Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Ghet for Prez, Dec 14, 2006.
anida havin an epiphany, ladies and gentlemen.
peons... you gotta love us.
Hey az lets do a little tallying up
me: inadvertantly using a superfluous word
you: an inarguable record of frequent plagiarism, lying and breathtaking idiocy
As far as this thread goes the sole mistake ghet has made is overestimating the intelligence of the posters here by leaving the context implicit rather than stating it explicitly. He is clearly not claiming that considering causation is illogical as is made abundantly clear by the thought experiment he outlines. Up your comprehension game bitches.
i have been at the library reading books to figure out the purpose one would have coming to an internet website to have a discusion with no one.
typing to peons and then refusing to engage them in conversation. it appears as if this guy has never had a conversation with multiple beings in his life. thank gosh for personality disorder.
Let us imagine for a moment that I am a plagarist (which I have NEVER plagarised ANYTHING), but let's pretend that I am. Let us pretend I'm an idiot, a loser, and everything you have always been trying to prove that I am.
What sort of man consciously AND continuously compares himself to a person with traits as described above? In my 25 years on this planet . . . I have NEVER seen a winner or a champion or anybody who matters comparing theirself to somebody who obviously doesn't matter.
People only compare themselves to people who are greater than them while trying to prove themselves to be equals or better than the one they internally know they don't match up to.
It's a basic truth.
You lost the moment you tried to win.
Now go away.
you are right, ghet
asking why comes from emotions, and the desire to see an explanation leading clearly up to the point that is important to you in particular.
am i getting your point?
our minds are limited in how much we can process..
you are not special.killing you=win.fuckin soft cock.why did i do it?dickhead.
All I see are whiny children trying to take predictable pot shots at something they cannot even comprehend. Only peasents try to find simple explinations so they can disregard the underlying principle and return to labor. (This is how we train animals, btw. Ring the bell, raise the carrot, etc.)
"Why?" is not logical. If you can envision all possible scenarios for all information you have, you would never have to ask for a connection between that information. In fact, you would be able to see all information connections from the point of reference of each bit of information. Furthermore, you would be able to define "black holes" of information as well. That is, that which lacks definition due to lack of knowledge would be defined and given a border based on knowledge you do have. This space is filled with possible permutations based on current information or permutated information. Unknown information is, thus, given an inverted definition.
Basically, you can only define the unknown in relation to information you have or can create. Current understandings in Physics can actually measure this. Yes, you heard me correctly. Physics can give a measurement of unknowable information.
The problem lies in creating information and connecting them. Which, of course, leaves the only question about why as "What determines a connection?" This is where "Why?" loses its logical bearing and becomes emotionally and biologically affected. "Why?" means "What is the association of this information?" What determines a connection is our own limitations! Therefore, "Why?" can only be logical when dealt IN CONTEXT OF INFORMATION LIMITATION.
A very long time ago when I was just a mere landscaper, I concluded based on logic alone that emotional indiction was a key neurological activity to memory storage and degree of retention. And, as predicted from the peasentry here, I was mocked on this forum for this revelation. Of course, years later, I would be proven correct.
I later theorized emotions were the source of pressure for intelligence of our kind to evolve. The peasents lauded.
Acting on that, I suggested emotions are the primitive method of communication for a species that relies on dynamic social activity to survive. The peasents on this board went into a birth-inducing hysteria.
I came to my prime summation that the brain cannot be cognitive without emotions, that emotions are the unerlying foundation of most neurological perception and information creation processes, and that everything we perceive, decide, think about, observe, and construct suffer from this "anthropomorphic limitation" determined by our evolutionary past... and to drive the point home, I suggested philosophy, INCLUDING THE LOGICAL FORMALISMS, were the most severely affected by this antropomorphic limitation. The peons didn't know how to react due to the ••••••••••, (had they did they would have erupted in some primitive wardance) but the self-styled Sociologists never forgot that one. Even McGirth showed an ultra-rare display of lost temper.
Now, I am trying to make quantizations of that grand theory. I am starting with "Why?" is not logical.
But still, please, disregard this post in its entirety do make it a point to focus on the first paragraph. That's clearly the most important part. It's identifiable with the <caterToPeons> tags. I made it easier for you to find and focus on.
This is correct. The fact I have to explain I am not saying "causation is illogical" deeply unsettles me. I am saying that "Why?" is an emotionally-hued evolutionarily-biased assumption of time and that "Why?" must be independant of time perception in order for it to be logical.
Ghet - I have to admit. I didn't even read what you wrote the first time. [funny] Just seen the title and chucked a response into the thread to be an ass. I did just read it though and this is all you had to say:
"When one mutters the word "Why?" he instinctively applies thousands of generations of bias in that single word without even knowing it.
"Why?" is a shortened way of saying "Can you please sythensize a continual chain of explinations that leads up to this piece of information?"
You could have stopped there. You point is not only understood but I agree with it completely.
"Why?" is not a logical question... when you have knowledge of every variable involved.
"Why?" IS a logical question... when you DON'T have the knowledge of every variable involved.
Saying: "1+1=2 but why?" isn't necessarily logical. But saying: "1+a=3 but why is 3 the answer?" IS logical.
And it's assumed that logic is superior to emotion, but this is not true.
"1 + x = 3 but why?"
The limitation of that question lies the scenario in it's entirety. You know the 1. You know the 3. You know the operator. Now all that is left if to follow the logic of math and you have x. The scenario is isolated, therefore fully defined, and therefore all permutations of this scenario exist and are known to the entity observing. Thus, to even ask "why?" in the face of this onslaught of defined information would be, without a doubt, an emotional question.
17 + 432 = 449
17 + 432 = 1
Can both be true?
(I know, this seems to be off subject . . . but play along)
But it's only by asking "why?" that you have a reason to follow the logic. If there was no "why?" you would only ever be left with "1 + x = 3" and x would never be worked out because there'd be no reason to.
Making the sum a metaphor for life, the question becomes, "is this all there is?" And the answer is a resounding "No". Thus life becomes about finding out what "x" is. And it's only by asking "why?" that you can go on that journey.
So you are saying that 3=life and the answer to it and that "1+x" is the process by which you arrive at the answer. Then you are stating that there is more to life by saying that the process of finding out the sum is the meaning. But if you have the answer then there is no meaning to the process. What sense does it make to work out a problem that isn't a problem?
The answer is 3.
There is no need to ask why it is three.
It just is.
You can try to find out why it is three, but that is worthless.
When you find the answer to why, it will still be what it is.
If you know what it is and you know how it is, then why is irrelevant.
"Why" indicates a "meaning" or "purpose" which is nothing more than an "abstract" that depends upon your ego and concept of "self"
There must be a "you" in the equasion and there is no "you"
"You" don't actually exist as a concrete form. The "you" in your mind is different in my mind and in the next person's mind and so forth.
It's all bullshit
Life is organized chaos
3 = Death. We all know where we're going, but it's how you get there that counts.
You've been spouting the same stuff about "me" and "you" not really existing for years. And yet "you" have done nothing to convince "me" in all that time.
Something can only become organised by seeing a pattern to it, and you can only see a pattern once you ask "why?"
Ghet is the square root of pi. An emotional bastard such as riz has no place engaging with him.
Unfortunatly for you, the whole universe is made up of balance. An emotional bastard such as myself balances out the logic of Ghet - so where does that leave you, someone with no emotion and no logic?
Separate names with a comma.