Ecmandu's No Fool

Let’s go through this whole damn thing, since it is your post that you said I didn’t respond to.

The value comes from the newness not the person conveying the knowledge (as we’ve already been through).

We all have specializations that other do not, so we are all idiots relative to each other.

We know that in the context of idiocy which we all have, some can be smarter and wiser than others, though we are all idiots, and that’s not a contradiction.

And we can conclude that your PMer’s were idiots. I am wiser than you or them. Actually much wiser, but in terms of cosmic philosophy, I claim nothing new, and therefor nothing worthwhile in the GENERAL sense. Which is the only hole you left yourself with uccisore. So I can prove that we are all idiots, and I can prove that we have no new ideas… but you haven’t traversed that aspect with me (probably because you don’t have the spatial IQ to understand infinity). But be my guest and prove me wrong.

And that addresses your entire post. Do you still think I’m trolling?

That is an assertion with no argument to back it.

If by ‘the value’ you mean ‘worthwhileness’, this is false. People can gain something worthwhile from experiences that are not new, or are not new to them. I have given examples that you have not addressed. Here is another example:

If some far away species invented concept X before we did, it is unique to the universe and has unique inplications by virtue of the fact that they did it. When humans eventually invent concept X it has new implications by virtue of the fact that we did it. Was it a man or a woman? In what nation? Why did it take us so long, or why did it take other species so much longer? There are implications there, there is meaningful content there that is only a function of this unique event happening to the human race. These questions and their answers are all unique contributions to philosophy that could not be addressed in any other way, even in an infinite universe.

Just because an idea isn’t new to the universe doesn’t mean it’s recurrence isn’t uniquely worthwhile.

Idiot:
1 : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2 : a foolish or stupid person

Stupid:
1: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things
2: not sensible or logical

Just because somebody has a specialization we lack, does not mean we lack an ability to learn and understand things, and it does not mean we are not sensible or logical.  Einstein was not an idiot just because he couldn't play Tetris or perform eye surgery. Nobody uses the word 'idiot' in that way, you are creating a brand new definition of a term of common speech for no purpose but to try and win this debate, just as you are doing with 'worthwhile'.  Simply put, being ignorant of some specialized field does not make one an idiot.  Furthermore, 'we all have specializations that others do not' is probably false.  There are children and true mentally retarded people that apparently have no specializations. 

It is plainly that sense of ‘some can be smarter and wiser than others’ to which the term ‘idiot’ applies, not to this odd, context-free sense which you are trying to invent for the purposes of this conversation. I am not inventing new definitions for these terms, there’s no reason for you to do so - especially since this is my subject we’re debating. I’ll tell you what is meant by ‘worthwhile’ and ‘foolish’, that is one of the conditions of this debate, and indeed I have done so. If you can’t win with the definitions I’ve provided- which I stress are merely standard and not twisted in any way as you are trying to do- , you can’t win.

If I believed the above, it would be evidence that you are a troll and not a fool, which supports my argument.

 It doesn't matter.  Since you are worthwhile by virtue of counter-example, it is in  [i]what you do wrong[/i] that you contribute to philosophy.  You claim to be contributing nothing new? I already know that. I already know your philosphical ideas are all either accidentally ripped off from sources you are unaware of or else nonsense.  But people can still observe the way you argue, the way you misrepresent facts, change the subject, read inattentively and all the rest that you are known for, and thereby learn how not to do philosophy- which is precisely the sense in which I claim you are worthwhile.   This is worthwhile in a way that is completely beyond your control.  Even though the ways in which you are a bad example are not original, it is still significant that you are a bad example [i]here[/i] and [i]now.[/i] Nobody else is having this preposterous debate with me, trying to prove their own idiocy in order to save face.  It is a way that you, as an object lesson in how not to behave, are uniquely worthwhile to philosophy. 

I think it’s entirely possible. Possible enough that it can’t be conclusively argued that you are as idiotic as you behave.

Now you’re lack of logic just makes you look silly:

Uccisore wrote:

That is an assertion with no argument to back it.

If by ‘the value’ you mean ‘worthwhileness’, this is false. People can gain something worthwhile from experiences that are not new, or are not new to them. I have given examples that you have not addressed. Here is another example:

If some far away species invented concept X before we did, it is unique to the universe and has unique inplications by virtue of the fact that they did it. When humans eventually invent concept X it has new implications by virtue of the fact that we did it. Was it a man or a woman? In what nation? Why did it take us so long, or why did it take other species so much longer? There are implications there, there is meaningful content there that is only a function of this unique event happening to the human race. These questions and their answers are all unique contributions to philosophy that could not be addressed in any other way, even in an infinite universe.

