Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
uce,
Go ahead, tell us again the tale of the computer file that appeared on your desktop one morning, and how it contained information that answered 'all' your questions about reality. Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous". Oh, and don't forget to mention the "smoking" message on the message forum, or the entire web site that wasn't there the night before, but which appeared suddenly - yet every page was dated as being there for several years. And definitely don't forget to mention December 2012, and the coming of mankind's ascent to a new phase of existence, leaving these earthly bodies behind. Then explain how you know Infinity is behind htis, even though you don't grasp the basic math that underpins your "maths is reality" concepts. And remeber how excited you were when you posted the link to the "Atlantis found!" article?
Trust me... they'll laugh.
Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do! I do notice with interest that you've downgraded your mystic experience from a "BREACH of the Laws of Physics" (as you first described it way back then) to a "breach of the laws of probability". Is this another example of the past changing itself?
Go ahead, tell us again the tale of the computer file that appeared on your desktop one morning, and how it contained information that answered 'all' your questions about reality. Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous". Oh, and don't forget to mention the "smoking" message on the message forum, or the entire web site that wasn't there the night before, but which appeared suddenly - yet every page was dated as being there for several years. And definitely don't forget to mention December 2012, and the coming of mankind's ascent to a new phase of existence, leaving these earthly bodies behind. Then explain how you know Infinity is behind htis, even though you don't grasp the basic math that underpins your "maths is reality" concepts. And remeber how excited you were when you posted the link to the "Atlantis found!" article?
Trust me... they'll laugh.
Ian,
----
quote:
As far as I can tell you're defending functionalism. The mind is to the brain as software is to hardware in a computer. Is that correct?
----
Is correct that I endorse that idea. However, note that I have not read about functionalism, so I don't know if I endorse all their ideas.
----
quote:
I've already explained this with my banana elephant analogy. I have nothing more to add from what I said in my post above. If you still don't understand then there's nothing I could conceivable say now which would help.
----
I have read the definition of Qualia. I don't see any afirmation of anything outside of physics.
Here is it one definition, coming from UCE's link:
"Philosophers often use the term qualia (singular quale) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives"
I don't see anything here which "is not physical". What I see is concepts like "mental" and "introspectively accessible" which still have to be well described in physical terms.
Why do you say qualia is defined as non-physical?
About my definition: I don't see any problem in defining the same concept from several POV. I can define a lighting using a graphical description, or using physics of electricity. What's the problem with defining qualia using the theory of communication?
----
quote:
It is not possible for qualia to give you new knowledge or information. Only physical facts can do that, otherwise it wouldn't be materialism.
-----
???
I am already claiming qualia is information with a physical base (electrochemical signals). Why can not physical signals bring me knowledge?!?
----
quote:
I repeat, qualia have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information is what the physical world is.
----
What? Can you point who is saying "Information is what the physical world is"?
About qualia and information, there are already philosophers telling the same I do. If you want to back your assertion, give me some definitions / references.
----
quote:
As far as I can tell you're defending functionalism. The mind is to the brain as software is to hardware in a computer. Is that correct?
----
Is correct that I endorse that idea. However, note that I have not read about functionalism, so I don't know if I endorse all their ideas.
----
quote:
I've already explained this with my banana elephant analogy. I have nothing more to add from what I said in my post above. If you still don't understand then there's nothing I could conceivable say now which would help.
----
I have read the definition of Qualia. I don't see any afirmation of anything outside of physics.
Here is it one definition, coming from UCE's link:
"Philosophers often use the term qualia (singular quale) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives"
I don't see anything here which "is not physical". What I see is concepts like "mental" and "introspectively accessible" which still have to be well described in physical terms.
Why do you say qualia is defined as non-physical?
About my definition: I don't see any problem in defining the same concept from several POV. I can define a lighting using a graphical description, or using physics of electricity. What's the problem with defining qualia using the theory of communication?
