the thread to end all replies.

or an analysis of forumistic idiocy.

let us consider a modelling of the average forum discussion. consider the system S of all objects. we will further refer to a specific object as S1,2,3 etc or Si,j,k etc. we will refer to a set of objects (random) as S(i) and to an organized set as S(rule). all these are partitions of the system S

consider the set M of all possible relations between all posible partitions of S. consider the systems R1,R2,R3 of all real, exisitng relations between various partitions of S, according to lists of rules LR1, LR2 etc.

Somebody will post a thread saying (the parts in are implicit)

[in S exist] objects S(rule). do you think they have propriety Ri ?

the posts will happily follow, on the following lines :

  1. S(rule) are not all the objects in S.
    1.a. sometimes in the form S(newrule) is also in S

  2. Ri is not the only possible property in M.
    2.a. sometimes in the form Rj is also in M

  3. S(otherrule) also have the property Ri
    this is usually a subthread starter, because it will turn out only a partition of S(newrule) really has property Ri

  4. the LRi behind Ri is not concordant with LRj. hence long boring tedious subthread discussing the relative merits of LR’s.

  5. i dont know what exactly you mean by S(rule), Ri or whatever else, nor do i think i should bother find out, but somehow i still feel like i should post, so i will talking about whatever happens to cross my mind at the time.

the examples of this are so many they make up i estimate half of all the replying on this forum. try the mental exercice when following a thread to isolate the S and R of the original poster and of the follow ups and (for a prize) find a thread where rigor is observed for an entire page, or by more than 5 consecutive posters (whichever)

please try and understand that all this is very very ignorant, idiotic, stupid, ridiculous, and all the other bad things. it will not make anyone respect you. if it will make anyone respect you, it only says something about them. it will not make you look as “part of the debate” or “the community”. quite the contrary, it will make it painfully obvious you are part of neither.

i wiiiish the staff would insta ban anyone doing any of the 1-5. please ?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I feel I should bother to find out. I like chocolate chip cookies with milk…anyone else?

but that doesn’t apply unless ND is above SD…

but of course the property RI is east of OH…

but of course not immediately…

semantics…

-Imp

You know Imp…if someone like Gamer can’t figure this out, how do you expect the average board idiot to realize the idiocy of his posts? To communicate with the idiot, one must speak as an idiot.

why communicate with idiots? if the idiots want understanding, they ask…

if not, it is their loss and not my concern…

they remain free to be idiots…

who am I to deny their inalienable right to be hebetudinous?

-Imp

Zeno,

Your 1-5 numbers are good, but I need coherence.

Its ultra-zeno logic. I know it when I see it.

Unfortunately, zeno has pretty much summed up the problems in all communication, not just internet posting. Its a classic formula for deconstructing the formalities of language and pointing out the resulting loss of meaning between the speaker and the listener, I think. And no, I don’t understand a bit of it either so, Gamer, give me a cookie.

What you must be doing here, zeno, is creating some kind of system where you can identify a faulty poster among other posters within a certain context. If you see a topic started and notice a few people who shift the course of the discussion toward what you don’t consider the subject to be, this doesn’t mean that they have intended to sabotage the thread. Obviously we know the difference between pure bantering and some genuine attempt at philosophical thinking. I think you are a little quick to judge members who participate in threads, but ‘don’t add much,’ according to you, who are really trying to make sense. You’ve got to walk the thin line of enforcing judgement on those who are clearly being assholes and those who are just a little slow.

No, I don’t like the way the threads explode into a million little sub-subjects either. I can quaff an entire thread in one gulp. If I have an issue with the meaning or definition of a concept that is being used to bolster another, I can evaluate the concept within that context and on the spot. I don’t have to leave the thread and start another topic on ‘will’ when I was just in the other thread discussing ‘free’ will, for instance. You will notice I don’t create many threads, most of the material I would argue is already presented in an existing thread, I just go there. Another thing. I could put anything ever thought about what ‘God’ might or might not be in one thread. There wouldn’t even be a religion forum, much less four hundred sub topics about what God does on Tuesdays, where he lives, if he’s cool, what he looks like, etc.

If everyone did this I think ILP would cost alot less to maintain, as well as stay more organized.

of course god welds on tuesdays…

-Imp

I’ve eaten an enormous amounts of sweets and cookies today, and still I don’t understand the zeno’s post. were you under some drug, or…?

what would happen if some of the words, a few abstract ones were excluded, forbidden in ILP? like “god”, “logic”, any other suggestion?
just think what would happen…

or, of there was a dictionary of all words that came into existence during some specific historical period (e.g. Enlightenment), and if they had to be liquidated…
what would remain?
what woudl we talk about?

Zenofeller,

I agree, but this thread has already been hijacked by the #5’ers.

Maybe the community is not what you think it is.

Heimdall

zeno, I would say you are as guilty of your own charges… I know I am guilty – but I place blame on the original poster in most cases when I reply to the subthread rather than the original… if the original is boring, and the subthread is fascinating, the subthread should be the new S. why conform just for the sake of order? why not make the standard “the most interesting topic in the thread” rather than “the original post in the thread”?

I can understand that one would like to see the topic being discussed that is in the title, when one clicks to open the link.

But, if there are many aspects of the topic which, if left unaddressed, do not fully flesh out all the implications of the original topic, then I can see a pseudo-diversion as necessary.

I don’t see what all this has to do w/ lesbians, but I thought I’d reply anyway… :wink:

In all fairness I see precisely what Zeno’s getting at. It actually reminds me of something in a Carl Sagan book, I think it was Demon Haunted World, where he listed and explained all 20-something fallacies used in common debates and arguments. There was like…the straw man, the slippery slope, the non-sequitor, the ad hominem, the false dichotomy, the…and I recognized every one of them from my life as the guy who always insisted on being “contrary” and liked to “argue just for the sake of arguing,” both of which, if are true, never rang true to me about me. No, I get off on trying in my measley human way to omit error for the mutual benefit of my compadres…sorry if this pisses them off, or makes me look like I like to argue when I don’t. Fact is, NOT being guilty of fallacies can get you into lots of trouble. Being intolerant of fallacies can get you friendless, quick. I come here to be one of the dumb ones…thanks to many of you I get what I need. So I hate seeing EVEN dumber ones.

Ayn Rand also made such a list in Philosophy Who Needs It (I’m not Randian, but rather Randie.) People who say “It’s true for you, but not true for me,” and a million others I can’t name…but that’s the point, we know these things intuitively when they pop up, like old enemies, so when Zeno categorizes them neatly, catches them in little mouse traps, it gives me sort of a rush. Sort of. Part of me wants to set the mouse free, or not even look.

Naturally I was too lazy to truly deconstruct each granular explanation of what I consider to be “non-giftedness in tracking and prioritizing logic-based communication.” As I get older I find that the more patient I am, the more I realize people are way smarter than I thought…probably smarter than me in some other way. I have these little tiny kids now, and I have to be patient. And when they grow up, I’ll still be patient. I hope everyone will be patient to them. And so, according to Kant’s categorical, I’ll have to be patient with the S1’s, RL2s and so forth…maybe there’s a purpose for these lost thoughts, these contortions of logic, these very human brain farts and gaffes…maybe it’s what separates from AIs…and how we got so smart as a species, by being dumb.

Please excuse the L1, R2(a,b) and the discussing the relative merits of LRs. If I must be banned for these trifles, so be it.

…meouw! Mentally masticated mentosis! I think I just swallowed my brain trying to figure out what you call “stupid”. Thank you! I’ll just add another notch to my inferiority complex if you don’t mind :evilfun:

Why not teach a (wo)man to fish, instead of attempting to drown him/her?

If I misunderstood that, I would appreciate clarification. If you don’t clarify, I don’t think you really had anything to say worth listening to. Should have put it in the rant forum, if that is the case.

Another example of idiocy just might be saying something really simple in a very complicated way…which is CLEARLY going to happen on a philosophy forum, case in point: Zeno’s first post in this thread. Without needless pomp, where would philosophy be? Anyway, the idea that someone might change the subject, shift the focus and otherwise dilute the original poster’s intentions is a very simple concept. Reducing these things to numeral and letter variables is fun, in the way that asking for a lollipop in raw binary code is fun, but it doesn’t make the observation any less cliché, does it. She’s right. This is a rant disguised as philosophy. And I suspect much of philosophy falls into this category. Take Wittgenstein. The Tractatus is just another way of saying “I am a foppish rich man’s son who once built model airplanes, and I want to die, but not without first telling you all how stupid you are.”

aint a rant gamer. its simply the shortest way to say precisely what i wanted to say, nothing less but nothing more. then again you were right, the germans accomplishing that got them unreadable. so i suppose i will be friendless and never a moderator. aint impressed much.

now she, here is the teaching to fish (i really like you for the way you ask things).

no communication ever makes sense outside of context. there is no such thing as self contained code. with that in mind, it is stupid to attemt to interact with any text ignoring its context. which is why, when somebody says

[in S exist] objects S(rule). do you think they have propriety Ri ?

you now have two alternatives. choice A, you can accept the LRi from which Ri stems, and the rule which defines S(rule) and proceed talking about what the OP was ostensibly trying to talk. you could say things that are meaningfull, such as

S(rule) is not in S or a certain Sj in S(rule) does not have Ri, or so forth. ths for the negative.

or you could be positive and meaningfull saying S(rule) must have Ri because Ri is a derivative of rule, or whatever else

or you have choice B, which is to be an ass, ignore the context (or the impluicit assumptions that allow for communication) and start an entirely different discussion, whitout starting a new thread.

does it make more sense now ?

[contented edited by ILP]

abgrund is right actually.

now get that dirty rustoleum off my syllogistic desert.

Actually the gibberish is correct with the regard to posts.

However the keynote speaker has only observed and not interpreted.

The reason people give answers 1-5 is entierly due to their personal beliefs and personalities.
Both of which cloud your judgement.
Real philosophical discoveries will be extreemly complicated, well beyond the average human comprehension. At the same time as being extreemly simple in the explenation.

Like my theory of everything.
Life is a chain of events = simple
The chain of events governs all actions and reactions in the universe, all chains are intertwined, randominity does not exist etc = the universe is about a million times more complicated than presently perceived

i am now forced to add nr 6, shamefull plugs

it goes like… oh, the keynote speaker is correct in his gibberish, check out my 170 i points commemorative t-shirts and matching set of japanese stainless steel kitchenware, made in china. we take visa and mastercard blablabla