GENIUS FORUMS

In other words, like Laird, you're only speculating when you say that boundaries with only one side might be possible. That is, you don't really know whether such things are possible or impossible. Yes. Just because "boundaries" on planet earth are defined to have 2 sides doesn't mean the...

Without values what is reason good for?

"I don't want to get killed. War is likely to get me killed. Therefore I shall not go to war!"

Value of staying alive.

If you have no values it would be irrational to do anything at all.

There was no point to that example at all. Reasoning is the process the policeman uses to decide whether he will be a rat or not (his plan of action), based on his values and goals and emotions. I suspect this all hinges on your custom definition of "reasoning", which is no doubt completel...

Sapius wrote:If nothing else, then may be metaphysics brings joy at least, so why object to someone’s happiness, Neil? You are not jealous, are you? :D

I have a genuine enmity towards stupid people. I think I need to get over this though or I will be the "loser" every time.

Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere. Where is your proof? Sick that your reply to everything I say is "prove it" a...

Since the two-sided definition conforms even to your own experience of boundaries (comprising, therefore, empirical evidence for the definition “boundary”) it’s meaningless to leave open the possibility of an “ultimate” boundary that isn’t comprised of two sides, by your own standards. ...

Personally I'm finding this debate quite interesting.In my view Laird is putting up a pretty decent battle. I'm finding this debate quite tedious because Kevin just continually dodges Laird's points to try and take it off topic. Respect for Laird spending the time to go back and keep asking the que...

You are mistaking my own concepts with those commonly held by the population. ... Most people see through distorted lenses, and so all their concepts are distorted. But I don't see through distorted lenses. In other words: you are enlightened, I am not, therefore you are right, I am wrong. Awesome ...

Even if you constructed you own whole web of concepts it would be equally as fallible and worldly as the English Dictionary. Where is your proof? In history. Humans have constructed the entire English language. To then turn around and try to deduce out "absolute truths" implicit in these ...

I personally make my own definitions, but I arrange it so that they fit with common definitions so that I can communicate with others. This is A) nonsense and B) irrelevant. A) You make your own definitions? What does this mean... you go out in the bush and start making grunting noises in special p...

Christians use logic too. 1. God said homicidal behavior sends one to hell. 2. I don't want to go to hell. 3. Therefore I shall not murder. Imagine this... logic... working... on... false... premises... leads... to... false... conclusions.... The logic... may be valid... but... the conclusions... ar...

A line is defined to have two sides. It's not possible to define a line to have only one side. It's like defining a human being to have nothing outside of themselves (which is of course how most egotists see themselves - there's themselves, and then there's nothing) We can logically deduce the natu...

It's like equating war and soccer by proclaiming that, after all, no matter what your mode of competition, there will be losers and winners. Honestly there isn't that great of a difference between them. Once ends the losers' lives, the other just gets them dumped from the team. It is your sentiment...

This is interesting. Without losers there can't be winners. However the losers can rationalize the situation such that they are actually the winners or such that there are no winners: "my enemies will be sent to hell", "nothing matters", etc. If you truly enjoyed losing at life I...

Is a position of "checkmate" preferable to a random arrangement of chess pieces? What God has told you the "right" way to arrange the chess board of life? You arrange it however YOU like, whatever YOU value, but to claim that this is anything more than having it your way instead ...

Does the amount of stuff change? No more than winning a chess game amounts to moving chess peices around the board. When you move chess pieces around their amount is not changing, only their arrangement. Do the gods care what position their chess board is in? Accept reality. It will only hurt as li...

Seems like regardless of his intent, Nietzsche's been used to justify some pretty awful stuff. "Awful" as in counter to your desires of peace, equality, and universal weakness, yes. And I dare say his "nicer" interpretations are dreamy people trying to reconcile him with moralit...

Again. Who suffered for the creation of Beethoven's 5th? His competitors? it won't -- non-zero-sumness is pervasive in nature, because the relationship between the amount of stuff , and pretty much anything else, is non-linear. Does the amount of stuff change? Consider a very simple converse exampl...

It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary. That's purely your definition of a boundary. I will now define a boundary to be a limiting region of some thing, which might or might not have someth...

victor, I still don't see how the world isn't zero sum. You get your roads, the deer suffer. A virus acquires a valuable new protein that the immune system isn't prepared for, you suffer. Perhaps utility is not zero sum, but utility is just a value judgment cast upon something by an individual with ...

Since when are deers and other mammals moral agents?.. This all comes down to your arbitrary definition of a "moral agent" now, things who matter . Nope. Complexity increases at the expense of the sun -- from inanimate matter through bacteria and onto our ecosphere. That's not equilibrium...

The part of the group that is exercising rationality is the judge, while the barristers are a mix of intuitions, creative insights, past experiences, past reasonings, society's beliefs, the thoughts of others, and so on. An irrational judge is useless. Aren't purely rational barristers are also use...

No, idiot, it's not. In fact, economics exists because non-zero-sumness is possible -- because by specializing and trading, for example, the overall utility can be increased. The only thing that is fixed is the amount of stuff (matter/energy to be precise). utility is a very complex function of tha...

Your barristers are necessarily irrational though David. There is a part of the group (barristers + judge) that is irrational, and a part that is rational. Isn't that exactly what Nietzsche and Einstein (in that quote) said?

Erm, dude, 'zero-sum' doesn't refer to the sum of life in the world. it's a game-theoretic term denoting the situation where for one participant to win, others must lose the equal amount; i.e. where no creation is possible, and your gain is always and necessarily someone else's loss. This is oppose...