GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:QRS claims to the contrary, consensus opinion is valuable, assuming that the intellects of those involved in the consensus are respectable.

How is it decided that these intellects are respectable? Who decides that consensus is valuable?

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:this smug schlock

My post was rational, and made sense to at least one other person. I backed up everything that I wrote, every opinion that I stated, and I didn't go overboard in my personal criticism. It didn't deserve that emotive response from you.

There was nothing emotive in it; it was descriptive. You are seemingly totally unaware of the level of smugness you bring to your writing. I've told you this before, but I guess if you don't see it, you don't see it.

Dan Rowden wrote:

can you please show me where any dictionary gives a philosophically meaningful and useful definition of "exist".

Maybe, but we'll never know, because I'm not even going to try to.

What? But you're the one who made such a song and dance out of the matter! You're the one making the accusation that we redefine existence just to suit ourselves. Now, it seems you can't even show how we do that! Jesus H!

A more "technical" (in the philosophical sense, which is essentially what I understand you to be looking for) definition of "exist" might prove to be interesting and helpful, but:

Might prove to be interesting and helpful? Are you kidding me?

a) it wouldn't redefine the word, it would merely clarify it and offer deeper insight into it
b) it wouldn't change the fact that you guys have redefined the word.
I therefore see no point to your challenge in this context.

That is all just beyond pathetic, and I bet you don't even see why.

Jason wrote:How is it decided that these intellects are respectable?

By various means, some more objective, some more subjective than others.

One somewhat subjective criteria that I use is how well a person argues his/her case, in my judgement, and how well and honestly that person responds to the counter-arguments of others: whether that person is willing to adjust their position based upon new evidence and ideas is very important to me, as well as whether that person is responsive to what is put to them, but also very important to me is their initial argument i.e. I'm interested both in the quality of the person's "original" thoughts as well as in their ability to integrate new thoughts.

One more objective criterion that I use is demonstrated problem solving ability. For example, if a person comes up with a working solution to a tricky logical or philosophical problem, then I tend to respect their intellect, particularly if they repeat that performance consistently. I could provide an example of where someone has demonstrated the high quality of their intellect in that way on this forum, but I don't want to get personal.

Another fairly objective criterion that I use is that person's intellectual achievements in formal education, and a somewhat more subjective criterion that I use is that person's achievements in informal study: i.e. both their qualifications and their self-taught knowledge are important to me.

Also important to me is a person's use of language, because effective use of language usually indicates both high literacy (i.e well and widely read; balanced) and an organised, rational mind.

There are probably others.

On their own, none of these criteria are definitive, but when you take them together, it's easier to make what I hope are accurate judgements. Of course, on an internet forum, some of them are hard to get at, but I do my best.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Bizarre? Do you always call things you don't comprehend "bizarre"?

Not always - sometimes I call them "weird", or "strange", or "mysterious", etc.

I tend to use bizarre when I suspect that there's really no chance of comprehending the thing at face value because it actually doesn't make sense, and when what I really find intriguing is the ability/tendency of the source to say such nonsensical things.

Oh, so now it's nonsensical? I find it utterly bizarre and nonsensical to speak of something one doesn't comprehend as bizarre and nonsensical. What a sane and less impertinent person would do is ask for a explanation.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Jason wrote:How is it decided that these intellects are respectable?

By various means, some more objective, some more subjective than others.

And what happens if you disagree with the consensus? Do you grant yourself the power to overrule it unilaterally?

Its just a perceptual block... it all makes sense... except the nonsense, but it isn't supposed to make sense, save for the fact that it is nonsense.

Take Pythagoreas and others like him. All the universe consists of numbered patterns... and this holds true until you encounter something like Pi(3.141~). Some say there is no pattern, others say there are all patterns, i.e. Pi is infinite. Everything that makes sense degrades into nonsense at its foundations and its ultimate consequences.

"Why is it raining"
1) Because of barometric pressure, atmospheric condensation and gravity
"Why"
2) Because of the earth's gravitional spin around the sun and it's position within the solar system
"Why"
3) Because of the evolution of the universe from the big bang
"Why"
4)...

This comedian Louis CK puts it in terms parents might understand:

Skip ahead to about 6:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA

Dan Rowden wrote:There was nothing emotive in it; it was descriptive.

It was emotive because, whether you are willing to admit it or not, it was at least in part an attempt to discredit what I wrote without advancing an argument: a form of ad-hominem. The subtext of what you wrote was "The author of that post was motivated by smugness, not rationality, so you shouldn't give his post too much credit."

