Welcome to Gaia! ::

haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
CuAnnan

It's really unfortunate that I've just demonstrated using simple English that you are wrong.
Because it makes the condescension in this post look really ironic.
Perhaps you should avoid condescending me.


Funny that what you've pointed out were only issues of semantics and not a single one did anything to prove the contrary. Arguing whether something "exists" to express things and "was invented" to express things is not fundamentally different enough to actually prove anything aside from the fact that we use words.

And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.

Until then you are not "using english" to prove me wrong. You are using english to argue semantics, which never does anything to prove/disprove the actual argument. It's easy to completely avoid the core of an argument and pick at words used to describe it. But I honestly feel that the reason you're struggling is because, generally, we agree aside from these semantics. If your next post is another post that argues semantics, I will completely ignore it as I have learned there is no value in arguing semantics.

Shame because originally I thought you had an opposing view that you might be able to defend. I hate it when debates degrade into squabbling for squabbling's sake.

EDIT:
But it really is okay, I've said that I agree with you. We really are not in much disagreement, unless you view semantics as a core disagreement. You don't have to argue, you're not convincing me of anything more than the worth of your reputation at this point. And believe me, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you decided not to pick trivial "arguments" over word usage.
haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.


"If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then no Zips are Zonkers."
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
Lucky~9~Lives
haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.


"If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then no Zips are Zonkers."


Structured in language, which I would say falls under number 2. You use nouns(zips zoodles zonkers) to encapsulate some idea. What is that idea? Well, because you can't possibly know something you have not experienced (I'm going for a tabula rasa stance here), I would say a zip zoodle or zonker probably represents some combination of those experiences. Even if those experiences are darkness, something foreign, or something misunderstood. Until you can completely detatch your mind from this physical world, anything you will ever think must have some root in reality. Unless you're arguing that there are things outside the physical universe that can be known. In which case, I don't have an argument against that, and you have none for that. So, we're at a standstill. But I really appreciate that example.
Lucky~9~Lives
haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.


"If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then no Zips are Zonkers."


"Freight transport on Titan is mostly by ship, with three types of ship called pangs, quizzers, and roodles in common use. All three ships have the same shape and design but differ in size. The cargo capacity depends on the hold volume, while the number of crew required is proportional to the surface area of the deck. A quizzer and a roodle taken together have the same length as two pangs, and the crew of a quizzer is just sufficient to provide crew for two pangs and a roodle. A fully loaded quizzer wishes to transfer all its cargo to smaller pangs and roodles, while minimising the number of crew required for the resultant fleet.
How many pangs and roodles are needed?"
haruki_jitsunin
Lucky~9~Lives
haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.


"If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then no Zips are Zonkers."


Structured in language, which I would say falls under number 2. You use nouns(zips zoodles zonkers) to encapsulate some idea. What is that idea?


In the case of Zips, Zoodles, and Zonkers, abstract entities.

haruki_jitsunin
Unless you're arguing that there are things outside the physical universe that can be known. I don't have an argument against that, and you have none for that.


I know my own mind.

Not all the time, granted.
Llorin
Sometimes I go to the church and sometimes I watch TV and sometimes I listen music...
I do not know if that affects me somehow.

I used to listen music while doing my homeworks. But my brother told me that this is a mental disorder..."The brain mustn't divided itself to work, you are creating adverse neurological patterns".

It's true, I shouldn't listen music while doing homework. It is not efficient. It is also bad.

Adverse neurological patterns? What, just being distracted is considered an adverse neurological pattern? Your brother says that's a mental disorder? Your brother doesn't know what he's talking about, that's not a mental disorder, and that's actually kind of offensive to those of us who do have some form of disorder. I've had teachers who play calming music while students work, for the express purpose of providing a good space to work in, and it's worked. Psychology and neurology are both interests of mine and I've never heard of anything along the lines of an "adverse neurological pattern" like that. Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

It sounds like the brainwashing you're worried about is just normal psychology. If anything, the most damaging thing to your psyche is probably your belief that perfectly normal neurological functioning qualifies as brainwashing. There is such a thing as a mental defense mechanism, and everyone has idiosyncrasies, but I don't think that's what you're dealing with.
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
Lucky~9~Lives
haruki_jitsunin
Lucky~9~Lives
haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world
2.help us understand the physical world
3.represent the physical world
then you might actually have a point.


"If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then no Zips are Zonkers."


Structured in language, which I would say falls under number 2. You use nouns(zips zoodles zonkers) to encapsulate some idea. What is that idea?


In the case of Zips, Zoodles, and Zonkers, abstract entities.

haruki_jitsunin
Unless you're arguing that there are things outside the physical universe that can be known. I don't have an argument against that, and you have none for that.


I know my own mind.

Not all the time, granted.


And my question then becomes: is your mind outside the physical universe? Can your thoughts truly be something that exist outside of the influence of the physical universe. If you say yes, that's great, I really can't argue and you really can't prove.

I would like to believe that's possible, it seems as though the deeper I go, though, the more I realize that my mind and mental processes definitely are influenced by and based around reality. I mean, I can imagine some pretty crazy things, but can I imagine something not influenced by my physical experience? I don't know, I'm trying to get there, though.
haruki_jitsunin
And my question then becomes: is your mind outside the physical universe? Can your thoughts truly be something that exist outside of the influence of the physical universe. If you say yes, that's great, I really can't argue and you really can't prove.


Something outside the physical universe is not necessarily outside of the influence of the physical universe; I can only prove it on the basis that I have a mind, true.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

4,450 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
haruki_jitsunin
Funny that what you've pointed out were only issues of semantics and not a single one did anything to prove the contrary.

I suspected you'd fall back on semantics.
They were only solely semantic in as far as they were using word-meanings to convey difference in intent.

haruki_jitsunin
Arguing whether something "exists" to express things and "was invented" to express things is not fundamentally different enough to actually prove anything aside from the fact that we use words.

Yes, it does.
"invented" speaks to causal intent. Kinda important, particularly in response to your posts.

haruki_jitsunin
And as soon as you can give me an example of a thought that does not
1.express our physical world

Any thoughts recalling particularly bizarre dreams.

haruki_jitsunin
2.help us understand the physical world

Definitely see above.

haruki_jitsunin
3.represent the physical world

Onto dodgy ground here.

haruki_jitsunin
Until then you are not "using english" to prove me wrong. You are using english to argue semantics, which never does anything to prove/disprove the actual argument.

I would love to see you prove something as abstract as this without using semantics.

haruki_jitsunin
But I honestly feel that the reason you're struggling is because, generally, we agree aside from these semantics.

It is very very clear from your position that you are at least above average intelligence.
You should use that intelligence to fortify your argument to remove the semantic failings they have, rather than to attack me as a person. It would better serve your argument and better serve you as a person.

haruki_jitsunin
Shame because originally I thought you had an opposing view that you might be able to defend.

Nope, I actually pretty much agree with you on the broader strokes.

haruki_jitsunin
And believe me, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you decided not to pick trivial "arguments" over word usage.

You have repeatedly insulted me. I really don't care if you respect me or not.
I'd settle for fewer personal attacks.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

4,450 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Lucky~9~Lives
Something outside the physical universe is not necessarily outside of the influence of the physical universe; I can only prove it on the basis that I have a mind, true.

I'm never sure where I stand on this.
The more I study neuroscience and neurochemistry, the more I see the mind as an emergent property of the physical.
The more I study quantum mechanics, the more confused I get.
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
CuAnnan

Nope, I actually pretty much agree with you on the broader strokes.



Dude that was a whole lot of pointlessness to get to this... this is what I've been saying the whole ******** time. Welcome to the end of your argument! Been here for a bit. Remember, I was the person that originally said "I don't have a point"(remember? If not, you could read back to my second post) to which you continued to argue "but your point is wrong"(paraphrasing). I was also the person who said we generally agree... twice! I hope that picking that internet fight has helped you process whatever real-world demons you're facing. And I only slight at personal insults to inflame people, as I'm sure you understand with your posts being what they are.

Also, I really appreciate quantum mechanics, I am very much a reductionist in a lot of ways (if you can't tell by my "thought is produced by real-world experiences" belief). However, accepting certain quantum mechanical insinuations I find is easy for me, but I try to stay away from it. I do genuinely believe that uninhibited thought is okay, even creating "god structures" (religion?) to help you cope with real world experiences. However, the part where that becomes a problem is when these thoughts misrepresent or help you misinterpret reality. Thinking about the rather profound implications and possibilities of quantum mechanics does intrigue me, but it only really does fully (as far as our ability to understand it) represent the universe at something the atomic level.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

4,450 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
haruki_jitsunin
Dude that was a whole lot of pointlessness to get to this..

Not quite.
Your argument has holes.
I was attempting to get you to plug them.

haruki_jitsunin
Welcome to the end of your argument!

I do not have an argument.
Rather, I do, but it is directed at the OP that, in essence, his position is one of white american privilege and ignorant assumptions about how language and culture work. Or that his position is snowflakitis at its worst.

haruki_jitsunin
Also, I really appreciate quantum mechanics, I am very much a reductionist in a lot of ways (if you can't tell by my "thought is produced by real-world experiences" belief).

There is a certain amount of "the real world is interpreted by thought filters" going on, what with sapir whorf, cultural relativism, linguistic relativism and so on.
Taikyoku
Llorin
Sometimes I go to the church and sometimes I watch TV and sometimes I listen music...
I do not know if that affects me somehow.

I used to listen music while doing my homeworks. But my brother told me that this is a mental disorder..."The brain mustn't divided itself to work, you are creating adverse neurological patterns".

It's true, I shouldn't listen music while doing homework. It is not efficient. It is also bad.

Adverse neurological patterns? What, just being distracted is considered an adverse neurological pattern? Your brother says that's a mental disorder? Your brother doesn't know what he's talking about, that's not a mental disorder, and that's actually kind of offensive to those of us who do have some form of disorder. I've had teachers who play calming music while students work, for the express purpose of providing a good space to work in, and it's worked. Psychology and neurology are both interests of mine and I've never heard of anything along the lines of an "adverse neurological pattern" like that. Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

It sounds like the brainwashing you're worried about is just normal psychology. If anything, the most damaging thing to your psyche is probably your belief that perfectly normal neurological functioning qualifies as brainwashing. There is such a thing as a mental defense mechanism, and everyone has idiosyncrasies, but I don't think that's what you're dealing with.


My brother is right. I have a hard time doing my homework while listening music. Your teachers are wrong. They are drugging their students with music. It is wrong to divide the mind in two. One part is pleased by music and the other is doing the homework and this is dysfunctional. Music is a disease and dopamine is a drug.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games