I know I'm kind of having my own kitchen-based monologue here, but seriously these are some long pine nuts. I wish I'd taken a photo before I mixed them into the furikake as now there's nothing to give scale.
Furikake sounds like a horrible fetish portmanteau.
Yeah, "sounds like".
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Interesting lies you wield here. I have never... ever... ever seen "biology" get ripped to shreds by another science. Neither have I ever seen physics or chemistry get ripped to shreds in debate by each other or by biology. They are all relative to each other. Saying factually based evolutionary biology is capable of being ripped to shreds is kind of silly.
Not really. I'm not saying that evolution isn't a sound science -- of course it is -- but that the jump from physics to evolution is rarely justified and often wielded terribly in philosophical arguments.
I know I'm kind of having my own kitchen-based monologue here, but seriously these are some long pine nuts. I wish I'd taken a photo before I mixed them into the furikake as now there's nothing to give scale.
Furikake sounds like a horrible fetish portmanteau.
Yeah, "sounds like".
luckily the "tastes like" is an amazing experience
I'd just like to point out that mathematics has no actual connection with reality any more than the English language has any actual connection to reality. Any connection to reality that mathematics has is attributed by humans and is completely arbitrary. Unity (what you plebs like to call 1) is an abstract concept that can be applied to whatever the fuck you want.
This may surprise you, Poldy, but being right on one thing doesn't make one right in everything. I mean, the man died from malnutrition because he thought he was trying to be poisoned by someone.
Working from the assumption that the "builder" is evolution, then it's because the goal of our minds and reasoning is not for the purpose of accurately reflecting reality, it's for the purpose of surviving, which is an entirely different kind of goal.
You just threw a telos into evolution.
Do I need to hit you?
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
NOT THIS AGAIN.
NOT AGAIN.
NEVER AGAIN.
Understand. Metaphor.
He caught you in a 'gotcha,' you lose 10 points by _J_ rules.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What I'm trying to say is that the concept of one could be something that does not exist in reality, but only in our conception of reality. So, we can very easily refer to "one flower" because our entire mental system is based on the concept of numbers. But "one flower" defined in purely physical terms is a ridiculous notion. There is no way to measure or define "one flower".
Sure there is.
Define "one".
Define "flower".
Then you'll know what "one flower" means.
People like to trot out this argument as "does 'one flower' include the stem, the roots, what kind of flower?"
To which one need simply reply, "Define your god damned terms."
But you're going to be hitting some tricky fucking territory. Does one flower describe this flower at one point in time? What about particles of oxygen that are leaving the flower, or carbon dioxide that is entering it, do these constitute part of the flower? At which point across the opening of the stigmata do those particles constitute a part of the flower?
You're going to run into a huge amount of arbitrariness, if you can even manage to finish a definition at all (and this will get very hard once we start describing sub-atomic particles).
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
At the macroscopic level we could bypass the vagueness by positing a wealth of stipulation onto the phrase "one flower".
But the best solution is probably to expand the linguistic articulation.
Ultimately, I think we need a 1-1 correspondence of language to atomistic particle. Then there would be no vagueness.
Interesting lies you wield here. I have never... ever... ever seen "biology" get ripped to shreds by another science. Neither have I ever seen physics or chemistry get ripped to shreds in debate by each other or by biology. They are all relative to each other. Saying factually based evolutionary biology is capable of being ripped to shreds is kind of silly.
Not really. I'm not saying that evolution isn't a sound science -- of course it is -- but that the jump from physics to evolution is rarely justified and often wielded terribly in philosophical arguments.
Biology is a specialization of physics, so suggesting that physics can rip biology to shreds is a silly statement. edit: Ah I see, evolution. Well whatever. None of you even exist except in my mind.
Actually, I have no idea whether reality is digital or analog, I don't think anyone does.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming you mean continuous by analogue.
Right now, we use quantum things to describe the fundamental world. It is quantised, so digital. We also have things like electrons, which you can't split and the plank length which is the smallest length.
Why should the way our reason works accurately reflect reality?
Because, by the evolutionary story, that is where reason came from.
How would an evolutionary process, acting within reality, generate something non-reality? How could a completely mechanical / biological process churn out something neither mechanical nor biological and somehow in contrast with mechanics and biology?
the idea would be that the evolutionary process would be incapable of generating a perfect picture of reality
rather, it would generate a picture of reality that is sufficient for us to survive and propagate efficiently - a reality where one rock is one rock, and it is falling, and you'd better get out of the way right quick, or there will be zero you.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Goddammit someone answer my question.
Can you make your primary reality the world you create in your dreams?
We believe these things because we have to in order to think. They don't exist, but thought can't be created without using them as a basis, so they are built into our very ability to think. We think digitally, though reality is analog.
So, there is an inherent structure to thought..and we were "built" to think in this particular way.
Why would the builder make reasoning of kind X, and reality of kind Y? That's dickish.
Working from the assumption that the "builder" is evolution, then it's because the goal of our minds and reasoning is not for the purpose of accurately reflecting reality, it's for the purpose of surviving, which is an entirely different kind of goal.
