WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [861][862][863][864][865][866][867][868][869][870] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 861) Arminius, 27.03.2016, , 00:23, 01:33, 02:44, 03:35, 12:56, 13:21, 14:19, 16:25, 17:32, 17:50, 17:52, 22:49 (4300-4311)

4300

NATO means US domination and US global domination and the prospect of an endless war. I am against this megalomania.

US

If there were an equitable or at least a democratic structure within the NATO (there is nothing except US dictatorship), then it would be a little bit possible to have a defensive alliance again (but does anybody believe that?).

 

4301

James S. Saint wrote:

„What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that there has never been, nor will there ever be, anything BUT religion.

When Christianity was on the rise there was the truth of Christianity and all else was myth. When Judaism was on the rise, there was the truth of the one God and all else was myth. When the Greek pantheon was on the rise, there was the truth of the Greek gods and all else was myth. When the Roman pantheon was on the rise, there was the truth of the Roman gods and all else was myth.

And when Science was on the rise, there was the truth of science and all else was myth.

Atheism, scientism, humanism, nihilism ... just another religion with communal prophets rather than individual prophets.“ **

Yes. You are absolutely right. It is always the same or at least very similar, and so its history is cyclic, spirally ciclic.

4302


Hahaha wrote:

„The only way Europe will be free of United States influence, control, and its military is if the United States collapses or if a popular resistance in Europe is started to shake off United States hegemony.“ **

The latter requires that the Europeans start protecting themselves - and by „protecting themselves“ I only mean „defending themselves“ (thus not attacking others - if possible).

I see no will to self protecting in Europe. I merely see egocentric greed, overprotected young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted) Europeans, ... and so on ... , thus: decadence.

Okay, I also see that there is still a huge potential, but is is not activated.

....

Amen?

4303

To be honest, I am not the one who deeply believes in so-called „revolutions“, because they are paid, thus made by almost those who should be overthrown by this so-called "revolutions". "Revolutions" are historical games - more or less. Having said that, I would never say that there is no upheavel possible. And you and I know that catastrophes, regardless whether they are natural or economical/political/societal catastrophes, are always possible and do cyclically occur - for sure.

So I still believe in the hopefully peaceful chance of those Europeans (also those who do not live in Europe) who are currently powerless.

4304


Hahaha wrote:

„Peace is an illusion. The world revolves around fight or be enslaved and die. There is no middle ground.“ **

I meant „peace“ as the opposite of „war“. We need to have such opposite words and concepts.

Changes are also possible without catastrophes, One example is the peaceful „revolution“ that led to the fall of the „Iron Curtain“ and the end of the „Cold War“, the conflict between the West and the East. There was no war in Europe between May 1945 and June 1991 (when the Yugoslav war[s] started) - except terrosrism or civil wars in Northern Ireland and in the Basque region. And the said peaceful „revolution“ of 1989/'90 was a change without violence but left the old violence behind it and led to a new violence in Yugoslavia. So it is possible to get change without violence, but the peaceful „revolutions“ are nevertheless more the „exceptions to the rule“ than the „rule“ itself.

If we did not know the meaning of „peace“, then we would also not know the meaning of „war“. This is what dictators usually instrumentalize, exploit. Then „peace“ means war, and „war“ means peace. George Orwell described this very well by reference to the dictatorship in the Soviet Union. The Romans called their brutal captures and conquests „befriended“ (loosely translated), although they had just killed most of the inhabitants of those „befriended“.

We need to have opposite words like „war“ and „peace“ for understanding, for knowledge, for philosophy, for wisdom. To not know what opposite words like „war“ and „peace“ mean means to not know what war and peace are.

Do times without war in the countries „A“ and „B“ mean „peace is everywhere“? No. War is often (thus: not always) exported into foreign countries. So at last it is very probable that there is war everywhere just because of the peace of few humans who live in peace. But does that mean that peace is an illusion? No.

4305

How did Heraklitos (Heraclitus) know that war existed? He knew it because he also knew that peace existed. And that does not mean that his famous formula about war is false.

4306

Naturally we humans are almost like animals, but culturally we humans are not animals. I would say the ratio is 98% (nature) versus 2% (culture). But the effects of this little 2% are vast. Look at our genome. There is only little genetic difference between humans and bonobos, but the effects of that little difference are vast. And this is not only because of nature but very much more (probably also 98%) because of culture.

The ratio between war and peace is almost like the ratio between nature and culture.

Peace does not mean „passivity“ or „laziness“, although it often leads to such behaviors. Therefore it was said in former times: „War is inevitable“. But it was not meant as „peace is an illusion“.

4307

Faust wrote:

„1) First, decide on whether you are an atheist or a believer in a god. If you are the latter, you might want to decide which god, but the most important thing is to decide if you are a believer in any god.

2) Decide between three basic theories of human nature. Are we entirely physical, are we entirely mental (is our essence our "mind", whatever the fuck that is) or are we essentially "spiritual". Or, some combination thereof. If it's a combination, god help you. If you believe in a god. If not, you're screwed.

3) Try to decide this issue: Are you going to think scientifically - seeking ever-closer approximations to close descriptions of the world - or religiously/rationalistically - looking for absolutely correct answers.

4) Try hard to recognize that most written philosophy is political science, however crude.

5) Also try to recognize that every political philosophy supports a morality. No matter what you read, this is the ultimate goal of most philosophers. If you know what morality the philosopher is supporting, you understand him. If you don't know what morality he supports, you don't understand him.

6) Accept that philosophy is a special study of language. You MUST master your language before you will ever be a good philosopher.

7) Master the process of abstraction. Understand it. Well. If you cannot do this well, you're even more screwed than if you screw up 2).

8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.

9) Read the Bible.

10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss.

Hope this is helpful..“ **

Your „Ten Commandments“ can mostly be accepted, although the 8th, the 9th, the 10th are the most „Biased Commandments“. The 6th Commandment is the best. **

I would say there is only one main step (with many subordinated steps - of course):

Try to think in a similar way as you speak, because you always speak in a similar way as you think.

Short explanation: The cooperation of thinking and speaking puts a spiral in motion that inevitably leads to philosophy.

So a three years old child is already capable of a philosophising (regardless how primitive is is).

Thinking without any linguistic reference is onesided, thus without any chance to get beyond the status of a thinker (according to ILP: less than 500 posts) and to get on the other side: the status of a philosopher (according to ILP: more than 500 posts).

4308

Happy Easter.

4309

The exact name of the „Holy Roaman Empire“ was „Holy Roman Empire of German Nation“. So it was a German Empire. And since 1438 it had been ruled by the house of Habsburg, in the mean time, but merely for three years (1742-1745) by the house of Wittelsbach. It was dissolved after about 1000 years, in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon wanted a French empire instead of the German empire. The whole Occidental history can be described as the attempts of copying the ancient Roman empire. The EU is such an attempt too. But note: The modern Europeans are especially jealous, and therefore I do not believe in the EU project as it is put into practice. The jealous neighbors of Germany are whining that „the EU is dominated by Germany“, but in reality the EU has always been dominated by Germany. So what? It is because of this jealousy and the lack of a real European solidarity that makes it so difficult to find a real political unit. It is not the Old Europe but the New Europe that lacks a real European solidarity too much. So if the economical part of the EU becomes problematic, then the total collapse will follow, because the non-economical parts of the EU will still be too weak.

4310

And if there is no real military partnership (and that can only be a defensive alliance without an US dictatorship) between Europe and the United States anymore, then there might be one between Europe and Russia or/and between Europe and China. The best way for the Europeans is that they start protecting themselves - and by „protecting themselves“ I only mean „defending themselves“ (thus not attacking others - if possible). Currently I see no will to self protecting in Europe. I merely see egocentric greed, overprotected young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted) Europeans, ... and so on ... , thus: decadence. Okay, I also see that there is still a huge potential, but is is not activated.

