Why Call Me Stupid? [Archive]

The Cats Venm

10th July 2004, 02:28 AM

What is meaning?

stupid
adj. stupider, stupidest
1) Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2) Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3) Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4) Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5) Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

n.
A stupid or foolish person.

And what is stupidity relative to the lack thereof?

One antonym of stupid is smart. Would you like the definition of that as well?

Do you even have a basis for what you're saying here? And yet you insist on saying it. Why?

While I have not called you stupid, others definitely have. I believe the reason is that they see that your posts fit one or more of the criteria listed above.

Life has no meaning. It's all arbitrary. This is a perfectly valid assessment it not?

Yes it is.

But why bother to use the word "perfection" if perfection doesn't exist? Isn't that the least bit strange? And yet it seems to describe the situation PERFECTLY!

Perfection exists as a concept. It is one end of a spectrum, like infinity. Because it is unreachable it is impossible to specify what constitutes perfection.

Any more stupid questions?

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

Any more stupid questions? Why are we here?

wittgenst3in

10th July 2004, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why are we here?

I give up. Why?

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I give up. Why? Nevermind, it's just a stupid question anyway, right? ;)

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

One antonym of stupid is smart. Would you like the definition of that as well?But these are relative terms. Relative to what? While I noticed you didn't bother to define the word meaning. Why is that? Because it's totally arbitrary, as you seem to suggest below?

While I have not called you stupid, others definitely have. I believe the reason is that they see that your posts fit one or more of the criteria listed above.But those are just a bunch of words on a list that don't mean anything, right? Why is everybody getting upset then? Because of a bunch meaningless words? :(

Yes it is.What do you mean? :D

Perfection exists as a concept. It is one end of a spectrum, like infinity. Because it is unreachable it is impossible to specify what constitutes perfection.What is a concept, if it's not related to something? What is perfection related to then? If it's impossible to specify, why is it so widely understood?

Any more stupid questions? What exactly do you mean by stupid? :D

livius drusus

10th July 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it's impossible to specify, why is it so widely understood?

Intersubjectivity.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by livius drusus

Intersubjectivity. Is that anything like the collective unconscious?

The Cats Venm

10th July 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why is everybody getting upset then? Because of a bunch meaningless words? :(

Why yes, I think you have it.

It is a bunch of meaningless words making them upset.

Your words.

By the way, do you ever actually attempt to answer questions or do you just ask them? Is your life just a meaningless spiral of fruitless inquiry? Did you drive your teachers insane when you were in school? Are you still in school? Do they let you play with the Flintstone phone, or are they afraid you might hurt yourself?:D

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

Why yes, I think you have it.

It is a bunch of meaningless words making them upset.

Your words.Yes, but what does it mean to you?

By the way, do you ever actually attempt to answer questions or do you just ask them? Is your life just a meaningless spiral of fruitless inquiry? Did you drive your teachers insane when you were in school? Are you still in school? Do they let you play with the Flintstone phone, or are they afraid you might hurt yourself?:D What's your point?

Dancing David

10th July 2004, 08:25 AM

Because they passed out after they held thier breath and turned blue?

The Cats Venm

10th July 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what does it mean to you?

Orange Cantaloupe Frying pan

What's your point?

Thank you.
You have answered yes, yes, yes, yes, and the latter.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Because they passed out after they held thier breath and turned blue? What do you mean? Could you extrapolate a little?

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

Orange Cantaloupe Frying panHey, at least it means something, right? ;)

Thank you.
You have answered yes, yes, yes, yes, and the latter. Thank you for what? That implies that I actually did something. And if I didn't then what would it mean?

Dancing David

10th July 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What do you mean? Could you extrapolate a little?

I suggest you remember the title of the thread.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I suggest you remember the title of the thread. Actually, your reply seemed to come out of left field and I wanted to know what you're talking about? So, does that make me stupid? Or, are you referring to something else here?

BillHoyt

10th July 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, your reply seemed to come out of left field and I wanted to know what you're talking about? So, does that make me stupid? Or, are you referring to something else here?
Iacchus,

Do yourself and all of us a favor here. Either get real or STFU. By "get real," I mean address the questions put to you. Not with other sophomoric questions, but with direct and genuine answers. If you are not going to do that, then stop making idiotic assertions. If you can't do that, then you will have people get irked at you and call you names. In which case, you brought it on yourself and I repeat my original advice: STFU.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Iacchus,

Do yourself and all of us a favor here. Either get real or STFU.Do you believe that God exists? If you have confirmed that He doesn't exist and don't want to know, there's no need to ask ... which may be the problem here. ;) However, if you really would like to know, that's where all the questions come in. In which case I can only help to ask, but not answer them.