Dan Rowden wrote:You are seemingly totally unaware of the level of smugness you bring to your writing. I've told you this before, but I guess if you don't see it, you don't see it.

Oh, I can see where you're coming from, but the problem is that you're biased, being the subject of the criticism in my writing. I write with confidence when I feel that I have a strong argument, and occasionally in my confidence I offer/summarise my opinion of the quality of another person's thoughts/ideas. If you are the subject of that confident criticism, it might be easy to construe it as smugness.

Dan: can you please show me where any dictionary gives a philosophically meaningful and useful definition of "exist".

guest_of_logic: Maybe, but we'll never know, because I'm not even going to try to.

Dan: What? But you're the one who made such a song and dance out of the matter! You're the one making the accusation that we redefine existence just to suit ourselves. Now, it seems you can't even show how we do that! Jesus H!

Ah, there's that patented indignation. That's another one of your less than fair tactics in online discussions. You'll probably again deny the emotive, manipulative aspect of it, but it's plain to me. The subtext of it is "I have a far stronger position than my opponent: just look at how righteously indignant he has made me due to his ridiculous, irrational and untenable behaviour!" For a man who claims to deny the value of emotions, you sure use and express them a lot.

Let me respond unemotionally to what you've just said then: I can show how you redefine the word - here's the relevant quote from my original post:

One can imagine, for example, a finite universe containing no consciousness and causally unrelated to our universe. Since - being causally unrelated - it cannot appear to us, and since it has no conscious inhabitants to which it can appear, then by David's definition, it would not "exist". By the conventional definition, however, we would most definitely say that it exists.

Let me justify that with a conventional dictionary definition of "exist", from dictionary.com: "to have actual being; be".

Does that other causally unrelated, consciousness-lacking finite universe "have actual being"? Of course it does. In even positing it we are implying its "actual being", or in other words its existence.

guest_of_logic: A more "technical" (in the philosophical sense, which is essentially what I understand you to be looking for) definition of "exist" might prove to be interesting and helpful, but:

Dan: Might prove to be interesting and helpful? Are you kidding me?

All I'm saying is that an "ordinary" definition would do the job fine for our purposes, and that a "technical philosophical" definition would just be a nice little bonus.

guest_of_logic: a) it wouldn't redefine the word, it would merely clarify it and offer deeper insight into it
b) it wouldn't change the fact that you guys have redefined the word.
I therefore see no point to your challenge in this context.

Dan: That is all just beyond pathetic, and I bet you don't even see why.

See, here's another one of your tactics in online discussions: fail to respond substantively and instead assert or imply that it's the other person's obligation to think it through until they see it your way. No, I don't see that what I wrote is "beyond pathetic". If you want me to see it that way, then provide reasons. The most positive spin that I can put on this sort of behaviour of yours is that you're too lazy to respond substantively.

Jason wrote:And what happens if you disagree with the consensus? Do you grant yourself the power to overrule it unilaterally?

I'm not sure in what sense you mean "overrule it unilaterally". Do you mean, "overrule it in my own mind, and decide that my disagreement is valid"? I would have thought that that's what you meant, except that "unilaterally" gives me a clue that other people are involved, so perhaps you mean something more like "overrule it publicly, forcing my own opinion on others through violence". Please clarify.

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, so now it's nonsensical?

I said that I suspected as much, not that I was certain of it.

Dan Rowden wrote:I find it utterly bizarre and nonsensical to speak of something one doesn't comprehend as bizarre and nonsensical.

What if the lack of comprehension is of the same variety as the lack of comprehension that 513 * 274 = 21?

Dan Rowden wrote:What a sane and less impertinent person would do is ask for a explanation.

I love the way you chose the word "impertinent". It fits in so nicely with your displays of righteous indignation - it's such a morally-flavoured word. The irony is that in your YouTube videos you criticise those who are addicted to moral outrage, whilst indulging in something very similar.

I'd be very interested to hear an explanation. Can you provide one? I'd also be interested in hearing one from the man who wrote it.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Jason wrote:And what happens if you disagree with the consensus? Do you grant yourself the power to overrule it unilaterally?

I'm not sure in what sense you mean "overrule it unilaterally". Do you mean, "overrule it in my own mind, and decide that my disagreement is valid"?

Yes.

Animus wrote:Its just a perceptual block... it all makes sense... except the nonsense, but it isn't supposed to make sense, save for the fact that it is nonsense.