4311

Jerkey wrote:

„Your message brings up an interesting, and yet unexplored theme, as to why, the US as a union seems to hold together, monetarily, economically and socially, and ever since the Civil War, there have not been major calls for cresses soon, except by the Lone Star Stae, Texas, which did not garner much support anyway. The Irish push for independence was much more serious.

Which, if Your prescription be taken as a basis, for unification, that selfishness and greed and jealousy be the stumbling blocks to a successful unification in thr EU, can a conclusion be reached that the USA lacks those features?“ **

Ahem .... No. The US nation does not lack those features, but does lack them less than the EU, because an EU nation does not exist. The United States of America are an empire too, but they are also a nation or at least something like that. Yet the European Union is no nation but merely an empire. And there are no „United States of Europe“, because the European nations are not united. If they were, then each of them would be no nation anymore. I know that the rulers of the EU try to eleminate the European nations, because they want to create those "United States of Europe" (after the model of the United States of America). They try it in order to get an European nation (after the model of the US nation). But I am pretty sure that they will not be successful with that attempt. Europe is just Europe, and that means (like it or not): a bunch of many nations.

Jerkey wrote:

„Or, is there something else going on? Perhaps a very deep underlying crack in the very foundation of it? (Whereas, the foundation in the USA is a mere 250 years?“ **

Yes. If you want to create a nation you need (a) time enough, (b) an authoritarian state, (c) both.

Jerkey wrote:

„This is puzzling, and perhaps has to do with the social contract it's self, that all knowledge really, was born there, the cradle of civilization, notwithstanding the very early Egyptians, Chinese?

Many questions abide here, and perhaps it is best to look at the big picture, of changing winds of feasible effecting differing places in different qualitative ways?“ **

Different cultures have different histories, different politics, thus also different philosophies of politics. Therefore I point to one of my other threads: „Occidental Philosophy versus Oriental Philosophy“ (**|**).

 

NACH OBEN 862) Arminius, 28.03.2016, 00:02, 01:22, 14:58, 14:59, 15:59, 16:06, 16:31, 16:50, 17:02, 17:38, 17:42, 18:59 (4312-4323)

4312

The mirrors in the picture I posted (**|**) are not needed but very useful as metaphor. An observer does not need to look into a mirror in order to observe another observer. The picture I posted stands for the endless loop or the circle when an observer observes an observer ... and so on.

4313

Bob wrote:

„But haven't you got a circular argument here?“ **

No.

Bob wrote:

„People supposedly "protecting" themselves or their nation will prevent the »right of permanent residence« for other members of the human race who would come to harm if they stayed where they came from.“ **

No. The opposite is true. Other humans who supposedly come to harm if they stayed where they came from would less come to harm if they stayed there where they came from, because there is the right of getting help in one's homeland as well as there is the duty of helping for those who do not need help. Help does not depend on changing the permanent residence, unless it is needed because of natural catastrophes. The current immigration politics is a huge business. Many rich people become richer and richer just because of that immigration politics, whereas those who really need help stay in their homelands anyway, because they have no money for the people smugglers. In addition, such an immigration politics leads to more and more poorness for more and more people, probably at last for 99% of all humans.

4314

 

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mr. Reasonable wrote:

›I'm just gonna say it. Every day, I see all kinds of spelling errors, and people using the wrong words, and all sorts of things that just irritate ....‹ **

The spelling of your username ›mr reasonable‹ is wrong. It contains three errors. The right spelling form of your username is ›Mr. Reasonable‹.« ** **

Apparently you can't have a period in your username.“ **

Thanks for your response. I did not expect you to correct the mistakes in your username.

4315


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Usernames do not have to obey the standard rules of grammar or punctuation and mr reasonable is just as acceptable as Mr. Reasonable.

I was referring to Mr. Reasonable's thread, especially to his opening post and his other posts, and it was not because of expecting him to correct his three errors in his username. I was just trying to take him seriously. Therefore I had to play my teacher role. (Look at the picture: the teacher Lämpel in „Max und Moritz“ by Wilhelm Busch]).

I did not say and also not mean that I did not accept his username „mr reasonable“ a an username.

4316

You said: „Nothing ever exists, at all. We just think it does.“ **

4317

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Consumerism and materialism promote individualism

Individualism undermines solidarity

The absence of solidarity facilitates control by the few

A winning strategy ....“ **

Agreed.

4318

If you had read my posts more correctly, then you would have noticed that my point was not the capitalist/socialist dichotomy but the capitalist/socialist harmony.

The capitalist/socialist dichotomy is a more virtual than real dichotomy. The globalism means both capitalism and socialism. The intersection of both is huge corruption. The more and the longer both work together the more and the longer the huge corruption exists.

4319


Hahaha wrote:

„Science is actually an extension of religion in secular form.“ **

EXACTLY.

4320

Wizard wrote:

„Wizard v. Joker: Anarchy.“ **

Hahaha wrote:

„Interesting. I'll accept this challenge but only until after the conclusion with Carleas of the current debate I am involved in.“ **

Ready, ... steady, ....

4321

Science is like religion, and scientism is like theism.

4322

Copied post in another thread.

4323

What about the number of unknown cases, the dark figure (dark numeral) ?

 

NACH OBEN 863) Arminius, 29.03.2016, 15:10, 15:14, 16:05, 17:04, 17:05, 17:25, 18:11, 19:29, 19:44, 19:53, 20:31, 22:46, 23:12, 23:53 (4324-4337)

4324

Just think about it:

Epistemology for Beginners

4325

I mean the numbers of those who are de facto unemployed and de jure employed. The latter are, for example, part of job-creation measures or soemthing like that, so they are publicly classified as employed, although they are unemployed in reality. This number is pretty huge. In other words: If we divided the said humans in those who are economically active (officially called „employed“) and those who are economically passive (officially called „unemployed“) or lazy, then the numbers and thus also the ratio would be others. In other words: I am talking about the true numbers versus the faked statistics.

4326

WW III Angry, you always want others to point out, to back up, to give evidence, whereas you yourself do never point out, never back up, never give evidence.

You say that you „think“ or even „know“, but it always turns out that you believe.

4327

I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called „Is knowledge also a belief?“ (**). The core is what we can call „information“ - in order to be „in form“ (to survive) . This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.

Epistemology for Beginners

4328

We already had the „understanding“ discussion (look it up in the thread: „Is knowledge also a belief?“ **). Also, nobody said that bellief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same evolutionary root.
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help, because knowledge did not accure without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say the opposite.

All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives.

Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.

4329

Moreno wrote:

„I would put information in the outer circle, belief as the next circle with knowledge as the innermost circle completely contained in belief. To me knowledge is a subset of beliefs, those beliefs that have passed some specific, more rigorous criteria the rest of beliefs have not.“ **

Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information (their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were „born“. A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does nevertheless give information.

4330

WW III Angry wrote:

„Information isn't a matter of being true or false. Understanding it is.

All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. So Information is also a matter of being true or false.

You are trying to be rhetorical. Give up! Surrender!

WW III Angry wrote:

„I don't know how you backed it up at all, other than a vague easily discredit statements such as this that you state above. Science uses rigorous methods to generate understanding of things, far different from religion which just takes it on basic acceptance that its true.

Firstly: Science gets information. And science consists of scientists, thus humans. Humans are fallible. In addition: Most humans are corrupt. Most humans can easily be bought.

Your platitudes do not convince.

How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was and is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called „experts“ and „specialists“ and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.

4331

Do you now know what I mean?

Or do you not have „job-creation measures“ or soemthing like that in the USA?

4332

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius, are you talking about the bullshit minimum wage and part time explosive positions of Mcjobs or are you discussing the number of people that are outside of the workforce altogether that are not counted in employment statistics?“ **

I mean all of them, if they are not mentioned in the statistics. The point is that they are not mentioned in the statistics.

