Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Your Personal Philosophy      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 201
Your Personal PhilosophyPage 9 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

I'm sure you've never been a cat,

How Rude ...I lived in the 60's and been called Groovy, Heavy, Far Out and One Cool Cat


dressing up like one for Halloween and meowing doesn't count either.

go to my profile pictures and you can view {if it wasn't deleted} what I'm wearing for Halloween


Posted By kidreason29
So your catnap reference is meaningless in comparison to my experience which doesn't require me to be another species.

if Norism "supposedly" is about removing the abstract ...then how can you dismiss the possibility that you might concretely be a Cat abstractly posing as a Human ?


Posted By: kidreason29
only criticizing others for their views

when you post a concept it's a debate when you can't backup the concept you posted it's criticizing


THE QUESTION TO FUNCHESF:

what do you 'believe'?

"to believe is to doubt" .... funches 3:16


Posted By: gingerosity
He believes in Star Trek and shit-stirring. Remember?

what I stated was that all you guys do in this forum is babble the same scientific concepts over and over and for some odd reason believe it's original thought but were actually plagiarized off an episode of Star Trek

that is why I offered a challenge that so far none of you could pass

THE CHALLENGE
use your "own original thoughts" (if any) and come up with a "rational" Scientific Concept that can't be found on an episode of Star Trek
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 202
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/21/2016 10:35:46 PM

I've never eaten pizza probably because as a child while watching Star Trek I saw a slice of pizza fly off the wall and bite Mr. Spock

It always struck me as looking like a fried egg. But never pizza.

all you guys do in this forum is babble the same scientific concepts over and over and for some odd reason believe it's original thought

I don't get that part about the motivation being that something is believed to be an original thought. If I say that water is wet, I'm not saying it because I believe that I am the first to come up with the idea...I am saying it because water is wet.

but were actually plagiarized off an episode of Star Trek

use your "own original thoughts" (if any) and come up with a "rational" Scientific Concept that can't be found on an episode of Star Trek

I don't see the point in this. Of what importance is it that something has or has not been mentioned on some t.v. show?
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 203
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/22/2016 9:32:04 AM

Posted By: kidreason29
only criticizing others for their views

when CressB posted about The Mandela Effect ...look at what you posted below

PASS DAT SHEEESH MAHN... mmm thanks, here it is:

so kidreason29..... was that praise or criticism?


Posted By: gingerosity
and shit-stirring

wouldn't that apply to anyone that post in the forum, including you?.. hummm speech suppression ....perhaps you can pass as being a "Citizen of the World" in North Korea


Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
It always struck me as looking like a fried egg. But never pizza.

in Chicago we have Deep Dish Pizza with slices that looks like a fried egg.... among other things


Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
I don't see the point in this. Of what importance is it that something has or has not been mentioned on some t.v. show?

remember when you were supposed to reveal to this forum and deliver unto the world something never heard before in the history of all humankind? ..such a revelation would constitute as "Original Thought" something never mentioned on some t.v. show ....so ...er... you do know we're running out of popcorn waiting on you to reveal this revelation don't you?
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 204
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:55:27 PM

wouldn't that apply to anyone that post in the forum, including you?

I'm sure you could devise a metric and plot us all on a shit-stirring gradient or spectrum and there would be no-one whose long-term shit-stirring coefficient is exactly 0 or 1. But we all know that there are some who would score more highly than others.

Perhaps then you could examine correlations for shit-stirring genes or epigenetic markers, as well as potentially causative environmental factors that may be associated with shit-stirring aptitude and desire. Then you may just find yourself with an original scientific concept, unless the Vulcans conceptualized the causes and mechanisms of shit-stirring long ago in a galaxy far away.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 205
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/22/2016 8:05:01 PM

remember when you were supposed to reveal to this forum and deliver unto the world something never heard before in the history of all humankind? ..such a revelation would constitute as "Original Thought" something never mentioned on some t.v. show ....so ...er... you do know we're running out of popcorn waiting on you to reveal this revelation don't you?

Yea I remember...I remember how you greatly mischaracterized it, an action you're perpetuating here. Which means that your post here about it isn't all that accurate. Therefore, this is another meaningless post by you.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 206
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/23/2016 7:37:32 AM

Posted By: gingerosity
I'm sure you could devise a metric and plot us all on a shit-stirring gradient or spectrum and there would be no-one whose long-term shit-stirring coefficient is exactly 0 or 1.

