LightGigantic's Defense Thread

Satyr said:
When you argue with a fool, he pulls you down to his level and beats you with experience.

The basic problem with discussing anything with fools is that any discussion will inevitably result in frustration.

The thing is that the one proposing a ‘truth’, a fact, is burdened with providing evidence and arguments in support of what he claims, and then still retain the intellectual integrity to remain skeptical.

Our common pool of reference is the world, or what we call reality.
We access this common pool with our senses.

Some experiences we cannot fully perceive and therefore not completely comprehend.
Here is where hypothesis and abstractions and imagination take over.
And this is where the disagreements arise.

We can all see the sun but what it is or how it blazes or how it sits up there we cannot see nor understand.
We therefore construct theories based on our sensual experiences. We judge others and their opinion by how closely they adhere to our own personal experiences and by how reliable they are, determined by their success in creating tools or constructs using them or by their success in predicting future phenomenon using them.

Some, morons, do not follow this line of reasoning. They adhere to the sensual information up to a point and then veer off when tit suits their vanity or when the desired outcome placates their fears and anxieties.
They then depend on authorities with no discernable reliability and based exclusively on the power of their cultural, institutional weight and on teachers who preach what the student really wants to believe is ‘truth’.

They then conduct verbal acrobatics and construct clever mind-games to remain loyal to a hypothetical reality, which equates it to all other hypothetical realities and then defeats them by how many promises and threats they can use to become convincing.

The argument that nobody is sure or knows the entire ‘truth’ is used to equate all opinions, as being equally valid or possible or worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Satyr said:
When you argue with a fool, he pulls you down to his level and beats you with experience.

The basic problem with discussing anything with idiots is that any discussion will inevitably result in frustration.

The thing is that the one proposing a ‘truth’, a fact, is burdened with providing evidence and arguments in support of what he claims, and then still retain the intellectual integrity to remain skeptical.

Our common pool of reference is the world, or what we call reality.
We access this common pool with our senses.

Some experiences we cannot fully perceive and therefore not completely comprehend.
Here is where hypothesis and abstractions and imagination take over.
And this is where the disagreements arise.

We can all see the sun but what it is or how it blazes or how it sits up there we cannot see nor understand.
We therefore construct theories based on our sensual experiences. We judge others and their opinion by how closely they adhere to our own personal experiences and by how reliable they are, determined by their success in creating tools or constructs using them or by their success in predicting future phenomenon using them.

Some, morons, do not follow this line of reasoning. They adhere to the sensual information up to a point and then veer off when tit suits their vanity or when the desired outcome placates their fears and anxieties.
They then depend on authorities with no discernable reliability and based exclusively on the power of their cultural, institutional weight and on teachers who preach what the student really wants to believe is ‘truth’.

They then conduct verbal acrobatics and construct clever mind-games to remain loyal to a hypothetical reality, which equates it to all other hypothetical realities and then defeats them by how many promises and threats they can use to become convincing.

The argument that nobody is sure or knows the entire ‘truth’ is used to equate all opinions, as being equally valid or possible or worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

You did a great job of exposing this issue exactly for what it is. Nice work!
 
Satyr said:
When you argue with a fool, he pulls you down to his level and beats you with experience.

The basic problem with discussing anything with idiots is that any discussion will inevitably result in frustration.

The thing is that the one proposing a ‘truth’, a fact, is burdened with providing evidence and arguments in support of what he claims, and then still retain the intellectual integrity to remain skeptical.

Our common pool of reference is the world, or what we call reality.
We access this common pool with our senses.

Some experiences we cannot fully perceive and therefore not completely comprehend.
Here is where hypothesis and abstractions and imagination take over.
And this is where the disagreements arise.

We can all see the sun but what it is or how it blazes or how it sits up there we cannot see nor understand.
We therefore construct theories based on our sensual experiences. We judge others and their opinion by how closely they adhere to our own personal experiences and by how reliable they are, determined by their success in creating tools or constructs using them or by their success in predicting future phenomenon using them.

Some, morons, do not follow this line of reasoning. They adhere to the sensual information up to a point and then veer off when tit suits their vanity or when the desired outcome placates their fears and anxieties.
They then depend on authorities with no discernable reliability and based exclusively on the power of their cultural, institutional weight and on teachers who preach what the student really wants to believe is ‘truth’.

They then conduct verbal acrobatics and construct clever mind-games to remain loyal to a hypothetical reality, which equates it to all other hypothetical realities and then defeats them by how many promises and threats they can use to become convincing.

The argument that nobody is sure or knows the entire ‘truth’ is used to equate all opinions, as being equally valid or possible or worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...


Pretty damn accurate. And LG knows it - he ain't that stupid.
 
Watch this process in use here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1215356#post1215356

Notice how the experience of existence is ignored to extrapolate super-sensory reality – an imagined and hoped for, reality.

Existence outside space/time becomes logical, almost reasonable, even though no experience with it is possible.
Remember, also, that using this mental trick anything can be made possible.
Leprechauns? Entities existing in another dimension or outside dimensions – Magical.
Spirit?
God?
Paradise?

As human beings we rely on our senses to extrapolate general truths. Existence is a temporal/spatial experience. Thinking is a temporal spatial phenomenon and so consciousness depends on flux. You cannot think unless there’s a succession of thought. Succession is a temporal affect.
We could say that consciousness is the product of flux - a strategy - as unities are created and destroyed, of more efficiently focusing energies and attempting finality or stability or perfection.
We imagine time being unidirectional because the mind (memory) is an ordering process.
As entropy increases, the universe is fractured or becomes more and more complicated (chaotic in relation to our minds ability to order). The mind resists this fracturing by directing the unity (a self-contained piece of totality seeking order in itself) by more efficiently focusing this unity’s energies (autopoiesis) and by seeking out patterns to help it do so (knowledge).
Consciousness is an ordering of sensual information and so it can only perceive the disordering – therefore it only perceives one temporal direction.

These minds imagine something “outside” without ever being able to qualify their claims or describe what this “outside” is or how an outside could be separate from a totality.

Existence is a term humans use to describe phenomena with a temporal and spatial character.
To say that something exists outside or separate or without a temporal spatial character is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting premise – an absurdity.
All faiths rely, to some degree or another, on absurdity, because they all claim knowledge of an absolute that is absent.
This absolute is almost always self-flattering, self-gratifying and positive.
 
Ah - now you're just displaying your epistemological ignorance. ;)

But well said, nonetheless.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
It explains any holy book and believers.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Don’t you understand?!!!!
His “common sense” and his regurgitated criticisms only apply to others.

Words like ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’ are his new discoveries. Discoveries he now uses to turn the tables on those he cannot argue against in any other way.

A patient in a mental institution can use his arguments to prove that his schizophrenia is not a disease but logical and a natural reaction to the world – if you are trained in the correct epistemology by the correct teachers.

See, here is the crux of his reasoning.
“Right” and “Correct”.

How does he determine which is which; which is correct and which is not?
In science the senses tell us which hypothesis more closely explains a phenomenon.
In religion? The heart – emotion, blind irrationalism, reactive fear and anxiety.

“Give me an adequate replacement for this safety blanket or leave me clutching it until I die!!! I cannot live without certainty and comfort!! I cannot stand freedom and self-responsibility!!! I need to blame something, someone for my existence! I need a reason to exist and a reward for coping with existence! Otherwise my despair overwhelms me and I am lost.”
The cry of the self-blinding idiot.
 
Satyr said:
When you argue with a fool, he pulls you down to his level and beats you with experience.

The basic problem with discussing anything with idiots is that any discussion will inevitably result in frustration.

The thing is that the one proposing a ‘truth’, a fact, is burdened with providing evidence and arguments in support of what he claims, and then still retain the intellectual integrity to remain skeptical.

Our common pool of reference is the world, or what we call reality.
We access this common pool with our senses.

Some experiences we cannot fully perceive and therefore not completely comprehend.
Here is where hypothesis and abstractions and imagination take over.
And this is where the disagreements arise.

We can all see the sun but what it is or how it blazes or how it sits up there we cannot see nor understand.
We therefore construct theories based on our sensual experiences. We judge others and their opinion by how closely they adhere to our own personal experiences and by how reliable they are, determined by their success in creating tools or constructs using them or by their success in predicting future phenomenon using them.

Some, morons, do not follow this line of reasoning. They adhere to the sensual information up to a point and then veer off when tit suits their vanity or when the desired outcome placates their fears and anxieties.
They then depend on authorities with no discernable reliability and based exclusively on the power of their cultural, institutional weight and on teachers who preach what the student really wants to believe is ‘truth’.

They then conduct verbal acrobatics and construct clever mind-games to remain loyal to a hypothetical reality, which equates it to all other hypothetical realities and then defeats them by how many promises and threats they can use to become convincing.

The argument that nobody is sure or knows the entire ‘truth’ is used to equate all opinions, as being equally valid or possible or worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

You're serious, isn't you.
:(
 
draqon said:
a pity.
Click to expand...
Prince_James likes to pretend a superior objectivity by offering alms of possibility to even the most absurd minds.
It’s his way of faking a higher thoughtfulness.
He exhibits the passions of a fish swimming in a sea of probability – never standing still, forever slipping away, sliding into the liquid cold – never taking a stand or being affected by his positions.

For him lightgigantic is an aberration, an interesting type of human intellect – he reads him like a visitor observes baboons in the zoo: from afar, completely detached and aloof, fascinated by the behavior.
This is because he has never fallen into the cage along with these creatures and faced their vulgar teeth and unreasoned instincts.

I would say that this type of mind isn’t as harmless as he would like to think.
The suicide bombers are of this kind, just as are those myriads flocking to televangelists, and voting with their mindless hearts.
The greatest atrocities perpetuated by men were from those claiming a moral righteousness and an absolute certainty.

I repeat what I’ve said before:

If a mind can be so easily convinced of the absurd, then what else can it be manipulated into believing, by charlatans and clever hypocrites?
One idiot is funny. Two or three of them are harmless. A billion of them are a mindless force to be reckoned with.
 
If I do so it’s only temporarily.

A satyr need not explain or justify his actions to anyone.
He is a follower of Dionysus.
 
Satyr,

“Give me an adequate replacement for this safety blanket or leave me clutching it until I die!!! I cannot live without certainty and comfort!! I cannot stand freedom and self-responsibility!!! I need to blame something, someone for my existence! I need a reason to exist and a reward for coping with existence! Otherwise my despair overwhelms me and I am lost.”
The cry of the self-blinding idiot.
Click to expand...

If a mind can be so easily convinced of the absurd, then what else can it be manipulated into believing, by charlatans and clever hypocrites?
One idiot is funny. Two or three of them are harmless. A billion of them are a mindless force to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...


Superb, as are the rest of your comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top