4333

Hahaha wrote:

„Starting a new job at a local construction company.“ **

Good luck, Hahaha!

4334

Hello again, Phoneutria.

The question of that riddle again: „After how many »no«s does the game end, if at all? (**|**).“

4335

Phoneutria wrote:

„Two, robot.“ **

No, spider. That is false. Please try again.

I am a real human, my spider.

4336

Phoneutria wrote:

„My logic checks, robot. You may require calibration.“ **

Okay, spider.

Good luck!

 

4337

@ Artimas.

The roots of our Occidental scientific institutions - the universities - are Occidental monasteries. So the first university scientists were monks. In other words: religion can lead to science, whereas science leads to religion (the latter development is currently observable). So if you are defending our current scientists, then you are defending the religious priest of the future. Universities were relatively free, but they have been becoming corrupt, thus more dependent (because of their increasing dependence of money for their research - which is exploited by the rulers). So at last the scientists can only choose to be functionaries and priests in the name of the rulers.

 

NACH OBEN 864) Arminius, 30.03.2016, 01:00, 01:40, 02:12, 14:15, 17:21, 21:24, 21:50, 22:40, 23:16 (4338-4346)

4338

You are on the right track.

4339

WW III Angry wrote:

„Understanding is the only means of what is true or false. Information simply "is" What it "is", is a matter of understanding. If it's true, is a matter of understanding what it "is". This is not a matter of rhetoric. I think you need to look deeper into the matter.“ **

It does not matter how many times you say a falsehood: it does not get more true by repeating it.

Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations you give. For example: I have got information about you, but you do not know this information. Another example: trees do not know and not understand the information they give and get. Many many other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding but with information. And these most living beings do what is true or false, although or, better, because they are not capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with more success than those „higher“ living beings with knowing and understanding).

You, WW III Angry, are the one who needs to look deeper into the matter.

4340

You are on the right track - that means: You can go on, because there is no logical error; only the answer is false, but the logical track is right so far.

And if so, then you merely have to follow this track for a longer time, with more patience, and especially with more consequence!

Cue: Recursive conclusion.

Is it okay now for you? Or shall I give more information?

4341

Moreno wrote:

„Yes, we agree about information being the outer circle. It's where you have parts of knowledge outside belief I find a less useful model. I went into why in the belief knowledge thread.

I suppose your image might be trying to bring in true and false, showing that some part of information is knowledge (this being considered true) and some beliefs are true.“ **

Yes. Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words „true“ and „false“ mean, but, of course, they do not, becasue they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what „true“ and „false“ mean. But they act and react as if they understood the meaning of „true“ and „false“. And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful than those of the living beings with a nervous system.

4342

Uccisore wrote:

„WW III Angry wrote:

»Whoa there, hold your horses buddy. This is the first time I saw this response. I see now because James (= James S. Saint) originally quoted someone else above this reply to me - I never read this. Don't say I ›never point out, never back up, never give evidence‹. That's just ridiculous.« **

It's absolutely true though:

WW III Angry wrote:

»Well because of reason and logic. That reason is, you haven't shown me how you know that I have belief, so you need to explain how.« **

I mean, you do it right here. James (= James S. Saint) asks you for your justification of a position you have, and you serve it right back to him instead of providing an answer: »My justification is that you haven't shown me why I'm wrong (to my own satisfaction) yet.«“ **

Exactly, that is what WW III Angry usually does.

Uccisore wrote:

„I mean, holy shit. Did you really just justify your claim to knowledge on the grounds that nobody has shown that it isn't knowledge yet? Is that your standard for knowledge- any old position (like, "I don't have any beliefs") that pops into your head that nobody else has disproven yet? You think that all of your understandingses (can't say beliefs or you'll get confused) are knowledge and not belief, and your justification for thinking so is that James (= James S. Saint) hasn't proven to you that he knows you have a belief. I mean fine, if you wanna go that way .... I just don't see why you'd apply the label 'reason and logic' to this sort of defensiveness or how you expect anybody to think you don't have mere beliefs as you define them when you show your hand like this and reveal just how low your standard of evidence is.“ **

Yes. WW III Angry is the one who has a very vage theory. So we are allowed to expect him to give evidence or a justification of his very vage theory, if it is possible, but he does not or merely in a very vage way again. That does not surprise me. But moreover, instead of evidence or a justification he mostly gives accusations (for example: „you haven't ...“ [see also above] ... and so on) or moral imperatives (for example: „you should ...“, „you should not ...“, „you need ...“ [see also above], „you have to ...“, „you must ...“, „don't say ...“ [see also above] ... and so on). That is so ridiculous.

Why are you so cucksure? Try to be full of doubt.

4343

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius, I arrived at certainty that they both know they are 12 after 2 »no«s.
If you think that my last sentence does not provide certainty, can you please point out the flaw?

Yes, I can.

There are still more than one number possible after both have said 2 „no“s.

Shall I give you examples?

4344

James S. Saint wrote:

„WW III Angry wrote:

»So that's interesting - is it a starting point? Why can't we be agnostic about our senses, to get started? Then agnostic precepts become justified empirically ....« **

Nothing can empirically justify anything if even all the senses are in doubt. Any belief or "knowledge" must stem from a priori.“ **

Yes. That is one of the main themes he does not understand. Unfortunately.

4345

WW III Angry wrote:

„Is my »standard« of understanding through reason not acceptable? I mean, all I asked for was a reason to back up James' (= James S. Saint's) claim. Was that request unreasonable?“ **

Why is it so difficult for you to understand what others say?

Sure, my theory isn't the most cogent. It's vague to some, very vague to others, and can be promising to others as well. The problem is communicating it effectively, so I already alluded to this multiple times this requires much more justification that I haven't laid out yet.

If I am mostly »giving accusations« that aren't reasonable - I would think you don't understand why I don't see the reason. That being, any counter points need to be presented with reason, not just bald assertions. If you find it ridiculous, perhaps you find philosophical discourse ridiculous on a deep level. It can be and ought to be very pedantic - particularly when a theory comes about that isn't fully explained in a forum such as this.“ **

Please! Stick to the topic and try to give evidence or justifiactions for your vage theory and not to give - again and again - counter-questons, accusations and moral imperatives. Others are not fault for the content of your texts, but you are.

It is allways the same with you: no evidence, no justification, no back up, nothing but accusations, counter-questions, moral imperatives, cocksure behavior, ....

If someone (you, for eaxmple) has a very vage theory and is not capable of giving evidence or justification of it, then this theory, if it is one at all, can be considered as false. Moreover, there is no single poster of this webforum who agrees to what you are trying to say.

WW III Angry wrote:

„As such, discourse like this is needed. I appreciate it, because it lets me know what many people won't understand initially.“ **

And this is what others let them know what you will never understand: You are one of those who are cocksure (cf. Bertrand Russel: „The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.“).

We all here know what you are trying to say, but you are not capable of understanding.

Can you believe in your own position? If so, then you would have to admit that you believe.

You are more a believer than the average human, because you hide your beliefs and are not aware of this fact.

4346

In the beginning A knows that (1) a = 12 or a = 15, and (2) B knows that b = 12 or b = 15.

Okay. But A does not know that B (2) knows, and B does not know that A (1) knows. So the statement above is not suited for the recursive conclusion.

But both A and B know all of the following statements and that each of them knows that the other one knows them:

(3) a = 24 - b or a = 27 - b and (4) b = 24 - a or b = 27 - a.

Now, from the first „no“ of A and from (4) follows (5) b < 24, because if b >= 24, then A would be able to conclude a. This is the motor for the recursive conclusion.

Now, from the first „no“ of B and from (3) and (5) follows (6) a > 3.

And so on.

 

NACH OBEN 865) Arminius, 31.03.2016, 01:06, 01:43, 14:40, 15:49, 17:48, 17:49, 17:51, 18:01, 19:07, 19:48, 20:59, 21:16, 21:44, 23:59 (4347-4360)

4347

WW III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Why is it so difficult for you to understand what others say?« ** **

I wouldn't say it is difficult to understand what others say, but there are difficulties in understanding what other people mean.“ **

No, no, no. Step by step. I think that this is also your problem. First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly, what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words, the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their world are part of the context but not the text itself.

WW III Angry wrote:

„I have outlined some difficulties here: ** and here: ****

I am also saying that language is a key to philosophy. See especially: ** ** .

WW III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Can you believe in your own position? If so, then you would admit that you believe.« ** **

In what sense of belief are you using? Can you define belief?“ **

Yes. Of course. Can you?

WW III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„You are more a believer than the average human, because you hide your beliefs and are not aware of this fact.« ** **

In what sense here as well?“ **

Do you not know that sense? If not, then (try to) try to find out.

4348

Phoneutria wrote:

„After 9 was eliminated, they know that 12 and 15 are the only valid options.

They can't both be 15.

If I see a 15 I would know that my number is 12, however I see a 12, so I have to answer no.

The other one must realize that the situation above ensued and therefore be must see a 12 on my forehead.“ **

That is false.

And you have - again (!) - forgotten one of the premises: „Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads.“ ** **

4349

Phoneutria.

Both A and B have „12“s on their foreheads, and 12 + 12 = 24. So you should know from the premise (12 + 12) that the sum is 24, not 27. The sum must be 24. That is why your solution is false. The sum 27 is not possible because of the premise that both have „12“s on their foreheads.

On their foreheads!

4350

WW III Angry wrote:

„This I believe with my whole heart and soul. Because I willed the belief, out to be from the innards of my nihilistic mind, in which knowledge lost all value and beliefs became just as good, in which I merely began to believe that the only thing I know, is that I know tool. Or was it nothing. Perhaps it was.“ **

WW III Angry wrote:

„I am only able to believe ....“ **

WW III Angry wrote:

„I am going on a vacation for 4 days. I will probably not respond to posts. Nobody cares though, because you're all a bunch of objective Randian nihilists of biblical proportions.“ **

Have a good rest!

4351


Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Newton physics is true, in the sense that it exists. Newton physics exists and can predict some things, so in that sphere it is true. Is is false at the atomic level of things, so Newton physics is not a valid model of the universe.“ **

The atomic level of things is also called microphysics. So there is macrophysics too. And Newton's physics is not true in both microphysics and macrophysics, but it is true in mesophysics.

4352

WW III Angry wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»It all still appears to be merely a question of confidence. If you are greatly confident, you say that you ›know"‹ If not so confident, you say that you »believe‹. The problem is where to draw the line.

Exactly where is the line between greatly confident knowledge and not so greatly confident belief? How do you distinguish when you know versus when you merely believe?

They once ›knew‹ that the laws of Newton were ›fact‹. They had scientifically measured them. But a hundred years later .... oops .....« **

There may be a question of confidence - but there is also a matter of justification for knowledge and belief.

Can someone have the same confidence of a belief as knowledge? I contest they can.“ **

That is a rhetorical question with a rehetorical answer, because James (= James S. Saint) already said: „If you are greatly confident, you say that you »know«. If not so confident, you say that you »believe«. The problem is where to draw the line.“ James (= James S. Saint) is right. There is nothing to add, and there is especially nothing to change by using rhetorical questions and answers.

WW III Angry wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»So if you see it, it is knowledge?« **

No. I already laid that out in a previous post there.“ **

Where?

Sources?

Links?

WW III Angry wrote:

„Maybe you want to reread it before logic testing me? It seems like a waste of time to go back to things I already covered.“ **

Rhetoric! Otherwise he would have given evidence, sources or at least links to that post.

4353

Celine Kayser wrote:

„Knowledge is knowledge when directly dictated by immutable Natural Laws, anything else are beliefs.“ **

I guess that you mean the laws of mseophysics, thus not those of microphysics and macrophysics. But even then, if you mean the mesophysical laws, it is not possible to be 100% sure. Knowledge about mesophysical laws has a likelihood of about 98-99% truth. The primary task of our senses and brains is not to know complicated laws but to support our surviving.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„One never should trust completely a perception.“ **

Yes, that is true, but one should also not completely mistrust a perception.

4354

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread

4355

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That is false.

And you have - again (!) - forgotten one of the premises: „Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads.“ ** **

On their foreheads!« ** **

I know that, but they don't. All they know is the other dude has a 12 and that the total is either 24 or 27.

A 1a: If B had a 9, I'd have a 15.
1b: B has a 12, therefore I don't have a 9.
1c: 12+12=24 and 12+15=27, therefore the number on my forehead is either 12 or 15

A answers no

B 1a: If A had a 9, I'd have a 15.
1b: A has a 12, therefore I don't have a 9.
1c: 12+12=24 and 12+15=27, therefore the number on my forehead is either 12 or 15
1d: A answered no on the first round, so he doesn't know whether the number on his forehead is 12 or 15 either.
1e: If the number he sees on my forehead was 15, he would know for sure that his is 12, since 15+15 is not a valid option.
1f: Since he does not know for sure he must see a 12 on my forehead.

B answers that his number is 12.

I change my answer to »ONE«“ **

No. That is false. I am sorry.

Phoneutria wrote:

„A 1a: If B had a 9, I'd have a 15.“ **

So you are A. Okay.

Phoneutria wrote:

„A has a 12, therefore I don't have a 9.“ **

Now you are B? Hey?

Phoneutria wrote:

„1c: 12+12=24 and 12+15=27, therefore the number on my forehead is either 12 or 15.“ **

Yes, regardless whether you are A or B. Okay.

Phoneutria wrote:

„A answers no.

B 1a: If A had a 9, I'd have a 15.“ **

So you are B again. Okay.

Phoneutria wrote:

„1b: A has a 12, therefore I don't have a 9.
1c: 12+12=24 and 12+15=27, therefore the number on my forehead is either 12 or 15.
1d: A answered no on the first round, so he doesn't know whether the number on his forehead is 12 or 15 either.
1e: If the number he sees on my forehead was 15, he would know for sure that his is 12, since 15+15 is not a valid option.“ **

But does he see a 15?

Phoneutria wrote:

„1f: Since he does not know for sure he must see a 12 on my forehead.“ **

What?
It is clear, because of the premise of the riddle (**|**), that he sees a 12.

Phoneutria wrote:

„B answers that his number is 12.“ **

No, that is not allwoed because of the premise of the riddle (**|**).

Phoneutria wrote:

„I change my answer to »ONE«“ **

Please read the task again: ** ** .

Remember: Both are PERFECT logicians. So they knew, for example, mathematics too.

And read also the following posts again: ** ** **

4356

Hahaha wrote:

„The last couple of days have been exhausting. I am being pushed to my physical limit.

This construction job is only temporary and ends on Saturday. I have another job interview tomorrow for a full-time salesman position in retail so that I have work all year long after this construction one.

Tuesday I spent all morning unloading semi trucks of construction equipment and spent most of the day driving around with the site manager at lumber yards procuring supplies.

Yesterday I spent most of the day cutting and installing insulation. I got thirty two rooms done at this hotel construction site.

I still have two more floors of this hotel that I still got to do. Second floor has thirty one rooms and the first floor has twenty one.

It's looking like thirty one floors today and twenty one rooms tomorrow.

I'm working about ten hours a day and making a hundred dollars a day where as exhausted that I am can't complain too much. I am looking forward to the end of this job however.“ **

Good luck!

4357

Maybe it is easier to look for a formula.

4358

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Ich glaube‹ in German means ›I believe‹ in English, and ›Ich denke‹ in German means ›I think‹ in English. Since the late 1960s, certain German people have been fighting a ›word battle‹; the reason for it is the goal that ›Ich denke‹ shall be used instead of ›Ich glaube‹ which shall die out; the people shall believe that they think and shall not notice that they believe and not think; in this way new believers shall be bred, namely those who do not think / know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they think / know.

It is not difficult to find out which of the English speakers use the term ›I think‹ or the term ›I believe‹ how often, in which situations and with or without switching. Until the end of the 1960’s German speakers used the term ›ich glaube‹ very much oftener than the term ›ich denke‹ - maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German speakers have been using the term ›ich denke‹ very much oftener than the term ›ich glaube‹ - maybe this ratio is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to 30). So the ratio of the use of the terms ›ich glaube‹ and ›ich denke‹ has reversed within merely two decades (1970’s and 1980’s).« ** **

In the USA during that same period, it was »I feel« that was to replace »I think« ... for the same reasons.“ **

Yes. I know.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thinking was being removed from society so that only the chosen would be able. Neurological diseases were spread so as to help ensure retardation and inability to think. Entertainment drugs were added a little later. The mental illnesses and obvious retardation in the population was due entirely to that endeavor.“

Of course.

4359

Phoneutria wrote:

„I know that, but they don't.“ **

Phoneutria, my comment was addressed to you, not to A and B. You have to know that both have „12“'s on their foreheads (so that the sum must be 24 in your calculaltion). That was meant. This premise is given in the riddle.

Good luck!

4360

Phoneutria wrote:

„So your riddle is, there's 2 guys with 12 on their foreheads. What's on their foreheads?

12, I know because... it's in the premise.

Are we having a natural language issue, robot?“ **

Spi hider, .. ahem, ... hi spider.

No. The sum you gave as a solution was false. And you would have known this, if you had considered the premise. Therefore I reminded you of the peremise.

Your solution was the sum 27 (read your posts again), but the sum 27 is not possible as a solution, because the sum of has to be 24. Do not think too much about what you would think if you wereA and B,, although it is not absolutely irrelevant. Remember what I said to you in this post (**|**). Or, ... wait ..., here comes the quote:

„In the beginning A knows that (1) a = 12 or a = 15, and (2) B knows that b = 12 or b = 15.

Okay. But A does not know that B (2) knows, and B does not know that A (1) knows. So the statement above is not suited for the recursive conclusion.

But both A and B know all of the following statements and that each of them knows that the other one knows them:

(3) a = 24 - b or a = 27 - b and (4) b = 24 - a or b = 27 - a.

Now, from the first »no« of A and from (4) follows (5) b < 24, because if b >= 24, then A would be able to conclude a. This is the motor for the recursive conclusion.

Now, from the first »no« of B and from (3) and (5) follows (6) a > 3.

And so on.“ ** **

You should go on with that. (7), (8), (9), ... and so on. Do you understand? If yes: Can you do that?

 

NACH OBEN 866) Arminius, 01.04.2016, 16:01, 16:12, 16:28, 17:07, 18:23, 18:37, 19:24, 19:49, 20:37, 21:57, 22:57, 23:01, 23:59 (4361-4373)

4361

I am nominating my ministers.

You do not believe it?

Bing - Google

Do you know what an „Aprilscherz“ („April-Scherz“ [„april-shairtz“]) is?

4362

Why did you stop at 15 and 12 then?

Phoneutria wrote:

„After 9 was eliminated, they know that 12 and 15 are the only valid options.

They can't both be 15.

If I see a 15 I would know that my number is 12, however I see a 12, so I have to answer no.

The other one must realize that the situation above ensued and therefore be must see a 12 on my forehead.“ **

Why did you not go on?

Remember that five „no“s are already given: .... ** **

4363

Copied post in another thread.

There are many examples for the attempt to replace words:

„Glaube“ („belief“), „glauben“ („believe“), „Wahrheit“ („truth“), „wahr“ („true“), „wahrhaft“ („truthful“), „Wahrhaftigkeit“ („truthfulness“), „Mannschaft („team/crew of men“), ..., and so on.

The anti-religious and feministic globalists are dictating here.

4364

Where is Zoot Allures now?

I hope he's all right and wish him all the best.

Greetings.

4365

No, spider. We are alone here. Show your weapons!

Carleas is observing the precesses in this thread from outside anyway, but currently he has no chance to get in.

4366

Okay, I will give you the next step.

Arminius wrote:

„In the beginning A knows that (1) a = 12 or a = 15, and (2) B knows that b = 12 or b = 15.

Okay. But A does not know that B (2) knows, and B does not know that A (1) knows. So the statement above is not suited for the recursive conclusion.

But both A and B know all of the following statements and that each of them knows that the other one knows them:

(3) a = 24 - b or a = 27 - b and (4) b = 24 - a or b = 27 - a.

Now, from the first »no« of A and from (4) follows (5) b < 24, because if b >= 24, then A would be able to conclude a. This is the motor for the recursive conclusion.

Now, from the first »no« of B and from (3) and (5) follows (6) a > 3.

And so on.“ ** **

Next step:

A: „No“ => b < 21.
B: „No“ => a > 6.

And so on.
__________

By this I have given you almost the whole solution. (Now, hurry up, because the others are coming soon.)

Good luck!

4367

Moreno wrote:

„Believe being the weakest, think the next in line and know the best.“ **

Yes, if it is regarded from the one of two points of view, but from the other point of view it is regarded reversely: Know being the weakest, think the next in line and believe the best.

4368

Only Humean wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»Your ultimate question in philosophy?« **

How do I live a good life?“ **

What is „good“ for you?

4369

James S. Saint wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»No I don't want to play with a recursive solution until you acknowledge that my inductive solution is sound.« **

It isn't »sound« because:

Phoneutria wrote:

»Both of them know that both of them don't have 9. So it is not necessary for one to know that the other knows.« **

That isn't true.

The entire game is figuring out what the other person must know. That is why it is in the category of »Perfect Logicians«, else one couldn't be certain of what the other might deduce.“ **

Exactly.

4370

Amorphos wrote:

„Does wisdom require teleology?“ **

Not necessarily.

Amorphos wrote:

„So we all grow and learn, eventually becoming wise.“ **

All grow, stop growing, and shrink; but not all learn in the right way; so merely a few become really wise.

Amorphos wrote:

„It all ends.“ **

Who told you that?

Amorphos wrote:

„What is wisdom without a purpose?“ **

Also wisdom.

4371



Amorphos wrote:

„If wisdom has no purpose there are no »the wise«.“ **

Why? Wisdom does not necessarily need a purpose. „The Wise“ can exist without purpose in their wisdom.

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Who told you that?« ** **

The human race and the earth will end, then eventually the universe.“ **

You said: „It all ends“. So I thought you meant the whole world, thus the universe. Therefore I replied: „Who told you that?“. Now you are saying: that „the universe“ will „eventually“ end. But that is different from what you said before: „It all ends“.

Now what?

4372

I remind you of the following post:

„Arminius wrote:

»Amorphos wrote:

›When I was a young punk I thought all this bs, homelessness etc, would be gone by the time I got to my age, but its just got worse ~ silly me.« **

Amorphos, you were a punk?

When did you start to be a punk?

When did you finish to be a punk?

No future:

P. o. n. f.** **

Is it possible that you think that there must be an end with all because of your past when you were a punk crying „no future“?

4373

Why should just the superordination of a tree be like the truth?

 

NACH OBEN 867) Arminius, 02.04.2016, 01:28, 03:13, 03:23, 13:47, 23:35, 23:48, 23:55 (4374-438)

4374

To make a change:

- Front 242, Neurobashing, 1991 -

4375

It seems as if the far greatest invention of nature - the human brain - would be nothing but a priori doomed experiment.

4376

Mercedes Self Driving Car Recreates World's First Car Journey Mercedes S Class 2016 CARJAM TV: **

4377

I know the history of the word and concpet „nothing“. If someone says that „there is nothing outside of my perception and thinking“, then this someone is called a „solipsist“, regardless whether differences must be made or not. It does not help, if you change the meaning of „nothing“ in order to change the meaning of „solipsist“ and vice versa. If I think that there is nothing outside of myself as the subjective I, then I am a solipsist.

4378

No self driving cars:

Daimler, 1886:
Daimler

Daimler, DMG Lastwagen Cannstatt, 1896:
Daimler

Volkswagen, VW Käfer Cabrio.
VW

4379

Amorphos.

Why an end of all?

4380


Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It seems as if the far greatest invention of nature - the human brain - would be nothing but a priori doomed experiment.« ** **

Nice one, what do you think it means?“ **

Thanks. What do you think it means?

Amorphos wrote:

„As to the shit being made good, doesn't it always end in the shit, anything really?“ **

Isn't that a bit too pessimistic?

 

NACH OBEN 868) Arminius, 03.04.2016, 15:56, 16:02, 17:39, 17:57, 18:20, 21:24, 22:25, 22:46, 23:49, 23:59 (4381-4390)

4381

Each human him-/herself and humans themselves are what we call „media“. Actually they do not need other media (books, newspaper, radio, tv, internet and so on) than themselves.

4382

One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more by belief.

4383

Arminius wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»In the beginning A knows that (1) a = 12 or a = 15, and (2) B knows that b = 12 or b = 15.

Okay. But A does not know that B (2) knows, and B does not know that A (1) knows. So the statement above is not suited for the recursive conclusion.

But both A and B know all of the following statements and that each of them knows that the other one knows them:

(3) a = 24 - b or a = 27 - b and (4) b = 24 - a or b = 27 - a.

Now, from the first »no« of A and from (4) follows (5) b < 24, because if b >= 24, then A would be able to conclude a. This is the motor for the recursive conclusion.

Now, from the first »no« of B and from (3) and (5) follows (6) a > 3.

And so on.« ** **

Next step:

A: „No“ => b < 21.
B: „No“ => a > 6.

And so on.“ ** **

Next step:

A: „No“ => b < 18.
B: „No“ => a > 9.

And so on.

4384

The whole solution (with the solution process):

In the beginning A knows that (1) a = 12 or a = 15, and (2) B knows that b = 12 or b = 15.

Okay. But A does not know that B (2) knows, and B does not know that A (1) knows. So the statement above is not suited for the recursive conclusion.

But both A and B know all of the following statements and that each of them knows that the other one knows them:

(3) a = 24 - b or a = 27 - b and (4) b = 24 - a or b = 27 - a.

Now, from the first „no“ of A and from (4) follows (5) b < 24, because if b >= 24, then A would be able to conclude a. This is the motor for the recursive conclusion.

Now, from the first „no“ of B and from (3) and (5) follows (6) a > 3.

And so on.

A: „No“ => b < 21.
B: „No“ => a > 6.
A: „No“ => b < 18.
B: „No“ => a > 9.
A: „No“ => b < 15.
B: „Yes“. Because together with the information of (2) there remains only one possibility.

Now add the „no“s!

The game ends after 7 „no“s.

4385

I remind you of the riddle I posted on 14 January 2016:

Copied post in another thread.

4386

Who is depicted here?

Hilliam Billary Clinton

4387

My solution is absolutely correct.

Your „there-is-no-solution-solution“ is incorrect.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't see how that one can end: »No's all the way down.«“ **

That is incorrect. Sorry. Try again.

4388

We were talking about all, the universe.

So again: Why an end of all, Amorphos?

4389

The question is how much „our own ideas“ are really our own ideas.

4390

I do not think that it is possible to be completely cut off from a globalized civilization. It is only possible to be relatively cut off from a globalized civilization.

There is always someone who wants to globalize.

 

NACH OBEN 869) Arminius, 04.04.2016, 01:12, 01:57, 02:24, 02:55, 03:14, 03:28, 15:42, 16:47, 21:44 (4391-4399)

4391

I just want to point the problem out that people can easily get, if they are not ready for the change from high(est) civilization to low(est) civilization.

4392

Okay, then again:

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It seems as if the far greatest invention of nature - the human brain - would be nothing but a priori doomed experiment.« ** **

Nice one, what do you think it means?“ **

Well, , it is a high and - for the actors (!) - risky investment of nature or God, in other words: almost a waste, in any case a luxury thing.

4393

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»My solution is absolutely correct.« ** **

»Famous last words.«

You should know me well enough to at least accept a tiny bit of doubt if I am telling you that you are incorrect.

Would I say it without a reason?“ **

Arminius wrote:

»Your ›there-is-no-solution-solution‹ is incorrect.

James S. Saint wrote:

›I don't see how that one can end: No's all the way down.‹

That is incorrect. Sorry. Try again. ** **

My actual words were:

As it is worded, I don't see how that one can end: No's all the way down.“ **

First correction:
You must disqualify zero and all negative numbers when you word the riddle, else your count will be different.

Agreed?“ **

No.

The quote of the the said riddle:

The said riddle:

Perfect Logicians.

Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads. Everyone sees the number on the front of the other but does not know the own number. The game master tells them that the sum of their numbers is either 24 or 27 and that this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero).

Then the game master asks repeatedly A and B alternately, if they can determine the number on the own forehead.

A: »No«.
B: »No«.
A: »No«.
B: »No«.
A: »No«.
....

After how many »no«s does the game end, if at all?“ ** **

So I wrote in the said riddle: „this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero)“.

It seems that you have not read the said riddle.

4394

Hey! Whose working place is it?

4395

Would you mind telling me what you exactly have been working there?

4396

Hahaha wrote:

„Yeah, but what happens when the global supply chains break down completely? Globalization isn't monolithic you know and neither is government.“ **

Yes, that is true, but it is a question of time, and that does not necessarily mean a short time, so it can also mean a long time. It is difficult to exactly predict such a break down - not only because the globalists have many scenarios of break downs in their calculations too.

4397

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So I wrote in the said riddle: »this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero)«.

Oops .. your right, I missed that (silly me). My apologies. One must VERIFY anything I say (age n all). :oops:“ **

Advantage for me. 1 : 0 (one to nothing).

James S. Saint wrote:

  First
„Second correction ....“ **

It is your first correction, because your "first correction" was no correction but a mistake of you that was corrected by me. So it was my first correction. Therefore: Advantage for me. 1 : 0 (one to nothing). :)

James S. Saint wrote:

„This is the issue with all such »perfect logician«, »recursive«riddles.

Being so perfect, they both already know that the other knows this sort of game. Even without being perfect, both you and I know of this algorithmic method. And the whole issue is to be able to realize what the other person knows so that each member can depend upon the answers being given by the others.

As with the »Blued eyed puzzle« and all such similar algorithms, there must be a number with which to begin. You chose »24«, as most people would. But perfect logicians are not »most people«. They know to choose, from the many options, the starting point that would lead to the least number of rounds. The question is »how many no's are required?«. They could have begun their count at 48 or at 100. That would be silly. Why would they? But then again, why would they start at 24?

In all of these scenarios, the place a more perfect logician would begin is the number that is the closest that both parties would necessarily not be able to resolve the puzzle by knowing. They both want for the first »no« to be informative, telling them of something they didn't already know. They both see a »12« and thus both know that the other knows that the only options for any party is either:
9
12
15
It is a waist to begin at 100 and count your way down when you already know that nothing is going to be resolved until you get close to those numbers. It is also silly to begin with 24 for the same reason. Both parties know that they could begin at any number higher than 15, but can't choose which number unless they privately begin the known algorithm at 24 (the lowest known sum) and simply count to themselves down to »18« (or merely add the difference of the sums to the 15). They both can deduce from the beginning that neither would be able to say »yes« if they began from the number 18. Thus that is where to begin.

a) They both already know that both already know that their number is < 18.

b) And that means that after the first "no", they both know that their number is >9, eliminating one of the possibles.

c) Second »no«, their number must be <15, eliminating a second possible, leaving only one possible number.

