You lost me.
History isn't real. As far as I'm concerned anything pre 1900 never happened
Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PMYou lost me.It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.
Quote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PMYou lost me.It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.
Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PMYou lost me.It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.Yeah, I should really get down to Earth with my replies more.
Quote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:51:16 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PMYou lost me.It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.Yeah, I should really get down to Earth with my replies more.That might help a bit. Although that's just me. I'm not exactly the best at putting things together these days. Takes a little bit of time to collect all my marbles, I think.
Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:52:34 PMQuote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:51:16 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PMQuote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PMYou lost me.It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.Yeah, I should really get down to Earth with my replies more.That might help a bit. Although that's just me. I'm not exactly the best at putting things together these days. Takes a little bit of time to collect all my marbles, I think.The blame is on me, trust me.
I'm not reading thattoo long tbh
Your argument (I suppose you are trying to outline one?) is incredibly disjointed. Your area of inquisition states that you wil be looking into history, I was curious when I read that and thought you would have an interesting point to make. However, from my understanding you are arguing for a literal mind of binary. Black or white, yes or no, 1 or 0. Where is your dislike of all of history present here? Did you forget that that was relevant to your argument? Also, the idea of having a binary mind, is inherently impossible. Not only that, it is objectively inferior to having a 'flowing' mind as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plautus and Aeschylus will confirm. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, if any. What does your example of abortion have to do with your distaste of common occurances in reality and history and why is a binary mind even remotely preferable? What are you referring to by reality?
Quote from: OnionBeetle on October 05, 2015, 11:41:08 AMYour argument (I suppose you are trying to outline one?) is incredibly disjointed. Your area of inquisition states that you wil be looking into history, I was curious when I read that and thought you would have an interesting point to make. However, from my understanding you are arguing for a literal mind of binary. Black or white, yes or no, 1 or 0. Where is your dislike of all of history present here? Did you forget that that was relevant to your argument? Also, the idea of having a binary mind, is inherently impossible. Not only that, it is objectively inferior to having a 'flowing' mind as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plautus and Aeschylus will confirm. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, if any. What does your example of abortion have to do with your distaste of common occurances in reality and history and why is a binary mind even remotely preferable? What are you referring to by reality?Abortion? I'm talking about parents abusing a child, and that instead of being intelligent and walk away from the relationship and survive on its own, it's incapable of doing so, and thus it tries to be even closer to the parents. It's a reaction to a situation that has been seen as the most favourable to surviving, and thus the reaction has been inherited by most of us.This reaction has been favoured throughout history - or other peoples' realities, or lives, whatever you want to call what has happened in the past - even though it's not an intelligent one. It makes sense from a logical perspective, but the fact that it's logical, yet not intelligent, leaves us with the conclusion that to apply logic that's not intelligent, the situation must be stupid. That situation is us humans; we're stupid, and so is nature.What I'm saying is that I don't like how nature has brought forth results. What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.Another example of logic that is stupid:This bright genius who has the potential to solve the question of converting salt water to sweet water in an efficient way so that there won't ever be any problems concerning drinkable water is killed by his village because he stands out. They don't really think intelligently, but more primally, because in the past, people who stood out could be a danger to your tribe, and this trait has now shown itself.This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.I'll reread to see if I need to change stuff after I eat food.
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
Quote from: Desty on October 06, 2015, 06:08:20 AMQuote from: OnionBeetle on October 05, 2015, 11:41:08 AMYour argument (I suppose you are trying to outline one?) is incredibly disjointed. Your area of inquisition states that you wil be looking into history, I was curious when I read that and thought you would have an interesting point to make. However, from my understanding you are arguing for a literal mind of binary. Black or white, yes or no, 1 or 0. Where is your dislike of all of history present here? Did you forget that that was relevant to your argument? Also, the idea of having a binary mind, is inherently impossible. Not only that, it is objectively inferior to having a 'flowing' mind as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plautus and Aeschylus will confirm. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, if any. What does your example of abortion have to do with your distaste of common occurances in reality and history and why is a binary mind even remotely preferable? What are you referring to by reality?Abortion? I'm talking about parents abusing a child, and that instead of being intelligent and walk away from the relationship and survive on its own, it's incapable of doing so, and thus it tries to be even closer to the parents. It's a reaction to a situation that has been seen as the most favourable to surviving, and thus the reaction has been inherited by most of us.This reaction has been favoured throughout history - or other peoples' realities, or lives, whatever you want to call what has happened in the past - even though it's not an intelligent one. It makes sense from a logical perspective, but the fact that it's logical, yet not intelligent, leaves us with the conclusion that to apply logic that's not intelligent, the situation must be stupid. That situation is us humans; we're stupid, and so is nature.What I'm saying is that I don't like how nature has brought forth results. What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.Another example of logic that is stupid:This bright genius who has the potential to solve the question of converting salt water to sweet water in an efficient way so that there won't ever be any problems concerning drinkable water is killed by his village because he stands out. They don't really think intelligently, but more primally, because in the past, people who stood out could be a danger to your tribe, and this trait has now shown itself.This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.I'll reread to see if I need to change stuff after I eat food.Are you purposely trying to contradict every single point you make? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not anymore. But since your reply is so long, you are probably serious. In which case I see no point in 'arguing' further. There are too many logical fallacies, disconnects and straight up contradictions for me to ignore.
What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.
This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.
we're stupid, and so is nature.
and so is nature.
we choose our own intelligent results.
This is a huge contradiciton.
Me: What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.You: This is nonsencial. Logic is by definition intelligent.
Me: This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.You: Logic cannot be good or bad, it just is.
Me: we're stupid, and so is nature.You: This is by far the most nonsensical comment you made. If you believe everything is stupid. Then what you wrote is stupid, because you are not intelligent enough to write anything coherent because you are stupid.
Me: and so is nature.You: Again, nonsensical. Nature is not something that can be 'dumb' or 'intelligent', it just is.
Me: we choose our own intelligent results.You: Not as bad as your other comments but how can one determine if a result is intelligent beforehand if the person you said by your definition is already stupid? As is the system of logic they are working under.