Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please show me a way in which you can use your feelings of thoughts to change the wavelength of light coming from the sky because you believe in solipsism.
I can wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I get exactly and specifically the argument you’re making: it’s just that it is both wrong, and getting to the point it’s obtuae.
You’re confusing that we observe things using our brains, with the things we observe being dependent on feelings. It’s a rather obtuse confusion I’ve been attempting to correct for a while - and seems to imply you’re not clear on the definitions of the words you’re using.
The sky is blue. That is an objective fact as it is not dependent on my emotional state, my feelings, or thoughts: or anyone’s feelings or thoughts. The sky is blue as the wavelength of light coming from it is 380-500nm - something we all agree upon.
Thats what the words mean. We’ve established that the underlying measurement is external, based on external things, and things like 1nm, or methods are also not dependent on our thoughts or feelings.
Your confusing, repeatedly - and I’m running out of ways to correct you - the potential fallability of our senses, with the concept that what we see is dependent on our feelings and emotions.
They are two different things. Unrelated. Not the same. Different.
What that means, is that if the sky is really blue - then it’s an objective fact - if it’s not really blue then it’s a collective delusion. In neither of those two cases is the 380-500nm dependent on our thoughts and feelings.
If color of the sky was not objective and was subjective - then it would change from person to person, it would be different from you and me; I could happily say that the wavelength was 30nm-50nm if I wanted to.
Quite frankly, I’m largely bored of trying to explain the key differences between objective and subjective. If you’re just going to kick around the same can, I’m not going to reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Again - you’re confusing not knowing whether something is really true - and reality is not what it appears - and the reality we see is mutable and dependent on our feelings and emotions.
You’ve conceded that if what we see is real - these things are objective, and I have shown that if they aren’t real then we are all affected equally by the same issue - and what we see is still not dependent on our thoughts and feelings. In both cases the fact is objective - all that is up for grabs is the underlying reality of that fact.
At this point you appear to be being unnecessarily obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Firstly - that light from the sky is between the wavelengths of 380nm and 600nm is the objective fact; if you want to then go one step further and make subjective ruminations about whether you should care about that fact - this is up to you.
Whether you should care about the sky; or bother to look up, is probably subjective: but isn’t what we’re talking about - that’s just a nonsensical subjective question your injecting into the underlying fact, and is therefore meaningless.
Second - this is bordering on ridiculous now. I don’t think you’re really keeping track of what we’re talking about.
Everyone observes that the sky is blue. We’re either all correct - or we’re all wrong in exactly the same way.
If we’re not lo wrong - then the fact is objective - if we’re all wrong in exactly the same way - then the cause of the error cannot possibly be down to individual feelings in my brain or your brain - if we are all wrong, then the lack of arbitrary observation of everyone observing different things indicates an external cause of the error - hence it too is still objective.
Which again, leads me to believe you don’t really grasp the concept of subjective or objective: and are simply muddling up concepts of what is true or not; vs what is affected by individual thoughts or feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
- Ability to state a value better than another (How is X better than Y?)
This is not relevant to the fact of whether the sky is blue.
- Ability to self-verify (How do you prove proof?)
This is an ability not a feeling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes but...
So; one outcome if we are not “clouded by external factors” is that the wavelength of light that comes from the sky is objective. That would disprove your thesis.
Please explain what part of “external factors” (that are able to effect how every human on the planet perceives light from the sky - such that it makes all humans perceive this light in the same way - and to have the same wavelength) - are based on “feelings”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factors
Bingo.
So; if we aren’t “clouded by external factors”: it is objective that the sky is blue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
For something to be subjective; it must be based upon feelings.
If the sky being blue is based upon feelings - then the light from the sky must not really be 380nm - 500nm; it is simply our brains making that up.
This is not a straw man - this is using a key problem in your argument to illustrate your failure in understanding. You may not like it, but you really do need to answer the question - as the answer is instructive of your problem.
is light from the sky predominantly 380nm -500mm, regardless of how it is measured, or who measures it? And regardless and independent of who’s subjective brain is viewing the information?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Claiming it is subjective means that you’re arguing that light from the sky being at 380 - 500nm is a product of the human brain and our “feelings”. This means that light coming from the sky isn’t really 380nm - 500.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So light that comes from the sky isn’t predominantly made up of light that is at 380nm - 500nm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Welcome back, you haven’t missed anything really. Just the usual nonesense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So, which part of the fact that electromagnetic radiation from the sky is predominantly between 380nm and 500nm is “based on feelings”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You seem to have completely gone of the rails.