Puzzle resolved with more perfect logicians with only 2 »no«s.“ **

Okay. Now I can only say what you have said:

„Oops .. your right, I missed that (silly me). My apologies. One must VERIFY anything I say (age n all). :oops:“ **

The said riddle I posted about three month ago (**|**) was a copy (the first copied riddle I posted). I did not question that there were too many „no“ s in the text, because I did not question the whole copy, and that was my mistake. I am sorry. My apologies. The next riddle will be one of my own thoughts again, I can promise. You are right: One must VERIFY anything. But sometimes one is too busy or too lazy to do it anytime.

Advantage for you. 1 : 1 (one to one).

James S. Saint wrote:

„But that isn't my last objection/»correction«.“ **

No. But it was your first correction

4398

What do you think about the Twin Oaks community?

4399

James S. Saint wrote:

„Now see, if you were Carleas, you would argue this issue with me for the next 20 PAGES (as he did with the Blue eyed puzzle, another similar riddle, and the Stopped Clock Paradox). Some men just can't stand to lose a feather (those with too few).

Now let me »Re-Riddle« something from this riddle:

Re-Riddle:
Two men, John and Gerry, are walking along with a clearly visible number written on their foreheads.
John asks Gerry if he knows what number is on his own forehead.
Gerry honestly answers »No«.
Gerry then asks the same of John.
John also honestly answers "No".
Then Gerry says, »Oh okay, my number must be __X__«.
Immediately John replies, »Oh, then so is mine«.
Now the question:
What must they have known about their numbers before John asked Gerry if he knew his own number?“ **

If a solution is possible, then they have to know a certain number range, thus the upper limit and the lower limit of the range of their numbers, and they have to know another aspect, for example: a possible sum, a possible difference, a possible product, a.possible quotient of their two numbers (for instance: Gerry only knows a sum of the two numbers of a certain number range, whereas John only knows a product of the two numbers of the same certain number range).

If a solution is not possible, then they have to know how to order two beers.

Bier

James S. Saint wrote:

„And doesn't it seem eerie that such could actually happen.“ **

In any case, ordering two beers could actually happen. Couldn't it?

 

NACH OBEN 870) Arminius, 07.04.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:06, 01:11, 01:15, 01:16, 01:17, 01:21, 01:23, 01:25, 01:28, 01:38, 01:42, 01:45, 01:56, 03:08, 15:27, 16:22, 17:15, 18:56, 19:22, 19:36, 20:19 (4400-4423)

4400

@ WW III Angry.

You have opened a thread with an interesting theme of epistemology, but the content of your posts shows that you want a non-epistemological theme.

4401

@ THE OTHERS.

Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor, you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit the first floor.

Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal, because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge. The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief. It is worthless without belief.

If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by their so called „political correctness“, which is just not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief, which they call „knowledge“.

4402

Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science, whether there is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether there is idealism or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism ....« ** **

This is one of the two greatest truths of all time (the other one is that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life).“ **

It is also the greatest semantical war theater of all time.

4403

Moreno wrote:

„Some things that are knowledge turn out later to have merely been beliefs, even within science.“ **

Yes. of course. And that fact is what we should know and even can know with more certainty than scientific knowledge. Do you know what I mean?

Moreno wrote:

„But more importantly, it is useful to consider knowledge belief because it is something we believe. We may believe things that are not knowledge to be true, but we certainly also believe what we consider knowledge.

I don't see what the harm is to consider knowlegde rigorously arrived at belief.

I know it common usage, belief is sometimes referring only to superstitions and religions beliefs. But this is only one of the ways belief is used, even outside of philosophy. In philosophy belief is used for anything that we believe is true. The noun to the verb. They fit each other precisely. Since we know by this that when we refer to knowledge as a specific kind of belief, it does not mean that therefore knowledge is merely a belief.

WW III Angry wrote:

»Moreno wrote_

›Knowledge is a subset of belief.
Beliefs are things one believes are true.
Those things considered knowledge must meet certain criteria.

Both beliefs that are considered knowledge and beliefs that are not may be true or false.
Calling something knowledge means the belief in question has made it through some gauntlet.‹ **

I don't agree that knowledge is a belief. I see good reason to separate the two conceptually, and see no reason why knowledge is considered belief. Can you clarify why that has to be the case?« **

It doesnt have to be the case. We use words and can use them as we like. Non philosphers often get very upset because, I think, to them saying knowledge is a kind of belief means that believing the world is flat is a solid as believing that the earth revolves around the sun or something. But given that we precisely label, though not all of us in the same ways, the characteristics of knowledge that separate it out from other beliefs, this is simply a nonissue.

The first advantage of saying knowledge is a belief is that, well, we believe what we consider knowledge.
The second more practical reason is it allows us to easily lay out how we form our beliefs and what makes some knowledge and some not.“ **

I agree with you, Moreno.

4404

Uccisore wrote:

„When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the word of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid, then you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the internet. A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never have to look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense. Maniacal Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to your guns long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe the drool off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even Ecmandu threads will get some new guy stumbling in to say »That's a good point, Ecmandu!« if they go on long enough.“ **

This reminds me of the following:

What has always been a good method too is what the famous pied piper of Hameln stands for. So a ratcatcher just needs rats (they are currently almost everywhere and becoming more and more) and kids (they are currently becoming more and more in the so-called „Third World“). In this ILP example the „rats“ stand for certain „arguments“ and the „kids“ for the „innocents“ or „simpletons“. And what does the ratcatcher do? Or: What did the pied piper of Hameln do?

But there is certainly no ILP ratcatcher. No, no .... Or? What do you think?

4405

„Think for yourself, question authority.“ Alright - but: said by whom?

WW III Angry wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the word of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid, then you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the internet. A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never have to look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense. Maniacal Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to your guns long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe the drool off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even Ecmandu threads will get some new guy stumbling in to say "That's a good point, Ecmandu!" if they go on long enough.« **

I'm not saying to trust, that's exactly what the traps people into thinking that someone is right because they are the authority. That is not correct reasoning and not how to operate. Trust no one, think for yourself, do not fall to the snake charmers, the authorities, etc, because they are »shiny«.“ **

Said by the one who does not think for himself and not question authority.

Most of what you are saying is politically correct, so it is mostly what the political authority wants you to think and to say, just to not question the current authority.

4406

WW III Angry wrote:

„Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

»WW, I commend you for your effort of going against the grain of 'how knowledge is supposed to be acquired as well as leaving the door ajar on who's authority it is based' in your hypothetical. Even if that wasn't your aim, it was big of you to trudge uphill none-the-less. Thanks WW! You made my day!

It's 50%/50% either way, right or wrong. Say the 5 year old is psychic where as the physicist has only a house of cards built in mid-air (theories). That's what could actually be the case based off WW's hypothetical.

I tend to be a risk taker so I would go with the kid, even though it "seems" unbelievable that he could (let alone would) have the true, correct answer. Both the kid and the physicist would have to be tested via the appropriate line of questioning which does not exist in science today. Science is waiting for philosophy to expand it's horizons.

Wrapping one's logical head around such a foreign possibility shuts down rationality I fear. Does not compute Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

If philosophy refuses (kicking and screaming all the way) to acknowledge the possibilities, how is science ever going to progress?« **

Well thank you Mongoose - it was left open because it should be left open. It's for the sake of intellectual "honesty" - not to be deceptive or to trick. If knowledge is, then how knowledge got there is irrelevant to it being knowledge, for the sake of it being knowledge. So you're right, say the 5 year old is a psychic. Perhaps the child is a genius. Perhaps the physicist made a simple mistake, or miscommunicated something. Perhaps the physicist cheated through college. Perhaps the physicist is a sociopathic liar. Perhaps the child got lucky.

The point of this whole thread is that reason and logic, coupled with your values essentially are the authority, not people.“ **

Are you one of the the new ratcatchers? Are you the modern pied piper of Hameln?

