Profile for Thuryl

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Educational Segregation in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #8
quote:
Originally written by Actaeon:

Being among your peers is a privilege, not a burden, and should be weighed with other factors when making such a decision.
But who are one's peers? When I was accelerated from Year 8 to Year 11, I know that I felt I had a lot more in common with the older students than with those my own age. My academic and social life improved.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
'Rational Mind' = Can't use a lamp?! in Nethergate
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Starman1985:

I still beleive you can't use them there to powerful not be overlooked.
Well, you believe wrong, because Rational Mind doesn't prevent you from using them.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #181
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

You are posing irrelevant questions here.
Irrelevant to what? I'm just posting questions I find interesting. They may not be relevant to what you want to tell me, but they're relevant to what I want to know about you.

quote:
It will still exist as a can of soda + water/frosting/piss regardless of what words you use to describe/label it. (emphasis added)
This is exactly the kind of naive thinking habit I'm trying to break you out of. Have you really gone through your whole life without encountering, say, the Ship of Theseus paradox?

quote:
quote:
To put it yet another way, what do two cans of soda have in common with, say, two horses?
They both exist regardless of what we think/believe about them(or DON'T). An unaware person can trip over the can of soda and another person can come along an hour later without being cognizant of the can's presence and trip over the same can. A horse might trample both of them.
I'll try again, since you're intent on deliberately misinterpreting me (and you accuse me of playing semantic games!): what do two cans of soda have in common with two horses that one can of soda doesn't have in common with one horse? I'm not convinced you've ever thought about what the word "two" means.

quote:
That is absurd. What is illogical about understanding how things work and expecting them to work as inference would dictate by the mechanisms involved?
How many times do you have to see a ball rolling down a hill in order to prove, without any possible room for doubt, that gravity works the way you think it does? Is one time enough? Is two enough? Is three enough? You need to give me an exact number when the principle is proven with 100% certainty. That's how logic works: there's no wiggle room. If there is, what you're doing may be science, but it isn't logic.

quote:
quote:
Have you heard of David Hume?
Yeah he used to front the Talking Heads before going solo in the 80's right? No waitaminute...he is that guy with the stick up his arse on Fox News right?
Gadzooks. You're serious. You haven't heard of David Hume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

It's becoming increasingly clear why you keep misinterpreting my questions: you honestly have no educational underpinning whatsoever in philosophy. I find that rather sad, and I find it even sadder that you feel the need to hold such contempt for a field you know so little about.

quote:
Deduction, induction and bald assertions notwithstanding, I am not buying what you are selling.
The difference between an axiom and a bald assertion is only a false air of respectability.

[ Sunday, August 26, 2007 14:49: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #176
So is your sig. Shorten it.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #174
quote:
If I grab what we now call "one"(a singular item) can of soda and set it next to my monitor next to ANOTHER can of soda, then I have TWO cans of soda, regardless of whether we call this quantity "two" or "Sleestack".
The problem isn't in what we call "one", it's in what we call "cans of soda". There's no objective, unambiguous definition of a complex object such as a can of soda -- it's a social construct. Is a can of soda still a can of soda if you pour out 1% of the soda and replace it with water? What about 90%? 99%? Does the number two still exist if there are no objects for there to be two of?

To put it another way, do you believe the number two is a real object or an imaginary object? According to you, if it's a real object it must be material: what substance is it made of? And if it's imaginary, it doesn't exist.

To put it yet another way, what do two cans of soda have in common with, say, two horses? "There's two of them" is not an answer.

quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

So you are saying that no matter how repeatably we can demonstrate a ball rolls downhill(as opposed to straight up into the sky or changing into a big marshmallow or whatever) when released from the top of said hill, we should not infer that gravity works as it apparently does?! That just because we do not observe splitting atoms to result, by direct inference, in gold coins spewing from volcanoes half a world away is not reason to conclude that there is no reason to infer such a thing?!
I'm not saying there's no reason to; I'm saying there's no logical reason to, although there are perfectly good practical reasons to. Have you heard of David Hume? Induction is certainly a useful way of gaining information in practice, but it's not logically valid, no matter how much you might like it to be. And because it's not logically valid, there's no way to reach a conclusion with 100% certainty through induction alone, no matter what axioms you start with.

[ Sunday, August 26, 2007 06:15: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
hey,, check this out,.. in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #9
You're trying to steal from a company on its own official forums. Were you dropped on your head as an infant? If not, you should have been.

[ Sunday, August 26, 2007 04:01: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #169
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

But you don't have to a Platonist to find the very idea of things existing outside the human mind appealing. Either way, math as a language is a human invention, the principles behind it are at best human discoveries... I think... eh...
That events happen we may accept for now as uncontroversial. That those events seem to happen in certain patterns is a useful observation. The idea that those humanly-constructed patterns (which are, after all, based on a large but finite data set) represent objectively existing universal laws is somewhat more problematic.