I've already done that by challenging you to use your own "Original Thoughts" (if any) to come up with a "rational" Scientific Concept (if possible) that I can't find that you plagiarized(most likely) off an episode of Star Trek (tick tock tick tock)


Posted By gingerosity
Perhaps then you could examine correlations for shit-stirring genes or epigenetic markers,

remember...the challenge was a "rational" Scientific Concept


Posted By: gingerosity
unless the Vulcans conceptualized the causes and mechanisms of shit-stirring long ago in a galaxy far away.

that's why unlike you guys the Vulcans banned all emotions along with all "definition debates" and the posting of youtube and Wikipedia links to hide behind


Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
Yea I remember...I remember how you greatly mischaracterized it, an action you're perpetuating here.

so what did I greatly mischaracterize? ...that you posted in the forum that you were going to have an Original Thought?


Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
Which means that your post here about it isn't all that accurate.

then post this great secret that you were talking about and let's see

one sec while I pop some popcorn
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 207
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/24/2016 4:10:01 AM

I've already done that by challenging you to use your own "Original Thoughts" (if any) to come up with a "rational" Scientific Concept (if possible) that I can't find that you plagiarized(most likely) off an episode of Star Trek (tick tock tick tock)


that's why unlike you guys the Vulcans banned all emotions along with all "definition debates" and the posting of youtube and Wikipedia links to hide behind

Definitions are important if you want to communicate about non-trivial and/or disputed concepts clearly. Reference materials and stimuli are important if you want to learn. Learning and communicating are important if you want to synthesize original ideas, which is your purported aim. And even if there was a contradiction between your goals and our posting preferences, which there isn't, it wouldn't be our problem.

Since you seem to be stuck in this strange little rut, I will help you move on with an original story to do with thinking and Star Trek. I was wandering through our local cosmos the other day, in a neat little free program called Celestia. After zipping off to Rho Cassiopeiae or some other hypergiant a few kiloparsecs away and working hard to find my way back to earth, I realised that travelling from a faint star like ours towards some distant bright star is a one-way function, like trying to factor the products of large primes as in cryptography. Once there, you can't see the faint star or even the region of stars that you came from, and all the constellations have changed anyway. If you don't have a computer program telling you where you are and where to go, you're probably going to be home late for dinner.

What's more, I thought, intergallactic navigation would be even worse than interstellar navigation because within a galaxy you can always reference things such as orbiting globular clusters and nearby galaxies, as well as the disk of the galaxy if you are in a spiral galaxy as we are. Getting lost among the galaxies it would be much harder to use particular distant things as spacemarks if the navicomps were taken out in battle or Microsoft tried to make you update them while you're in the middle of jumping to warp speed. You can't use any redshifts or the CMB, since they are the same wherever you are in the universe. This navigation problem was made even worse a couple of weeks ago when we discovered we had been understimating the number of galaxies in the observable universe by an order of magnitude.

In greek mythology, Theseus took a ball of string with him to be able to return to Ariadne after slaying the minotaur in the labyrinth. In intergalactic space, the ball of string is the navigation computer. If that fails, you will probably need to triangulate using quasars if you want to get back to the Milky Way (the milk of Hera) after slaying the Klingons. So my personal philosophy could be reduced to the phrase "Go boldly wherever you want to go... just don't forget to pack the emergency quasar triangulating kit (TM) and insect repellant".
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 208
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/24/2016 7:18:03 AM

Posted By gingerosity
Definitions are important if you want to communicate about non-trivial and/or disputed concepts clearly

generally all one needs to do is to read what was said before the word in question and what was said after the word in question in order to understand the word in question ....


Posted By: gingerosity
Since you seem to be stuck in this strange little rut,

I guess that would describe the fate of humankind after trying to get you guys to pop out an original thought


Posted By gingerosity
So my personal philosophy could be reduced to the phrase "Go boldly wherever you want to go... just don't forget to pack the emergency quasar triangulating kit (TM) and insect repellant".

pretty cool personal philosophy you have there .... doesn't qualify as being an original thought or a rational scientific concept ... but it does place us back on the original topic
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 209
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/24/2016 3:51:12 PM


Definitions are important if you want to communicate about non-trivial and/or disputed concepts clearly
generally all one needs to do is to read what was said before the word in question and what was said after the word in question in order to understand the word in question

No wonder, then. That explains it. That gives a clarification as to why conversation from you isn't so productive.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 210
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/25/2016 5:45:46 AM

Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
No wonder, then. That explains it. That gives a clarification as to why conversation from you isn't so productive.

you've already admitted that you weren't the brightest bulb in the forum which explains why my conversation is over your head...also you failed to provide to the forum a great secret of all humankind you made claims to have and so far you've been incapable of presenting an original thought of a rational Scientific Concept that haven't been on an episode of Star Trek

so fuggedabout trying to blame me and let's just get back on topic
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 211
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 10/25/2016 10:51:55 AM
Weak.

I wonder if a character like funches was ever on star trek.
 xlr8ingme
Joined: 11/2/2016
Msg: 212
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 11/7/2016 7:01:52 PM
I find most of us simply evolve, while some of us choose stay the same.

I attended the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention at the Javits Center in Manhattan. It was entertaining listening to William Shatner; he's a very funny guy. The panel of scientists and astronauts from NASA delivered quite an educational presentation on what it would take to explore Mars. They are currently shooting for 2024, if I remember correctly. Several explained how, and why Star Trek still inspires them to "boldly go where no man has gone before". What I also found interesting was how many people were dressed up as their favorite characters. They did have some really cool stuff on sale too :)

What does Star Trek have to do with personal philosophies? I whole lot more than this current convo. Carry on with your bad selves. I never dreamed when I started this it would last for over six years.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 213
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 11/25/2016 9:59:56 PM
beliefs are not formed from the conscious mind, they are unconscious perceptions of ideas/things. You cannot know all of your beliefs because you cannot know all of your mind.

Everyone in this thread has a belief. Some of you are just misinformed or led to believe that a belief can only be a belief if can be stated in language. You are not intelligent enough to know your own brain to even answer such a question. It only shows arrogance
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 214
view profile
History
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 11/25/2016 10:41:46 PM
^ I don't believe you.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 215
view profile
History
Your Personnel Philanthropy
Posted: 11/26/2016 11:40:30 PM

It only shows arrogance

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." - George Orwell
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 216
Your Personnel Philanthropy
Posted: 11/28/2016 11:09:04 PM

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." - George Orwell


Given Orwells Law Of Arrogance, if imagined self intelligence were graphed against increasing generations it would produce an linear line. The variable of imagined self intelligence would need to be standardized against a IQ test that accurately accommodates for the difference between imagined and actualized intelligence.

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it."

Given the statement as an axiom, the only wiser statement would come before George Orwell's statement. Therefore no one can be said to be more wise than George Orwell, after point x which Orwell made his statement.

Such statements can only lay in vagueness, because if given precision it doesn't function. Otherwise the difference of the change between variables is too small to consider to have a significant relation.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 217
view profile
History
Your Paranormal Physiology
Posted: 11/29/2016 6:47:57 AM

Given Orwells Law Of Arrogance, if imagined self intelligence were graphed against increasing generations it would produce an linear line. The variable of imagined self intelligence would need to be standardized against a IQ test that accurately accommodates for the difference between imagined and actualized intelligence.

Each generation is a generation that went before it to those who follow it, and a generation that comes after it to those who preceded it. So there are only ever two discrete generations for each of the two characteristics in the statement - antecedent/current or current/subsequent. Drawing lines between discrete variables is meaningless.

There is no need to calibrate to reality. We are talking about what people imagine to be true - reality doesn't come into it at all.

Given the statement as an axiom, the only wiser statement would come before George Orwell's statement. Therefore no one can be said to be more wise than George Orwell, after point x which Orwell made his statement.

No. That the generation imagines itself to be wiser than the one that comes after it does not require that it imagines itself to be less wise than the generations that preceded it.

Such statements can only lay in vagueness, because if given precision it doesn't function. Otherwise the difference of the change between variables is too small to consider to have a significant relation.

It is sufficiently precise for functionality.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 218
view profile
History
Your Paranormal Physiology
Posted: 11/29/2016 10:22:59 AM
"Experience is like the sternlight which illuminates the path taken by the boat."

- ?
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 219
Your Paranormal Physiology
Posted: 11/29/2016 1:12:19 PM

Each generation is a generation that went before it to those who follow it, and a generation that comes after it to those who preceded it. So there are only ever two discrete generations for each of the two characteristics in the statement - antecedent/current or current/subsequent. Drawing lines between discrete variables is meaningless.


It says "Every generation". Given that Generation X believes itself to be more intelligent than the one before it, and Generation Y coming after X believes itself to be more intelligent than X, Y therefore believes itself to be more wiser than what is before X, and so on.

A generation could be of any X amount of years of which it refers to(for some its 10, for others its 20, etc). The X axis being time, can be partitioned/labeled as generations.

The quote will only lay in vagueness.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Your Paranoid Psychology
Posted: 11/29/2016 2:10:23 PM

"Experience is like the sternlight which illuminates the path taken by the boat."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Table Talk, p. 434
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 221
Your Paranormal Physiology
Posted: 11/29/2016 2:21:13 PM
Literary criticism is all about differentiating between methodologies of literary theory.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 222
view profile
History
Your Paranormal Physiology
Posted: 11/29/2016 4:00:40 PM
Thanks. Couldn't remember the author. Is probably paraphrased anyway.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 223
Your Paranoid Psychology
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:32:54 PM

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Table Talk, p. 434

ill take this as,

kid: 1, Ginger: 0
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 224
view profile
History
Your Paranoid Psychology
Posted: 12/3/2016 9:51:00 AM
^ Sorry, didn't have time/energy earlier. I don't consider it a competition but I do care about logic. So don't get me started on the people who say "I could care less" when they mean they couldn't care less.

It says "Every generation". Given that Generation X believes itself to be more intelligent than the one before it, and Generation Y coming after X believes itself to be more intelligent than X, Y therefore believes itself to be more [intelligent] than what is before X, and so on.

The conclusion of your argument does not follow from the premises.

X believes X is more intelligent than W
Y believes Y is more intelligent than X
Therefore Y believes Y is more intelligent than W

If this was talking about abstract numbers being greater than other abstract numbers you would be right and I wouldn't be disagreeing, but it's not. It's talking about what a generation of people believes. You are assuming that the belief of X magically becomes the belief of Y in reaching your conclusion. Here it is with the suppressed premise included:

X believes X is more intelligent than W
Y believes Y is more intelligent than X
Y is aware of and agrees with X's belief that X is more intelligent than W (or Y has formed this belief independently from X's belief, but then the first premise is superfluous)
Therefore Y believes Y is more intelligent than W

The point is that the suppressed premise is not given or even implied in the statement - Y could believe X is less intelligent than W (contrary to X's belief) for all we know. Therefore plotting it as a continuous variable is invalid.

In the case where the first premise becomes superfluous, it would just be written:

Y believes X is more intelligent than W
Y believes Y is more intelligent than X
Therefore Y believes Y is more intelligent than W

This could be done with a tiny alteration to the statement, and then we will all live happily ever after.

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." - George Orwell

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the ones that went before it, and wiser than the ones that come after it." - Kid Reason
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 225
Your Paranoid Psychology
Posted: 12/3/2016 5:59:39 PM
^ ok, as you can see a quote never contains enough information, but if it is the implied logical structure then I'll take it as is

Thought this was interesting (John von Neumann)

In 1955, von Neumann was diagnosed with what was either bone or pancreatic cancer. He invited a Roman Catholic priest, Father Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to visit him for consultation. Von Neumann reportedly said in explanation that Pascal had a point, referring to Pascal's Wager. Father Strittmatter administered the last rites to him. Some of von Neumann's friends (such as Abraham Pais and Oskar Morgenstern) said they had always believed him to be "completely agnostic." Of this deathbed conversion, Morgenstern told Heims, "He was of course completely agnostic all his life, and then he suddenly turned Catholic—it doesn't agree with anything whatsoever in his attitude, outlook and thinking when he was healthy." Father Strittmatter recalled that von Neumann did not receive much peace or comfort from it, as he still remained terrified of death.
On his deathbed, Von Neumann entertained his brother by reciting, by heart and word-for-word, the first few lines of each page of Goethe's Faust. He died at age 53 on February 8, 1957, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., under military security lest he reveal military secrets while heavily medicated. He was buried at Princeton Cemetery in Princeton, Mercer County, New Jersey.

Pascals Wager:

1.God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2.A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3.You must wager (it is not optional).
4.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
6.But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Your Personal Philosophy