What do you think objective means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Last time I checked, blind people had other senses, and are capable of using equipment such as spectrographs, etc: but even then - your example
was mostly a bit of a straw man, because it’s not like they see blue as green, and can’t agree on the color, they just can’t make the observation.
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation.
Truth is what is congruent with reality; for probably the third time, objective means not based on feelings.
Like I said, your making this way too complex as I think you’re not using an appropriate definition for what objective means.
Objective and subjective is the difference between “this weighs 8 tons” and “nickelback are a great band”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yep, barring a catastrophe; he’ll he ahead once a few of his latest debates finish up. Oromagi has been pretty consistent with the numbers of debates, I’ve been much flakier in the last few weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Blue is what we call electromagnetic radiation at a particular frequency. Both the color blind and the blind have the ability to determine electromagnetic radiation from the sky is at the frequency even if they can’t observe it directly with their eyes.
This is what is observed.
If the world didn’t really exist, and we’re all brains in jars; it’s still what everyone observes - so it’s still a fact that the sky is blue whether what we see is real or not. We all observe the sky is blue independent of what the truth of reality is, or whether we’re all mad.
I think you’re mistaking what is ultimately true or not with what is objective. You’re really unnecessarily over complicating what is actually a pretty simple concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You observe them; that’s how you know.
We all observe that the sky is blue. Thus, it’s a fact that is external to our own opinion.
The beauty of it is that even if we were all mad brains in vats, in a simulation, and there was no sky at all... we still all observe that the sky Is blue.
In this respect - that’s what makes the fact objective. They would still be objective even if the world didn’t really exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Theres a little confusion.
The difference between subjective and objective is the difference between who is the best rock band, and what is 73 x 11.
Subjective things are based on personal opinions and feelings and may very well differ from person to person. Objective things are based on exteternal facts and evidence, and generally don’t very much need opinion to be given.
If Something is based on facts, those facts are broadly agreed, and the logic is determined to be valid: then its objective.
Those facts could end up being disproven, or the logic turn out to flawed in some way: but until that is determined - the principle is still objectivez
In the same way, 1+1 = 2 is objectively true, and not based on feelings.
While it’s possible that we’re all mad, or that you’re the only brain in the universe and maths is all wrong: it’s also possible - and likely more probable that it isn’t. Until you show that all the facts and logic of maths are actually based on feelings or some weird collective delusion: it remains therefore objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
No one has ever said a fetus isn’t alive; just that it is not developed enough for its rights to be placed over the well being of the human it depends upon for harvesting nutrients from, altering the body of, and impacting the life of without consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You could make it an automatic announcement to new users (IE - not a site wide announcement - but gives a notification, etc)
Created:
Posted in:
Anyways: this thread has been derailed enough. I’ll be happy to subtly troll you next time you say my name into a mirror tree times.
Created:
Posted in:
While I’m not “treating you like shit”, as much as gently ribbing you; I will say that there are occasional gems that do indeed make me happier.You can keep treating me like shit, but it won't make you happier in life.
For example, the joke that if you look at your avatar, then mine; it’s apparent I am twice the man you are!!
Created:
Posted in:
If you’re feeling an irritating burning pain in your buttocks - I would recommend that you sit on your keyboard. It won’t help you, but I suspect I speak on behalf of almost everyone when I say that is a pain in the arse we’d all much prefer speaking to.
Also don’t mock the dollar - it’s some my finest work. It’s up there with the soul stone.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That is a bit of a nonsequitor.
Why on earth would the field of study related to technology augmenting and interacting with the human mind be somehow denigrated or non serious if the human mind is just a physical interaction of chemicals and cells.
Nothing about cybernetics relies on any supernatural claims; so denying those same claims does not change the field of cybernetics one bit.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I didn’t say you invented the idea of souls. I said it has asuch validity as something you could have made up.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Erm no.
Nothing you just said about the “nature of consciousness and spirituality” is factually true or valid.
There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a soul, or that there is a deeper truth to spirituality. In fact, the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given the studies into just those things.
Now, you may not understand how evidence works; and are simply pointing to facts or examples that are not uniquely indicative of deeper meaningfulness, as is pretty common in forums like this - but that is your lack of understanding rather than any particular proof
Created:
-->
@janesix
You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant - based on two things that you state are true, you have no evidence for, and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.
Created:
-->
@janesix
There is no proof of a soul, and no proof that a consciousness is caused by a soul.