I view a logic (I say "a logic", for there are multiple different kinds of logic used by different logicians, or by the same logicians at different times) as a kind of gentleman's agreement to refrain from considering the possibility that certain patterns which we consider most essential for analysing the world may not always apply.

[ Sunday, August 26, 2007 02:48: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #167
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

Another way of putting it: we need a language like math to describe the principles of logic, that exist outside the human mind.
Ah, but that's the crux of the issue, now isn't it? If you're not a Platonist, you don't necessarily believe that the principles of logic do exist outside the human mind.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #164
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

Neither is math and yet math is still a pretty solid method for determining that 2 + 2 does in fact = '4'.
Ah, now this brings up a question for which I never got a straight answer out of you last time we talked. Are you a Platonist or not? Because your sentence as it stands is contradictory: either mathematical objects are purely human constructs and the only reason that 2 + 2 = 4 is that we define "2", "4", "+" and "=" so that it must do so (in which case saying "2 + 2 does in fact = 4" is vacuous, because you could just as easily define it to equal 5), or mathematical objects do exist independently of human agency.

quote:
Everything which exists(outside of the imagination) IS natural/material/physical and must be so by definition.
Question 2: are you a positivist? That is, do you believe that "to exist" means nothing more or less than "to have observable effects"? Because that's what this sentence seems to imply, but positivism is inconsistent with some of the claims you've made in previous debates. If you're not a positivist -- that is, if by "natural/material/physical" you mean something other than "having observable effects" -- then you're going to have to define what you mean by "natural/material/physical".

quote:
I do not grant your re-definition of "science" here. Science is basically empiricism + logic, from a materialist axiom, relying on several methodological principles to distinguish "belief" from actuality.
quote:
Science is not some singular, sentient entity
Which of these do you believe? Is science something, or is it nothing?

[ Saturday, August 25, 2007 23:28: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
G5 Artifacts in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally written by The Ratt:

Remind me what the emerald chestguard does.
It guards your chest and makes you look fabulous.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
I Win in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally written by Fractal:

What is JWH?
John Winston Howard.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
I Win in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #4
Yup, 10k is the big one, at least until we get to 100k. I might actually consider using JWH instead of this account sometimes.

Of course, when I get to 10k posts I'll have to post an "I Win Again" topic...

[ Saturday, August 25, 2007 04:26: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #159
Okay, suppose you're right. Suppose that scientists have all of this power and authority. Why should they give all of that up, just because you, an ordinary, fallible human with no special authority, say so? Power has to be held by somebody, and given that everyone is just about equally imperfect, it may as well be held by scientists as anyone else. If power corrupts, then everyone being a little corrupt is no better than a few people being very corrupt. In fact, you could say that those who hold on to power and keep it from others are doing them a favour by preventing them from being corrupted.

[ Friday, August 24, 2007 22:07: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Where do you find artifact components? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #1
From Synergy's recipe list:

quote:
EIGHT ARTIFACT INGREDIENTS

Blood Poison
— Dumping Pits-N-room south from pathway, on table
— Western Morass-NW In Transport Room In Locked Canister

Purified Essence
— Circle Of The Drayk-C
— Sealed Catacombs-E

Essence-Infused Skin
— Turabi Gate-SW
— Khima-Uss-SW

Solidified Flame
— Warded Sea Caves-NW

Deep Focus Orb
— Eliza’s Bunker-E

Essence-Infused Iron
— Golem Fen-C-Spawner

Unmelting Ice
— Wrecked Labs-SW

Crystalline Fibers
— Matala's Workshop-S

Ur-Drakon Skin
— Quessa-Uss-Salassar’s Shrine

Pure Crystal Shard
— Breeding Pits-SW


[ Friday, August 24, 2007 20:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Engineering Software Very Cheap Price in Blades of Avernum
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #1
Is this really the kind of software that a lot of people want to pirate?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
I Seek to Obtain the Meaningless Approbation of my Fellows in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #1
IMAGE(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/IMC/MX2267~Jumping-Duck-Posters.jpg)

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #155
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

People can deal with, "Well, we'll just have to think about that some more" much better than they can deal with, "That's just idiotic." When you say the latter you don't just limit the other person, but yourself from adjusting and growing. Pride comes before the crash.
The crash is exactly what I'm aiming for. The only way to discover what things are truly enduring is to try to destroy everything and see where you fail. I set fire to the world to find out what will rise from the ashes.

[ Thursday, August 23, 2007 23:34: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #151
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Let's say we disagree on an issue and I hold myself out to be an agent of truth and knowledge. What is the best way for me to find out who, if either of us, is right?
There is no way to find out.

Suppose you accept that you're fallible: now, someone else, who's also fallible, tells you something and changes your mind about an issue. But if both of you are fallible, you have no way of knowing whether you were right or wrong to change your mind. You're no closer to knowing the truth than you were to begin with. The only way to escape the dilemma and actually get things done is to assume that you have a perfect ability to discern what is true or false. The fact that this assumption is false is irrelevant; that's what makes it a myth, and good myths are essential to any functioning individual or society.

quote:
Should I call you stupid now or say, "let's agree to disagree and maybe we can think about this more if new information comes to light."
"Let's agree to disagree" is just a polite way of saying "I still believe that I'm right and you're wrong, even if I can't convince you of it." It isn't of any real consequence whether you think they're wrong because they're stupid or because of some other reason.

quote:
I'd listen to your perspective. Even if you're wrong I might learn something of my faith from you.
How would you know that you'd learned something from me, as opposed to being misled by me? By applying your own judgement, presumably. So in the end it still comes down to having absolute confidence in your own ability to find the truth.

quote:
So I'd never be so bold and haughty as to belittle someone for disagreeing with me.
Disagreement is belittlement. If you didn't believe that someone was wrong about something, you wouldn't disagree with them. That's what disagreement means. And since it's better to be right about something than to be wrong about something, to say that someone is wrong about something is to belittle them.

[ Thursday, August 23, 2007 19:34: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #148
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

He can't tolerate the fact that some people have looked at the evidence logically and disagree so they are classified as stupid. He is not alone in that sentiment. That's a repulsive attitude for anybody to have. It's no wonder when people are repulsed.
Is it still repulsive if it's true? It's almost impossible to study psychology without coming to the conclusion that practically everyone is stupid about most things. (I include atheists in this just as much as any other kind of person, by the way.)

People don't have time to think for themselves about everything that affects them: that's why we have experts in the first place. Trying to think critically instead of trusting experts is an extraordinarily arrogant thing to do. I mean, how would you feel if I thought I knew the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses better than you did?

[ Thursday, August 23, 2007 14:49: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #137
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I do agree that the illiterate should be lied to. They have a lot of nerve even breathing the same air as us, let alone expecting honesty as if they even know what truth is...
Hang on, you're asking for two contradictory things there. Which should people expect: honesty, or not to be lied to? It's impossible to have both all the time. Sometimes honesty requires saying things that aren't strictly true, because the truth would be more misleading than a lie.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #134
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

A world of scientists would be an Orwellian nightmare realized. We've simply swapped one dominant religion for another.

-S-

So what's your solution: no dominant religion, or your religion as the dominant religion? Do you dare to deny that you believe the world would be better off if there were more people like you?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #131
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

a lot of my friends and associates are from a major college town where I spend a lot of time
In other words, the people you know are not a representative sample of the general public. Nearly 20% of the world's population is illiterate: how do you expect to get through to them with your facts and figures? Myths have more power than facts ever will.

[ Wednesday, August 22, 2007 20:22: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #129
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I don't need exaggerations to decide what to believe.
Would you consider yourself more or less intelligent than an average member of the public?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
buying spells vs. finding spell books in Avernum 4
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #1
quote:
Originally written by btmorex:

Can someone explain the difference between buying spells + improvements vs. finding spellbooks in dungeons? I notice that when I find a spell in a dungeon I still get the options to buy it and improve it. It seems kind of odd that I have to pay for it even though I already learned it to be able to improve it.
You can always buy up to 2 levels in each spell, regardless of how many levels you got by means other than buying it. Paying to improve a spell you already know is almost never worth it: the only effect will be a tiny increase in the spell's effectiveness, equivalent to one extra point of Spellcraft or Magery.

quote:
On a similar note, I notice that the learning a spell message is something like "Your skill with <whatever> +1". Does that mean if I've already bought and improved the spell that it will get even more improved?
Yes, but as above, only by a small amount.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #127
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

When they speak of knowledge they've uncovered through scientific method in absolute and non-negotiable terms it lets me know they have lost touch with reality and puts a large question mark over everything they say. Science simply does not work that way.
They haven't lost touch with reality; it's just that some of them decide to give the public the sanitised version of the truth, because admitting any degree of doubt leads to the deniers rubbing their hands in glee and shrieking "See! We were right all along! They don't know what they're talking about!" Admit doubt and people will cling to their self-serving beliefs on the grounds that it's not 100% certain they're wrong; fail to admit doubt and people will say you're out of touch with reality. It's a no-win situation. Nobody ever convinced the public of anything without a little exaggeration.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages