I don't know whether there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
True. But we are talking "we". Supposedly humans. That's what I'm sticking with. Computers are not humans. — god must be atheist
But I don't know that there is a limit on how long there will be conscious beings. — TonesInDeepFreeze
your refusal to define and adhere to a definition of "object" is inexcusable. — Metaphysician Undercover
Also, for philosophical purposes, it seems arbitrary to confine this question to a particular species at a particular point in history. — TonesInDeepFreeze
There we go. — god must be atheist
But I still would be interested to know whether he does recognize that there is no greatest number. If he does, then I would need to retract some of my previous comments about this. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I actually can't see the UNIVERSAL advantage of unifying objects and terms of measurement. Sailors still measure velocity in knots; Americans still measure weight and volume in ounces and gallons and pounds. If there were an advantage to unification, everyone would be using the same system, and yet we don't. — god must be atheist
Rather, no matter how you define it, you contradicted yourself about it, as I quoted you doing that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I conclude that I was wasting my time. — Metaphysician Undercover
How about, if I don't know what degree of precision my friend needs to complete his task, I just tell him that the value he need is pi, then he can use whatever approximation is suitable. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I always thought from my experience that maths types were invariably into classical music. It was the physicists who scaled peaks. — apokrisis
I have explained over and over that in rigorous mathematics: — TonesInDeepFreeze
I really do not understand why someone would keep spouting the same mistakes over and over, even when explained to him, — TonesInDeepFreeze
Crankery corrodes knowledge, understanding, clarity and communication. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And while I don't begrudge them the prerogative to do that, I don't begrudge myself the prerogative to refute it and denounce it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
this is you now setting your self-appointed standards for the site — apokrisis
And there are moderators who actually are responsible for deciding the limits of tolerance. — apokrisis
have you achieved a measure of success? — apokrisis
And while I don't begrudge them the prerogative to do that, I don't begrudge myself the prerogative to refute it and denounce it.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
This speaks of a joyless rigidity to life. — apokrisis
And you are mistaken if you think "actual maths" trumps "actual philosophy" on a philosophy website. — apokrisis
I'm trying — Agent Smith
But I find it worthwhile to post the corrections to the record. I don't have an inflated sense that this makes any "hill of beans" difference in the outcome of humankind or the world. It's just, for me, satisfying, even if only in principle, to articulate and enter my comments. And I believe it is constructive to do that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I don't know what kind of person he is away from posting, but I find him to be flippantly dismissive in my interactions with him as a poster. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Rather than stamping out crackpottery, you are fanning its flames. — apokrisis
We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
I'm questioning your definition of "constructive". — apokrisis
excuses — apokrisis
reading further back in the thread — apokrisis
dogmatic — apokrisis
Rather than stamping out crackpottery, you are fanning its flames. — apokrisis
rude attitude — Kuro
formal/technical errors — Kuro
We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.
However, a rude attitude seldom yields anything productive: — Kuro
Norman J Wildberger — apokrisis
formal/technical [errors] — Kuro
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.