Why should the way our reason works accurately reflect reality?
I love it when biology gets roped into debates of physics and metaphysics, because it gets torn to SHREDS in the process by a capable metaphysician (which I am unfortunately not) or a skeptical physicist.
For instance, you are establishing evolution as a thing. How is this not your universal monad that you've posited is the sole instance of reality?
Understand what I was doing. Evolution is a process, and frankly I'm uninterested in debating what sort of "thing" it is. He was asking me why we could possibly have a brain that does not reflect reality, and I said if that brain were formed through evolution we may have such a brain.
Don't accuse me of using it in any other way.
Winky on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Actually, I have no idea whether reality is digital or analog, I don't think anyone does.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming you mean continuous by analogue.
Right now, we use quantum things to describe the fundamental world. It is quantised, so digital. We also have things like electrons, which you can't split and the plank length which is the smallest length.
What I said. :P
Sorry, must have overlooked your post. He just kept saying it, so I felt I should lower my standards and chime in.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
today in my astrobiology class we talked about extremophiles on earth!
crazy shit!
stuff that lives in radiation 500x greater than would kill people! stuff that lives at absurd temperatures!
and interestingly, since we now know that 99.9% of bacteria and archea are not culturable when we sent the viking thing to mars 30 years ago, well, they didnt want to contaminate mars so they cleaned the shit out of the lander and tested it by swabbing the side and seeing if things in petri dishes grew
so we might have actually contaminated the surface of mars with some microbial organisms >.> oops
Shazkar Shadowstorm on
poo
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I'd just like to point out that mathematics has no actual connection with reality any more than the English language has any actual connection to reality. Any connection to reality that mathematics has is attributed by humans and is completely arbitrary. Unity (what you plebs like to call 1) is an abstract concept that can be applied to whatever the fuck you want.
This may surprise you, Poldy, but being right on one thing doesn't make one right in everything. I mean, the man died from malnutrition because he thought he was trying to be poisoned by someone.
I know, but I also know that there are quite a few mathematical platonists out there -- I know that notre dame, one of the best mathematics and philosophy of mathematics schools in america, has a bunch of them because they came and gave a little mini conference I attended! It was more about the fact that you said "mathematics has no actual connection with reality" ex cathedra and I took offense to that, because a lot of people (though certainly not the majority) would take offense to that.
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
Why is an infinite regress of vagueness unacceptable?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
if there is a "redness," is there a "slightly darker redness" and a "burnt sienna" and a universal for every single imaginable discrete concept? what about particulars which we imagine but never see, like Podly's unicorn? is this realm one of infinite potentiality?
There is a universal for every shared actual quality.
what is the nature of the relationship between a red apple and this form of "redness"? what is relationship between those two things and the human mind - does it connect them itself, or simply perceive an already extant relationship?
The redness is instantiated in the red apple. The mind recognizes the relation.
how can you justify their existence without cause or fundament? if they benefit from brute existence, can other things do so, like perhaps a physical universe and its rules?
today in my astrobiology class we talked about extremophiles on earth!
crazy shit!
stuff that lives in radiation 500x greater than would kill people! stuff that lives at absurd temperatures!
and interestingly, since we now know that 99.9% of bacteria and archea are not culturable when we sent the viking thing to mars 30 years ago, well, they didnt want to contaminate mars so they cleaned the shit out of the lander and tested it by swabbing the side and seeing if things in petri dishes grew
so we might have actually contaminated the surface of mars with some microbial organisms >.> oops
Interesting lies you wield here. I have never... ever... ever seen "biology" get ripped to shreds by another science. Neither have I ever seen physics or chemistry get ripped to shreds in debate by each other or by biology. They are all relative to each other. Saying factually based evolutionary biology is capable of being ripped to shreds is kind of silly.
Not really. I'm not saying that evolution isn't a sound science -- of course it is -- but that the jump from physics to evolution is rarely justified and often wielded terribly in philosophical arguments.
Is really :P
But yeah on saying that jumping from physics to evolution depends on how you make the jump. All science is wielded terribly in philosophical arguments though.... Depending on what you count as "science".
If I make the jump by saying "it evolved that way" then yes it's just fucking stupid.
But, if I say..... for example.... the reason we can't explain why matter came together to form life is explainable under certain extrapolations of evolutionary theory, which you would have to have large bases of maths and physics taking part in, and although this theory is not fully evidenced it is the best explanation as far as we know. Then it's pretty sound.
Figures as soon as I rage about people quitting on me I run into a Rufus that's really solid. Ex snake strike does so much damage. By the time I switched from just playing casually to holy shit I have to zone this fucker out it was already too late
ex snake strike does so much damage.
so much damage.
DasUberEdward on
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Sambucca deserves to be shot. Regularly.
firewaterword on
Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
But yeah on saying that jumping from physics to evolution depends on how you make the jump. All science is wielded terribly in philosophical arguments though.... Depending on what you count as "science".
Actually, I find that philosophy is wielded terribly in scientific arguments.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Yeah, "sounds like".
Not really. I'm not saying that evolution isn't a sound science -- of course it is -- but that the jump from physics to evolution is rarely justified and often wielded terribly in philosophical arguments.
a boyfriend
if its a dude
cuz its gay
get it?
but either way
would you be interested in getting lunch with podly and i saturday morning in the city?
and maybe the other people if they want to, as well
luckily the "tastes like" is an amazing experience
This may surprise you, Poldy, but being right on one thing doesn't make one right in everything. I mean, the man died from malnutrition because he thought he was trying to be poisoned by someone.
That is because the real unibomber is still at large.
And, coincidentally, elendil is notoriously media shy.
Also he hates university math departments and collects fertilizer.
He caught you in a 'gotcha,' you lose 10 points by _J_ rules.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
My guess is that "one flower" will function as a definition if we are atomistic, or recognize that eventually we get to indivisible parts. Absent that, then we are very much stuck with an infinite regress of vagueness.
At the macroscopic level we could bypass the vagueness by positing a wealth of stipulation onto the phrase "one flower".
But the best solution is probably to expand the linguistic articulation.
Ultimately, I think we need a 1-1 correspondence of language to atomistic particle. Then there would be no vagueness.
Biology is a specialization of physics, so suggesting that physics can rip biology to shreds is a silly statement. edit: Ah I see, evolution. Well whatever. None of you even exist except in my mind.
What I said. :P
the idea would be that the evolutionary process would be incapable of generating a perfect picture of reality
rather, it would generate a picture of reality that is sufficient for us to survive and propagate efficiently - a reality where one rock is one rock, and it is falling, and you'd better get out of the way right quick, or there will be zero you.
Can you make your primary reality the world you create in your dreams?
wanna go?
Understand what I was doing. Evolution is a process, and frankly I'm uninterested in debating what sort of "thing" it is. He was asking me why we could possibly have a brain that does not reflect reality, and I said if that brain were formed through evolution we may have such a brain.
Don't accuse me of using it in any other way.
Sorry, must have overlooked your post. He just kept saying it, so I felt I should lower my standards and chime in.
Thanks, dude. With everything going on in my life right now I am surprised I have not just fallen the fuck apart.
Though I think I may use my "3 free therapist visits a year" clause in my health care to sit down and talk...
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
shooting alcohol is a way to get "drinking" out of the way. You might as well be throwing back rubbing alcohol.
Mixing or sipping is how to enjoy alcohol.
Beer can be fine but you probably have a fridge reserved for MGD in your place.
nexus
My primary reality IS the one I dream. This waking nightmare I stumble through each creeping minute is not reality.
crazy shit!
stuff that lives in radiation 500x greater than would kill people! stuff that lives at absurd temperatures!
and interestingly, since we now know that 99.9% of bacteria and archea are not culturable when we sent the viking thing to mars 30 years ago, well, they didnt want to contaminate mars so they cleaned the shit out of the lander and tested it by swabbing the side and seeing if things in petri dishes grew
so we might have actually contaminated the surface of mars with some microbial organisms >.> oops
I know, but I also know that there are quite a few mathematical platonists out there -- I know that notre dame, one of the best mathematics and philosophy of mathematics schools in america, has a bunch of them because they came and gave a little mini conference I attended! It was more about the fact that you said "mathematics has no actual connection with reality" ex cathedra and I took offense to that, because a lot of people (though certainly not the majority) would take offense to that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfh4Mhp-a6U
what time?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
i need to drink with you guys and not jerks who make fun of me for "nursing" my whiskey
of course i am nursing it! it deserves love and tenderness so that i may experience it correctly
yeah maybe if i'm not too busy or nothin
Why is an infinite regress of vagueness unacceptable?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know! I don't know much about GURPS3
There is a universal for every shared actual quality.
Yup.
The redness is instantiated in the red apple. The mind recognizes the relation.
Yup.
Not sure I understand this.
they're going to call me back by the end of the week to let me know they're decision, but i feel really good about it
it's with tigerdirect.ca, i'd be selling computer hardware
and then we were the creation myth
OH CRAP
I just remembered
someone threw themselves in front of a 1 train at the stop right near me like a few hours ago
like a block away from me
Is really :P
But yeah on saying that jumping from physics to evolution depends on how you make the jump. All science is wielded terribly in philosophical arguments though.... Depending on what you count as "science".
If I make the jump by saying "it evolved that way" then yes it's just fucking stupid.
But, if I say..... for example.... the reason we can't explain why matter came together to form life is explainable under certain extrapolations of evolutionary theory, which you would have to have large bases of maths and physics taking part in, and although this theory is not fully evidenced it is the best explanation as far as we know. Then it's pretty sound.
that's not what you said on your birthday last year
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
ex snake strike does so much damage.
so much damage.
I hear _J_ is stuck in a bad loop, maybe you could hook him up with a nice i7 or something to help him finish compiling.
Actually, I find that philosophy is wielded terribly in scientific arguments.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.