. Tools required: an airplane
Or you can just watch a movie, moved to a nearby country, direct that desire to another place, control it, find out why you desire it...etc.


I want to replace the brakes on my car this weekend. Tools required: jack, spanners.
Or you can take it to a mechanic, change the time when it can be changed, etc.





I've set a goal for myself to cut my coffee consumption by 50% in the next month. Tools required: willpower.
Switch to coffee substitute, no will power needed, etc.


Objective is synonymous with goal.

Do you not understand what I mean when I say any of those things?

You just pick one option out of many and cannot determine free will from some spontaneous event that popped into your head.

No, I said define not give examples.

[Logik]

No, I said define not give examples.

Given the alternative options you provided to every one of my examples it seems clear to me you understood exactly what I was trying to communicate.

Why do you want me to define them?

[Eodnhoj7]

No, I said define not give examples.

Given the alternative options you provided to every one of my examples it seems clear to me you understood exactly what I was trying to communicate.

Why do you want me to define them?

Because that is what what lambda calculus does as a self-contained system. It defines variables. You gave examples. I am asking for definitions. For the sake of brevity:

Define what "want" is.