What differentiates one set of nonsense from another then? Why do you accept QRS-nonsense as opposed to Christian-nonsense?

Animus wrote:This comedian Louis CK puts it in terms parents might understand:

Skip ahead to about 6:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA

Classic - I watched the whole thing. Thanks for that, he was very funny.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan: can you please show me where any dictionary gives a philosophically meaningful and useful definition of "exist".

guest_of_logic: Maybe, but we'll never know, because I'm not even going to try to.

Dan: What? But you're the one who made such a song and dance out of the matter! You're the one making the accusation that we redefine existence just to suit ourselves. Now, it seems you can't even show how we do that! Jesus H!

Ah, there's that patented indignation.

Why shouldn't I be indignant? Where do you get off making assertions of philosophical mischief then thinking you don't have to back it up? I had every right to be indignant.

That's another one of your less than fair tactics in online discussions.

Unfair? Are you serious? You're the one making the accusations then dodging responsibility for it. And when I call you on it, I'm being unfair? Does dogshit taste like chocolate in that alternative universe of yours?

You'll probably again deny the emotive, manipulative aspect of it, but it's plain to me.

It's manipulative to expect people to back up their assertions? Wow.

The subtext of it is "I have a far stronger position than my opponent: just look at how righteously indignant he has made me due to his ridiculous, irrational and untenable behaviour!" For a man who claims to deny the value of emotions, you sure use and express them a lot.

What I did was ask to you support your claims. You bailed. I called you on that. Live with it. Anyway, it worked didn't it? Maybe you're just miffed because it worked.

Let me respond unemotionally to what you've just said then: I can show how you redefine the word - here's the relevant quote from my original post:

One can imagine, for example, a finite universe containing no consciousness and causally unrelated to our universe. Since - being causally unrelated - it cannot appear to us, and since it has no conscious inhabitants to which it can appear, then by David's definition, it would not "exist". By the conventional definition, however, we would most definitely say that it exists.

Let me justify that with a conventional dictionary definition of "exist", from dictionary.com: "to have actual being; be".

I asked you to show me where any dictionary gives a philosophically meaningful/useful definition of "exist". You just failed, as I knew you would because no dictionary does so (except perhaps certain encyclopedic dictionaries). "to have actual being" or "be" are not useful definitions for philosophical purposes. They don't say anything! "being" and "be" are just synonyms for "exist". There is no useful information in those usages. None whatever. You can't redefine that which isn't defined in the first place.

Does that other causally unrelated,

It's impossible for a thing to be causally unrelated.

consciousness-lacking finite universe "have actual being"? Of course it does.

I agree, of course it does! It has actual being in your imagination.

In even positing it we are implying its "actual being", or in other words its existence.

Yes, because it presents an appearance to our minds. I think you're starting to get the hang of this.

guest_of_logic: A more "technical" (in the philosophical sense, which is essentially what I understand you to be looking for) definition of "exist" might prove to be interesting and helpful, but:

Dan: Might prove to be interesting and helpful? Are you kidding me?

All I'm saying is that an "ordinary" definition would do the job fine for our purposes, and that a "technical philosophical" definition would just be a nice little bonus.

And I'm telling you that that kind of thinking is incredibly foolish. I can't even find the words to tell you how stupid it is. People who try to do philosophy out of a dictionary are being utterly mindless. The dictionary is not a philosophical text. It gives common usages only, and people don't commonly think in philosophical terms. The ordinary "definition" of "exist" isn't even a definition!

Btw, the etymology of the "exist" is: "[Latin existere, exsistere, to come forth, be manifest]. Sounds a lot like "present an appearance" dontcha think?

guest_of_logic: a) it wouldn't redefine the word, it would merely clarify it and offer deeper insight into it
b) it wouldn't change the fact that you guys have redefined the word.
I therefore see no point to your challenge in this context.

Dan: That is all just beyond pathetic, and I bet you don't even see why.

See, here's another one of your tactics in online discussions: fail to respond substantively and instead assert or imply that it's the other person's obligation to think it through until they see it your way.

Oh, boo hoo, sooky pants. You're still being pathetic. I correctly characterized what you wrote. It didn't warrant a substantive reply. The idea what to guilt you into re-thinking your position and meet my challenge, because, frankly, you were morally obligated to do so..

No, I don't see that what I wrote is "beyond pathetic". If you want me to see it that way, then provide reasons. The most positive spin that I can put on this sort of behaviour of yours is that you're too lazy to respond substantively.

