Don't be a Logic Zombie!!!

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 130
#91
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
Again,  Flawed logic. Gender means male and female and isn't independent of biological sex as biological sex dictates gender. Willfully and knowingly pretending to be something you are not is the apex of flawed logic. And then on top of all of that you expect all of society to bow to and facilitate and promote your delusion.

#92
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
A logic zombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.

For example, you can't just blindly follow logic into idiotic beliefs like determinism and solipsism. These are obviously intellectual black holes with no utilitarian value whatsoever.

A logic zombie is just a person who can't face reality and who won't be honest with themselves.

A logic zombie is someone who never takes personal responsibility for their actions and instead blames logic for their moronic and misguided attacks on well established and incontrovertible truth.

You can't depend on logic for everything. People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts.
Is that why you  lost 3 of your 3 debates? Your logic was lower than a zombie or totally absent like it is here.

#93
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@sadolite
Gender means male and female and isn't independent of biological sex as biological sex dictates gender.
Ahh, so you ignored my link about third gender roles in history. Even if you ignore that, explain why gender stereotypes change so quickly over time? Pink was a boy's color until the 1940's. Men wore tights (or hose, as they called it) and heels in medieval Europe, but now it is stereotypical of women. If there was a biological basis for those things, then they wouldn't be able to evolve so quickly.

#94
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
 Even still before ten years ago no one had any delusions about what a male and female was. A gay man knew he was a man and a gay woman still knew she was a woman.  And a man who dressed as a woman still knew he was a man and a woman who dressed as a man still knew she was a woman. Your points do not change reality. Smearing lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a woman and cutting  a mans dick in half and shoving it inside his body doesn't make him a woman no matter how much you stamp your feet and scream to the world it does.  My logic is sound I don't have to search the internet for the most obscure BS to support it and prove it. I have been alive for 60 years, I know what I am talking about. This BS didn't exist until ten years ago and society as a whole didn't  cow tow to it if it did exist in some obscure place in the world by some ass backward culture. We as society don't have to accept your made up narrative, you can, but I wont.
#95
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@sadolite
If you're just going to ignore third genders, then I have no interest in talking with you.
Topic's author
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
always attack the speaker and never the argument itself
#97
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@K_Michael
Are there unicorns in your "perspective"?
Yes.

How does your belief in solipsism affect your everyday life? I genuinely am curious.

If your belief in solipsism actually does change how you behave, then it isn't useless, but every person I've met in real life that claims to believe in it (admittedly only 3) behaves exactly the same as I would expect of someone who thinks reality is real.
I'm going to address these two simultaneously since your  premise operates on the misconception that solipsists don't believe "reality is real." Solipsists believe "reality is real"; solipsists just believe that reality stems from the mind and is controlled for with a logical necessity--i.e. as you mentioned, "cogito ergo sum" a.k.a. "Je pense, donc je suis," a.k.a. "I think, therefore I am." If what you consider physical or "real"--even your brain--can be characterized as noumena, then I repeat my question:

Can you control for the experience you have of your own brain, and the universe in which it functions, absent of your imagination?
What part of your experience, material or immaterial, can be controlled for independent of your mind?

To answer your question directly, my experience hasn't changed at all in the advent of my subscription to epistemological solipsism. Philosophy offers perspective; it's not a Stargate... or is it?

They are polite to strangers, care about politics, climate change, all stuff that under solipsism does actually exist.
Your understanding of solipsism is that it espouses impropriety, apolitical sentiments, and apathy toward climate change? How did you form such an impression?

As far as I can tell, it's like saying "blergle is true." They have a belief in there head labeled that, but it doesn't lead to anything.
Where would you have it lead?

It doesn't inform other beliefs and isn't informed by any.
Not even Platonic/Subjective idealism?

It might as well not exist
But it does.


#98
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Shila
Is that why you  lost 3 of your 3 debates? Your logic was lower than a zombie or totally absent like it is here.
You didn't read through those three debates, did you?
#99
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Athias
Apparently the solipsists I knew are also nihilists and I was conflating the two. I should have looked into solipsism more. My claim of hypocrisy definitely should have gone to the nihilism side of things.

As far as I can tell, it's like saying "blergle is true." They have a belief in there head labeled that, but it doesn't lead to anything.
Where would you have it lead?
I still think that a belief that doesn't inform your actions is essentially useless. There isn't a specific thing I think solipsists should believe based on solipsism, but if there is literally no change, then it isn't a true belief.
#100
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@K_Michael
I still think that a belief that doesn't inform your actions is essentially useless. There isn't a specific thing I think solipsists should believe based on solipsism, but if there is literally no change, then it isn't a true belief.
How should solipsists behave in contrast to those whom you've judged to believe "reality is actually real"? How would one recognize one's subscription to solipsism in one's actions?
#101
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
Fair enough, I don't acknowledge any genders other than male and female. Peace out.
#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
Neither do I.

Egg producer and sperm producer.

Everything else is just inspired fantasy marketing or physiological discrepancy.
#103
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
we don't know how gravity works
Gravity aka mass-attraction.  Pulling inward >< towards each other phenomena.

O><O  Or as  (O)( >)(< )(O)

Leonard Susskind, a prominaent well known theoretical physicist who  helped design LIGO {Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory ) .

First go briefly too 15:45 " two sides of the same coin " or  as Ive presented in my  toroidal scenarios, ' to sides of the same torus ', then skip his holoagarphic digression and jump to 19:08 for 3D to 2D surface boundary of information not where you think it is. 

Then go to 43:30 and see the growth of worm hole and quantum complexity growth of wormholes. 


And I would have others take note, that he also states this growth of complexity is exponential, and in Synergetics the growth of complexity has a specific formula that shows how the the lines-of-relationship between points grows exponentially. The formula is n^2, minus n, divided by 2.




Topic's author
#104
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
we can certainly describe gravity with reasonable accuracy

but our models do not account for what we observe on cosmic scales

that's why we must infer "dark matter" and "dark energy"
#105
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
we can certainly describe gravity with reasonable accuracy

but our models do not account for what we observe on cosmic scales

that's why we must infer "dark matter" and "dark energy"
I consider this a strength of the model. In the 1820s Alexis Bouvard predicted that a planet existed beyond Uranus based upon discrepancies between Newtonian models and his own observations of Uranus's orbit. Neptune wasn't identified until 1845. Bouvard's model wasn't perfect-- it predated Relativity by a century, but it was good enough to detect a planet before it had been charted.

Someday, we may be able to more directly observe whatever phenomenon is confounding current models, and even if it turns out to be something besides dark matter, the fact that the model doesn't just blindly fit what we observe means that it is open to change rather than just trying to explain what we already see.

Topic's author
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
Someday, we may be able to more directly observe whatever phenomenon is confounding current models
great points about logical deduction

however, being able to describe something accurately does not mean you know how it works

for example, many people can accurately describe a telephone
#107
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
being able to describe something accurately does not mean you know how it works
True.

for example, many people can accurately describe a telephone
Are they accurately describing its black box outputs, its internal structure and functions, or both?

I can accurately describe a telephone by saying that it takes auditory input signals, converts them into electrical signals, and sends them through a landline where they are reconverted into audio, as well as receiving similar electrical signals and converting them back into sounds.

I actually don't know much more than that, but some people would actually understand the physics behind each circuit and wire inside the telephone, understand the program that converts the signals to and from audio, the mechanics of how the speaker reproduces sound, etc.

I wouldn't say that my understanding of telephones isn't knowledge, even though it's incomplete.

My model isn't technically wrong in that nothing I said was incorrect, but I don't understand how telephones actually work. My model is similar to pre-Newtonian understandings of physics. Galileo was able to observe the acceleration of falling bodies, Kepler could chart the movement of planets, but neither had a firm mathematical understanding of the why and how. Newton's model wasn't perfect either, and chances are good that the current scientific model isn't either. Similarly, my theoretical telephone expert might not have studied, say, the chemical makeup of the materials used in the telephone, or the atomic theory underpinning how electricity is the flow of electrons.

The telephone expert case is more similar to current scientific models than my own description. The telephone expert probably doesn't know how something like a solar flare would affect a telephone, but this doesn't render all of his other knowledge obsolete, only incomplete.

Topic's author
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
I wouldn't say that my understanding of telephones isn't knowledge, even though it's incomplete.
being able to build something and or heavily modify that thing demonstrates a much deeper understanding than a merely "accurate description"

we understand electricity quite well, we are able to control the flow of electrons and electric fields and manipulate them into performing work

this is being contrasted with gravity, which we cannot control the flow of and cannot manipulate it into performing work

we can merely describe it
#109
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
we understand electricity quite well, we are able to control the flow of electrons and electric fields and manipulate them into performing work

this is being contrasted with gravity, which we cannot control the flow of
Just because we understand something doesn't mean we can arbitrarily "control" it. Gravity also doesn't flow as far as I'm aware. When we "control" electricity, as you put it, we merely create an environment where electricity naturally flows where we want it to. We don't change how it behaves at all. Gravitational waves behave similarly to light (electromagnetism). They travel at the same speed (c) as mass-less particles/waves. The difference is while any spectrum of light can be stopped by the right material, nothing is known to stop gravitational waves. Er go, we can't bounce gravity with a mirror, channel it through fiber optics, or block it with lead shielding. So under our current understanding of gravity, the only ways to "control" it is through the direct correlation to mass, which generates the waves in the first place.
cannot manipulate it into performing work
Humans have been using gravity to perform work for centuries longer than electricity. A mill is powered by water flowing downward, which is caused by gravity. Hourglasses and water clocks have been used to measure time for hundreds of years.

25 days later

#110
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
Hourglasses and water clocks have been used to measure time for hundreds of years.

That is not controlling gravity, that is controling the flow of sand particles an the size of the opening.

Humans use gravity, they do not control, just so were clear here above.


#111
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@ebuc
Our understanding of how gravity works isn't what's holding us back from 'controlling' it. In fact, it's incredibly simple to manipulate gravity. All you have to do is move massive objects around. Unfortunately, while this is simple in principle, it is incredibly difficult to execute, given that objects with sizable gravitational effects also have incredibly high inertia as a given property of their mass.
#112
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
All you have to do is move massive objects around
KM, making use of gravity is not the same as controling gravity.  Dams ---lots of mass via rocks--- make use of gravity.

Humans control EMRadiation by focusing it.  With a dam what is focused i like  like the sand  mentioned before, via the glass, were channeling the water or the sand, via the glass or the rocks etc.

We focus photons we do not focus gravity.  If we could focus gravity we would have ray guns we point at each other to cause us to levitate. :--)) There is a distinct differrence and this is what about a unified theory of everything hinges on.
#113
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@ebuc
Quasars are a natural example of EMR being focused in a specific direction. There are no known examples of gravity going in a specific direction in nature, which indicates that it is likely impossible.
#114
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
Quasars are a natural example of EMR being focused in a specific direction. There are no known examples of gravity going in a specific direction in nature, which indicates that it is likely impossible
Great KM, I think you get my point. Gravity is like being tuned-out {  non-focused } where-as EMRadiation is like being tuned-in { focused }.

We tune-in to a specific frequency of radiation, we do not tune-in to gravity. Are we being logic zombies or science buffs?
#115
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@ebuc
I didn't understand a single thing you just said.
#116
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
People have been tuning into radio frequencies since radios were invented. Very popular to tune into our favorit radio station in our cars in the 60's.

Maybe your generation have never learned how to tune into a specific radio frequency in your car. Must all be done without using the r seek and tune  on digital radios before your time. kind of simple stuff. 

Actually, come to think of it, I had a $75.62{?}  Cadillac covertible ---the convertible roof worked!---  with posh leather seats and the radio analog radio has this seek browse } mechanism.  i guess I was shocked cause my much cheaper 62 mercury had no such feature on the radio, nor did I know of car that did. 
#117
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@ebuc
Like all waves, gravity also has frequency. A radio works by measuring a specific target frequency and converting it into sound. Theoretically you could do the same for measuring gravity, though gravity runs between 10^-16 - 10^4 hertz, whereas FM radio is ~10^6. For context, a 10^-16 hertz wave has a cycle/period every ~310 million years. A regular antenna wouldn't work though. Since gravity waves shape spacetime, it would be like trying to measure the rotation of a wheel while moving at the exact same rotational velocity, it would appear to be staying still.
To detect gravitational waves we built LIGO, which basically consists of two giant L shapes 4km long and 3000km apart. Even then the 'blip' from two black holes colliding over a billion light years away only made a difference a thousandth the width of a proton.
#118
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@K_Michael
Like all waves, gravity also has frequency.
We do not tune-in to gravity.  You still seem to miss that key point. At least you now seem to have tune-in and grasp what tuned-in to a specific frequency means. Yay!

Theoretically you could do the same for measuring gravity, though gravity runs between 10^-16 - 10^4 hertz,
Yes, gravity is all theoretical, as it has not been quantised nor quantified i.e. we have not tuned-in to gravity yet, and perhaps never will.

Since gravity waves shape spacetime, it would be like trying to measure the rotation of a wheel while moving at the exact same rotational velocity, it would appear to be staying still.
See speed-of-photon is constant to all observers irrespective of their speed or direction. Gravity-Dark Energy are the primary essence of occupied space. Observed time is the invaginated sine-wave resultant of those two geodesics as the nodal event outer and inner surface of space-time tori. My logical common sense speculation

To detect gravitational waves we built LIGO, which basically consists of two giant L shapes 4km long and 3000km apart. Even then the 'blip' from two black holes colliding over a billion light years away only made a difference a thousandth the width of a proton.

Yeah, Im familiar for years now. Not new news to me. However, once again, just for clarity sake, we have not tune-in a gravity wave frequency or graviton-darkEon.  We have only seen instrumentally the effects of gravity, by the retardation of one of the photons arrival time at one of the ends of the the two LIGOs,  90 degree oriented interferometers.

The info from colliding black holes or other, gave us a loss of energy set of data, ergo, once again, indirect { not tuned-in ] confirmation of gravity's existence, via the loss of energy that we did not measure from the collision, is presumed to have gone away as Gravity.

Photons are also only indirectly detected, via loss or gain of electron energy value, ergo, we assign this to a photon and we capture and focus photons. We do not capture and focus { tuned-in } EMRadiation/photons.

Gravity is tuned-out, as long as we cannot tune-in to its quantum particle or frequencies and that is how it may always remain for eternity. This is relatively simple points Ive tried to convey to you via knowns and my speculative, exploratory scenarios.  I'm a logic, common sense zombie.

Again, glad you now know what a frequency is have chose to tune-in.

  I worked at Union 76 gas station in 60's and we gave out this orange stryofoam  balls with 76 painted on them. People loved them on there antennas cause they amplified the signal { photons }.  These balls would blow off antennas and get lost, and people come back in for more, until we ran out and could not get any more.

I tuned-in, turned-on and dropped out of high school in 60's. ' my education has been one my biggest impediments to my learning '...paraphrasing Einstien.

Learning how to read is the single best education I received as a child. thank you mom and dad!


13 days later

#119
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
...' I think about an occupied space something --ex my occupied space { 3D body } finger--- ergo,

I exist as an occupied space something { 3D body volume }, and,

thoughts/concepts/ideas are the resultant  of experience, i.e.,

to ability to access Meta-space mind/intellect and ego,  to a greater degree of  complexity  than other animals'....ebuc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Logic and critical thinking, is a pathway to order and truth, in the seeming illusion of our environmental chaos.
#120
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Logic, common sense and critical thinking, is a pathway to order and truth,within our seeming illusion of  environmental chaos.

....' the ballon bursting is an orderly process '..... Bucky Fuller

Cause, > effect and  > resultant{s]