----
quote:
It is not possible for qualia to give you new knowledge or information. Only physical facts can do that, otherwise it wouldn't be materialism.
-----
???
I am already claiming qualia is information with a physical base (electrochemical signals). Why can not physical signals bring me knowledge?!?
----
quote:
I repeat, qualia have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information is what the physical world is.
----
What? Can you point who is saying "Information is what the physical world is"?
About qualia and information, there are already philosophers telling the same I do. If you want to back your assertion, give me some definitions / references.
Loki said:
Hehe... well, thanks for explaining all the details. I was going to do it myself if UcE didn't pony up. To anyone else reading the thread, Loki's not joking. UcE actually has claimed and defended over and over again the claims that Loki has just laid down.
That is ALWAYS going to be my favorite.
-Chris
Lord Kenneth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
scribble said:
UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!
Dark Cobra said:
UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!
Sadly, most of these converations took place the better part of a year ago -- the forum has been through a lot since then and I'm guessing they're not still around.
Anyone have any of the good bits archived?
-Chris
Guest
Unregistered
G
Loki said:
They will when they hear your misquotation and confused over-elaboration of it. This is bringing the quality of the debate down really low. I rather expect it from scribble - but you can do better, Loki.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Re: Enlightening
Perhaps you should treat second-hand accounts from biased people with 'skepticism'?
The above is an attempt to describe what happened to me, but it is not accurate. Parts of it bear some resemblance to what happened. Parts of it are just purile attempts at character assasination by people who know that this is the easiest way to discredit a person who posts things that challenge their beliefs. It has turned a good-natured thread into an acrimonious and unpleasant one, which was precisely what I was trying to avoid. Well done, Chris. You bring light and love to the debate, as usual.
billydkid said:
Perhaps you should treat second-hand accounts from biased people with 'skepticism'?
The above is an attempt to describe what happened to me, but it is not accurate. Parts of it bear some resemblance to what happened. Parts of it are just purile attempts at character assasination by people who know that this is the easiest way to discredit a person who posts things that challenge their beliefs. It has turned a good-natured thread into an acrimonious and unpleasant one, which was precisely what I was trying to avoid. Well done, Chris. You bring light and love to the debate, as usual.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Dark Cobra said:
UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!
Good idea.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
scribble said:
Looks like my original assessment of you was the correct one.
Here is an article that talks about the show (even though it hasn't been shown yet!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
uce,
I still recall the way you insisted on typing "A MAJOR BREACH OF PHYSICS" (yes, you insisted on using caps) for about a week when describing this "mysterious file" that had appeared on your computer desktop. And the increasing silly excuses you gave when people kept asking you post this file, or parts of it. First it was "there's no point - materialists wouldn't understand it". When people kept pressing, it was "I'm not sure I can - I don't know if the author would allow it" - despite the fact that you admitted not knowing who the author was (you had 'suspicions'). Finally it was "I can't because I deleted the file - it was knowledge that is too dangerous".
If this is completely wrong, then correct me if you wish - did you get such a file via a "physically impossible" process? Did you refuse to post extracts from the file? Did you then delete the file?
Are you denying that you claimed to have found a 2 year old web site that wasn't there the day before? Are you denying that several people tried to work out a protocol with you to examine this claim, aiming to try and reproduce the effect of having the past "create itself" in response to your thoughts? Are you denying that this died away when you refused to try and work through the issues?
Are you denying the entire "smoking message" incident? You posted a link to the site that you believe had a message that was addressed *directly* to you and your decision to stop smoking, even though the people behind the site had no knowledge of you. I read that message - are you saying you didn't claim these things?
Are you denying that you stopped posting as uce when your post count reached 2012, and the reason you gave was that '2012' is *the year* that all will be revealed? The Mayan calender, remember. Have you forgot how, when you returned as Juggler, that Franko spent a considerable amount of time telling you that you'd post again as uce, and you repeatedly insisted that you'd never, ever, under any circumstances, use 'uce' again, because you couldn't disturb the 2012 post count?
Are you denying the long series of posts regarding the mathematics of your theory of "zero". Remember your claim that "negative-Infinity + positive-Infinity = zero", and the explanations from several people as to why this is incorrect? Are you denying that eventually you changed your position to "the maths doesn't really matter, it's the principle that's important"?
Look, I'll admit that my post was trying to provided a short, sharp summary of things that unfolded over a period of weeks or even months almost 2 years ago - therefore, it may lack detail, or create a wrong impression. And it's probably very true that I don't know the "true story" - hell, everything you posted back then may have been a smokescreen to cover what really happened - how would I know? Still, I'd suggest that if you're unhappy with the way your past is being summarised, you need to do better than just say "thats a misquotation".
Well, I'll admit that I'm working from memory, and therefore it may be letting me down - but I don't think the details are substantially wrong at all.
I still recall the way you insisted on typing "A MAJOR BREACH OF PHYSICS" (yes, you insisted on using caps) for about a week when describing this "mysterious file" that had appeared on your computer desktop. And the increasing silly excuses you gave when people kept asking you post this file, or parts of it. First it was "there's no point - materialists wouldn't understand it". When people kept pressing, it was "I'm not sure I can - I don't know if the author would allow it" - despite the fact that you admitted not knowing who the author was (you had 'suspicions'). Finally it was "I can't because I deleted the file - it was knowledge that is too dangerous".
If this is completely wrong, then correct me if you wish - did you get such a file via a "physically impossible" process? Did you refuse to post extracts from the file? Did you then delete the file?
Are you denying that you claimed to have found a 2 year old web site that wasn't there the day before? Are you denying that several people tried to work out a protocol with you to examine this claim, aiming to try and reproduce the effect of having the past "create itself" in response to your thoughts? Are you denying that this died away when you refused to try and work through the issues?
Are you denying the entire "smoking message" incident? You posted a link to the site that you believe had a message that was addressed *directly* to you and your decision to stop smoking, even though the people behind the site had no knowledge of you. I read that message - are you saying you didn't claim these things?
Are you denying that you stopped posting as uce when your post count reached 2012, and the reason you gave was that '2012' is *the year* that all will be revealed? The Mayan calender, remember. Have you forgot how, when you returned as Juggler, that Franko spent a considerable amount of time telling you that you'd post again as uce, and you repeatedly insisted that you'd never, ever, under any circumstances, use 'uce' again, because you couldn't disturb the 2012 post count?
Are you denying the long series of posts regarding the mathematics of your theory of "zero". Remember your claim that "negative-Infinity + positive-Infinity = zero", and the explanations from several people as to why this is incorrect? Are you denying that eventually you changed your position to "the maths doesn't really matter, it's the principle that's important"?
Look, I'll admit that my post was trying to provided a short, sharp summary of things that unfolded over a period of weeks or even months almost 2 years ago - therefore, it may lack detail, or create a wrong impression. And it's probably very true that I don't know the "true story" - hell, everything you posted back then may have been a smokescreen to cover what really happened - how would I know? Still, I'd suggest that if you're unhappy with the way your past is being summarised, you need to do better than just say "thats a misquotation".
Okay, apologies, uce. Since the retirement of 'juggler' and the return of the elephant you have been substantially different in your style (if not in the basic content.) I'm more than happy to concentrate any future discussions on the current uce, and leave some of the more erratic moments of your past posts in the dust bin of history.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Loki
In retrospect, breaches of the normal laws of probablility is something I am more comfortable with.
Strange things were happening to me. It took me a long while to know how to react.
Well...I still claim that the past is not fixed. Does that say enough?
Apology accepted. I am a very open sort of person. I was going through a period of dramatic changes in my own concepts of reality. It would be more helpful if you deal with my current posts on their content. I feel I have a better undertanding now of the context than I did at the time. At the time I just knew very strange things were happening to me.
In retrospect, breaches of the normal laws of probablility is something I am more comfortable with.
Strange things were happening to me. It took me a long while to know how to react.
Well...I still claim that the past is not fixed. Does that say enough?
Apology accepted. I am a very open sort of person. I was going through a period of dramatic changes in my own concepts of reality. It would be more helpful if you deal with my current posts on their content. I feel I have a better undertanding now of the context than I did at the time. At the time I just knew very strange things were happening to me.
Lord Kenneth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
Golly gee wiz, is UCE dodging some of those questions about what he thought!? 
Guest
Unregistered
G
Dark Cobra said:Golly gee wiz, is UCE dodging some of those questions about what he thought!?
I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.
UCE,
----
quote:
I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.
----
It's true, but you surely know that this is also true for most people who doesn't even know what materialism is.
Revelations are not so uncommon; however they keep changing and changing over time, and every new one seems to be influenced by previous ones...
What attitude is common sense, remain skeptical about all revelations, or try to extract some meaning of them?
This has nothing to do with materialism at all, but with pragmatism.
----
quote:
I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.
----
It's true, but you surely know that this is also true for most people who doesn't even know what materialism is.
Revelations are not so uncommon; however they keep changing and changing over time, and every new one seems to be influenced by previous ones...
What attitude is common sense, remain skeptical about all revelations, or try to extract some meaning of them?
This has nothing to do with materialism at all, but with pragmatism.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Peskanov
Well, actually no. I get a very different view on this in my day-to-day life. I live in a city that is packed with mystics, pagans, artists and the like. Brighton is well-known for it. A surprisingly large number of people both believed me and were interested in what I had to say, some of them on a highly intellectual level.
There are reasons for why it appears like this. They are not so much influenced by previous ones, as they are all attempting to communicate the same things. Times change, so the format of the messages change, but ultimately they all try to serve a similar purpose.
Well, if one is the direct recipient of such a revelation then one is in a rather different situation. For a start, there is little room for doubting that the revelation is real. Other people can think I am telling lies, it is more difficult to tell myself that it didn't happen. Extracting meaning from them isn't so straightforward. There needs to be a context.
There is a great deal I could explain about the mechanisms involved, and indeed the meaning. The problem is that materialists are totally incapable of believing the events themselves are anything more than elaborate fantasy, let alone being able to understand the meaning of the events. To be blunt, the materialists are being left behind to a certain extent. Vast numbers of people whose beliefs are routinely dismissed as nonsense by the 'skeptics' understand all sorts of things that the skeptics are quite incapable of grasping, because they lack the conceptual framework to make sense of them.
The skeptics see only the bathwater. They make no attempt to look for the baby.
Well, actually no. I get a very different view on this in my day-to-day life. I live in a city that is packed with mystics, pagans, artists and the like. Brighton is well-known for it. A surprisingly large number of people both believed me and were interested in what I had to say, some of them on a highly intellectual level.
There are reasons for why it appears like this. They are not so much influenced by previous ones, as they are all attempting to communicate the same things. Times change, so the format of the messages change, but ultimately they all try to serve a similar purpose.
Well, if one is the direct recipient of such a revelation then one is in a rather different situation. For a start, there is little room for doubting that the revelation is real. Other people can think I am telling lies, it is more difficult to tell myself that it didn't happen. Extracting meaning from them isn't so straightforward. There needs to be a context.
There is a great deal I could explain about the mechanisms involved, and indeed the meaning. The problem is that materialists are totally incapable of believing the events themselves are anything more than elaborate fantasy, let alone being able to understand the meaning of the events. To be blunt, the materialists are being left behind to a certain extent. Vast numbers of people whose beliefs are routinely dismissed as nonsense by the 'skeptics' understand all sorts of things that the skeptics are quite incapable of grasping, because they lack the conceptual framework to make sense of them.
The skeptics see only the bathwater. They make no attempt to look for the baby.