It didn't warrant such. It was pathetic. I'd bet dollars to donuts you didn't know what most dictionaries said about "exist" before I challenged you to provide an example.

Jason wrote:Do you grant yourself the power to overrule it unilaterally?

Yes, but see below for when/why I'd do that.

Jason wrote:And what happens if you disagree with the consensus?

I think about it more carefully, taking into account the full set of arguments that I've encountered from the consensus. If I can come up with stronger counter-arguments, and if I don't feel that the consensus group have adequately rebutted them, then I'll probably go with my own view, albeit that I'll probably be less confident in it, depending on the weight of the intellect of the consensus group.

It also depends on how important the issue is. If it's mostly a matter of personal taste then I'm less likely to take consensus opinion on board - e.g. consensus opinion amongst my family and friends is that I should trim my beard to be more attractive, particularly to women, and whilst they're probably right that it would have that effect, my personal preference overrules the potential benefit of conforming to that consensus opinion.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What a sane and less impertinent person would do is ask for a explanation.

I love the way you chose the word "impertinent". It fits in so nicely with your displays of righteous indignation - it's such a morally-flavoured word.

It's a perfectly accurate description of the way you express yourself and the attitude you cop. You are impertinent, to the point of smugness. Let me remind you of what you wrote before:

[...]what I really find intriguing is the ability/tendency of the source to say such nonsensical things.

But heck, it's just a suspicion, right?

The irony is that in your YouTube videos you criticise those who are addicted to moral outrage, whilst indulging in something very similar.

I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. Trying to characterize that as some sort of moral outrage on my part is clever, but not that clever.

I'd be very interested to hear an explanation. Can you provide one? I'd also be interested in hearing one from the man who wrote it.

I'm frankly not interested. David actually wrote that, so maybe he'll be more interested in explaining it. But here's something for everyone who is finding it an issue to ponder: where does a cause end and an effect begin? How is causation not an "illusion" in the same sense that existence is?

Dan Rowden wrote:But here's something for everyone who is finding it an issue to ponder: where does a cause end and an effect begin?

Exactly where they begin and end of course.

Yes, which is wherever we say it is.

Dan Rowden wrote:Yes, which is wherever we say it is.

Not necessarily.

How so? I'm talking about linear, empirical causation here. In what sense can there be an objectively real (non-arbitrary) beginning and end to a causal process?

guest_of_logic wrote:

Jason wrote:And what happens if you disagree with the consensus?

I think about it more carefully, taking into account the full set of arguments that I've encountered from the consensus. If I can come up with stronger counter-arguments, and if I don't feel that the consensus group have adequately rebutted them, then I'll probably go with my own view, albeit that I'll probably be less confident in it, depending on the weight of the intellect of the consensus group.

Would it be fair to say then, that at base it is you who decides to take the consensus into account? Basically you're saying that you put more trust in your decision to trust the consensus, than any other decision you might make. Correct? So, in that sense, you're really making all the final decisions, you alone are always the final arbiter.

What happens if the consensus is to not trust the consensus?

Dan Rowden wrote:How so? I'm talking about linear, empirical causation here. In what sense can there be an objectively real (non-arbitrary) beginning and end to a causal process?

What exactly precedes the subjective selection of these beginnings and endings?

Jason wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:How so? I'm talking about linear, empirical causation here. In what sense can there be an objectively real (non-arbitrary) beginning and end to a causal process?

What exactly precedes the subjective selection of these beginnings and endings?

Icecream?

I dunno, the same thing that precedes any arbitrary judgement. Is this a trick question? :)

Dan Rowden wrote:I dunno, the same thing that precedes any arbitrary judgement.

And, what's that?

I don't know, specifically. Such judgements arise from the way our consciousness functions and our specific natures. What do you have in mind?

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't know, specifically. Such judgements arise from the way our consciousness functions and our specific natures. What do you have in mind?

These arbitrary judgements themselves have been caused to come into existence at some definite point in space and time, but they presumably don't/can't cause themselves - thus an example of non-arbitrary cause/effect.

Jason wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't know, specifically. Such judgements arise from the way our consciousness functions and our specific natures. What do you have in mind?

These arbitrary judgements themselves have been caused to come into existence themselves at some definite point in space and time, but they presumably don't/can't cause themselves - thus an example of non-arbitrary cause/effect.

Why are these arbitrary judgements different from anything else? Where does the cause of them end and the effect (that of them) begin?