While you may want to believe it - your desire to believe does not make your claims any more truthful.
in reality, it is unsupported speculation that you cannot even show is possible, leave alone true: and is being used as an intellectually dishonest hammer to try and prevent reasonable intellectual discussion.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Robots are not imbued with a vital soul, and never will be. Therefore no consciousness or free will.
What you’re doing here, is shutting down a legitimate avenue of enquirey, by asserting your own speculative, unsupported conjecture as if it’s somehow unchallengeable fact.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
How could you tell the difference between your choices being down to the physical properties, complex iterative feedback and effects of incredibly complex chemical interactions in your brain, and the choices you make being spontaneously manufactured within your Brian with no prior interaction?
How would they look different?
How would they look different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That’s not an assumption that doesn’t do it justice - that’s more of an inherent axiom of almost everything. Because we need to sssume we are generally rational beings and this isn’t all a hallucination, doesn’t mean that objective quantities such as Pi, or numbers are subjective; the assumption is inherently baked into the notion of objectiveity itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
For battle style debates (not troll/truism):
A vote is sufficient if it:
A.) provides a clear explanation, with specific references to the content presented in the debate why one side beat the other.
Or
B.) Follows the voting structure or rules as laid out by the debate, and follows the minimum requested standard.
A vote is sufficient if it:
A.) provides a clear explanation, with specific references to the content presented in the debate why one side beat the other.
Or
B.) Follows the voting structure or rules as laid out by the debate, and follows the minimum requested standard.
Created:
Posted in:
Just an FYI, spending the last dozen posts making pretty susbtantially serious accusations without no facts and no evidence then saying that you will keep it private is somewhat self defeating.
What is also rather self defeating, is spending every other post, debate, vote or comment accusing me of eating babies; and then complain I’m dragging your name through the mud by pointing it out.
In this thread, there is a substantial and valid concern relating to Type1s debates, and that you’re attempting to win a free ride. I’m not suggesting penalization of you: just the deletion of those debates. So far, I’ve been trying to explain my position - in the face of fairly ceaseless personal attacks and pretty outrageous accusations which have been your primary response.
I think the issue of these spam debates is actually quite important - and will be in the future until Type1 either gives up, or there is enough room in the leaderboard that it can’t make much of a difference. As you haven’t offered any defense of why you should get 90 points for being in the right place at the right time: other than that I am apparently an anti-Semite, I’ll leave that as it is.
Now, please stop with the unfounded and libellous accusations; and when it’s clear to the mods that you have no basis for anything you’re saying, I would request an apology that is just as public as the accusation.
Created:
Posted in:
Frankly at this point, I don’t think it’s fair for you to make absolutely ridiculous, baseless and cretinous accusations: basically accusing me of being an Anti Semitic, borderline psychotic user of another website with absolutely no evidence and not have me respond, right?
So please, go ahead on another thread. If it’s within the rules to make incredibly serious accusations in one thread - it’ll be fine to do it in another.
Created:
Posted in:
I’d suggest that you make the accusations in a new thread though: I’m trying to specifically argue for the Meep ruling and my view on these troll debates - but it’s getting to be much more difficult for me not to derail it.
Created:
Posted in:
Please PM me about this. I am not at all consenting to Ramshutu talking about me on CD but I want to reveal to you some things about him and who he is on CD.
Is this your ridiculous Nom accusation again? Good lord.
Basically, despite me owning the name Ramshutu on multiple sites for the last two decades, RM has got it into his head that I’m actually a sock puppet of another user. From what I can tell because we’re both British.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I’m fine with letting him have a small reward.
90 points of ELO is more points than all but maybe 10 people on this site have earned. Does that seem small?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
9 Type1 debates would probably be around 27 points. I wouldn’t have a problem if all but were made unrated, or deleted. For the moment with the future debates all being delectable.
Created:
Posted in:
RM
I got 2 spam debates the rest were normal - by all means link me the other 4.
Created:
Posted in:
LOL this should be good....
Could you start another thread for your paranoid delusional baseless accusations so we don’t pollute Bshs meep thread?
Created:
Posted in:
Why should you be rewarded for being there before I was on the days you accepted Sparrow and type1's debates?
Because
a) the majority of them (all but 2) were all genuine debate attempts that weren’t complete troll that I had to work for.
b) I got maybe 6 whole points from Type1 debates that were not genuine.
c) I will happily volunteer losing those 6 points, if all these troll points are expunged.
Created:
Posted in:
While I’m digging the irrational angry threats - unfortunately I have utterly no clue what on earth you’re talking about.
Secondly, 2-3 debates is probably the limit of tolerability.
Created: