Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,746 - 2,757 of 6,170
Posts 2,746 - 2,757 of 6,170
Heheh, especially since EVERY network carries it, so we can turn on the TV at any time of the day and expect The Simpsons to be on. And it IS! D'oh! 
In all honesty I do like Family Guy better...but im all for mindless, outrageous, really stupid humor, so its all good. The Simpsons are too normal.
The Simpsons were good during the first few seasons, and great when they were padding the skits on the Tracy Ullman show (jeez, I feel old).
The show has sucked since the focus went from Bart's mischief to Homer's stupidity.
The show has sucked since the focus went from Bart's mischief to Homer's stupidity.
I'll put it this way. The Simpsons should've been axed when I was still in high school.
I'm in my 30s now.
I'm in my 30s now.
Cont. from Newcomers
You've just illustrated the difference between abstract, rational proof and scientific proof. Scientific proof says "show me the evidence." Rational proof says "starting with assumptions X any rational person comes to conclusion Y." The problem comes from the unstated presuppositions Z. I don't find rationalizing god into or out of existence useful or interesting because people's presuppositions will nearly always lead them to the conclusion they want to believe. Scientific evidence is neutral (interpretation of said evidence may or may not be).
If you like these sorts of rationalizations, try this site:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/09/anselm-and-perfect-reductio.html
You've just illustrated the difference between abstract, rational proof and scientific proof. Scientific proof says "show me the evidence." Rational proof says "starting with assumptions X any rational person comes to conclusion Y." The problem comes from the unstated presuppositions Z. I don't find rationalizing god into or out of existence useful or interesting because people's presuppositions will nearly always lead them to the conclusion they want to believe. Scientific evidence is neutral (interpretation of said evidence may or may not be).
If you like these sorts of rationalizations, try this site:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/09/anselm-and-perfect-reductio.html
No, I've just demonstrated that there is no such thing as empirical proof. Any amount of scientific evidence can not ever constitute proof. All it can do is help in the formulation of theories and rules. You can choose to redefine the word "proof" to mean something other than that which is generally accepted by the scientific community, the compilers of major dictionaries, encyclopaedias and text books, and a host of famous name mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, but I can't see why you would want to. Any more than if you chose to redefine the vehicle you travel to work on/in as an "aardvark".
I didn't start the quest for "proof", I merely provided a factual correction and a link to it. The problem is that you're confusing proof with "being convinced", and assuming the proof is, per se, convincing. But if you make your personal conviction a part of the equation, you cannot handle it without building a bigger mind to develop the meta-logic that will factor your belief. And even then, as Goedel's Incompleteness theorem implies, while it might convince you, it could not convince itself without building a more powerful mind which could not convince itself without building a more powerful mind which could not...
The process appears to be infinitely scalable.
Re: "the difference between abstract, rational proof and scientific proof." "Rational proof" and "scientific proof" are surely spurious distinctions wrapped up in some sort of (actually rather interesting) tautology, given that your definition of "scientific proof" appears to involve inherently unprovable conclusions deriving from empirical evidence (the kind of empirical evidence that "proved"? the coelocanth had been extinct for 70 million years. Until a scientist spotted one in a Madagascan fishing net in 1938, and learnt that the locals had been barbecuing them for years.)
Re: ""starting with assumptions X any rational person comes to conclusion Y." The problem comes from the unstated presuppositions Z."
Linguistically loaded ontological and teleological proofs may fall prey to such problems if they presuppose much about the nature of the x to be proven. It is my understanding that this mathematical one does not, perhaps because it concentrates on the "whether" rather than the "what" that exists.
And even so, you would have to at least tentatively identify the "unstated presuppositions Z" and demonstrate them to be valid and contradictory before any counter-argument could be held to falsify it?
Still not convinced? OK, please supply Z for the following:
"starting with the assumption that only triangles have three sides, any rational person comes to conclusion this 3-sided figure is a triangle".
There is not a general "the problem" that aflicts all arguments anyone might choose to disagree with. There are occasional localized problems with specific arguments, but to the best of my knowledge Goedel's proof is free of these.