What is real by the way, beyond what we sense that is real?

Dancing David

10th July 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, your reply seemed to come out of left field and I wanted to know what you're talking about? So, does that make me stupid? Or, are you referring to something else here?

It was a weak attempt at humor, they might call you stupid because holding thier breath and turning blue does not have the desired effect.

Perhaps they are bullies?

WildCat

10th July 2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why are we here?
I am here, you are there, got it?

And you are not here because I'll have you arrested if you come here.

wittgenst3in

10th July 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that God exists? If you have confirmed that He doesn't exist and don't want to know, there's no need to ask ... which may be the problem here. ;)

So the reason we can't understand a single one of your posts is that we are godless atheists?

Seriously, get real. I know many christians, including some who went overseas to minister overseas. None of them feel the need to spout the solipsistic claptrap you do, and I'm sure many would be embarresed by it.

(Note:Not implying you are a christian, because I'm sure you'll immeadietly reply that you haven't mentioned a thing about it and how dare I)

Originally posted by Iacchus

What is real by the way, beyond what we sense that is real?
And the nonsense starts afresh.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli 'That's not right, that's not even wrong.'

BillHoyt

10th July 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that God exists? If you have confirmed that He doesn't exist and don't want to know, there's no need to ask ... which may be the problem here. ;) However, if you really would like to know, that's where all the questions come in. In which case I can only help to ask, but not answer them.

What is real by the way, beyond what we sense that is real?
Listen, you sophomoric dolt. You have been taking up too much bandwith on these forums with your lame assertions. Many of us have been trying to engage you in actual rational discourse about your claims. In every instance you dance as if someone is p**ing all over your new shoes. I am happy to oblige you there and will continue to p** all over your new shoes until you actually engage in some discourse here.

You have consistently deflected every intelligent question. You continue to claim this design nonsense. And I have, for umpteen posts attempted to get you to address the central flaw in your three-year-old reasoning: if complexity of design implies a designer, then that designer must also have a designer. I am really getting tired of stating and restating it. It is clear you haven't the acumen to even feign an answer. You couldn't rub two premises together to start a conclusion.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Listen, you sophomoric dolt. You have been taking up too much bandwith on these forums with your lame assertions. Many of us have been trying to engage you in actual rational discourse about your claims. In every instance you dance as if someone is p**ing all over your new shoes. I am happy to oblige you there and will continue to p** all over your new shoes until you actually engage in some discourse here.The thing is, once I turn the computer off, it was like I was never here.

You have consistently deflected every intelligent question. You continue to claim this design nonsense. And I have, for umpteen posts attempted to get you to address the central flaw in your three-year-old reasoning: if complexity of design implies a designer, then that designer must also have a designer. I am really getting tired of stating and restating it. It is clear you haven't the acumen to even feign an answer. You couldn't rub two premises together to start a conclusion. Life is like a riddle is it not? Rather capricious too! And once it gives up its bounty, then basically you've destroyed it.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by WildCat

I am here, you are there, got it?

And you are not here because I'll have you arrested if you come here. No matter where you go you're there. No matter what time it is it's now. Before the beginning of time the moment was. Eternity always is. "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end." ~ Revelation 22:13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+22)

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The thing is, once I turn the computer off, it was like I was never here.
Newsflash, brainlacchus, it already is.
:dl:

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Newsflash, brainlacchus, it already is.
:dl: Well, there's no sense in taking our work home with us now is there? :D

brian0918

11th July 2004, 03:43 PM

http://www.teiknestugu.no/images/troll.jpg

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 02:36 AM

Of course you do realize this is a totally imaginary being don't you?

DarkMagician

13th July 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by The Cats Venm
Any more stupid questions? Yeah, if you cross the international date-line on your birthday, do you still get presents?

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician

Yeah, if you cross the international date-line on your birthday, do you still get presents? There you go! ;)

The Cats Venm

13th July 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Yeah, if you cross the international date-line on your birthday, do you still get presents?

Yes.

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 03:58 PM

I don't call you stupid. I call you willfully ignorant. After all the answers you have gotten here, you are stuck on the same questions. After all the resources you have been pointed to, you are stuck on Jung and Swedenborg. After all the polite and reasonable responses you got to meaningless, inane questions, you choose to insult your hosts with this dreck.

It is not that you are stupid. More like obsessed, and perhaps panicked. A good friend once told me that students who are having their belief systems seriously challenged will find themselves going further and further out on that limb, claiming absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable things, just so as not to accept that their world-view was, in fact, flawed. I can only hope that this is what is happening with you. You are so far out on your limb, and so unsupported, I seriously hope that you are just around the corner from seeing that your world-view is a sham.

It's OK. Really, it is. Letting go of ignorant notions is not failure, but success. It is learning. It is what I wish for you.

RabbiSatan

13th July 2004, 04:14 PM

Well said Mercutio - Well said :clap:

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

I don't call you stupid. I call you willfully ignorant. After all the answers you have gotten here, you are stuck on the same questions. After all the resources you have been pointed to, you are stuck on Jung and Swedenborg. After all the polite and reasonable responses you got to meaningless, inane questions, you choose to insult your hosts with this dreck. Now it's your turn huh? I see, and this is what they call creative writing, right? :D And, as if you have nothing better to do?

It is not that you are stupid. More like obsessed, and perhaps panicked. A good friend once told me that students who are having their belief systems seriously challenged will find themselves going further and further out on that limb, claiming absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable things, just so as not to accept that their world-view was, in fact, flawed. I can only hope that this is what is happening with you. You are so far out on your limb, and so unsupported, I seriously hope that you are just around the corner from seeing that your world-view is a sham. I call it being selective. And neither does it gives me bad dreams at night thinking about your beliefs. Which, is all they are, your beliefs.

By the way, that would be Cousin Pentheus (http://www.dionysus.org/x1111.html) who's out on limb here, right before it snaps and he falls to his doom, and has his head torn off by his very own mother. Why? Because he insisted on mocking that which he didn't understand.

It's OK. Really, it is. Letting go of ignorant notions is not failure, but success. It is learning. It is what I wish for you. Absolutely! ;) Hey, it's okay to have a belief in something by the way, at least it gives you a place to start.

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Now it's your turn huh? I see, and this is what they call creative writing, right? :D And, as if you have nothing better to do?
My turn? No, we do not have some queue here. I don't check in with the others. And I do not call this creative writing. Mine is not creative; it merely questions yours. And yours...is simply not creative.

Anything better to do? That depends. If you are actually on the cusp, and might actually examine your own beliefs and learn something...then there is not much better that I could do. If, on the other hand, you are disingenuous, and are merely trolling...well, then, what do you really care whether I have something better to do?

I call it being selective. And neither does it gives me bad dreams at night thinking about your beliefs. Which, is all they are, your beliefs.
You may call it what you wish. Around here, your particular vocabulary is already noted. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

Funny thing...some of my "beliefs" are actually testable. Those ones, if tested and found wanting, are ready to be improved upon. Some others are mere assumptions (Hammegk and I actually reached agreement once, to recognise our own assumptions and treat them as assumptions rather than as bedrock. I highly recommend examining your own beliefs, to see which among them are testable, and which are merely assumptions. You see, Iacchus...you have a boatload of assumptions that you treat as if bedrock!). So, yeah, some are my beliefs. Others are my beliefs, backed up by empirical examination. You should try it sometime. It does not guarantee you are right, but it does a great job of eliminating unsupportable beliefs. (Oh...in case you missed it...some of your writings are unsupportable. It should make you blush, but it does not appear to...)

By the way, that would be Cousin Pentheus (http://www.dionysus.org/x1111.html) who's out on limb here, right before it snaps and he falls to his doom, and has his head torn off by his very own mother. Why? Because he insisted on mocking that which he didn't understand.

Sorry, bubba, not gonna click. Lemme guess, though...I gotta go with some centuries-old myth, without one iota of evidence, maybe even Jung or Swedenborg, trotted out as an argument from authority or history or some such tripe. Close?

Absolutely! ;) Hey, it's okay to have a belief in something by the way, at least it give you a place to begin your search. If one actually does search. You, Iacchus, do not. You ask questions which you have no intention of really examining. You deflect, you dodge and weave, you distract with non-sequitors...You do everything but actually search.

Months ago, you were advised to read what others have said about your same questions...so, what has been your reading list for the past months? Does it include any experimental methodology? Perhaps some experimental psychology (and no, Jung does not count as a psychologist)? Some religious criticism? Evolutionary biology? Physics? Philosophy? Or are you content to write your own "book", and ignore the contributions of others who have dedicated their lives to the study of your questions...

scribble

13th July 2004, 06:15 PM

Now, we get to see whether Mercutio's well-thought and well-written words have any more effect than my poorly-thought and poorly-written ones.

I'm betting no.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Now, we get to see whether Mercutio's well-thought and well-written words have any more effect than my poorly-thought and poorly-written ones.

I'm betting no. It's only correct to the extent that they apply which, for those who don't understand that they're merely creatures of belief, may never understand. ;)

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by scribble
Now, we get to see whether Mercutio's well-thought and well-written words have any more effect than my poorly-thought and poorly-written ones.

I'm betting no. I will not take that bet. I have been here before. Were it not for my foul mood, I would not be here now. Frost said it..."something there is that doesn't love a wall"...we keep trying to set the stones right, but we are up against a force of nature. In this case....willful ignorance.

scribble

13th July 2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's only correct to the extent that they apply which, for those who don't understand that they're merely creatures of belief, may never understand. ;)

On the contrary, Mercutio seems perfectly willing to admit he has beliefs that are just assumptions.

I am, too - I've said it here more times than I can count.

Selective hearing only takes you further from reality, Iacchus.

scribble

13th July 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Frost said it..."something there is that doesn't love a wall"...we keep trying to set the stones right, but we are up against a force of nature. In this case....willful ignorance.

No offense, Mercutio, but I hope in person you are fat and ugly.

Otherwise, I can't compete with you in any arena.

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's only correct to the extent that they apply which, for those who don't understand that they're merely creatures of belief, may never understand. ;) Did you know, Iacchus...that social psychologists have studied the mechanisms of belief for decades? That we started out with some of the questions you may have had, but then actually did examine them?

Seriously, if you honestly do care about the questions you ask, you should read Fiske and Taylor's Social Cognition. If, on the other hand, you ask them merely to annoy, then never mind.

Your statement here almost sounds intelligent. Unless one is familiar with the actual study of belief, in which case your house of cards reveals itself. You are the creature of belief who does not understand himself. And once again, rather than diving in and exploring, you deflect and distract. There is a fascinating field here, the psychology of belief...but let me guess: You would rather explore that which is self-evident. You would rather take your preconceived notions and drum up support in the form of evasion, distraction, and deflection. Same [stuff], different thread.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

I will not take that bet. I have been here before. Were it not for my foul mood, I would not be here now. Frost said it..."something there is that doesn't love a wall"...we keep trying to set the stones right, but we are up against a force of nature. In this case....willful ignorance. Labels ... labels ... labels. Yes, but what do they mean? If it's all relative, then there's no true way of guessing is there? And, anything you say, can and will be held against you in a court of law. Ha ha! But of course that implies meaning too now doesn't it? Hmm ... ;)

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by scribble

No offense, Mercutio, but I hope in person you are fat and ugly.
Guilty as charged. Fat, ugly, and stupid--just ask my wife. Just don't ask the skepchicks who met me at TAM2...for some strange reason, they keep lying about me.

Otherwise, I can't compete with you in any arena. You are my new best friend.

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Labels ... labels ... labels. Yes, but what do they mean? If it's all relative, then there's no true way of guessing now is there? Whereas anything you say, can and will be held against you in a court of law. But of course that implies meaning too now doesn't it? Hmm ... ;) So...you have no clue about intersubjective validation, is that what you are saying? No clue about linguistics? No clue about language learning, or meaning, or...gee, what is it that you do know?

Meaning is use...and shared use by a language community. It is necessarily imperfect, but practical. We never know precisely what the other person means, and we cannot, because we have learned the meaning of the words through necessarily different circumstances. On the other hand, it is inaccurate to claim that there is no meaning to any word--that is, of course, a strawman. That a court can ask you to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in no way implies that this is possible.

If you insist on dichotomizing, you will continue to be dissappointed. We are neither completely accurate nor completely inaccurate. We have terms like "perfection" or "infinite" which are abstractions which we will never and can never experience. Just because we have developed a mentalistic vocabulary, do not assume the actual existence of mind. There are any number of things which we have words for, but which do not, in practice, exist.

Thanks for playing. Practice some more and come back.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Did you know, Iacchus...that social psychologists have studied the mechanisms of belief for decades? That we started out with some of the questions you may have had, but then actually did examine them?

Seriously, if you honestly do care about the questions you ask, you should read Fiske and Taylor's Social Cognition. If, on the other hand, you ask them merely to annoy, then never mind.So? What exactly were they studying, if it wasn't something inherent about who we are? Why should we have to depend so much on the experts in other words? For typically all the experts are good for is enforcing the established view. And what if they were still telling us that the world was flat?

Your statement here almost sounds intelligent. Unless one is familiar with the actual study of belief, in which case your house of cards reveals itself. You are the creature of belief who does not understand himself. And once again, rather than diving in and exploring, you deflect and distract. There is a fascinating field here, the psychology of belief...but let me guess: You would rather explore that which is self-evident. You would rather take your preconceived notions and drum up support in the form of evasion, distraction, and deflection. Same [stuff], different thread. Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother? If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does. Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning. So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth. ;) For this is a sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here.

scribble

13th July 2004, 08:34 PM

Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother? If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does. Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning. So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For this is sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here.

It's painful to see someone like Iacchus responding to something like Mercutio's post.

Not in the usual "it's painful to read anything Iacchus writes" sense.

More of a "that ignorant fool has taken a thing of beauty and pissed on it."

Then again, I guess there's an element of that in all his posts, too.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by scribble

More of a "that ignorant fool has taken a thing of beauty and pissed on it."Beauty? Relative to what? By the way, I'm almost certain this is what he was trying to do with me. ;) Couched in the guise of his own expertise of course. Also, the reason why it took me so long to reply, was that I had to spend all this time cleaning myself off. This is the problem you have when dealing experts you see. Because everything is so designed to confound and confuse. And when I finally do get upset, then I'm the one who's obviously being irrational.

Then again, I guess there's an element of that in all his posts, too. No, the problem is that when you call someone else ignorant, or stupid perhaps? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063) then you'd better be prepared to account for your own fallibilities.

scribble

13th July 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
As Mercutio continues to score browny points from those he continues to suck up to.

Whew. My only fear here was you'd think I was sucking up to Mercutio. I'm quite flattered to think you see him sucking up to me.

No, the problem is that when you call someone else ignorant, or stupid perhaps? then you'd better be prepared to account for your own fallibilities. [/B]

I'm ready, willing, and able to account for any and every word I've said. Whether that means defending it or whether it means admitting I was wrong.

You cannot say the same.

It's sad to watch you, Iacchus. Every now and then it looks like you're so close to being a cool guy.

Then you go say stupid **** like this.

Mercutio

13th July 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So? What exactly were they studying, if it wasn't something inherent about who we are?Um...your sentence has an extra "inherent" in it, which adds nothing to its meaning. Indeed, it detracts, because we have come to expect that this word will be your tool by which you move your goalposts. These experts study something about who we are. Why assume it is inherent? It might be, but it also might be learned, or even a trait which varies from person to person. Oh, wait--perhaps you have some evidence that it is, in fact, inherent. Please share it.
Why should we have to depend so much on the experts in other words?Good point. Why indeed should we pay any attention to the people who have dedicated their lives' work to a topic, spent years or decades developing a useful research paradigm, and subjected their findings to the scrutiny of critical peers? I mean, what do they have that, say, you do not...aside from a lifetime of work, a workable paradigm, and peer-reviewed literature? Why should we depend on them at all?
For typically all the experts are good for is enforcing the established view. True again. Everyone knows that the only way to truly challenge the established view is to sit and think. Experts running experiments are all part of a devious plot to slow the pace of progress! History shows us that the majority of scientists are establishment goons, and that all meaningful progress has come from navel-gazers--and I am sure your next post will back your statement up with copious examples.
And what if they were still telling us that the world was flat?
I couldn't have put it better myself! Yes, what if they were! It would show that they don't actually look at the results of their experiments, but only at that which is obvious and right in front of their noses. Oh, wait, that was you. Well, forget that part. Iacchus...I admit, this last sentence stumps me. Exactly which researchers are behaving in any way whatsoever that can be equated to "still telling us that the world was flat."? I know you would not have put that sentence there just to evade...not right after I pointed that out to you...

Please, list a handful of researchers who are the functional equivalent of flat-earthers. I mean, that is a serious accusation--it would be much like accusing someone of relying on such out-of-touch authorities as Jung or Swedenborg...and no reasonable individual would do that...

Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother?LOL...I must remember to use that line sometime...
If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does. Oh! Is that it? It's ok to just admit you did not understand what I said. I did not say that meaning does not exist--not at all. I said that meaning is usage; specifically, fuzzily agreed-upon usage by a language community. You are falsely dichotomizing again--when I said we cannot know each other's meaning exactly, you interpreted that as "we cannot know it at all", which is clearly not the case.
Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning.Ooooh...really? Please explain this. I just (right above, in this very post, as well as before) explained how meaning derives from usage. I'm certain you can explain every bit as well how I am wrong. Please...do more than merely assert.
So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth. ;) Evasion, Diversion...Please, Iacchus...look back through this thread (or any other in which the two of us have both participated). Which of us speaks plainly? Which of us dodges? Which of us is currently speaking out of the other side of his mouth? Or do you merely talk out of your [edited for your reading convenience]?
For this is a sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here. "A sure sign"....then I am sure you can give many more examples. Please do. I would not want to think you are making [stuff] up.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Whew. My only fear here was you'd think I was sucking up to Mercutio. I'm quite flattered to think you see him sucking up to me.I deleted that part by the way, because it didn't quite fit. And what I've said is more than adequate. However, what we're referring to here is "cronyism."

