This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 164165166 167168 ... 352
4951
« on: February 16, 2016, 09:03:37 AM »
Robot body yes
I don't want to live forever, though.
4952
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:55:26 AM »
CaptainFalcon.jpg
4953
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:52:57 AM »
4954
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:51:56 AM »
Oo, a shitpost. Neat.
4955
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:51:16 AM »
Is sleeping a sport? Because I seem to be pretty bad at it, just like all sports.
I just accidentally reported your post on mobile
Sorry
</3
4956
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:47:24 AM »
Homemade bread is great. Excellent for French toast.
4957
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:46:06 AM »
Is sleeping a sport? Because I seem to be pretty bad at it, just like all sports.
4958
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:42:31 AM »
Charlie can you please just give up
I'm just surprised that there's a Charlie post that isn't about sex.
4959
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:40:55 AM »
Dead Like Me
4960
« on: February 15, 2016, 11:30:14 PM »
You cracked the code, Tom Hanks!
4961
« on: February 15, 2016, 11:12:07 PM »
Nah, Kanye West and The Wonder Years.
4962
« on: February 15, 2016, 05:44:43 PM »
;-;7
Can I perform the post mortems?
You want to science the bodies?
4963
« on: February 15, 2016, 12:47:47 PM »
when you start having psykers appear
make me look like this
Get that olive drab and 80's cartoon flat-top
tbh i'd be happy with the augments and psychotic screamy laughter of promised victory
 Be the hero, Psy.
4964
« on: February 15, 2016, 12:26:34 PM »
when you start having psykers appear
make me look like this
Get that olive drab and 80's cartoon flat-top
4965
« on: February 15, 2016, 01:41:08 AM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
I'd like to chime in here and point out that you have to be more specific about what those variables represent, you can define an algebra with non commutative addition quite easily:
Consider a point on the equator of a sphere, if you move halfway around the equator (x), and then half way up from the equator to the north pole (y), you'll find yourself at the coordinate defined by x + y
But if you move upwards first (y) then move the same distance parallel to the equator (x) then you end up a different point (y + x)
And if you refer to the picture below you should see why x + y โ y + x
 Commutative addition isn't a universal property; you can create an algebra where any property does or does not hold provided it doesn't contradict itself.
Only issue is that it doesn't matter what order you move them in; your example details x + y, then y + -x or vice versa. On a graph, six squares up and four squares to the left (-4, 6) is the same thing whether you move sideways or upwards first. I understand what you're getting at, and you are right that I chose the wrong property to use as an example, but surely you see that direction is implicit in graphing regardless of dimension. For your map example, to end up in the western hemisphere would be to go -x from the prime meridian, and to end up in the eastern hemisphere would be to go x from the prime meridian. x =! -x.
4966
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:43:23 AM »
But that sentence literally implies that they are questionable. "The axioms cannot be proven within the system"
After reading the page, it seems more related to the matter of not being able to compute an infinite log; for functional completion, one would require a complete set of all possibilities into a Boolean expression. If the data is incomplete, you cannot prove the expression for any variable. Therefore, if such an axiom were provable, it would be false. That's why, for any given axiomatic formula, there will be at least one true statement which cannot be proven. This is why axioms are unquestionable; it's such a fuzzy piece of information that digging into the nitty-gritty requires a whole heaping of extra explanation on its own.
4967
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:29:50 AM »
What is the GOAT bank atm?
I need to set up a new checking account.
I use a local credit union and I've never had a problem with them.
I just want a bank that doesn't charge a monthly fee for "maintenance". Fuck that shit, son.
Who have experience with Wells Fargo?
Wells Fargo doesn't have maintenence fees if you set up their stupid way2save service, but it has its own host of problems like retarded transfer restrictions, hidden processing payments, and often wholly inaccurate bank statements.
4968
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:25:23 AM »
i'm not familiar with this but was just reading about it. might be relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del#The_Incompleteness_Theorem
regarding the axiomatic system used to define arithmetic with natural numbers, "The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system."
One of the reasons for axioms being unquestionable, I'd assume. To Egg, I don't think this specific tangent is going anywhere. Despite what I may have said in the OP, Cogito isn't bulletproof by nay means. I think you're just looking at it a bit too closely. I'd point it out myself, but I'd be interested to see if you can find one of the flaws if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
4969
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:18:05 AM »
So you're like the Seahawks' retarded step-brother?
4970
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:14:58 AM »
What is the GOAT bank atm?
I need to set up a new checking account.
Only small banks can qualify as even a great bank. It'll suck trying to pull money when you're out of town, but you won't have to deal with the bullshit peddled by big banks.
4971
« on: February 14, 2016, 12:47:03 AM »
"home-key position" is a load of horse-shit. It's casual-tier typing for computer illiterates and seven year-olds. If you can't become one with the keyboard, how can you expect to type accurately in total darkness?
Memories of my fat computer teacher blibbering out "Iffs falled hommme rooow" as wheelbarrows of low calorie slim fast cookies descend into her dark maw.
Really hoped that'd stay buried.
I had the coolest computer teacher in elementary school tbh, but home row is still retarded. Why the fuck would you limit yourself in such a stupid way such as that you can't even efficiently hit half of the keyboard?
4972
« on: February 14, 2016, 12:21:05 AM »
"home-key position" is a load of horse-shit. It's casual-tier typing for computer illiterates and seven year-olds. If you can't become one with the keyboard, how can you expect to type accurately in total darkness?
4973
« on: February 13, 2016, 11:39:55 PM »
Kanye is the anti-meme that was foretold in the second book of the Meme Bible, the Book of Ryle.
4974
« on: February 13, 2016, 10:22:13 PM »
>Expecting anything but crude humor and action from Deadpool
Literally what Deadpool is outside of a couple of one-off issues. Hopefully it isn't pure Wadepool tbh.
4975
« on: February 13, 2016, 06:50:15 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
um how can you prove that without observation?
Well, for starters, it's an axiom. It's unquestionable.
Second, our concept of a number represented by a and a number represented by b is just that: conceptual. Numbers are not things seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. They are thoughts.
What exactly gives axioms authority other than observed consistency? Are logical concepts not formed as a result of whether or not they are consistent within the context of our reality?
a + b = b + a a + b = a + b (symmetric property) Being that I'm not telepathic, I can only show you this via sight. However, the axiom itself holds true because it is a facet of rationality, of thought and logic. I'm not sure why you keep using observation as a criterion, either; I should state again that the Dream Argument and Evil Demon Scenario presume that you cannot know anything by means of the senses. You can have observed consistency via logic, something that is not a means of the senses.
4976
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:42:46 PM »
if you'd extend that also to other describable qualities of things, like... roughness, sharpness, softness, etc., then sure
but when you feel two objects at once, you can tell based on the sensation that there are indeed two things there
twoness is a describable quality of matter--as is threeness, fourness, and so forth
not to undermine your argument, but i just don't think you can use that example
The issue there is that softness, roughness, etc are indicators of touch. In context of Cognito Ergo Sum, the senses are wholly unreliable. You cannot use quality of matter as argument.
4977
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:39:25 PM »
Numbers are not things seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. They are thoughts.
i still don't fully agree with this
I'm not talking about the actual numeral; the idea represented by the numeral is thought.
4978
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:32:35 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
um how can you prove that without observation?
Well, for starters, it's an axiom. It's unquestionable. Second, our concept of a number represented by a and a number represented by b is just that: conceptual. Numbers are not things seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. They are thoughts.
4979
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:26:24 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.
if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.
a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.
4980
« on: February 13, 2016, 05:01:51 PM »
You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.
From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.
Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing. if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.
Pages: 1 ... 164165166 167168 ... 352
|
Show Posts