Just because an idea isn’t new to the universe doesn’t mean it’s recurrence isn’t uniquely worthwhile.

Ecmandu writes: Every moment is new. End of debate. Do you want to get into the A=A paradox and the A/=A paradox here? The fact that they live together with each other? Do you even know what you’re talking about?

Uccisore writes:

Idiot:
1 : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2 : a foolish or stupid person

Stupid:
1: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things
2: not sensible or logical

Just because somebody has a specialization we lack, does not mean we lack an ability to learn and understand things, and it does not mean we are not sensible or logical. Einstein was not an idiot just because he couldn’t play Tetris or perform eye surgery. Nobody uses the word ‘idiot’ in that way, you are creating a brand new definition of a term of common speech for no purpose but to try and win this debate, just as you are doing with ‘worthwhile’. Simply put, being ignorant of some specialized field does not make one an idiot. Furthermore, ‘we all have specializations that others do not’ is probably false. There are children and true mentally retarded people that apparently have no specializations.

Ecmandu writes: It does mean they are not sensible or logical IN THAT WAY!!!

Uccisore writes:

It is plainly that sense of ‘some can be smarter and wiser than others’ to which the term ‘idiot’ applies, not to this odd, context-free sense which you are trying to invent for the purposes of this conversation. I am not inventing new definitions for these terms, there’s no reason for you to do so - especially since this is my subject we’re debating. I’ll tell you what is meant by ‘worthwhile’ and ‘foolish’, that is one of the conditions of this debate, and indeed I have done so. If you can’t win with the definitions I’ve provided- which I stress are merely standard and not twisted in any way as you are trying to do- , you can’t win.

Ecmandu writes:

I know you’re stupid when it comes to DNA sequencing (which involves holding millions of variables in your head at once). Not only haven’t you studied it, if you did, it wouldn’t stick. But you being Uccisore, would argue that it does.

Uccisore writes:

It doesn’t matter. Since you are worthwhile by virtue of counter-example, it is in what you do wrong that you contribute to philosophy. You claim to be contributing nothing new? I already know that. I already know your philosphical ideas are all either accidentally ripped off from sources you are unaware of or else nonsense. But people can still observe the way you argue, the way you misrepresent facts, change the subject, read inattentively and all the rest that you are known for, and thereby learn how not to do philosophy- which is precisely the sense in which I claim you are worthwhile. This is worthwhile in a way that is completely beyond your control. Even though the ways in which you are a bad example are not original, it is still significant that you are a bad example here and now. Nobody else is having this preposterous debate with me, trying to prove their own idiocy in order to save face. It is a way that you, as an object lesson in how not to behave, are uniquely worthwhile to philosophy.

Ecmandu replies:

There is no counter example. Nobody, including you, contributes nothing new in the GENERAL sense. You have to argue infinity to argue against this. You cannot distinguish between the microcosm and the macrocosm, which makes you look stupid. Go back and read your definition.

“Your”.

That’s it? No substantial reply? Yes, if you think this A/=A paradox will contain a rebuttal to my claims, let us get into it by all means. Why would you even hold back or ask me that? Let me repeat my point in simpler english since you haven’t bothered to address it:

Just because a philosophical idea proposed is not original doesn’t mean the proposition itself isn’t original or worthwhile. If I say something that somebody else has said before, the fact that I said it when and where I said it may be a unique contribution to philosophy. Therefore your argument that there are no unique contributions to philosophy just because every idea has already been said is false.

And again, you still haven’t defended your position that uniquemess is necessary for worthwhileness in the first place. This is plainly false.

"That way" is just a way you made up in order to score points in this debate, and I'm not having it.  A person is not illogical or unable to understand information or stupid because they have learned some particular skill instead of another. Again: Einstein was not an idiot because he couldn't perform eye surgery. Einstein's inability to perform eye-surgery did not mean he was 'not sensible or logical' in [i]any[/i] way.  Nobody uses 'idiot' in that way, the dictionary definition I gave you doesn't use it in that way, you are plainly trying to make up new definitions of well understood words to win a debate.  

Irrelevant to the portion of my post you quoted.
I am repeating my point because you failed to address it:
You let me define the subject of the debate. As such, I get to define the terms in the subject. I have used standard definitions, so those ARE the definitions we are debating. If you can’t demonstrate that you foolish and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy using the definitions of the terms provided by Webster, then you can’t win this debate.

There is nothing about counter examples in my writing above.  There is nothing about contributions in the general sense in the above.  Your comment on microcosm and macrocosm does not address anything I said above. You didn't reply to the above portion of my post you quoted at all, in fact. What you wrote is a complete non-sequitor to what I wrote. You're just chopping up your brief reply and spreading quotes of mine between it to make it look like you're addressing my points when you aren't.  Clear behavior of a troll.