4407

WW III Angry wrote:

„Plato described knowledge as »justified true belief“. However, would that in turn mean that belief is not justified and possibly not true?

.... Beliefs are in many ways not a good thing to have.“ **

You are just not capable of knowing what beliefs are and what they mean. So it is no wonder that you are also not capable of believing in knowledge.

4408

WW III Angry wrote:

„My reality is a subjective ....“ **

So it is not objective.

4409

WW III Angry wrote:

„Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I »have grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use« due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere. I know that I don't know.“ **

So you admit that you contradict yourself.

Thanks.

WW III Angry wrote:

„I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.“ **

You mean: There is angriness, not fun.

4410

Moreno wrote:

„WW III Angry wrote:

»Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I "have grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use " due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere. I know that I don't know. I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.«

So you walk around all day doubting all the communication you hear and read. You never simply believe Jimmy wanted you to check the figures on that file, you spend time doubting what you heard was what you heard and further what Jimmy meant.

You never believe that you have evaluated something well and trust your evaluation, but doubt your evaluations of your interpretations of what people say.

You doubt your own epistemology.“ **

Yes. Of course. Always having an epistemology and always being agnostic about it. Such an „epistemology“ is no epistemology.

Moreno wrote:

„You doubt your own evaluation of your doubting. You considered, after reading Uccisore's last post, if you really did always doubt, then decided that you did doubt, rather than believe, and then evaluated this evaluation, since you doubted that one also. After infinite time (or is it like the hare, simply infinite fractions of time that add up to one) you wrote your response to Uccisore and caught up with the tortoise.

If your wife asks for the salt, you actually ratiocinate before reaching for it, since she might have said »too much salt« or »is that all?«.

I cannot imagine what reading a newpaper would be like for you, always having to build from the bottom up again, since past evaluations of what Congress is and does, for example, that you made back then, may be incorrect. You cannot simply believe in your memory and past conclusions you made, you have to doubt these, each time a topic comes up, because those past evaluations you made may not have been as correct as they seemed, back then, or your memory has distorted them.

How do you find time for anything other then the mind bogglingly complex, endless process of reading even the first article?“ **

Maybe he is Sisyphus.

4411

All European communists were hopefully awaiting the arrival of the First World War, because they thought that war would lead to communism.

According to the communistic theory communism should appear when a nation was industrialized enough. So it was expected to appear in Germany or England.

But where did it appear in reality?

In Russia! In a land of medieval feudalism and without any industry! .... Hey ! .... ?

Odd .... Or?

4412

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If a solution is possible, then they have to know a certain number range, thus the upper limit and the lower limit of the range of their numbers, and they have to know another aspect, for example: a possible sum, a possible difference, a possible product, a. possible quotient of their two numbers (for instance: Gerry only knows a sum of the two numbers of a certain number range, whereas John only knows a product of the two numbers of the same certain number range).« ** **

A little vague.“ **

No.

John and Gerry, who are walking along with a clearly visible number written on their foreheads, have to know a certain number range, thus the upper limit and the lower limit of the range of their numbers, and they have to know another aspect, for example: a possible sum, a possible difference, a possible product, a. possible quotient of their two numbers (for instance: Gerry only knows a sum of the two numbers of a certain number range, whereas John only knows a product of the two numbers of the same certain number range). So they know enough, even more than enough (!), in order to solve the riddle.

The primises in the riddle „Perfect Logicians“ (**|**) are enough too. Again:

Arminius wrote:

Perfect Logicians.

Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads. Everyone sees the number on the front of the other but does not know the own number. The game master tells them that the sum of their numbers is either 24 or 27 and that this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero).

Then the game master asks repeatedly A and B alternately, if they can determine the number on the own forehead.“ ** **

A and B know enough in order to solve the riddle.

If it is said that two humans see a number, then we can surely assume that this humans are capable of seeing and reading, and of knowing what they see and read. That is common sense.

4413

WW III Angry wrote:

„Now my model:

Model of WW III Angry

Please note that I allow belief to be truths, but most aren't. You can get lucky. Please note that some knowledge is not truth, but most is. Also please note the vastness of »truth« compared to belief and knowledge. Of course, it's not to any sort of scale, but representative of sentiment that truth is far more voluminous compared to what we can ever know or believe.“ **

If your model could, would, or should be accepted, then rather in the following way:

B., F., K.

Truth is more than this model can show. If you wanted to model truth, then you would try to model the impossibility or God.

4414

The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with selection or even with the sexual selection. Primarily they have to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the English wording „r/k selection“ or even „r/k sexual selection“ is misleading.

R- und K-Strategen
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.

4415

Who is depicted here? ** **

The following solution is false:

B. H. C. ist nicht P. S.

4416

Hahaha wrote:

„Walking to work this morning.
**

Temperature?

4417

Wizard wrote:

„Sex is reproduction, so, same thing.“ **

Not all reproduction is sex. That was my point (**|**).

I was not or not primarily talking about „reproduction and sex“ but about „reproduction and selection“, secondarily also about „reproduction and sexual selection“. Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living beings which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce themselves without sex, and they are very successful without sex.

The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.

4418

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You are just not capable of knowing what beliefs are and what they mean. So it is no wonder that you are also not capable of believing in knowledge.« ** **

He's more than capable, he just has ideological reasons for insisting on using the word wrong. If it was a lack of understanding, one of us would have cleared it up by now.“ **

I think it is both: an understanding problem and an ideological problem. And this seeming unsurmountability would be solvable, if it was not a mix of both: an understanding problem and an ideological problem.

Probably you remember the follwing conversation:

Arminius wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted for the reasons I predicted.

It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:

›3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.‹

How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort of rigorous way?« **

Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably .... However: It sucks very much.“ ** **

Again: Ignore him?

Uccisore wrote:

„You have to distance yourself from the notion that the people you meet are just one good turn of phrase away from agreeing with you. Some are, but many, perhaps most, have no interest at all in listening to anything you have to say, and only make counter points as a sort of excuse, or an attempt to win a game.“ **

During my study at the university I have met many types of students who were back then exactly like he is now. It is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear like stupid people but really are stupid people. You do really not have to care whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.

4419

Such people like certain ILP members can be successful, and the main reason why they can be successful is (a) that they merely have to repeat their texts again and again, (b) that they get attention (!).

Probably you remember the follwing conversation:

Arminius wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted for the reasons I predicted.

It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:

›3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.‹

How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort of rigorous way?« **

Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably .... However: It sucks very much.“ ** **

During my study at the university I have met many types of students who were back then exactlylike the said certain ILP members are now. It is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear like stupid people but really are stupid people. You do really not have to care whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.

So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).

4420

Moreno wrote:

„So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps.“ **

Yes.

But: „WWW“? .... WW III Angry is not the World Wide Web, although he probably wants to be, but he is not ... - ... not yet.

4421

Wizard wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.« “ ** **

Lol no.

Very wrong. Lower animals don't have »sex for pleasure« ....“ **


I was talking about ALL living beings and the fact that the PRIMITIVE living beings NEED NO SEX FOR THEIR REPRODUCTION. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Sex is a relatively new phenomenon of evolution.

4422

Wizard wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.« “ ** **

Yes but even asexual reproduction of single-cell organisms demonstrates R/K-type mechanisms.“ **

I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing to do with asexual reproduction.

I remind you of what I said in my first post of this thread (**|**):

„The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with selection or even with the se}xual selection. Primarily they have to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the English wording „r/k selection“ or even „r/k sexual selection“ is misleading.

R- und K-Strategen
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.“ ** **

So I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing to do with asexual reproduction.

4423


WW III Angry wrote:

„Today, people don't kill adulterers ....“ **

This is true for Christians but not for Moslems.

In islamic societies killing adulterers has been increasing.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN