100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > creativesoul
|
Topic:
Creating Life
|
|
Synthetic biology will probably go down as the greatest achievement in the history of mankind.
Very few humans are even aware of it's existence. It could also be the end of mankind. I was certainly unaware of it. The last I read it wasn't from "scratch", but rather was more like borrowing pre-existing ingredients... 
So, a complete new self-replicating organism? Very interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
Philosophy is about concepts, not definitions. Folk can judge without having the ability to judge soundly. They can and they do. 
What you state is paritally a true statement that people can judge without having the ability to judge soundly for, people do have the ability to judge though, some may not have the ability to judge soundly. Definition was to point out the topic will go nowhere and see it did not. It seems to be a useless topic of meaningless words being thrown out with no relative use for nothing. BravaLady I still believe you are right and still agree with you. Have fun ... good-bye. To me the topic is silly. Some folk do not see value in the pursuit of understanding how judgment works, other folk do. We're all entitled to our opinion. My opinion of someone who enters into a philosophical discussion for the purpose of saying that they think it is silly isn't a good one. Seems rather tactless to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
I'm sure that we all judge incorrectly at times. My interest is in knowing the difference between the two. I think we respond to question and choices that we are faced with by mentally imagining the outcomes of the various actions we could take. In our imaginings we compare the probabile outcomes of the different actions we could take with knowledge that we have gained through expereince. We expect that our judgements will produce outcomes that are beneficial for achieving a goal. When we don't achieve the expected outcome it's easy to say we have misjudged or it is just as easy to say that we judged correctly but our goal was thwarted by 'circumstances beyond our control'. When we attribute failure to outside influences, without further self reflection, we condemn ourselves to making further misjudgements because the basis from which our judgement is made (our knowledg)is not questioned and corrected. I agree. It takes something external to our belief system in order to show us a flaw in our belief system, but we have to be willing to accept the possibility that we've been wrong. Perhaps it be better put... the world starts to look different when one starts looking at the world differently. Poetic liscense.
Furthermore, there are times that we misjudge, but the outcome is still satisfactory. Although the good outcome occurred due to 'circumstanses beyond our control', we may fail to recognize that we had misjudged, preferring to believe instead that the base of our judgment is sound.
"The fundamental attribution error!" Indeed. One can arrive at a true conclusion based upon false premisses if the means they arrive at that conclusion are illogical. There is one category in particular, on which we base some of our judgements, that is more difficult to change than any other because we protect to the extreme. That category is the one under which our values are stored.
We are more likely to base unexpected outcomes to outside influences than we are to reflect on our own value system. I would predict that the majority of our misjudgments stem from actions based on our system of values. I think I agree, but I cannot quite be certain. If you get back in here, I'd like to see this notion developed a little more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
I'm sure that we all judge incorrectly at times. My interest is in knowing the difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the point in wrestling with pig? In the end, you both get dirty, and the pig loves it.
Pan, you've went for 20 something odd pages without offering a single argument for your claims which have been since shown to be highly suspect, at best and utter nonsense, at worst. I'm not interested. Gather your thoughts, and say something intelligible. Until then, and you can trust me on this... I'm through with wallowing in your self-imposed ignorance along with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb, What do you think about the assessment at the bottom of this post? -- Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying? Pan:
Joe was most certainly lying. He did lie if you take the question and his knowledge literally. Joe Knew Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer. Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others. The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions. 1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain. 2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. I think that a person who is lying is a person who is stating something he believes to be untrue. If a person believes what he is saying, then he is not lying, even if what he is saying is not true. Lying is deliberate deception. Now Creative knows that. Does Peter know that? I don't honestly know. His game is ego driven. So, do you agree with the conclusion in 1 and 2 regarding what it would take for Pan's conclusions about Joe's honesty to be true? Yes of course. It's the only way I can see to make sense of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that the true colors have been shown clearly enough. Time to leave this thread for dead unless someone wants to posit another scenario in order to apply the criterion, or use the same one to posit different answers so that we can look at how the criterion works on those as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 04/03/12 05:38 PM
|
|
Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others.
--- What kind of person would walk into a house, look at another and ask them "are you isolated from others?" knowing that they were there as well(expecting the person to count the questioner)? Better yet, what kind of person would insist that an honest answer to the question "are you the only one here?" should count the questioner, and if they do not, then they are most certainly lying? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb, What do you think about the assessment at the bottom of this post? -- Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying? Pan:
Joe was most certainly lying. He did lie if you take the question and his knowledge literally. Joe Knew Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer. Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others. The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions. 1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain. 2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. I think that a person who is lying is a person who is stating something he believes to be untrue. If a person believes what he is saying, then he is not lying, even if what he is saying is not true. Lying is deliberate deception. Now Creative knows that. Does Peter know that? I don't honestly know. His game is ego driven. So, do you agree with the conclusion in 1 and 2 regarding what it would take for Pan's conclusions about Joe's honesty to be true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Joe was most certainly lying.
2. He did lie if you take the question and his knowledge literally. 3. Joe Knew Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question. 4. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer. 5. Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others Those are your claims. The only way to make sense of them is by arguing for what Joe's interpretation of Jill's question is/was. #3 clearly implies that he believe that Joe should have counted Jill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain.
2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. What are you disagreeing with, and why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did you make an argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone say "projection"?
Make an argument for your position Pan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your argument depends upon Joe counting Jill. Are you saying that in order for Joe to answer Jill's question honestly that he SHOULD BE counting Jill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jb,
What do you think about the assessment at the bottom of this post? -- Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "yes". Is Joe lying? Pan:
Joe was most certainly lying. He did lie if you take the question and his knowledge literally. Joe Knew Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer. Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others. The above claims rest upon a couple of very dubious presuppositions. 1. In order for it to be true that "Joe was most certainly lying", then Joe would have to believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. In fact, we would have to know that Joe believed that in order to be certain. 2. Saying that "an answer of 'no, of course not' should be Joe's honest answer" is to say that Joe should believe that Jill was asking him to count her when she asked him if he was the only one there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
Philosophy is about concepts, not definitions.
Folk can judge without having the ability to judge soundly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say that your "literal" interpretation is silly and misleading.
I also say that you wrongfully assign your nonsense to my position. Then make sense of your claims... Offer an argument which shows how "no" SHOULD BE Joe's honest answer. I've effectively shown how that requires Joe to believe that Jill expects him to count her. Your argument depends upon Joe counting Jill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is ridiculous.
What do you think of the assessment I gave? I'd be interested in your view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just went back through the last several pages and counted 34 responses that you gave, and there's not a single argument nor counterargument in any one of them, including the one you just gave. I did not stop at an argument either, so who knows how far back I could've gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noone is interested in being proven to be mistaken, that's why you want me to leave.
I am. Show it or shut up. That's all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
