So what makes me bad?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 01:14 am
@richrf,
richrf;83957 wrote:
The lists are just a set of beliefs. No different than any other set of beliefs.


What about how they're based on reality unlike every pet theory you bring up here

richrf;83957 wrote:
There is no proof that any of these beliefs provide any benefit


Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

richrf;83957 wrote:
So basically, one should be skeptical about the skeptic and what the skeptic is proposing.


but welcome the charlatan with open arms

I am making a thread about this video:

YouTube - Open-mindedness

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 03:23 AM ----------

thread here

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/5534-open-mindedness.html#post83968
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:25 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;83967 wrote:
What about how they're based on reality unlike every pet theory you bring up here


I think you are living in an absurd world where computers are equivalent to human beings and where creativity is suppressed in the name of mindless, robotic imitation of that which was already taught in school. Every great theory preceded experimentation verification. Some theories resist proof. No one knows what stuff the universe is made of and why it acts in the way it does. I enjoy creativity and welcome it. You can live in your own sterile world of pluses and minuses, but I prefer a far more creative, active world. Quantum physicists such as Bell, d'Espagnat, Wheeler, Feymann, Bohm, Zeilinger have incredibly creative, imaginative, thoughts that stretch the imagination. Why the heck would I give up all of that fun, spice of life, for your drab world?

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:31 am
@richrf,
richrf;83996 wrote:
I think you are living in an absurd world where computers are equivalent to human beings and where creativity is suppressed in the name of mindless, robotic imitation. Every great theory preceded experimentation verification - proof. The creative mind always comes first. Thanks for welcoming me into your sterile world of pluses and minuses, but I prefer a far more creative, interesting world. Thanks again.

Rich


Do all your arguments consist of ad hominems?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:17 am
@kennethamy,
Why am I suddenly thinking about this video clip?

Funny Videos: Stupid Karate Expert

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 09:32 AM ----------

richrf;83957 wrote:
The lists are just a set of beliefs. No different than any other set of beliefs. There is no proof that any of these beliefs provide any benefit, and therefore, by the author's own guidelines, should be treated with skepticism.


There is no proof that honesty provides any benefits?
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:46 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;84014 wrote:
There is no proof that honesty provides any benefits?


Exactly. There is no real proof of anything. Everyone just chooses their own belief systems. Which is OK with me.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 10:47 AM ----------

kennethamy;83998 wrote:
Do all your arguments consist of ad hominems?


Does it bother you, Ye ole king of ad hominems?

Rich
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:55 am
@ltdaleadergt,
I think honesty does bring many benefits, for one I can live with myself, another, life is alot more and simple and you gain respect.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:03 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84023 wrote:
I think honesty does bring many benefits, for one I can live with myself, another, life is alot more and simple and you gain respect.


Hi Caroline,

I choose to be honest when appropriate and dishonest when I feel it is appropriate. For example, I would not tell someone that they look very old for their age, even if they asked. What id do look for it life is sharing, caring, trust, etc. I try to get there by being aware of who I am and who are others.

There are people who choose to be overtly dishonest . Wall Street and the housing market are full of these people and made tons of money in doing so. They achieved these benefits. However, they do lose the trust of their clients and friends. Trade-offs in life.

I think it is appropriate for both sides of the universe to express itself and for people to observe and be aware of it all. Actually, observing the dishonest side of oneself is quite interesting and I have found leads to a moderation of both sides of one's own personality.

Rich
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:08 am
@ltdaleadergt,
Hey Rich,
Oh yeah, I wouldn't tell my friend he has a fat ****, I'd tell him it was lovely!
Financial gains are only material benefits at the cost of, in my opinion a high cost, of many other values so I'm not interested in ripping people off or harming them in this way just to line my pockets, it holds no value for me.
Thanks.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:12 am
@richrf,
richrf;83788 wrote:
By a continuum I mean there is no separation between consciousness/mind - energy - matter. It is all the same, but say that one is more dense than the other. So consciousness condenses into energy and energy condenses into matter. I visual would be similar to the relationship between vapor-water-ice. Everything is the same, but just in a different form.

Rich
Hum, doesnt makes sense to me, I dont think consciousness can be declared to have a form and studied in such a way, it is always beyond our grasp.

TickTockMan;83792 wrote:
I've posted this link here before, but I think it might be worthwhile to re-post for review in light of the current discussion:

Critical Thinking Field Guide (Skeptical Inquirer Winter 1990)
He starts saying that life after death is unsupported then its a logical fact, so I dont agree with his methods much =)

Lets not start a discussion over life after death though, that would off-topic this even harder

TickTockMan;83846 wrote:
I keep reading and rereading the article trying to find what the author is trying to prove. I don't see that he is trying to prove anything, rather he is simply offering a methodology of thought by which any (including one's own) beliefs can be tested without succumbing to blind faith.
as far as I understand, Richrf is making a little game here, where he is behaving in the way that author suggests as much as he can, what brings up a paradox: How to trust a guide on how to think critically if, before reading it, you, supposedly, do not know how and, therefore, do not have the basis to decide you are not running into blind belief?

richrf;83996 wrote:
I think you are living in an absurd world where computers are equivalent to human beings and where creativity is suppressed in the name of mindless, robotic imitation of that which was already taught in school. Every great theory preceded experimentation verification. Some theories resist proof. No one knows what stuff the universe is made of and why it acts in the way it does. I enjoy creativity and welcome it. You can live in your own sterile world of pluses and minuses, but I prefer a far more creative, active world. Quantum physicists such as Bell, d'Espagnat, Wheeler, Feymann, Bohm, Zeilinger have incredibly creative, imaginative, thoughts that stretch the imagination. Why the heck would I give up all of that fun, spice of life, for your drab world?
Ah, who knows how open-minded and reasonable one should be? Only life will tell, probally =)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:20 am
@manored,
manored;84032 wrote:
Hum, doesnt makes sense to me, I dont think consciousness can be declared to have a form and studied in such a way, it is always beyond our grasp.

He starts saying that life after death is unsupported then its a logical fact, so I dont agree with his methods much =)

Lets not start a discussion over life after death though, that would off-topic this even harder

as far as I understand, Richrf is making a little game here, where he is behaving in the way that author suggests as much as he can, what brings up a paradox: How to trust a guide on how to think critically if, before reading it, you, supposedly, do not know how and, therefore, do not have the basis to decide you are not running into blind belief?

Ah, who knows how open-minded and reasonable one should be? Only life will tell, probally =)


Well, we should certainly distinguish between having an open mind, and an empty head.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;84035 wrote:
Well, we should certainly distinguish between having an open mind, and an empty head.

What do you mean exactly?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:44 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84036 wrote:
What do you mean exactly?


Well, having an open mind is being receptive to plausible ideas that oppose your own, and not just rejecting them out of hand. But, having an empty head is to have no beliefs of your own, and being willing to accept any implausible nonsense as worthy of consideration. There is a difference between (say) chiropractic, which has some (minimal) plausibility. and say, aroma therapy, which has none.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:47 am
@kennethamy,
I can't remember now if it was Sagan or Asimov who said, "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;84044 wrote:
Well, having an open mind is being receptive to plausible ideas that oppose your own, and not just rejecting them out of hand. But, having an empty head is to have no beliefs of your own, and being willing to accept any implausible nonsense as worthy of consideration. There is a difference between (say) chiropractic, which has some (minimal) plausibility. and say, aroma therapy, which has none.

Well I used to have Indian head massages and it was the most relaxing thing I have ever experienced so I think it is plausable. Thank you
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:11 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;84045 wrote:
I can't remember now if it was Sagan or Asimov who said, "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."


Yes, and each person makes their own choice of what they want to believe. A problem arises when someone else tries to tell people what they should believe and how they should believe. That is religion - which is also OK.

Rich
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:27 am
@richrf,
richrf;84053 wrote:
Yes, and each person makes their own choice of what they want to believe. A problem arises when someone else tries to tell people what they should believe and how they should believe. That is religion - which is also OK.

Rich


Can you prove that?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:29 am
@ltdaleadergt,
Yes I can. I saw a documentry once where christians were telling innocent children that if they did not believe in Christianity then they would burn in hell.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:31 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;84061 wrote:
Can you prove that?


I never suggested anything needed to be proved. You are entitled to your beliefs whatever they are. I will go about my merry way exploring, learning, sharing, creating, with other human beings out there who want to share with me.

It is my and their choice whether or not they likewise wish to share. And neither of us need some thought police watching over our exploratory process. I would like them to feel comfortable sharing with me their thoughts. What is not needed is some artificial religious-like constraints that are imposed on thoughtful and creative people in places like classrooms.

If you wish to talk only about things that have been proved, go right ahead. That pretty much limits you to talking about nothing. Then you relegate yourself to become a thought policeperson, for lack of anything else to say. But as you wish.

Rich
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:45 am
@richrf,
richrf;83815 wrote:
I never suggested anything needed to be proved. You are entitled to your beliefs whatever they are. I will go about my merry way exploring, learning, sharing, creating, with other human beings out there who want to share with me.

It is my and their choice whether or not they likewise wish to share. And neither of us need some thought police watching over our exploratory process. I would like them to feel comfortable sharing with me their thoughts. What is not needed is some artificial religious-like constraints that are imposed on thoughtful and creative people in places like classrooms.

If you wish to talk only about things that have been proved, go right ahead. That pretty much limits you to talking about nothing. Then you relegate yourself to become a thought policeperson, for lack of anything else to say. But as you wish.



Rich


richrf;83815 wrote:
Prove it! You are just making all kinds of claims and expect me to believe it without a single shred of evidence or proof. Prove that you can change my mind. Prove that you can change anyone else's mind. Prove that there is a mind to change. And while you are at it, you can write to that author and tell him that he is wasting my time until he has some proof that his article has any affect on anyone.

This should keep you busy for a while. A mathematical proof would be ideal.

Rich



That's policeMAN to you, thank you very much. I never was much into the whole "person" thing.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:47 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;84067 wrote:
That's policeMAN to you, thank you very much. I never was much into the whole "person" thing.


I hope he doesn't spend too much time working on those proofs. Maybe you can help him?

Rich
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:09:46