The peanut challenge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:04 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Ge fanks bros..replies too short so il add this..


Mo froblem.

As a side note... here are some fun facts about peanuts.

:detective: Dr. George Washington Carver researched and developed more than 300 uses for peanuts in the early 1900s; Dr. Carver is considered "The Father of the Peanut Industry" because of his extensive research and selfless dedication to promoting peanut production and products.

:muscle: Tom Miller pushed a peanut to the top of Pike's Peak (14,100 feet) using his nose in 4 days, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 3 seconds.

:intentive: March is National Peanut Month. National Peanut Month had its beginnings as National Peanut Week in 1941. It was expanded to a month-long celebration in 1974.

:uo: What is supposedly the World's Largest Peanut is in Turner County. A 20 foot tall peanut, it is a monument to the importance of the peanut in Georgia history.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:33 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Mo froblem.

As a side note... here are some fun facts about peanuts.

:detective: Dr. George Washington Carver researched and developed more than 300 uses for peanuts in the early 1900s; Dr. Carver is considered "The Father of the Peanut Industry" because of his extensive research and selfless dedication to promoting peanut production and products.

:muscle: Tom Miller pushed a peanut to the top of Pike's Peak (14,100 feet) using his nose in 4 days, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 3 seconds.

:intentive: March is National Peanut Month. National Peanut Month had its beginnings as National Peanut Week in 1941. It was expanded to a month-long celebration in 1974.

:uo: What is supposedly the World's Largest Peanut is in Turner County. A 20 foot tall peanut, it is a monument to the importance of the peanut in Georgia history.
So me drinking six pints of guiness and four packets of peanuts and then pebble dashing my mums front room is not very interesting..???
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 05:33 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
So me drinking six pints of guiness and four packets of peanuts and then pebble dashing my mums front room is not very interesting..???


Now if you were doing all that while supposing you were a giant peanut, then we have ourselves a conundrum... especially the pebble dashing part. What would that be if you were a giant peanut? Peanut butter? Lightly roasted?
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 09:55 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
glory for you." Alice is confused because that is not the context in which glory is used. Humpty replies "I meant there's a nice knock down argument for you!" Of course, we know that that's not what glory means. But Humpty basically replies "glory means whatever I mean it to mean."

Here is where this all addresses your comment. Alice states "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." That's the underline issue, which is not resolved as Humpty continues to use words that do not follow their accepted use and Alice gets flustered and leaves. But basically, Humpty Dumpty claims that the meaning of the words he used (i.e. un-birthday, glory, pay-it-forward, etc) are not constrained at all. If you compare that to Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver goes to the academy, we understand the meaning of an expression by understanding its use.

So jgweed I think underlines a problematic account of semantics and perception.
Ya, But I believe most people nowadays will prefer to trust the meaning they believe oficial language gives to the words, rather than the meaning they think words should have. At least, most people I know and hear about seen to care too much for what is "right" Smile

I think the first step in convicing a peanut that he is a man is giving the peanut the ability of being convinced about things Smile

This makes me remember of another situation: A philosopher, Plato I think, once defined man as "feather-less biped". Then another philosopher whose name I forgot, who is very interesting by the way, brought him a feather-less chicken and declared "I brought you a man", forcing the first to change the definition to "feather-less biped with broad toe-nails".
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 11:41 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
Ya, But I believe most people nowadays will prefer to trust the meaning they believe oficial language gives to the words, rather than the meaning they think words should have. At least, most people I know and hear about seen to care too much for what is "right"

But see the problem is in what the official meaning of a word is. I think the example of Humpty dumpty swings both ways, both in regards to how words can be unconstrained and at the opposite end of the spectrum constrained.

One of my favorite neo-feminist philosophers has a very good argument for the constrained meaning of a word. Stephanie Ross in How Words Hurt underlines the concept of a dead metaphor. Take for example the word "hysterical." To say, we use the term hysterical to refer to people that are funny, non-sensical, and people that make us laugh (as well as people that are a little nuts, so there is a double meaning in there). But etymologically, hysterical comes from the Greek word hystia, which basically means "women's ovaries." Now as time went on, the hurtful word hystericalB!tch
manored wrote:
I think the first step in convincing a peanut that he is a man is giving the peanut the ability of being convinced about things
manored wrote:
This makes me remember of another situation: A philosopher, Plato I think, once defined man as "feather-less biped". Then another philosopher whose name I forgot, who is very interesting by the way, brought him a feather-less chicken and declared "I brought you a man", forcing the first to change the definition to "feather-less biped with broad toe-nails"

That's a good one. Francis Bacon (quoting from saint Thomas Aquinas) said "Man doth like an ape that the higher he climbed the more he shown of his behind."
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:42 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
But see the problem is in what the official meaning of a word is. I think the example of Humpty dumpty swings both ways, both in regards to how words can be unconstrained and at the opposite end of the spectrum constrained.

