Cosmos Jack Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Sorry:( Now that I have worked my 40+ hour week in 2 1/2 days I might look at it, but I must sleep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I say bulls**t here for most of the time veiling it with my slappy english or masking with meaningful words. I mean this is a serius discussion, so I'll try to bulls**t seriusly. What I'm talking about is that we can't implement this pure rationality here (at least in a complete form). It's LF for god sake. First of all we are united here by the emotional attachment to Lucas***(*) products. Second, it won't ever got so interesting in here if everyone kept on throwing facts in others' mouths, which lead to another thing here: we like emotional posts rather than factual (aka rational posts). I would regret to see someone judging someone else by the number of his posts or the date of his entrance. We mostly agree with others not because they have more facts at their disposal than we do, but by the way they present their opinion. If it's interesting, emotional, funny, imaginative, more people would read that and will remember you as a man worth reading, even worth agreeing with (I can't remember ever skipping Skin's posts. I'm just a mod a55 licker ). The more official and cold the post looks the less attention it is payed. Furthermore you will be ignored if you won't make some bad-a55 or on the contrary some mama's boy post, apologizing to the world for unintentiously sneezing at your own display Cosmos Jack: Some of this isn't just my rambling, but excepted ideas.. Maybe I'm just stupid and have to much time on my hands at work. I have never read anything that "totally" contradicts what I said; though, there might very well be. You're correct. At present moment there is no one to reasonably oppose you in this. These are massive misunderstandings, it'll take perhaps generations to cure. Still I'm pissed off now by the way people stay ignorant to the truth of an age, on which almost all our most advanced (if not relative to quantum mechanics) modern theories are based. They don't even try to learn, although these are not the most difficult matters today we elaborate. I wanted to ignore your post because I agree with you unquestionably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Author Share Posted October 20, 2003 We mostly agree with others not because they have more facts at their disposal than we do, but by the way they present their opinion. If it's interesting, emotional, funny, imaginative, more people would read that and will remember you as a man worth reading, even worth agreeing with (I can't remember ever skipping Skin's posts. I'm just a mod a55 licker ). The more official and cold the post looks the less attention it is payed. Furthermore you will be ignored if you won't make some bad-a55 or on the contrary some mama's boy post, apologizing to the world for unintentiously sneezing at your own display Not really sure what your saying here H. Rational comments can either be cold and calculated, or embellished and flamboyant. So can irrational comments. Do you think I am critisising the ability to get one's point across 'poetically'? If so, you've missed the mark. But I'll let you clarify before I carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Do you think I am critisising the ability to get one's point across 'poetically'? Not at all. Just pointing that it will always be more emotional here rather than rational even if mods ask us to stay rational on debate and no matter how hard you try. That what makes this part of the forum - a PEARL. "serius discussions only" below the name of the forum is more false than true. Any way, I'm not idealist, everything's grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Author Share Posted October 20, 2003 I'm not asking mods to warn people they can't discuss things rationally - if for no better reason that I'm fully aware some things CAN'T be discussed rationally - or only to a point at least (e.g. moral topics) I only started the thread because I accused someone I was debating of not debating rationally, and then the idea of 'rational discussion' was disputed. SO I thought I'd try and define it. And it's sticky so that I, and others, can refer to the agreed 'definition' - if nessesary. ...that's it really. Nothing more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I only started the thread because I accused someone I was debating of not debating rationally, and then the idea of 'rational discussion' was disputed. Well done then, soldier. You're way ahead of your general For my part I announce that rational debate is too much of a burden for my invalid 4cm^2 brain.... I'm kidding. I'll try to be as rational as possible (there is no great possiblity here although) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I say bulls**t here for most of the time veiling it with my slappy english or masking with meaningful words. I mean this is a serius discussion, so I'll try to bulls**t seriusly. Well if you think about it rationally. Nobody here is a Berkeley Nobel price winning physicist in hiding on (LF) So we are all bullsh!ting each other with our own interpretations and ideas. Which may or may not be correct. "My idea of time for example." I'm not a physicist. I'm not much at all just a Ex Marine working in a mental hospital. I might decide to finish school as a nurse, but that wasn't what I really wanted to do in life. Where I work at most nights they need a hole BN, but they have only me. "Well me, some security, and few really big guys." I can always say "and I helped.":rolleyes: Trying to talk someone down that has got it in there head to kill all the staff isn't always easy. CTBD would love trying to communicant rationally with someone that rational thought is an impossibility. I haven't met a Pt. that thought they were "Darth Vader," but I know a staff member that has. I have met allot if Jesuses, a few all out gods, and 1 Devil. I have had to work with Pts that the minute you walked on the unit "haveing never been there before" they would point at you and say "you raped me"... It's not like that all the time or on every unit in every hospital. I'm just telling the highlights. My point is here I try to communicate every day I go to work with someone that hasn't been able to communicate rationally for years maybe even their hole life. So I'm not always wanting to come home and try to relax on the net doing the same. I understand that not everyone always is an expert about what they are talking about. I just hope they can try to understand my point of view and myself their's without making a stupid remark. Originally posted by Homuncul You're correct. At present moment there is no one to reasonably oppose you in this. These are massive misunderstandings, it'll take perhaps generations to cure. Still I'm pissed off now by the way people stay ignorant to the truth of an age, on which almost all our most advanced (if not relative to quantum mechanics) modern theories are based. They don't even try to learn, although these are not the most difficult matters today we elaborate. I wanted to ignore your post because I agree with you unquestionably Anyway I don't think I'm preaching the gospel on how the universe really is. I just think I have made some valid points that have from my best understanding been over looked. I got these ideas by reading books and watching documentaries on the subject. Mathematics are used to explain the universe from a human point of view. "Quantum mathematics" and the such are tools and every tool can be used in the wrong way. There are definite holes in our understanding even with these tools. If we were doing everything right then there would be a universal theory already... Like I said "answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions." So far all we have is allot more questions... If I was smart enough to test my own idea? I wonder how many questions would still be left or would I just make more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Author Share Posted October 21, 2003 CTBD would love trying to communicant rationally with someone that rational thought is an impossibility. My Dad used to work as a charge nurse on a psyiatric ward. So I know where your coming from. That can be a tough job man - my hat off to ya. Don't get me wrong - I know I'm also no expert on - well - anything! I just like debating stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 And I teach kids aikido on Saturdays. I have a group of 8 devils of less than a metre frame with very bad attitude. It's a Chaos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Like I said "answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions." So far all we have is allot more questions... If I was smart enough to test my own idea? I wonder how many questions would still be left or would I just make more? Make more, make more. That's the way science works. But I'll try to rephrase your note: "Answers aren't answers if they don't explain anything.". Simply saying, it doesn't matter how much more questions will be asked during our research, but whether our answers explain things more accurately and clearly. We have tons of questions now to answer, but we also have today an immense background of understanding to do so. It's not as effortless as you might think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 As I understand it, Homuncul, the point of the thread was to clarify what exactly rational thinking and debating is. I don't expect these forums to be rational (come on, it's Star Wars!). I expect them to be honest (rather far-fetched, I know. But I can hope!). I disagree with both of you. Answers are answers as long as they provide facts that provide insight to a problem. Now, that's not a whole answer, and it may not even really answer the question, but it's little answers that lead to the final conclusion. Even an answer that just makes the question more difficult is a good thing, so long as it's the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys I disagree with both of you. Answers are answers as long as they provide facts that provide insight to a problem. Now, that's not a whole answer, and it may not even really answer the question, but it's little answers that lead to the final conclusion. Even an answer that just makes the question more difficult is a good thing, so long as it's the right answer. ANSWER A spoken or written reply, as to a question. A correct reply. A solution, as to a problem. A correct solution. What you described was bullsh!t.... If something just leads to a question it's not a answer. If you have an answer that adds nothing it's just bullsh!t. If you have a answer that adds a small part it's not a answer just a clue. All the clues put together is a answer..... You can't convict someone in a court of law with (1) clue that just leads to more questions with no answers... All your clues have to speak together like putting a puzzle together... When you have all of them then you have a possible answer that may or may not be the truth... That's why all the possible answers for all the complex laws we think the universe is govern by are still theories. They are not facts just the best possible educated guess What you said might work for religion, but it doesn't work for science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Nonsense. Answer - something spoken or written in reply to a question; a solution of a problem Note that that is a solution of a problem. Anyone who says that an answer has to respond to the entire question has never taken a math class. Just because you get a solution - an answer - doesn't mean you've solved the whole problem. Moreover, there are problems with more than one answer. For example, the equation (x-1)^2=0 has the answer x=1. That is an answer. It is not the whole answer; there is another solution: x=-1. But that does not diminish the validity of the first answer. Nor did it make it less an answer. Originally posted by Cosmos Jack If something just leads to a question it's not a answer. That is a stupid thing to say. All answers lead to more questions, unless that's the last question there is to ask. Every time you solve one problem, it asks new questions. No answer resolves everything; if it did, there would only be one answer. There's more than one question, so that is clearly an impossiblity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Nonsense. What you type? Yes it is... Originally posted by Master_Keralys Answer - something spoken or written in reply to a question; a solution of a problem Great you can define the word answer, but you have yet to figure out what it means. Maybe you should focus on your knowledge of words and less on math. Originally posted by Master_Keralys That is a stupid thing to say. Ok you tell me that and you type the stuff below. lol Originally posted by Master_Keralys All answers lead to more questions, unless that's the last question there is to ask. Every time you solve one problem, it asks new questions. No answer resolves everything; if it did, there would only be one answer. There's more than one question, so that is clearly an impossiblity. (Question) What color are my eyes? (Answer) My eyes are blue....... The question wasn't why are my eyes blue or what gives my eyes their color? It was simple and direct. It has only one answer. It did not lead to anything else. There is a question for everything no one answer can do. To say that all answer lead to more question as you said "is stupid." Pretty much 99.9% of everything you typed is stupid to say. I mean seriously are you reading what you type or are you just debating for the hell of it?"I can't tell."For all purposes you're making a mountain out of a mole hill for something that is relatively simple. If it makes you happy and "cranks your bunny" go for it. Before you call other people stupid you should look at what you are saying 1st.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 right answer Right or truthful is not easy to discuss, although you can find my and CTBD thoughts on it all over this forum Universe doesn't care about answers, we do. Perfect answer as anything's perfect is a fixity, not impossible although. Today answer to the question means explanation that discribes it best. Let's not limit ourselves in understanding: 2 solutions to the equation is still a single answer explaining this equation. Among many many explanations of one question there is only 1 answer in one moment of time. Like (maybe it's not that good of an example, still), wave and particle are 2 explanations of quantum particles, although superstring theory is probable to become it's single answer. Like Relativity is the answer to the question of behavior of massive objects at present moment, while in the past it was newtonian gravity that discribed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Okay, maybe I should amend what I said slightly. Most questions on a scientific topic will have answers that lead to more questions. Of course there are other questions that have simple answers; that was my mistake. But what I was saying about other things was still equally valid. Homuncul - good point about quantum physics. An answer must only be right in things like that in the sense that is is accurate at that particular moment in time. However, you helped me immeasurably with that example. There are multiple "answers" throughout time. But that answer is only partially correct most likely. That doesn't invalidate it as an answer! Rather it means that we're only getting partway to the final solution. But a partial solution is still a solution. That's the point I rather poorly tried to make with the math problem: a partial solution is still a solution to the problem. While I fully acknowledge that that is a different scenario in many ways, I also understand that an answer can be only a part of a larger or more complete answer. For example, string theory seems to answer a lot of the questions about differences between quantum physics and Einsteinian physics. But which string theory is accurate? A few years ago we didn't know; we only knew that all the theories were an answer. Now we realize that they are merely reflections of each other. Those answers were part of a larger answer: M-theory. That doesn't negate their value as answers. They were not clues. They were not ideas. They were fully formed theories that described stuff pretty well. They were answers - maybe not the most complete answers, but answers all the same. Next point: even things like relativity, quantum physics, and today's string theory lead to more questions about the universe. How does such-and-such cause this? Why are your eyes blue? That's what I was getting at. An answer is in no way negated because it leads to more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Okay, maybe I should amend what I said slightly. Most questions on a scientific topic will have answers that lead to more questions. Of course there are other questions that have simple answers; that was my mistake. Thank you.. Originally posted by Master_Keralys They were not clues. They were not ideas. They were fully formed theories that described stuff pretty well. They were answers - maybe not the most complete answers, but answers all the same. The problem with theories is they are just the best possible educated guess. For example "hypothetically" If you haven't met me before and we are about to meet. You don't know my eye color. What you do know is that my father was white and my mother was Native American. Caucasians only have 4 probable eye colors. Blue, Green, and Brown or Hazel if you consider that a color. Native Americans have only 1 eye color brown. You make your best probable guess that my eyes are brown "A theory." When you meet me you see that in fact they are lovely shade of blue. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Next point: even things like relativity, quantum physics, and today's string theory lead to more questions about the universe. How does such-and-such cause this? Why are your eyes blue? That's what I was getting at. An answer is in no way negated because it leads to more questions. The only thing I want from any of this is the answer to be proven regardless of where it goes. Like "Ok now we know my eyes are blue. That is a fact." Now you can ask why are my eyes blue or we know there are Black Holes. Now we can ask why they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Cosmos Jack The only thing I want from any of this is the answer to be proven regardless of where it goes. There's only one problem with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're agreeing on certain things. However, I think that you're asking too much of an "answer". By what you're saying, there is no such thing as an answer in science, because you can never prove 100% that your theory is absolutely true. Observable phenomena don't have to be proved, but their causes do, so here's a better way of putting it: A phenomena doesn't need an answer. Its cause does. But the cause is a question that, by your definition of answer, will never be answered because by the scientific method it can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Another point of clarification: religion and faith are not the same thing. Religion is man-made; faith is God-made, if you will. This may be a little late arriving but what can i do i just arrived having registered only a few days ago and finding this thread only tonight Bravo for beginning it CTBD it is a truly great theme yes i cannot agree with above statement for it is false any way one considers it although i do know what you mean and agree with what you were trying to say my problem may be one of semantics only but semantics is a clearly important problem to have considering it is the method in which man becomes capable of communication Man created religon man also created faith if you dont have a faith in the existence of god you can even go so far as to say that man created god for it is only our personal perceptions which allow us to understand anything. If you take that last concept and apply it through imagination to an idea of prehistoric man just arising out of the primordial sludge only recently capable of perceptions befitting the term "homo sapien," you may find yourself pondering the first or original religous thoughts the sky gives me power in the hunt because it is invested with the spirits of my ancestors, there is a demon that lives in that forest ect., which, by the way, is pre-rational thought which could rightly be called superstition (an interesting word i must remember to find out its etymology). But what refinement gives the christian pathos presidence over the religous belief of the prehistoric mans what evolution in faith or belief occured in judiasm or christianity or buddism for that matter there must be some shared factor in all the surving religions of the world something that was an improvement on the existing method of worship You might be beginning to see that i do not believe in god and you might have ascertained that simply by my screen name which i assure you is not a statement of fact that is i am definately not a taoist immortal but as far rationality is concerned i am a devout warrior of its ethos, lol, and cannot abide a statement that faith is god made or that faith is rational Only when faith is at its last straw does it become even vaguely rational when it is sagging under the pressure of doubt only then will it ask "for what have i believed in you this long day of my failing life." For what is faith but a refusal to be dissuaded from your belief at all costs Your faith is more important than your rationality and you would choose madness before letting go of your "rock" your foundation and your "true" life one must consider that the object of this faith is your belief in the unprovable existence of an unknowable entity and yes i read what was said about galileo and newton being rational scientists but what if they were rational in their scientific pursuits and allowed them selves a bit of irrationality in their internal pursuits just to spice up the day so to speak? I mean who can live without a little irrationality? I hope this starts up this thread again EDIT: I took the liberty of breaking up your post from one paragraph to several for easier reading... please click the "edit" button below if I changed the context you were trying ot give. ---- SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 This was one of the more intellectual discussions in the forum, but I'm "unsticking" it since there hasn't been any recent activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 One thing I'll toss in here.... Despite what you may have heard on "Star Trek," most scientists today believe that the Universe DID have a beginning. And it's not likely to have an end (until recently there was a lot of speculation about a "big crunch" etc, but that's shifted). Some people believe that the universe ITSELF is "god" (I met one such guy in Boulder, Colorado at a conference last year; nice guy). Of course this too is a religious belief. The term "irrational" is somewhat loaded (implying that it's basically "wrong"), but I have heard (non-anti religious) people describe "non-rational" for their beliefs. That is, they are "true" (as far as they are concerned) but not based on the scientific method and concrete studies, but emotion, feeling, faith and philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.