RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:00   

Lenny,

Stop snipping bits of the argument out and treating them as the whole argument.

They are meaningless when taken out of the context from which they arise, as I have made ABUNDANTLY clear. Think more about the idea that these are emergent phenomena: i.e. products of various systems as opposed to inherent properties of the constituents of those systems or the system itself. The context itself defines the meaning of those concepts, hence why WITHIN context reason can explore them as fully as it is possible to do. Take them out of that context and they become meaningless. Think about a phonon. A phonon is a quantised mode of vibration in a crystal lattice. No crystal lattice, no phonons. They are an emergent property of crystal lattices. Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.

Incidentally, just to head off a straw man I can see galloping towards me, this does not mean that "beauty is not real" for example. Just like a phonon is a real aspect of a crystal lattice, beauty is a real aspect of certain systems. I am not arguing that beauty is not real, I am arguing that beauty is an emergent phenomenon. That's quite an important distinction that I am almost certain, based on your behaviour thus far, you will miss. Prove me wrong!

Treating that line as a stand alone is a little thing we call "quote mining". Arguing as if it is the whole point is called "attacking a straw man". Some people, myself included, think this is really rather dishonest. I would go as far as to say that on your part it is deliberately dishonest. This is contrast with Skeptic who is simply not intelligent enough to be that deliberate. He is just stupid and dishonest. You on the other hand, I reckon are bright enough to know what you are doing. So please stop being intellectually dishonest Lenny, it's upsetting and unproductive.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:04   

P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality like a Platonic solid. Especially since the concept of Platonic solids etc was thoroughly refuted a few millenia ago by a variety of bods.

And shit, before I forget this too, would you like to demonstrate how your argument differs from those of various species of solipsists and nihilists, i.e. the argument that reason can tell us nothing about ethical, moral, aesthetic or subjective matters, also well refuted in the last few centuries.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:22   

P.P.S. Whilst I think of this also:

Why the surprise Lenny? I've been saying this since post whatever it was. This is not the first time I've said it. I've said it several times in really big letters and massively simple language.

Which of course you'd know as you've carefully read my arguments and considered them carefully. Obviously.

Which is why you keep misrepresenting it. And why you keep attacking straw men.

Which is why you have yet to do anything more than Skeptic which is merely restate your assertion that reason cannot do X without any basis for doing so (other than the bits I already agreed to and have done since the fucking start!).

Which is why I might have mentioned this a few times.

Which might possibly be the reason that I am fucking pissed off with this discussion and fucking disappointed that I have bothered to treat you like an intelligent human being when you're clearly an illiterate, sanctimonious, discourteous twat.

Do you ever get the idea that maybe, just maybe you have fucked up and maybe just maybe you should actually read what someone is saying before you disagree? I know I do.

Do you ever get the impression that perhaps, just perhaps Lenny, someone else isn't some species of fundamentalist absolutist nutter and as such the same arguments you use on those nutters might not work against different arguments?

Do you ever get the impression, Lenny that maybe, just possibly maybe, someone on this earth has a) considered a subject in greater depth than you and b) knows vastly more about it than you?

No, obviously not, sorry, just babbling, clearly not!

Moron.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT:

FOR THE UNINITIATED THIS IS WHAT WE CALL SARCASM

ADDED IN FUTHER EDIT:

The reason this annoys me so very very much is quite simple so before THAT is misrepresented too:

It has two basic strands: a) I think arguing dishonestly, playing silly buggers, being a smarmy sanctimonious twat to disguise the fact that you are wrong about something, quote mining, attacking straw men, accusing people of bias where none exists etc is MASSIVELY rude and unconducive to reasoned discourse. Twenty fucks, three thousand cunts and a brace of bastards might offend you, they might not, but they are not a necessary part of reasoned discourse and never arise unless elicited by rudeness of the type I mention. Hence why discussing almost anything with a total moron like Skeptic is annoying.

b) I expect better from you Lenny. Regardless of the topics about which we differ I expect you to be both capable of arguing reasonably and that you will actually do it. The fact that it is apparent that you are both incapable and unwilling is actually quite upsetting.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:50   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,05:11   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,10:50)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

That's not the total of it, but it's a hell of a lot closer than anything Lenny or Skeptic have managed. I'll cheerfully accept "observer" as a substitute for "system" or "context". For suitably vague values of "observer"! ;)

Incidentally people did used to think that beauty existed in its own right as some kind of abstract, a perfection to be acheived, a standard to be measured to.

Regardless of the specific quality/concept (e.g. beauty, good, truth etc) under discussion, people have used precisely this kind of reasoning to argue for the existence of god, for the righteousness of slavery, for the superiority of man over woman etc etc etc. I.e. this same flaw in reasoning, this same erroneous extension of an emergent phenomenon beyond the context in which it emerges, this same appeal to what is effectively a faith claim in an unobserved (and unobservable) Platonic concept has been the basis for some of the most utter drivel the human species has come up with.

Throughout ALL those instances and as refutation of ALL those claims has stood one single thing. I wonder what that thing is and what its limits are.

Thanks for reading.

And I mean that in every sense of the phrase!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,05:49   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,05:11)
...
Throughout ALL those instances and as refutation of ALL those claims has stood one single thing. I wonder what that thing is and what its limits are.
...

Louis

I take it you are talking about reason. Well we sure live in interesting times. Looking at human history it is quite amazing where science has brought us and I sure would like to know where it will take us. Oh for omniscience, 2nd thoughts maybe that (omniscience) would be boring.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:40   

Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display.  Here you state opinion as if it where fact.  If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:40)
Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display.  Here you state opinion as if it where fact.  If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

It might as well be fact, Mr Pot.

Indeed, since there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, surely the default position is no?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:46   

Quote
Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.


Really?  That's a pretty profound statement you've made there.  There are philosophers throughout history that disagree with you.  Can you back this up with anything more than just your say-so?  I don't believe you can but I'd interested in hearing you try.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:46)
Quote
Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.


Really?  That's a pretty profound statement you've made there.  There are philosophers throughout history that disagree with you.  Can you back this up with anything more than just your say-so?  I don't believe you can but I'd interested in hearing you try.

Where is it written in the universe that something is beautiful?

Where is the universal decree on evil?

"...TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN  SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

Death, speaking in The Hogfather.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:56   

Louis, apparently your definition of dishonesty is anyone who dares disagree with you.  I think you really need to sit back and review some of the statements you've made.  In themselves they are subjective statements and you may believe them and, who knows, they may actually be true, but they can not be proven and it is entirely understandable that there may be other human beings on this Earth that believe differently.  I think it's say to say that you don't represent the totality of human thought.  Maybe you do in your own mind but I think it might be time for you to get real.  Your hardheadedness and petty insults are just an ongoing display of arrogance that blinds you to possibility that there may be alternate opinions in this discussion.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:59   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:56)
Your hardheadedness and petty insults are just an ongoing display of arrogance that blinds you to possibility that there may be alternate opinions in this discussion.

Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Good grief.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:04   

Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:40)
?? ? ? ? ?  
Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display. Here you state opinion as if it where fact. If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

There is a sound basis for what Louis is saying - albeit one that also undercuts, to some degree, the assertion that reason and empiricism yield results that are simply "objective," free of subjective and conceptual commitments. What are often considered objective descriptions of physical systems are inherently entangled with the conceptual and intentional commitments of the observer (and here we need not even resort to quantum observer effects).

See, for example, Hilary Putnam's very interesting argument in The Many Faces of Realism.

Putnam invites us to imagine a pressure cooker on which the safety valve has jammed, causing the cooker to explode. Why did the cooker explode? We say that the cooker exploded because the valve failed to open. We don't say that the cooker exploded because an arbitrary section of the wall of the cooker, say one centimeter square, was in place and hence retained the steam, even though, from the perspective of physics, the stuck valve and this arbitrary section of cooker wall play identical roles: the absence of either would have allowed the steam to escape and averted the explosion.

Why do we insist that the faulty valve caused the explosion, and not an arbitrary area of the wall? Because we know that the valve "should" have let the steam escape - that is its function, what it was designed to do. On the other hand, the arbitrary bit of surface was not doing anything wrong in preventing the steam from escaping; containing the steam is the function of that patch of cooker surface. Hence, in the instance of this human artifact, there is an inescapably normative element to what superficially appears to be a simple physical explanation.

Putnam concludes that, in asking Why did the explosion take place - and knowing what we know and knowing what interests we have - our explanation space consists of the alternatives:

(1) Explosion taking place
(2) Everything functioning as it should.

What we want to know is why (1) is what happened, as opposed to (2). We are simply not interested in why (1) is what happened as opposed to an infinite collection of alternatives such as, 3) An arbitrary patch of surface is missing, and no explosion takes place.

In short, our interests dictate that the presence of a given area of the wall of the cooker, and countless other facts about the physics of the explosion, take their places as background conditions rather than causes of the explosion. This discrimination between causes and background conditions cannot be provided by an account of the explosion supplied by mathematical physics, because the normative, designed aspects of the cooker cannot be deduced at the level of physics. Consideration of causation in this sense requires knowlege of the history of the mechanism - the story of its origins and purpose - in addition to its present physical state. Hence an irreducible explanatory relativity must be introduced if we are to understand the cause of this explosion.

This is not, however, to say that there is no objective adjudication to be had regarding the truth of the assertion that the stuck valve caused the explosion. Quite the contrary. Once we have specified our interests, given the nature of our language, and, indeed, given our scientific practices (all of which help us discriminate foreground and background), it would be simply false to say that the wall of the pressure cooker caused the explosion - even though the physics of the explosion dictate that had that area of wall not been present the explosion would not have occurred. In fact, it is only once we have identified our conceptual commitments and our interests that the determination of the cause of the explosion at the level of our interests becomes an adjudicable, objective fact. Hence, unless one is to abandon the idea that the stuck valve on the pressure cooker caused the explosion is an adjudicable, objective fact (in a court of law, for example), one must acknowledge the importance of those interests and abandon the notion that an idealized, purely observer-independent perspective is inherently more correct or more useful. We want to know why what should have happened failed to happen - or why what should not have happened, happened, a statement of our values and perspective that cannot be deduced from physics. (In the instance of organisms, this "intentional" dimension of "function" maps onto the contingent story of descent with modification by means of natural selection - a notion that advocates of ID just can't seem to wrap their heads around).

If this is true for our notions of ordinary physical causation, all the more for purely subjective notions such as beauty, attraction and hotnitude, dimensions that are even more entagled with our interests - indeed are often expressions of our interests, and cannot be described or even meaningfully envisioned without consideration of the background conditions from which they emerge. Conversely, understanding of those background conditions (such as the facts of mammalian evolution) tells us a great deal about those subjective states.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:52   

.
Quote
This sort of touches on Stephan's observer comment.



Fuck, I've just about had enough.

IT'S A FUCKING PROJECTION!!!!!!

The super ego DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTANT except in the heads of 2 legged sheep.

YOU AND YOUR PATHETIC LITTLE COLLECTION OF VIBRATING ATOMS ARE MAKING IT UP. The proof is all this WILL BE irrelevant history precisely a fraction of a nano second after you (or I) thought it up. FUCKER.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:58   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 25 2007,08:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard.  It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently.  Who is to say which opinion is better?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:12   

Quote
You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard. ?It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently. ?Who is to say which opinion is better


Facts trump opinion.

That is a testable hypothesis, quick grab your video camera and a microphone rush to your nearest mushroom farm and interview the nearest Shitake or for variety a Latvian nose flute player.

What you are describing is a cultural construction. There are parts of the world that think fat girls are more desirable you are a culture tragic skeptic. It seems to me that Disney sets your horizons.

Insular twit.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 25 2007,08:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard.  It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently.  Who is to say which opinion is better?

1. Something cannot be logical 'to [you]'

2. It is absolutely illogical to assume there is an absolute standard of ethics, or beauty, or some other subjective idea.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:30   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,09:12)
... It seems to me that Disney sets your horizons.

Insular twit.

LOL Funniest thing I have read for awhile.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:12   

Reciprocating Bill,

I'd agree with every word of that.

I'm more than happy to concede that there are limits to reason and observation and that one of those limits is the systematic one, i.e. the path of ideas trodden to get to that point if you see what I mean. I think the steam/explosion example you give is a very good one. I don't think we can get pictures of reality that are 100% free from error, assumptions, systematic influences etc. I don't think we can get 100% pictures of reality at all.

This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple. I can't know that you and I see the same thing, but I can know about the similarities of responses etc. Like with the explosion example you give, this example shows that there are limits on what can be known by any means. The point about areas of interest is also a good one.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:15   

Skeptic,

You're merely flannelling around and trolling for kicks. Wake me when you have something serious to say or some evdience to present for your contentions. If you could read you'd see where I'd demolished your claims. You can't ergo you haven't. Your loss. Remain ignorant.

Until that changes, you go into the "Moron" cupboard.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:23   

Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:30   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,16:23)
Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

I AM NOT A GERBIL!

Louis

P.S. Or gay, but I'm less worried about that. I fucking HATE gerbils.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:59   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,18:30)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,16:23)
Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

I AM NOT A GERBIL!

Louis

P.S. Or gay, but I'm less worried about that. I fucking HATE gerbils.

Have you heard the word of Gerbil?

He says that every Gerbil on earth is a Gerbil and you should hold my hand and put your other hand in your wallet and give me all your money. Oh by the way if you want to marry your Gerbil you can, and you can  have more than one and they love viagra and under age stock car racing.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:10   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,04:50)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

It'ds also what I am saying.


And it is precisely why "science" and "reason" can't say anything at all about "beauty" (or "truth" or "justice" or any other subjective matter).


Which, of course, is precisely my point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:12   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence. ?

Where.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:23   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,17:10)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,04:50)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

It'ds also what I am saying.


And it is precisely why "science" and "reason" can't say anything at all about "beauty" (or "truth" or "justice" or any other subjective matter).


Which, of course, is precisely my point.

Lenny,

If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about? Various degrees of "anything"?

Reason tells us a huge amount about subjective concepts when those concepts are in context, as I have been bangin on about now until I am exceedingly sick of it.

You've also not answered the questions I asked you, let's just deal with beauty:

Does beauty exist outside of observers who describe things as being beautiful, objects to be described as beautiful and a system of ideas in which a concept like beauty can arise?

Do the "vanish humans" thought experiment I suggested before. All humans (and other organisms for the sake of completeness) are blinked out of existence ?and the planet is a barren lifeless rock (just to head a straw man off at the pass, this absence extends back in time, no human artifacts or life have ever existed). Which bits are beautiful? Where is this beauty? Is beauty an inherent property of an object like mass or charge is?

Louis

P.S. Added in edit, I'm guessing from your comment to Skeptic that you don't think that beauty is a Platonic form or a real entity. Clarify this please.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:29   

Just keep in mind folks Louis is a Gerbil fucking Homo.

So he has no idea what beauty is...... plus his grandmother was a woman, who lived in the Mediterainian, so probably had a beard.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:31   

K.E.

Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler.

And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast.

Anything ont topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again?

Don't let the pixies get you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]