Addition 1 to unlimited Morn fail thread.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cheers eerhm, I'm a webdesigner /  musician /  comic artist / programmer / sci-fi writer / illustrator / graphics artist, you know ̄what you become after you dropped out of studying mathematical physics—which I did.

So, you failed at math, and decided to try to do everything else all at once, none of which seem to be actual, you know, paying jobs.

How fascinating.

Well, I did those things before I did maths actually and just went rolled back to it more or less afterwards. Obviously you don't take me seriously but that's cool because I don't take you or myself seriously so if you don't take yourself seriously we're quite symmetric here.

No, I don't take either one of us seriously.  I know me too well for that, and I know your type too well for that.  There's one every month.

[Faust]

I'm not a Platonist, I have no reason to believe that there is a 'real' world and certainly not that if it's there it's ascertainable to humans. I'm not a strong nihilist either but a weak nihilist. In shirt I am not confident to say 'No truth exist, there is no objective reality.' but simply 'I have not seen a prove yet of an objective reality and perhaps it's there and even provable, but I doubt it.' the point about strong nihilism is that it sort of goes against nihilism.

What would I be on your scale?  I looked at your cartoon and I agree, more or less, with each character's statement.  I strongly suspect that an objective reality exists, even though I strongly doubt that it's existence can be proven, and even if it could I don't believe it's possible to experience really real reality in all its glory.  I don't know whether I'm self-aware, but it's really easy for me to convince myself that I am, merely by the fact that something has convinced something of something, and that something is what I call "me".  I don't know whether objective reality exists, but I find I'm much better off when I behave as if my actions have objective consequences.

Platonism, no doubt about that.

Roughly put:
Naïve realism: An objective reality exists, and we can see it. (To use Russell's argument against naïve realism: "Naïve realism, if true, leads to physics, physics leads to naïve realism being false, therefore, naïve realism, if true, it is false, therefore, it is false.")
Platonic realism: An objective reality exists, but we cannot see or ascertain it.
Antirealism: There is no such as an objective reality and/or the quæstion's not relevant and ill-defined.

I'm with you, I don't really believe in free will. And if you're aware of your thought cascades, and where they're going, can't you hijack them? A little bit of metacognition goes a loonnnng way...



I do love it when the newbies come in swinging. 

The quæstion is if you can prove if you're aware of them? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but certainly you can't prove it.

Also, Cramulus: My nine post-recollection is strong enough for me to say that I haven't stated my gender yet. Or are you so misandrist that you cannot believe I am female?

Please use this as your avatar it would make me happy:

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The quæstion is if you can prove if you're aware of them? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but certainly you can't prove it.

well I experience awareness. Whether or not that has external validity is irrelevant to me. If I get hit in the head with a barstool, it still hurts whether or not there's such a thing as a barstool or a head.

Also, Cramulus: My nine post-recollection is strong enough for me to say that I haven't stated my gender yet. Or are you so misandrist that you cannot believe I am female?

 

what?

Misandrist may mean "male hating" in the dictionary, but you can't prove that.  

[MornTheOrator]

The quæstion

The wut?

I could use this to point out your ignorance about the etymological roots of English words but that would probably again feed your stereotype imaging into another reason to hate me so instead I'm going to do just that but also inform you of this.

Also, Cramulus: My nine post-recollection is strong enough for me to say that I haven't stated my gender yet. Or are you so misandrist that you cannot believe I am female?

WTF?  Where did he say anything about that, since when does a misandrist hate females, and would you please define "human" so we know what the fuck you're asking everyone to prove?

Pardon, I meant you, you used 'he', and a misandrist hates males. You assumed me to be male by using 'he' on me, and you don't seem to like me that much now do you? My gender is still quite open to debate, also, I don't believe in either gender or sex, of course, just as I don't believe in alive/lifeless black/white and all those things that are claimed to be binary but actually aren't.

well I experience awareness. Whether or not that has external validity is irrelevant to me.

Well, this here is a dogma. It's more or less the same as if I were to say now 'I can see in the future but am unable to share this information or act upon it in any way as that would violate causality, if I can prove this externally is irrelevant to me.'

If I really can or not is not that relevant, I can't prove it right, you can't prove me wrong, so if it's true is quite an irrelevant thing.

[Faust]

wait a second, I'm getting a horrible feeling of deja vu....

Edit: is it really time for another one of these?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I could use this to point out your ignorance about the etymological roots of English words but that would probably again feed your stereotype imaging into another reason to hate me so instead I'm going to do just that but also inform you of this.

And I could make fun of you for being a pretentious shit, but I don't know how to do that in Middle English.

Pardon, I meant you, you used 'he', and a misandrist hates males. You assumed me to be male by using 'he' on me, and you don't seem to like me that much now do you?

So, let me get this straight:  
1.  I assumed you were male (my bad).
2.  I don't think much of you.
3.  Ergo, I hate all males.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

Also, I notice you still refuse to define the term you wish to argue about (ie, human).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

wait a second, I'm getting a horrible feeling of deja vu....

Edit: is it really time for another one of these?

We're a month overdue, as a matter of fact.

[MornTheOrator]

Cheers eerhm, I'm a webdesigner /  musician /  comic artist / programmer / sci-fi writer / illustrator / graphics artist, you know ̄what you become after you dropped out of studying mathematical physics—which I did.

So, you failed at math, and decided to try to do everything else all at once, none of which seem to be actual, you know, paying jobs.

How fascinating.

Well, I did those things before I did maths actually and just went rolled back to it more or less afterwards. Obviously you don't take me seriously but that's cool because I don't take you or myself seriously so if you don't take yourself seriously we're quite symmetric here.

No, I don't take either one of us seriously.  I know me too well for that, and I know your type too well for that.  There's one every month.

I always find it both amazingly humorous and an amazing reason to bang my head in the wall if people state something like this and fail to see it's an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy.

But do talk about my type.

[Cramulus]

Consciousness has an echo effect with or without external validity. It isn't as if descartes read korzybski. If it turns out I might be a brain in a jar, should I terminate this line of thought? If we're deep in map territory, what bearing does external existence have on my internal reality? If we can be having this conversation, we can the whole thing.

[Shit]

Ungggggggggggggggggggggggggggh!

[MornTheOrator]

I could use this to point out your ignorance about the etymological roots of English words but that would probably again feed your stereotype imaging into another reason to hate me so instead I'm going to do just that but also inform you of this.

And I could make fun of you for being a pretentious shit, but I don't know how to do that in Middle English.

Yeah, you could, except that I'm completely right any way so I'm not prætending to be some-thing I'm not. Maybe you should try to go to some self-exploration and discover your own inability to differentiate between people that prætend to be some thing (what, exactly) and people that are genuine.

Or do you really think you can ascertain this in nine posts? Any way, point out a mistake in any of the posts I made, I'm quite confident they aren't there.

So, let me get this straight:  
1.  I assumed you were male (my bad).
2.  I don't think much of you.
3.  Ergo, I hate all males.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

Also, I notice you still refuse to define the term you wish to argue about (ie, human).

No, but nice straw man. More like I asked if you hated all males because of the possibility of:

1: you hate all males
2: you don't like me
3: you therefore think it's reasonable to assume that I am male

I think I'm going to have a blast with you already.

[Captain Utopia]

Cheers eerhm, I'm a webdesigner /  musician /  comic artist / programmer / sci-fi writer / illustrator / graphics artist, you know ̄what you become after you dropped out of studying mathematical physics—which I did.

So, you failed at math, and decided to try to do everything else all at once, none of which seem to be actual, you know, paying jobs.

How fascinating.

Well, I did those things before I did maths actually and just went rolled back to it more or less afterwards. Obviously you don't take me seriously but that's cool because I don't take you or myself seriously so if you don't take yourself seriously we're quite symmetric here.

No, I don't take either one of us seriously.  I know me too well for that, and I know your type too well for that.  There's one every month.

I always find it both amazingly humorous and an amazing reason to bang my head in the wall if people state something like this and fail to see it's an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy.

But do talk about my type.

Okay yes. But what to do about it? Complain about it? No, that's not going to work. Attempt an appeal to reason? You'll find everyone immune to that formula.

The best advice I could give you would be to back out of an argument you're not going to win, and start contributing to different threads on different subjects.

[Faust]

Cheers eerhm, I'm a webdesigner /  musician /  comic artist / programmer / sci-fi writer / illustrator / graphics artist, you know ̄what you become after you dropped out of studying mathematical physics—which I did.

So, you failed at math, and decided to try to do everything else all at once, none of which seem to be actual, you know, paying jobs.

How fascinating.

Well, I did those things before I did maths actually and just went rolled back to it more or less afterwards. Obviously you don't take me seriously but that's cool because I don't take you or myself seriously so if you don't take yourself seriously we're quite symmetric here.

No, I don't take either one of us seriously.  I know me too well for that, and I know your type too well for that.  There's one every month.

I always find it both amazingly humorous and an amazing reason to bang my head in the wall if people state something like this and fail to see it's an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy.

But do talk about my type.

No petal, we DO get someone arguing the same exact thing on almost a monthly basis. We are as far beyond your predecessors as they were beyond you.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

The quæstion

The wut?

I could use this to point out your ignorance about the etymological roots of English words but that would probably again feed your stereotype imaging into another reason to hate me so instead I'm going to do just that but also inform you of this.

Hvi naht rita yðvarr hal postis yn pseudo-ald-Englisc, ine stede af feawe randon wurdan hider ond þider, eow prætensus scitan?

[MornTheOrator]

Okay yes. But what to do about it? Complain about it? No, that's not going to work. Attempt an appeal to reason? You'll find everyone immune to that formula.

Laugh about it actually.

The best advice I could give you would be to back out of an argument you're not going to win, and start contributing to different threads on different subjects.

I have no idea what I'm supposedly arguing here but what ever, it apparently happens a lot.