Chaos Magic

[dlorde]

Yawn; Time for bed...

 

[Nonpareil]

How, exactly, is it possible to ‘misunderstand’ the following.

That's what I thought. And yet you seem to have managed it.

Blatant misrepresentation: Intentionally ignored explicitly stated qualification

I ignored nothing. You are still strawmanning. And dismissing facts.

but insist that I am wrong anyway…that we can in fact test for these things in that explicit way that I described (which you continue to blatantly contradict with your endless variations)

No. I never claimed that we could look at brain activity and thus determine exactly what someone is thinking. We can, however, look at brain activity and determine if someone is feeling sad, or happy, or sexually aroused, or angry.

Like I said, everything that you listed can be detected.

…in which case you'll be expected to prove it. Meaning….evidence; as in: if you’re going to accuse someone of being staggeringly ignorant you’d better be prepared to back up your claim with something more than endless bald f’ing assertions. And if you can't prove it, then you'll be expected to withdraw the accusation.

Are your fingers broken or something?

Either:
a) We can detect all these things and annnnoid is staggeringly ignorant for suggesting that we cannot.

Or

b) We cannot detect these things as they are explicitly known to those who experience them (do you even have a clue what that means Argent?).

Yes, I know what it means, and yes, we can detect them. You still don't understand what is being said to you.

Evidence for my claim (besides the idiot Chomsky)

I never said Chomsky was an idiot. I said that you were strawmanning his position, and that even if you weren't it wouldn't matter.

the indisputable fact that we have yet to develop even the ability to accurately adjudicate the existence of one of the most basic of human subjective conditions: a lie.

Except that we can.

Oh, and the additional indisputable fact that if we had the ability to detect subjective states of consciousness as they are known to those who experience them it would radically transform the entire psychological profession (no more multi-year therapy sessions…the ‘tests’ can tell us all we need to know about what is going on in patient xyz)

You really don't understand what "therapy" means, do you?

 

[annnnoid]

So there’s only two possibilities Sherlock…either you noted the qualification but insist that I am wrong anyway…that we can in fact test for these things in that explicit way that I described (which you continue to blatantly contradict with your endless variations)…in which case you'll be expected to prove it. Meaning….evidence; as in: if you’re going to accuse someone of being staggeringly ignorant you’d better be prepared to back up your claim with something more than endless bald f’ing assertions. And if you can't prove it, then you'll be expected to withdraw the accusation.

…or you deliberately ignored the qualification and misrepresented the whole thing….but decided that you could just throw around accusations of “staggering ignorance” anyway because that’s what lapdogs do. In which case it will become crystal clear who the 'ignorant' one actually is.

So which is it?...or can we expect you to once again try and ‘strawman’ your way out of this one? Which…is…it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Need I point out that your theory contradicts Pixy’s assessment. You say we can’t detect everything in detail (although, in fairness, your position seems somewhat vague at times). Pixy says we can. Who’s actually right I wonder?

Probably Pixy. I haven't done much reading on the subject in a while, and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if such machines had been invented since I last checked.

No need to worry, it's just another blatant strawman.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip previously-refuted nonsense>

Are you quite finished with your little tantrum?

No?

That's okay. I'll wait.

 

[annnnoid]

Is this what skeptics do when they’ve been proven wrong…whine!

Let’s go Pixy….we are still awaiting the revelation of this miracle process that can, as you (and your pet) claimed, detect every word on that list. What, haven’t found it? Oh well, there’s always tomorrow. I’ll remind you then shall I. Or maybe you’re like Argent, maybe you just haven’t checked in a while. Oooops, then maybe you shouldn’t be making massively stupid claims if you don’t have a shred of evidence to back them up (maybe you oughta pass that advice on to your lapdog as well). But is that too harsh? Nope, don’t think so.

So there’s only two possibilities Sherlock…either you noted the qualification but insist that I am wrong anyway…that we can in fact test for these things in that explicit way that I described (which you continue to blatantly contradict with your endless variations)…in which case you'll be expected to prove it. Meaning….evidence; as in: if you’re going to accuse someone of being staggeringly ignorant you’d better be prepared to back up your claim with something more than endless bald f’ing assertions. And if you can't prove it, then you'll be expected to withdraw the accusation.

…or you deliberately ignored the qualification and misrepresented the whole thing….but decided that you could just throw around accusations of “staggering ignorance” anyway because that’s what lapdogs do. In which case it will become crystal clear who the 'ignorant' one actually is.

So which is it?...or can we expect you to once again try and ‘strawman’ your way out of this one?

Evasion noted Argent. Are you actually incapable of answering the charge? Just a hint, but avoidance is often a sure sign that you’ve got something to hide. If you're innocent, you answer (because you can). And if you’re not….you run away So what do we have, we have Argent running away, over and over and over and over and over again. Not a good sign Argent. Sleep on it, I’ll remind you again tomorrow….maybe by then Pixy will have found this miracle device and you’ll have an alibi, but I wouldn’t count on it.

 

[carlitos]

annnnoid, are you allergic to google scholar? You referred to "hypothetical" areas of the brain. The areas are known.

 

[annnnoid]

annnnoid, are you allergic to google scholar? You referred to "hypothetical" areas of the brain. The areas are known.

Carlitos, no offense, but why don't you read what I wrote before you jump to conclusions that quite obviously do not describe what I wrote. I think we have actually been down this road before. If you can't find it, just let me know and I'll go grab a copy for you. It's very clear, it's very explicit, it's very simple, and it's very brief. Either Argent saw it and ignored it, or he simply decided to misrepresent it. There is no third option (well.., actually there is, there is the option that Argent simply doesn't possess the intelligence to understand a very clearly written statement....which would likely be sufficient to get him acquitted if this were a court of law).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You want wisdom? its free, to those who can accept it.

To a wise man there are three sets here;

(reality,( those who are open to all experiences( those who are skeptics))).

Dear punshhh, I have some wisdom to offer you. I have used chaos magic based research, my telescope to speak, to come up with a great exercise that is specifically tailored for your spiritual needs. As such it will probably not work for anybody else.

Be that as it may, there are whole bucketloads of wisdom and experience waiting for you. If you are willing to accept it, that is.

All you need to do is to spend 2 hours daily to repeat the incantation "hooooo moooofoooo moooooofooooo" as loudly as you can, while being in a relatively populated place, such as the main street of the town you live in.

As the wise man that you are, I am sure that you will find great pleasure in exercising your openness to all kinds of experience.

 

[Katopale]

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.

What is the only reason anyone thinks any of these things are real? Because we experience them as being so.

This reminds me of when I go to buy house paint.
There are all these colors. Hundreds of swatches of different colors.

Weird thing is, they can mix me any of these colors from a relatively small machine behind the counter. How the hell can they fit all those colors in there!?

And how do we know the names of all those colors!?

 

[carlitos]

Just think how many colors it would make if you dropped acid and cast a spell first.

 

[Katopale]

Just think how many colors it would make if you dropped acid and cast a spell first.

Well, that is the best time to ask the colors their names.

 

[annnnoid]

Well, that is the best time to ask the colors their names.

…ask the colors their names. A useful analogy.

To whatever degree it matters….computers have yet to even achieve the ability to accurately adjudicate the meanings of written statements (as in: translate the meaning into some other variety of language…which is why they are not used in higher level translation services except as support tools), let alone accurately interpret the meanings of verbal statements (there is no official jurisdiction or institution in the world that uses anything other than live human translation services…although EU technicians are working feverishly to try and improve this situation….probably because at least half the population of Brussels is employed at any one time as interpreters)


…and here we have Pixy and the monkey suggesting that we have the ability to accurately adjudicate complex meaning that exists completely outside of virtually any ability we have to even detect it (…and then...far from providing evidence for this earth-shattering claim, they accuse me of ‘staggering ignorance’ for disputing it)? Because that is exactly what that statement means: To “detect these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them”…quite obviously does NOT mean to detect these things as they are known to exist to an MRI, or a CT, or an EEG, or any one of the many other scanning techniques available. All of these tests have various limitations and require controlled conditions and complex interpretive paradigms to produce anything intelligible in the way of results. As I said, we can’t even accurately detect a lie (which explains, Argent, why there’s barely a handful of jurisdictions in the entire world that allow them to be used in the judicial process…and then only under rigorously controlled conditions: why?…BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE [I did notice you went to the trouble {for once} of actually presenting some evidence for one of your stupid claims though {surely we could just google it ourselves!}….too bad it was a claim that’s such a blatant non-starter…here’s a PROTIP for you: you probably wouldn’t look like such an absolute fool if you didn’t try to misrepresent the case to such a degree).

Name calling is not civil or polite and does not effectively advance your argument. Please, cut it out.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[carlitos]

annnnoid, have you seen the IBM Watson project? They programmed a computer to understand slang, analogies, trick questions, etc. It beat human contestants in a test run of the game show "Jeopardy."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/13/technology/ibm_jeopardy_watson/index.htm

The real event will be televised in the middle of February.

I really don't understand your points. You seem to be saying that machines (or rulers) can't experience emotions like humans can. I agree with this, but I realize you have a broader point, something to do with consciousness.

Would you consider succinctly stating your point, so that I might understand your position more clearly? If it's not related to 'chaos magic' maybe you could put it someplace else and link it?

 

[Nonpareil]

Let’s go Pixy….we are still awaiting the revelation of this miracle process that can, as you (and your pet) claimed, detect every word on that list.

It's been given to you.

Evasion noted Argent.

It's not an evasion. It's me not dignifying your shameless copypasta from previous posts with a response. I've already told you what I think of that bit. I don't care enough to do it again.

Either Argent saw it and ignored it, or he simply decided to misrepresent it.

Neither. I saw it, took it into account, and gave you an answer based on it. You ignoring that doesn't change it.

To whatever degree it matters….computers have yet to even achieve the ability to accurately adjudicate the meanings of written statements

So you've given up on the "we can't detect lies" now, then? Good. At least you've realized you were wrong there.

And yet you're still wrong.

…and here we have Pixy and the monkey suggesting that we have the ability to accurately adjudicate complex meaning that exists completely outside of virtually any ability we have to even detect it (…and then...far from providing evidence for this earth-shattering claim, they accuse me of ‘staggering ignorance’ for disputing it)? Because that is exactly what that statement means: To “detect these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them”…quite obviously does NOT mean to detect these things as they are known to exist to an MRI, or a CT, or an EEG, or any one of the many other scanning techniques available.

Actually, it does. Chemical reaction X is known as "happiness" to a human experiencing it. Chemical reaction X is known as "chemical reaction X" to the machine detecting it. But it's still detecting that the person is experiencing happiness.

Object A is object A.

All of these tests have various limitations and require controlled conditions and complex interpretive paradigms to produce anything intelligible in the way of results.

So? We can still do it.

As I said, we can’t even accurately detect a lie

Ah, so it's accurately, now? Nice way to move the goalposts.

But in any case, I'd say eighty to ninety percent accuracy is pretty accurate.

 

[punshhh]

Dear punshhh, I have some wisdom to offer you. I have used chaos magic based research, my telescope to speak, to come up with a great exercise that is specifically tailored for your spiritual needs. As such it will probably not work for anybody else.

Be that as it may, there are whole bucketloads of wisdom and experience waiting for you. If you are willing to accept it, that is.

All you need to do is to spend 2 hours daily to repeat the incantation "hooooo moooofoooo moooooofooooo" as loudly as you can, while being in a relatively populated place, such as the main street of the town you live in.

As the wise man that you are, I am sure that you will find great pleasure in exercising your openness to all kinds of experience.

I cant do everything, only God can do that.
I am more open to experiences than skeptics who dont adopt an open mind to things which do not have a scientific explanation.
I know which set I would rather be in.

 

[Zanders]

I cant do everything, only God can do that.
I am more open to experiences than skeptics who dont adopt an open mind to things which do not have a scientific explanation.
I know which set I would rather be in.

If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. I understand that it's good to stay open to possibilities beyond out current understanding of science, but people like you seem to take it to far to the other side and try to make everything paranormal.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I cant do everything, only God can do that.
I am more open to experiences than skeptics who dont adopt an open mind to things which do not have a scientific explanation.
I know which set I would rather be in.

Only god can go "hoo moofoo" in a public place?

And anyway, it's not that skeptics have closed minds. Skeptics are providing several different explanations to seemingly paranormal phenomena, and pointing out we can't really be sure which one is true - so we shouldn't act like we do. The believers, on the other hand, have already decided exactly what caused their experience, and are completely closed off to any alternative explanations. Just see this thread for several examples.

 

[tsig]

I cant do everything, only God can do that.
I am more open to experiences than skeptics who dont adopt an open mind to things which do not have a scientific explanation.
I know which set I would rather be in.

Are you open to the idea that god doesn't exist?

 

[punshhh]

Only god can go "hoo moofoo" in a public place?

And anyway, it's not that skeptics have closed minds. Skeptics are providing several different explanations to seemingly paranormal phenomena, and pointing out we can't really be sure which one is true - so we shouldn't act like we do. The believers, on the other hand, have already decided exactly what caused their experience, and are completely closed off to any alternative explanations. Just see this thread for several examples.

This is for Zanders also,

I haven't put my position yet as I was not intending to join this thread. It must be drawing my mind in bit by bit.

In reality I am closer to your side on this issue, I am not really interested in paranormal activity and prefer not to address it either way.

I remain open minded to it, and it happens to me and my friends from time to time in various forms. I enjoy it and see it as a manifestation of reality which we don't yet understand and leave it at that.