One of my favorite neo-feminist philosophers has a very good argument for the constrained meaning of a word. Stephanie Ross in How Words Hurt underlines the concept of a dead metaphor. Take for example the word "hysterical." To say, we use the term hysterical to refer to people that are funny, non-sensical, and people that make us laugh (as well as people that are a little nuts, so there is a double meaning in there). But etymologically, hysterical comes from the Greek word hystia, which basically means "women's ovaries." Now as time went on, the hurtful word hystericalB!tchbehind."
I was going to answer that first quote, but then I noticed that my answer was nearly equal to what was being quoted, so... there is something weird here Smile

Second quote: I think you are forgetting the pratical side a bit... its doesnt matters if you got a peanut that has more priori knowledge than deep thinker (The legendary computer that, even before having his memory banks activated, proved, through the reasoning of "I think, therefore I am", the existence of two kinds of food) if you cant communicate with it Smile Thats what I meant.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 06:22 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:

Second quote: I think you are forgetting the practical side a bit... its doesnt matters if you got a peanut that has more priori knowledge than deep thinker (The legendary computer that, even before having his memory banks activated, proved, through the reasoning of "I think, therefore I am", the existence of two kinds of food) if you cant communicate with it Thats what I meant.
Deep thinker - Encyclopedia Dramatica
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:18 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Nobody yet has been able to convince me that 12:00AM and 12:00 PM are correct labels for each of those times. I think they should be the other way round ! :brickwall:
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:32 am
@memester,
Though ridiculously resource and effort-heavy, the first idea that came to my mind was to pay anyone the victim might talk to to reassure and reinforce the idea that the philosopher is a peanut. Begin the process by stating that one is a peanut, and when the victim chuckles at the philosopher, the philosopher may simply challenge him to ask anyone else.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:20 am
@memester,
memester wrote:
Nobody yet has been able to convince me that 12:00AM and 12:00 PM are correct labels for each of those times. I think they should be the other way round ! :brickwall:


Maybe a more precise way to get around to the center of the problem is for you to elaborate on the question itself.

If you refer to, in your first post, "is there a way to convince a person that you are a peanut" and now " are 12:00 Am and 12:00 PM correct labels for each other," you are asking a semantic question centered in the philosophy of language.

Is this a metaphysical question? An existential question? A epistemological question? Since philosophy is a many tiered system, there are many different answers to the same problem.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:40 am
@VideCorSpoon,
What i meant is that the first step to convincing a peanut of things is to be able to communicate with it: I have no idea of how it could be done nor of how his responses, if we had a way, should be interpreted.

The deep thinker is a imaginary computer from "the hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" who was capable of absurd feats of intelect. I thought you knew about it, thats why I didnt made it clear Smile
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Maybe a more precise way to get around to the center of the problem is for you to elaborate on the question itself.

If you refer to, in your first post, "is there a way to convince a person that you are a peanut" and now " are 12:00 Am and 12:00 PM correct labels for each other," you are asking a semantic question centered in the philosophy of language.
I didn't ask a question.
Quote:


Is this a metaphysical question? An existential question? A epistemological question? Since philosophy is a many tiered system, there are many different answers to the same problem.
That question is interesting to me, so I will look to those fields to clarify that question. I'm assuming you mean the AM/PM dealy, since you would have responded as you did to the OP if it were his question you are referring to. Thanks though ! I guess you saw my post as a question, though I meant it to be an example of the difficulty someone might have in changing my view; perhaps that would be something akin to turning a peanut into a person :bigsmile:.

Since I have entertained that question, I appreciate your input on possible solutions on how to clarify the question.
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
@manored,
I mentioned this thread to my yiddische freind Rabbi Straalstront and he revealed me that the Peanut is known to the Initiated since a long time, thanks to the Cabbalistic Writings of Shimon Bar Yochay. In the Zohar it is named the HEXAGRAMMATON, latine dicitur DEUS DEORUM, the "God beyond God", the "Divine Quintessence", the "God that only God knows". Mortals who speak the name of the P... will either become the purest of light or be reduced to the foulest of ashes. Thought you should know that before you go on with this, folks. These are dangerous matters!

 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:34 pm
@Catchabula,
Manored,
I've been meaning to look into "the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" because it is referenced quite a few times here on the forum. I'll probably see the movie though.

Memester,
Sorry about that, mixed you and manored up. I think since you didn't enter the conversation until post #28 and the statement was formed in such a way that it seemed to continue another conversation, I mixed the two of you up. I know I probably shouldn't start another delineation, but what would be the nature of your view that would cause so much difficulty in it being changed?

Catchabula,
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:59 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:


Memester,
Sorry about that, mixed you and manored up. I think since you didn't enter the conversation until post #28 and the statement was formed in such a way that it seemed to continue another conversation, I mixed the two of you up. I know I probably shouldn't start another delineation, but what would be the nature of your view that would cause so much difficulty in it being changed?
It's not just that view of mine, which would be difficult to change. I've PM'd you to ask about your post, and if there is a forum section for help in learning how to determine what type of question my AM/PM prob, as an example, might be -. Epistemological question or other. It's a "what logic is used to justify 'the way it is' " kind of question about 12:00 AM/PM.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:30 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Manored,
I've been meaning to look into "the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" because it is referenced quite a few times here on the forum. I'll probably see the movie though.

Memester,
Sorry about that, mixed you and manored up. I think since you didn't enter the conversation until post #28 and the statement was formed in such a way that it seemed to continue another conversation, I mixed the two of you up. I know I probably shouldn't start another delineation, but what would be the nature of your view that would cause so much difficulty in it being changed?
The movie, althought good, is nowhere as good as the books thenselves, and the story is quite different after a certain point. The books are also quite short, actually so short you will feel some kind of sadness then you end reading then, even more knowing the author is dead Smile He has some other less famous books that are as good though.

Its not that I have difficult changing my view, but I have difficult in understanding how do you think it would be possible to convince a peanut that he is a man winhout, first, being able to communicate with the peanut in some way, what we are, as far as I know, not. At least thats I think you seen to think althought thats not quite what I think you meant. Hum, thats sort of it Smile

There is a huge flaw to the concept of "god only god knows" and I believe everone here can see it Smile
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 06:41:03