Aya

[P3nT4gR4m]

A fellow Hicks fan? Well met, new guy!

[lavkian]

Of course... I'm fortunate in that while Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Lewis Black all started long before my time, I was exposed to them early enough that they pretty heavily influenced who I am today. Love all those guys.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One of my claims to fame is that me and a bunch of folks bombarded him with cigarettes when he announced onstage, during the "smoker with attitude" tour, that he had given up. He was the only one in the theatre that knew he was dying of cancer at the time. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's going to pick something none of us betted on, just to be outlandish.

Sneaky fucker, you. Odds are 1-1000 (Enjoy your fraction of a cent victory) 

Naw, my bet was on alchemy... I'm just pointing out that we are betting exactly where he can see.  He's not going to give any of us that satisfaction, even if it is true.

My bet is that he'll ignore the thread for a day or two and then not answer the question at all.

I'm only posting this so that he'll feel compelled to answer the question just to prove me wrong.

Except now I've said so. Oh noes! What can he do now? Perhaps he will post something lengthy and pseudoscientifical that superficially comes off as being deep-thinking.

[Cain]

THOMAS KUHN.

Since we're placing bets and all.

As an aside, I do think there is an argument to be made that certain popularizers of science are spectacularly uninterested in the philosophy behind science and unknowledgeable about it in general...but holist really isn't really the most credible person to make those arguments.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

THOMAS KUHN.

Since we're placing bets and all.

As an aside, I do think there is an argument to be made that certain popularizers of science are spectacularly uninterested in the philosophy behind science and unknowledgeable about it in general...but holist really isn't really the most credible person to make those arguments.

Those were both rather delicious blog posts, thank you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

On the subject of which, it is extremely refreshing to read emerging philosophy, as opposed to the navelgazing disconnected ignorant bullshit that so often passes for philosophical thinking.

[Dildo Argentino]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you.

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you.

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

[Dildo Argentino]

The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Cain: if we're talking philosophy of science, it's worse than Kuhn, really, it's Feyerabend. If we're talking philosophy of mind, it's Dennett, the Churchlands, Davidson, Quine, and zome Wittgenstein. But I believe tueir work is far from finished.

[Dildo Argentino]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you.

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you.

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

Your place being above her, because she doesn't think slowly enough about science?

[Demolition Squid]

The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

"Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable," Dodo wrote, wisely, using a vast network of microprocessors to transmit his message globally in a matter of seconds.

[LMNO]

The central question is: If we agree that life is more than a dream, that our consciousness dwells in a universe that includes things other than itself, then what is the nature of those things?