I'm ready, willing, and able to account for any and every word I've said. Whether that means defending it or whether it means admitting I was wrong.

You cannot say the same.That's amazing. How we can be so sure when somebody else is wrong. ;) Amazing!

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

It's sad to watch you, Iacchus. Every now and then it looks like you're so close to being a cool guy.

Then you go say stupid s**t like this. Do you think I'm here to try and impress you? No. So why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

scribble

13th July 2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
[quote]
That's amazing. How we can be so sure when somebody else is wrong. Amazing!

When have I said you're wrong? You'd have to make a coherent claim first. Drop the Spohisty and Zen crap. You're no good at it anyhow. Have you listened to a word I've said? This is what I've been telling you all along. I never said you're wrong. I said you're willfully ignorant.

Do you think I'm here to try and impress you?

Yes.

No.

That's amazing. How can we be so sure what someone else is thinking?

So why call me stupid?

Because you are. You MUST be if you have to ask that after we've spent this whole thread answering it in detail.

( You must think we're as stupid as you are, linking twice to the thread we're currently reading in. Hey, I'm here reading it, I don't need a link. )

Piscivore

13th July 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

:toss:

thunk :bricks:

:D

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 10:49 PM

Nice try! :D

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Um...your sentence has an extra "inherent" in it, which adds nothing to its meaning. Indeed, it detracts, because we have come to expect that this word will be your tool by which you move your goalposts. These experts study something about who we are. Why assume it is inherent? It might be, but it also might be learned, or even a trait which varies from person to person. Oh, wait--perhaps you have some evidence that it is, in fact, inherent. Please share it.But why feign to be an expert on anything? What purpose does it serve? It almost seems to suggest they've been specifically ordained to do what they do or, at least make it appear this way. ;) But why do this?

Good point. Why indeed should we pay any attention to the people who have dedicated their lives' work to a topic, spent years or decades developing a useful research paradigm, and subjected their findings to the scrutiny of critical peers? I mean, what do they have that, say, you do not...aside from a lifetime of work, a workable paradigm, and peer-reviewed literature? Why should we depend on them at all?Is this to imply that they have a sense of purpose about something? What do you mean? I don't get it?

True again. Everyone knows that the only way to truly challenge the established view is to sit and think. Experts running experiments are all part of a devious plot to slow the pace of progress! History shows us that the majority of scientists are establishment goons, and that all meaningful progress has come from navel-gazers--and I am sure your next post will back your statement up with copious examples.And such wonderous examples of a concrete world (hmm ... the consolidation of fact?) which has no meaning.

I couldn't have put it better myself! Yes, what if they were! It would show that they don't actually look at the results of their experiments, but only at that which is obvious and right in front of their noses. Oh, wait, that was you. Well, forget that part. Iacchus...I admit, this last sentence stumps me. Exactly which researchers are behaving in any way whatsoever that can be equated to "still telling us that the world was flat."? I know you would not have put that sentence there just to evade...not right after I pointed that out to you...But why are they so busy trying to justify anything? What are they trying to prove? If life has no meaning, what's the big deal?

Please, list a handful of researchers who are the functional equivalent of flat-earthers. I mean, that is a serious accusation--it would be much like accusing someone of relying on such out-of-touch authorities as Jung or Swedenborg...and no reasonable individual would do that...Just about anyone -- who, through the notion of materialism -- insists that a spiritual reality doesn't exist. So how many shotguns will I need to cover that one? Well forget it, I'm not Rambo. ;)

LOL...I must remember to use that line sometime...Yes, it goes to show you how important is to you in your lack of meaning. :p

Oh! Is that it? It's ok to just admit you did not understand what I said. I did not say that meaning does not exist--not at all. I said that meaning is usage; specifically, fuzzily agreed-upon usage by a language community. You are falsely dichotomizing again--when I said we cannot know each other's meaning exactly, you interpreted that as "we cannot know it at all", which is clearly not the case.Like I say, why bother?

Ooooh...really? Please explain this. I just (right above, in this very post, as well as before) explained how meaning derives from usage. I'm certain you can explain every bit as well how I am wrong. Please...do more than merely assert.What do you mean?

Evasion, Diversion...Please, Iacchus...look back through this thread (or any other in which the two of us have both participated). Which of us speaks plainly? Which of us dodges? Which of us is currently speaking out of the other side of his mouth? Or do you merely talk out of your [edited for your reading convenience]?However, the best way to be evasive that I've found, is to simply imply meaning doesn't exist. ;) Talk about copouts of copouts!

Which, is why we seem to be so predisposed towards arguing here. And for what? ... JUSTIFICATION.