It is certainly possible to object to Anselm's ontology on the grounds of imprecision of terms. What scale are we to measure the "greatness" of a Supreme being against? How do we factor a term we cannot define (infinite). And thus his argument loses impetus, for me at least. I happen to believe it (or something close to it,) though it does not of itself convince me.
I believe that Goedel's proof is true - despite my very limited understanding of it. This is because I have been convinced by others whose opinions I respect, and who do claim to understand it. And in part, I admit, because I have prior faith.
My prior faith is based on a theory (unprovable,) based on a forecast that convinces me. It happens to involve (to most people a hugely improbable) Vingean technological singularity, a lot of trans/post-human weirdness and a healthy pinch of Zen. I then choose mostly to express it in Christian mystic terms for a variety of reasons, mainly contingent on my existing familiarity with that cultural tradition.
I don't mention this in order to convince or convert. Merely to demonstrate that it is no more the function of proof to be generally, or personally, convincing than it is the function of mind to find proof convincing. Mind is not wholly logical - we are all inherently overburdened with hunches, prejudices and "common sense". That's not necessarily a bad thing - it's probably a very good thing (it makes us what we are, and I think that's good,) though it can have seriously unpleasant consequences. But while it is the case, it is theories and rules that primarily inform belief, not proof.
I didn't start the quest for "proof", I merely provided a factual correction and a link to it. The problem is that you're confusing proof with "being convinced", and assuming the proof is, per se, convincing. But if you make your personal conviction a part of the equation, you cannot handle it without building a bigger mind to develop the meta-logic that will factor your belief. And even then, as Goedel's Incompleteness theorem implies, while it might convince you, it could not convince itself without building a more powerful mind which could not convince itself without building a more powerful mind which could not...
The process appears to be infinitely scalable.
Re: "
Re: "
Linguistically loaded ontological and teleological proofs may fall prey to such problems if they presuppose much about the nature of the x to be proven. It is my understanding that this mathematical one does not, perhaps because it concentrates on the "whether" rather than the "what" that exists.
And even so, you would have to at least tentatively identify the "unstated presuppositions Z" and demonstrate them to be valid and contradictory before any counter-argument could be held to falsify it?
Still not convinced? OK, please supply Z for the following:
"starting with the assumption that only triangles have three sides, any rational person comes to conclusion this 3-sided figure is a triangle".
There is not a general "the problem" that aflicts all arguments anyone might choose to disagree with. There are occasional localized problems with specific arguments, but to the best of my knowledge Goedel's proof is free of these.
It is certainly possible to object to Anselm's ontology on the grounds of imprecision of terms. What scale are we to measure the "greatness" of a Supreme being against? How do we factor a term we cannot define (infinite). And thus his argument loses impetus, for me at least. I happen to believe it (or something close to it,) though it does not of itself convince me.
I believe that Goedel's proof is true - despite my very limited understanding of it. This is because I have been convinced by others whose opinions I respect, and who do claim to understand it. And in part, I admit, because I have prior faith.
My prior faith is based on a theory (unprovable,) based on a forecast that convinces me. It happens to involve (to most people a hugely improbable) Vingean technological singularity, a lot of trans/post-human weirdness and a healthy pinch of Zen. I then choose mostly to express it in Christian mystic terms for a variety of reasons, mainly contingent on my existing familiarity with that cultural tradition.
I don't mention this in order to convince or convert. Merely to demonstrate that it is no more the function of proof to be generally, or personally, convincing than it is the function of mind to find proof convincing. Mind is not wholly logical - we are all inherently overburdened with hunches, prejudices and "common sense". That's not necessarily a bad thing - it's probably a very good thing (it makes us what we are, and I think that's good,) though it can have seriously unpleasant consequences. But while it is the case, it is theories and rules that primarily inform belief, not proof.
I wish! I might understand Goedel if I did.
No. Brother Jerome's the smart one - he wrote me. He just pretends it's the other way round.
No. Brother Jerome's the smart one - he wrote me. He just pretends it's the other way round.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar