Thread: If the internet became self-aware

Originally Posted by wendylove

I didn't do it first, you appealed first. With you mentioning Buddha. All I said was that Einstein was the first to right down how matter relates to energy, which is correct. You didn't even mention appeal to authority before I mention it, look back and see who used it first.

Einstein! it has been known for about 100 years.

I win.

I base my reasoning on facts or logic, not belifes. Anyway, I can believe unicorns exist, but they don't.

You need to clarify the way to distinguish fact from belief. Unicorns is too broad an example

Concepts are a subset of reality, the number 2 doesn't create the real numbers, its just an element in the subset. Also, second question was just metaphysical jibberish.

Isn't the metaphysical another subset of reality? Stop acting like a Cartesian Denialist.

Thoughts are not symbols, they are a collection of lots of complex things for example how you brain processes words and how neurons fire e.t.c.
Also, the left hemisphere does not operate in symbols, this is a gross oversimplification and is wrong.

^ symbol

Word is not a symbol, again I don't know how you're defining symbol. A word is made up of lots of ideas and symbols, not just one, hence you can't reduce words down to one thing. Also, direct knowledge is silence concept is just senseless metaphysics.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This sym⋅bol

   /ˈsɪmbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sim-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -boled, -bol⋅ing or (especially British) -bolled, -bol⋅ling. –noun 1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign. 2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au. 3. a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign. –verb (used with object) 4. to symbolize.

No its just a subset of reality, kind of like how matter is a subset of reality. Everything in this universe including silence is a subset of reality.

If you plan on ever using the word subset again let's make a thread about dualism. Seriously, you make, and start describing this concept of reality where things are divided into subsets of reality, and then I'll respond to that.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I would love to see Buddha correctly calculate the kinetic energy of a 5 kg object moving at 0.5c.

What would be the point of doing that in an era where people don't understand what kinetic energy or 0.5c is?

I win.

Calling someone Einstein is an inslut, as it mean't to be sarcastic.

You need to clarify the way to distinguish fact from belief. Unicorns is too broad an example

Belife is not based on reason, fact is. Also, fact has evidence.

What would be the point of doing that in an era where people don't understand what kinetic energy or 0.5c is?

Well, to be actually useful.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

What would be the point of doing that in an era where people don't understand what kinetic energy or 0.5c is?

Well, if Buddha understood physics, like you say, then he would have been able to do that.

Because obviously the epitome of understanding is being able to measure the rate of kinetic flux or whatever. O.o

And Wendy, for like the fifth time: You used the fallacy known as "appeal to authority" in the quote I used above. I decided to show you how saying we "knew" something for a 100 years was a pretty profoundly stupid thing to say. I appealed to authority, because the best way to attack a fallacy is just give it back to them. If you can't even realize when you use a fallacy, then don't call oher people on theirs'.

Because obviously the epitome of understanding is being able to measure the rate of kinetic flux or whatever. O.o

Yes it is. If you understood what energy is you would be able to do it.

I decided to show you how saying we "knew" something for a 100 years was a pretty profoundly stupid thing to say.

Its true, before Einstein you wouldn't be able to know what energy is, so for example you don't know how to solve drewmandan's equation.

I appealed to authority, because the best way to attack a fallacy is just give it back to them. If you can't even realize when you use a fallacy, then don't call oher people on theirs'.

Firstly, E=mc^2 was only known in the last hundred years.

Secondly, Buddha doesn't know anything about physics.

Obviously because ideas that aren't expressed in our current paradigm's standardized format should be disregarded.

I know what energy is, and I can't calculate kinetic energy for jack shit.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I know what energy is, and I can't calculate kinetic energy for jack shit.

Then you don't know what energy is. You have some esoteric, new-agy notion of 'energy' that is so illuminating, it allows you do exactly nothing in terms of new technologies. All this notion allows you to do is apparently talk out of your ass.

ONCE, once, once, I would like to see a new-age type with a college degree in a science. Is that too much to ask for you lazy bums?

Right because if you're thinking without also measuring things and quantifying them, then you're useless to society.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Right because if you're thinking without also measuring things and quantifying them, then you're useless to society.

I don't think you do either. You clearly don't actually delve deeply into your interests. All you do is skirt around the edges of philosophy and you think you know something.

I think I'm learning things. I delve deeply, I just don't attach myself very deeply because inevitably it'll all get proven wrong so who gives a fuck? Right now, everyone on earth still thinks the earth is the center of the universe, in a manner of speaking. I'm willing to let the paradigms change. My ideas are not meant to be fought for, but reasoned. If your ideas makes sense, I listen.

I don't make dicussions based on finding conclusions. If you want to end a dialogue with a statement of "fact" then I suggest you have it with someone else.

I mean, I honestly don't know what to make of my life, I have no conclusion about whatever the fuck it is we're all experiencing. It strikes me with nothing but awe and confusion, and everytime I think I figured out something it all shapeshifts and changes and I start over again.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Secondly, Buddha doesn't know anything about physics.

Of course he does, he's enlightened. Besides, everyone knows something about physics. Everyone. Do you know that leaping from a high branch will result in a fall that could injure you due to an impact with the ground? Ahh, physics.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Belife is not based on reason, fact is.

What is your reason to believe that statement is true?

Originally Posted by wendylove

Well, to be actually useful.

What is the use of knowing the speed of light in a world that uses horse drawn carriages as its most sophisticated mode of travel? What is the use of calculating the kinetic energy of an unobservable theoretical object? You seem completely incapable of imagining a world in which your personal paradigm for reality does not exist. Do you think it useful to know the price of windshield wiper fluid when you don't own a car?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the use of knowing the speed of light in a world that uses horse drawn carriages as its most sophisticated mode of travel? What is the use of calculating the kinetic energy of an unobservable theoretical object? You seem completely incapable of imagining a world in which your personal paradigm for reality does not exist. Do you think it useful to know the price of windshield wiper fluid when you don't own a car?

That's like saying the geocentric model of the solar system was correct until telescopes were invented.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

That's like saying the geocentric model of the solar system was correct until telescopes were invented.

Not really drewmandan, it is actually implying the flaws of hypothetical judgments and putting the subject back into its original context.

In hindsight, the geocentric model of the solar system even further illustrated the defects of human perception..

This rationality can be applied to everything, even for spiritual purposes. The hypothetical does not exist, stop judging people. You may be profoundly humbled to realize how many assumptions the human mind is prone to making. It does not know its self-created images from the actual truth; i.e. truth from falsehood.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the use of knowing the speed of light in a world that uses horse drawn carriages as its most sophisticated mode of travel? What is the use of calculating the kinetic energy of an unobservable theoretical object? You seem completely incapable of imagining a world in which your personal paradigm for reality does not exist. Do you think it useful to know the price of windshield wiper fluid when you don't own a car?

Indeed! And even if you own a car, you might not ever need windshield wiper fluid. Even if you do, you might not need to know the price; you can clean it another way etc...