My point stands- you contribute to philosophy by being an example of what not to do. The uniqueness of your ideas has little to do with it. If anything, the less unique your ideas are, the better an example of what not to do you become. Nevertheless, you are a unique example, in that you are here and now, and no other bad example is.

Actually the macrocosm and mircrocosm is EVERYTHING for this portion of the debate. You said that I couldn’t contribute anything philosophically… (though in this debate you say my contribution is what NOT to do)… I argue that on the macrocosm, (you didn’t say my contribution on earth or your contribution on earth - the microcosm), you said PHILOSOPHY as whole, the macrocosm. And for this you HAVE to argue an unbound infinity, not those microcosmic arguments you are making, and actually with these microcosmic arguments you are trolling, which is why I constructed the OP EXACTLY the way I constructed it.

Oh and by the way… Einstien was called an idiot most of his life by everyone, and most of his life by many, and to this day, people still call him an idiot. Ghandi was once quoted as saying “I thank God for not giving me Einteins brain”

Saying that you can’t contribute anything philosophically is your position, not mine. Did you get confused?

And where’s your reply to the rest of my points? Why are you giving me this nonsense instead? I made four explicit points in my last post, and you haven’t replied to any of them. If you think a sentence fragment, unqualified gobledegook about ‘an unbound infinity’, and calling me a troll constitutes a reply to my points, you’ll have to write more than three lines for once and actually develop a full rebuttal, because to me it looks like the ramblings of an average-intelligence troll. I’ve already replied to your bit about macrocosm vs microcosm- the definition of ‘worthwhile’ implies particular subjects. An event that is not unique on the ‘macrocosmic’ level can still be worthwhile to an observer, many observers, perhaps every observer. I’ve explained this to you three times, and consider that position of yours is refuted. Address the refutation in one of the three places I presented it.

This is a formal debate, and you stand to lose greatly. Shall I list the points of mine that you ignored a third time, or is the above best you’re going to do?

You didn’t cite your ‘factoids’ about Einstein or Ghandi, and I’m not concerning myself with them until you do.

You completely missed my point, or maybe you know exactly what it means, which is why you are dancing around it. You see, you put me in the position where if I win the votes for this debate I am banned and if I lose the votes I am banned. But you made a mistake in thinking you were so clever. The only way I can win this debate and not be banned, is if I can prove I’m wiser than you but still a fool. I can use the microcosm, you cannot. You said general philosophy, or philosophy in general. You didn’t say earthly philosophy. In philosophy in general, there are no new arguments, so I’m not contributing to philosophy in general, and because of infinity, actually NOBODY is… I’m sure that’s a hard concept to wrap your head around. MY point is that I can be wiser than you, but still be a fool. And in saying this, I mean, that people are seen as fools (as you defined it) relative to each other on certain things, for the necessary stratification of intellect built into the cosmic structure. Everyone is an idiot, or at least an idiot savant to everyone else. I told you, that I wasn’t going to make it easy for you to single me out as the only idiot, if I had to make this argument, and I meant it. I would say to this regard, that you have been somewhat, though not very responsive. Since we have established that the worthwhile is the new, and this never happens, I can prove on the meta (general level) that nothing is worthwhile. And if you decide that II must use the general like you must, I can argue that we’re all too foolish to judge this debate, and it becomes a draw (you’re as foolish as I am), which also means I can’t be banned. I ran the steps of the chess game when you posted the challenge.

and to paraphrase iambiguous, this is a debate in irony, but it also has a point… it depends where Uccisore will take this.

My estimation, if that if you were half as smart as you claim to be by the nature of your OP, in having read this whole thread, you’d throw in the towel and let me stay on the boards, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you’re not as smart as your OP deems you to be (remember you’re the smart one here)… and you will continue this to look more and more the less wise and intelligent. Read the whole thread and think about it.

And Carleas, I want my thread moved from rant to philosophy if I win this debate or it’s a draw. I’m assuming it’s Uccisore who moved it there, though I could be wrong, but I see nothing rantful about that thread, especially in the context of this debate.

I socialize on Wednesdays, so I won’t be writing reply after reply. May only be one or two for the next day or so.

Ecmandu, your impression of the conditions of this debate, the stakes of the debate, and the circumstances that led you to be having this debate is not a part of the debate. So I’m skipping every single thing you wrote about that. Let’s see what you actually have of substance remaining to reply to.

Here will be my fourth time refuting this, a refutation you have ignored every time:

  Your contribution to philosophy is through counter example. You serve as an example of how not to do philosophy.  I know your arguments aren't new.  They aren't new on the 'macrocosmic' or on the 'microcosmic' level.  The greatest, most original idea you ever claimed to have was simply ripped off from[i] Brave New World[/i].  I never claimed you were making original arguments in this debate, and the originality of your arguments has  nothing to do with the contribution I allege you make to philosophy. People may gain something worthwhile from reading your works,[i] gain an insight in how not to do philosophy, regardless of how unoriginal you are[/i]. 
    First of all, you haven't demonstrated this, you've merely claimed it.  So I'll expand my refutation which you still haven't addressed.  The great thinkers of the world:  Isaac Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Aristotle,  daVinci, etc.  A lot of them were polymaths: they demonstrated an uncanny ability to master any field they put themselves too.   Nobody calls these people 'idiots' because they never learned how to repair a broken cotton gin or speak Boontling.  We respect their intelligence because, through what they [i]did[/i] do, we can see that they would have mastered anything they put their minds to.  Similarly, the world contains dullards- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb.  They aren't going to master anything, as we understand mastery.  They simply can't think clearly enough about anything to do that.  They may be able to get one trade down well enough to earn an income. Maybe not even that. Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room.   These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).   

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify you as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

Clear evidence that you’re intelligent enough to be a troll as opposed to a fool.

Everything else you wrote, including the three followup replies, contains nothing of substance for the debate.

For one, I’m sure there are certain tribes in the northern kalahari desert that would think all your luminaries are morons, idiots and worse. And you keep avoiding the debate, like someone unwiser than me and less intelligent than me, that you are arguing specifics when the perameters of your debate was about general philosophical contributions and general idiocy. I can be more intelligent than you and wiser than you and still have made no philosophic contribution and be a fool by your definition. You see we’re mirroring each other… you think you’re pretty clever, and this is not off topic for the debate, by setting me up for a situation where if I win or lose the votes I get banned, and then you set it up so you can ridicule me as having made a contribution to philosophy. But you and I and everyone on these boards already knew you needed a HUGE handicap, so we gave you all the cards to hold.

The brave new world does not state that the stratification of motivational system causes increased stress, depression, apathy and agitation in human populations and that this is a cosmic law that neither can be created or destroyed by any hypothetical being. I don’t have to argue that this idea is new, to argue that I am wiser than you, even though I’m the first person on earth to formulate it.

I disagree, and I’d like to see you prove the above, considering you don’t know who all my luminaries are.
The rest of your post was presented nothing of substance to the debate.

I asked you a question, Ecmandu, and you didn’t answer. I will repeat it as it is key to the debate:

The world contains fools- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb. They aren’t going to master anything, as we understand mastery […] Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room. These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify you as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

I was referring to the list of luminaries you provided. They would die if they were sent alone into the kalahari desert, and they have probably helped destroy the world.

By your definition there is only one fool. So you’re arguing that I’m the only fool in the world, and that I’m the only example of what not to do in philosophy. You see, you decided you’re going to set this debate up so you can ridicule me and say I contributed to philosophy… classic Uccisore. So I set the debate up that I can be more intelligent and wise than you and still win the debate. That’s where we are. You haven’t addressed my points about philosophy in general (which is what you stipulated in your own wording) because you haven’t touched the infinity argument, and when you do, you will lose.

More unproven assertions.

Not even close to true. I see you refuse to answer a simply put, straightforward question. Unless you actually have an argument to make, I think I’m done for the day- all my points stand concisely stated, often repeated, and unaddressed by you, so I have absolutely no problem letting the clock run.

Speaking of, how is the debate being judged? I think Carleas ought to do it, since he hosted it and hasn’t given a public opinion on it. Are you alright with that?

Sure. He’s the “executive director” of the boards, and considering the nature of the stakes, that is the most appropriate choice.

Do me a favor Uccisore, remember, I’m a fool (and phyllo is right, and I was right about how you were trying to define fool… I said it before phyllo, so I didn’t get help from discussions) I want you to state all of these points, as non-verbose as possible.

Actually, unless uccisore posts his points in a non-verbose manner (and he has the advantage of this entire page now which he didn’t have before), I will consider that Uccisore conceded the debate.

Uccisore wrote: “You didn’t cite your ‘factoids’ about Einstein or Ghandi, and I’m not concerning myself with them until you do.”

Actually another thing that’s not well known about Ghandi quotes is that he says, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian etc… AND I am an atheist.”

The quote in question was when Ghandi said, " I thank God for not giving me Einstiens brain" He was VERY anti-nuclear ANYTHING, and he spoke out the rest of his life about it. Unfortunatly for him, India got nukes.