"A sure sign"....then I am sure you can give many more examples. Please do. I would not want to think you are making [stuff] up. What, are you saying I should refer to something which actually means something? Understand this, I'm not the one who's being evasive here. Or, if I am, it's only to the extent that I'm not going to serve you that which doesn't belong to you. Hence the old addage from the Bible ... "Don't cast your pearls berfore swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn around rend you."

scribble

13th July 2004, 11:20 PM

Damn, it smells like piss in here.

Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Damn, it smells like piss in here.

Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not. And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long. :D

scribble

13th July 2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long.

You apparently did not get my joke. My point was that you just went.

It's okay. I know that I should have spelled it out more explicitly for you. This time, your misunderstanding was my fault.

Now you get my joke the way it was intended, and you can laugh with me.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by scribble

You apparently did not get my joke. My point was that you just went.

It's okay. I know that I should have spelled it out more explicitly for you. This time, your misunderstanding was my fault.

Now you get my joke the way it was intended, and you can laugh with me. No, but I'm abouts to go and I'll try to keep you in mind, Okay? ;)

scribble

13th July 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, but I'm abouts to go and I'll try to keep you in mind, Okay?

Crude, but I'm hardly in a position to complain. Go right ahead.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Crude, but I'm hardly in a position to complain. Go right ahead. Thanks. That was a relief! :D

Radrook

14th July 2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long. :D

Scribble attributes the stench of his/her own urine to others. :D

scribble

14th July 2004, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Scribble attributes the stench of his/her own urine to others. :D

That you would say this after the kindness I have shown you is low, Radrook. I'm disappointed in you.

Plan to ever get back to me on those question you promised answers to?

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But why feign to be an expert on anything? What purpose does it serve? It almost seems to suggest they've been specifically ordained to do what they do or, at least make it appear this way. ;) But why do this?
...
Is this to imply that they have a sense of purpose about something? What do you mean? I don't get it?
...
And such wonderous examples of a concrete world (hmm ... the consolidation of fact?) which has no meaning.
...
But why are they so busy trying to justify anything? What are they trying to prove? If life has no meaning, what's the big deal?
...
Just about anyone -- who, through the notion of materialism -- insists that a spiritual reality doesn't exist. So how many shotguns will I need to cover that one? Well forget it, I'm not Rambo. ;)
...
Yes, it goes to show you how important is to you in your lack of meaning. :p
...
Like I say, why bother?
...
What do you mean?
...
However, the best way to be evasive that I've found, is to simply imply meaning doesn't exist. ;) Talk about copouts of copouts!
...
Which, is why we seem to be so predisposed towards arguing here. And for what? ... JUSTIFICATION.
...
What, are you saying I should refer to something which actually means something? Understand this, I'm not the one who's being evasive here. Or, if I am, it's only to the extent that I'm not going to serve you that which doesn't belong to you. Hence the old addage from the Bible ... "Don't cast your pearls berfore swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn around rend you." LOL...Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the only way I can see to tie your post together is to assume that you still think I do not believe that words have any meaning. (you also merge two meanings of "meaning"--shared usage within a community determines "meaning" in the sense of definition, but this is completely separate from "meaning" in the sense of purpose. They are completely different uses of the word. To say that a word means something, but is meaningless, may simply be to say that it is defined but has no purpose. I suppose I should also point out that purpose may also be split into function and teleological purpose, which split you also ignore.) In other words, you completely misunderstand me. This is not terribly surprising, as it seems at times that you misunderstand yourself.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by scribble
Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not.
:D :D :D

I was not familiar with it. Point taken.

I am in a much better mood today, anyway; I should just put up my sword and go rest for a while.

Radrook

14th July 2004, 06:56 AM

Anyone claiming to be an expert is feigning.
He claimed to be an expert.
He is feigning.

People who say such things usually counter by protesting vehemently that they never did even when shown that they did. ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Anyone claiming to be an expert is feigning.
He claimed to be an expert.
He is feigning.
Which "he"? Do you suggest that there are no experts at all? In anything? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word--what is yours?

(looking back over the posts, I don't see anyone claiming to be an expert. I did refer to experts, whom Iacchus dismissed. )

People who say such things usually counter by protesting vehemently that they never did even when shown that they did. ;)

Radrook

14th July 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Which "he"? Do you suggest that there are no experts at all? In anything? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word--what is yours?

(looking back over the posts, I don't see anyone claiming to be an expert. I did refer to experts, whom Iacchus dismissed. )
[/B]

I wasn't referring to any statement of yours.
You really can't see that can you?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio

LOL...Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the only way I can see to tie your post together is to assume that you still think I do not believe that words have any meaning. (you also merge two meanings of "meaning"--shared usage within a community determines "meaning" in the sense of definition, but this is completely separate from "meaning" in the sense of purpose. They are completely different uses of the word. To say that a word means something, but is meaningless, may simply be to say that it is defined but has no purpose. I suppose I should also point out that purpose may also be split into function and teleological purpose, which split you also ignore.) In other words, you completely misunderstand me. This is not terribly surprising, as it seems at times that you misunderstand yourself. So why are we here? Is meaning just relative? Or, is there an ulitmate purpose to everything?

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:47 AM

So, you have decided to focus on "meaning" in the sense of "ultimate purpose" in a teleological sense. OK...have fun. Just remember that this "meaning" is completely different from the "words have a particular meaning" use that was bandied about earlier in the thread (e.g., in your "labels, labels, labels" post).

Originally posted by Iacchus
So why are we here? Chance.
Is meaning just relative? No, it is something we create for ourselves. It is relative, but not just relative. People kill and die for meanings that they have been convinced of.
Or, is there an ulitmate purpose to everything? . No.*

*I am perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think to do so you will have to do more than ask superficial questions that pretend to be deep.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

I wasn't referring to any statement of yours.
You really can't see that can you? um...that would explain why I asked you to clarify. Ok...so it was not my statement. That narrows "he" down by one. Could you maybe narrow it down some more? (Hey, when I don't understand something, I ask for clarification--nothing wrong with that.)

Radrook

14th July 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
um...that would explain why I asked you to clarify. Ok...so it was not my statement. That narrows "he" down by one. Could you maybe narrow it down some more? (Hey, when I don't understand something, I ask for clarification--nothing wrong with that.)

Very true Mercutio.
Sorry if I came across as snapping.
I was referring to the person you wee conversing with.
About the statement, I really cannot see the logic in it--can you?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio

So, you have decided to focus on "meaning" in the sense of "ultimate purpose" in a teleological sense. OK...have fun. Just remember that this "meaning" is completely different from the "words have a particular meaning" use that was bandied about earlier in the thread (e.g., in your "labels, labels, labels" post). No.

Chance. Is it chance that holds the Universe together? No.

No, it is something we create for ourselves. In relationship to our surrounding environment? Yes.

It is relative, but not just relative. People kill and die for meanings that they have been convinced of. How so?

. No.*

*I am perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think to do so you will have to do more than ask superficial questions that pretend to be deep. It's not for me to answer anyway.

Radrook

14th July 2004, 09:06 AM

Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE!

scribble

14th July 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE!

Aw, looks like Iacchus and Radrook had a falling out.

You want to talk about INGRATES? Look in the mirror.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE! Hey, you're the one who implied my book belonged in a bucket of manure (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43094&pagenumber=3), not me.

Radrook

14th July 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, you're the one who implied my book belonged in a bucket of manure (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43094&pagenumber=3), not me.

If you know I hold the Bible sacred why would you say you agree with those trashing the Bible and that no one can fault you for dropping it in a bucket of manure ?

Is that a statement designed to cement a friendship?

Or is it more likely to create an enemy?

You are a smart person.
Until just recently I considered you my friend.
As a matter of fact, I even went out of my way to answer attacks directed at you in order to further cemenmt what thought was a friendship.

So that sudden statement you made came as a shock.

If I had done something previous to deserve it--OK.
But I had not directed any type of negativity at you.
I tried to make that clear by offering my support in answering those who are attacking you on this forum.

Something you never attempted in my behalf.

In any case, God bless.
No hard feelings.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 10:03 AM

wittgenst3in

14th July 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
If you know I hold the Bible sacred why would you say you agree with those trashing the Bible and that no one can fault you for dropping it in a bucket of manure ?

Is that a statement designed to cement a friendship?

Or is it more likely to create an enemy?

Unbelievable Radrook. Read Iacchus post again:

Yes, this is pretty much how I look at the Bible myself. And, just in the way people are supposed to handle the American Flag in certain way, with a certain amount of respect, I would handle the Bible in a similar way. However, if I were to accidently drop it in a bucket of manure or something, I doubt very much that I would be condemned for it.

He is not saying he would throw it in manure, or that it deserves to be. You have completely imagined that. He is objecting to people treating the bible as some sort of idol that must never touch the ground.

If I remember correctly in china a few decades ago it was mandatory to carry a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book. If you were found without it, or you damaged your copy, bad news for you. This sort of attitude is what Iacchus is referring to.

You seem to be seeing enemies at every turn Radrook, but they are just in your imagination.

Edit: Was typing at the same time as Iacchus. Sorry dude.