Milli the Almighty

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by thedoc »

Blaggard wrote:I can put you on ignore too if you'd like. It's no biggie. :P

You tell them Arizing, you divot so they wont be tempted to keep posting at you like some gibbering mad man at a brick wall, it's called courtesy. Learn some, then maybe you wont end up on ignore for being a bit of a dick?

Of course it seldom helps once the average bee in their bonnet person get's stung you will of course receive many replies.

Suffice to say when you stop talking over me and start talking at me I might consider listening to your strident word salad and nonsense. You might notice since then he has posted nothing at me, hence allowing him the benefit of not wasting his time, of course, he might just be off line for a long time but it's all good. The ignore process is a two way thing it allows the persons involved to get some perspective. I can of course assure you it helps. You're of course on ignore at the moment but you keep asking this question so I think it should be answered, please don't feel the need to reply though, it would be a waste of time.

I do wish people wouldn't use the quote function like that as well doc, particularly when they don't really need to, but that is meet for another thread. I really have no need to see what Arising said, unfortunately though I seem to be able to read things very quickly before I probably should.
Like what? Please explain in greater detail, I need something to read while I'm wasting time.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by thedoc »

Blaggard wrote: I can put you on ignore too if you'd like. It's no biggie. :P

Promises, promises, all talk and no action. Typical.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

They shall run-a-muck until they burn themselves out, the chattering chipmunks, fueled on self stroking cocaine.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...until they burn themselves out.
I don't think that's going to happen, Spheres.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by Blaggard »

thedoc wrote:
Blaggard wrote: I can put you on ignore too if you'd like. It's no biggie. :P

Promises, promises, all talk and no action. Typical.

God you are really whiney aren't you. Fair enough there's usually a reason for ignore but since you seem to want to be ignored so much I'll make an exception.

/ignored

Anyone else want one I am not sure how many names I can fit on the list but hey just ask.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...until they burn themselves out.
I don't think that's going to happen, Spheres.
You're probably correct. It was just wishful thinking. I, as well as others, have used the mob rule of argument, attacking those that would be so selfish, luckily expelling them. Of course, I'm being selfish also, as I much prefer everyone respecting one another, without condescending tone, real philosophers, that truly understand the differences between us, not necessarily the content, rather that which lends to it, thus extending the benefit of doubt.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by thedoc »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
uwot wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...until they burn themselves out.
I don't think that's going to happen, Spheres.
You're probably correct. It was just wishful thinking. I, as well as others, have used the mob rule of argument, attacking those that would be so selfish, luckily expelling them. Of course, I'm being selfish also, as I much prefer everyone respecting one another, without condescending tone, real philosophers, that truly understand the differences between us, not necessarily the content, rather that which lends to it, thus extending the benefit of doubt.

I must question that term. In college I was able to take 1 philosophy course in spite of being very interested in the subject, my major took up all my electives. During a discussion on aesthetics we had a substitute teacher and one of the students used the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", a phrase that is well understood by almost everyone who grew up speaking English. The "substitute" professor jumped on it and corrected the student by saying "No, beauty is in the 'mind' of the beholder" a completely unnecessary distinction. At that point I considered that professor as a rather pretentious jerk, and was glad when the regular professor returned. The point is that if a philosophy professor is not be a real philosopher, then who is?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by thedoc »

Another interesting story about taking that course, there was this really good looking girl taking the class and one day after class I walked with her back to the coffee shop on campus. I should have gone after her but she put me off when she told me that she intended to take whatever courses she could at this school and then transfer to a school that offered philosophy as a major, this one didn't. The interesting point is that she intended to major in philosophy and we had just attended a class where the discussion was on Subjectivism and Objectivism, I was explaining Subjectivism to her and she asked "do people really believe that?". I thought it was interesting that an Industrial Arts (Shop) major was explaining philosophy to a potential philosophy major.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Blaggard wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Blaggard wrote: I can put you on ignore too if you'd like. It's no biggie. :P

Promises, promises, all talk and no action. Typical.

God you are really whiney aren't you. Fair enough there's usually a reason for ignore but since you seem to want to be ignored so much I'll make an exception.

/ignored

Anyone else want one I am not sure how many names I can fit on the list but hey just ask.
Perhaps they should change the name of the site to 'pretentiousness now', because no one seems to want to talk about philosophy or anything that's remotely relevant to life.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by uwot »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Perhaps they should change the name of the site to 'pretentiousness now', because no one seems to want to talk about philosophy or anything that's remotely relevant to life.
Well, I did post this a while back:
uwot wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:This is beautiful, and funny, at the same time. I'm not quite sure what it means, but I like it anyway. :)
It means you're gonna live forever! Just as well given the time it takes to type your name, vegetariantaxidermy. Philosophy of mind is not my strong point; the human brain is the most complicated machine in the known universe and nobody knows how it works, or what forces are involved in generating consciousness. Souls, spirits, beons notwithstanding. A ton of research is being done and, as ever, people are interpreting exactly the same data in their own peculiar ways. So as not to talk complete arse, I did extensive research which involved reading (skimming if I'm honest) an entire article by Steven Pinker http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ ... eport.html It was written in 1997, so, bang up to date. Anyway, long story short, some people think that eventually computers will have so much processing power that they become conscious. Others don't. I have no idea, but a crude analysis of the options suggests that either way, we will find out something very interesting about our minds. If computers based on current technology, basically the manipulation of electromagnetic fields to push electrons this way and that, do become 'conscious', that would suggest that ours in analogous. Some fringe theorists think this actually is the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromag ... sciousness . As always, others think that's a load of pony. Still, not to be deterred by questionable analysis, the thing with electromagnetic fields is, once they are started, they are very difficult to stop. You can switch a light off or blow up a star, but the field it generated when it was switched on, or still a star, keeps going. There are stars we can see that are no longer there; the question then is, is consciousness the star, or the light? On the other hand, if computers as they are never achieve consciousness, either there is a lot more involved in consciousness, in which case some bright spark/looney Frankenstein will attempt to incorporate it into something they cobble together and we will improve our understanding of the forces we currently recognise or discover new ones. Alternatively, the god botherers were right all along and there is something metaphysical about consciousness. That's three hands; there's probably a lot more. Like I said though, Phil. of Mind is not my metier.
For the purposes of Milliism, I'm going to plump for some version of consciousness as field, and state categorically that this field is part of the natural universe and therefore lasts as long as the universe AKA Milli the Almighty. People like a bit of immortality.
I was overstating the case by claiming that you are going to live forever, but whether the mind is part of the fabric of the universe, or something quite different, there are options. Who knows?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

uwot wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Perhaps they should change the name of the site to 'pretentiousness now', because no one seems to want to talk about philosophy or anything that's remotely relevant to life.
Well, I did post this a while back:
uwot wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:This is beautiful, and funny, at the same time. I'm not quite sure what it means, but I like it anyway. :)
It means you're gonna live forever! Just as well given the time it takes to type your name, vegetariantaxidermy. Philosophy of mind is not my strong point; the human brain is the most complicated machine in the known universe and nobody knows how it works, or what forces are involved in generating consciousness. Souls, spirits, beons notwithstanding. A ton of research is being done and, as ever, people are interpreting exactly the same data in their own peculiar ways. So as not to talk complete arse, I did extensive research which involved reading (skimming if I'm honest) an entire article by Steven Pinker http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ ... eport.html It was written in 1997, so, bang up to date. Anyway, long story short, some people think that eventually computers will have so much processing power that they become conscious. Others don't. I have no idea, but a crude analysis of the options suggests that either way, we will find out something very interesting about our minds. If computers based on current technology, basically the manipulation of electromagnetic fields to push electrons this way and that, do become 'conscious', that would suggest that ours in analogous. Some fringe theorists think this actually is the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromag ... sciousness . As always, others think that's a load of pony. Still, not to be deterred by questionable analysis, the thing with electromagnetic fields is, once they are started, they are very difficult to stop. You can switch a light off or blow up a star, but the field it generated when it was switched on, or still a star, keeps going. There are stars we can see that are no longer there; the question then is, is consciousness the star, or the light? On the other hand, if computers as they are never achieve consciousness, either there is a lot more involved in consciousness, in which case some bright spark/looney Frankenstein will attempt to incorporate it into something they cobble together and we will improve our understanding of the forces we currently recognise or discover new ones. Alternatively, the god botherers were right all along and there is something metaphysical about consciousness. That's three hands; there's probably a lot more. Like I said though, Phil. of Mind is not my metier.
For the purposes of Milliism, I'm going to plump for some version of consciousness as field, and state categorically that this field is part of the natural universe and therefore lasts as long as the universe AKA Milli the Almighty. People like a bit of immortality.
I was overstating the case by claiming that you are going to live forever, but whether the mind is part of the fabric of the universe, or something quite different, there are options. Who knows?
I know, it's a bitch when god-botherers turn out to be right on a certain level (or they think so anyway). I don't understand why people agonise over 'consciousness'. I mean, it's just neurons in a spongy grey mass of glob doing what they have evolved to do isn't it?
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by uwot »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I know, it's a bitch when god-botherers turn out to be right on a certain level (or they think so anyway). I don't understand why people agonise over 'consciousness'. I mean, it's just neurons in a spongy grey mass of glob doing what they have evolved to do isn't it?
I think that is almost certainly true and that, therefore, a particular brand of god-botherer is almost certainly wrong. But even if consciousness is just evolved a grey mass of glob doing it's thing, it's not clear whether it is the grey glob, or the thing it does. To bastardise the popular image of an idea being a light bulb above the head, if consciousness is the bulb, it ends when the bulb breaks. If it's the light, it carries on as a ripple in the universe for as long as there's a universe. I don't know. Philosophy of mind is really difficult and life's too short. Probably.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Milli the Almighty

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...until they burn themselves out.
I don't think that's going to happen, Spheres.[/quote]
thedoc wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
uwot wrote: You're probably correct. It was just wishful thinking. I, as well as others, have used the mob rule of argument, attacking those that would be so selfish, luckily expelling them. Of course, I'm being selfish also, as I much prefer everyone respecting one another, without condescending tone, real philosophers, that truly understand the differences between us, not necessarily the content, rather that which lends to it, thus extending the benefit of doubt.

I must question that term. In college I was able to take 1 philosophy course in spite of being very interested in the subject, my major took up all my electives. During a discussion on aesthetics we had a substitute teacher and one of the students used the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", a phrase that is well understood by almost everyone who grew up speaking English. The "substitute" professor jumped on it and corrected the student by saying "No, beauty is in the 'mind' of the beholder" a completely unnecessary distinction. At that point I considered that professor as a rather pretentious jerk, and was glad when the regular professor returned. The point is that if a philosophy professor is not be a real philosopher, then who is?
The way I 'see' (understand) it, is that the original coin was poetic but actually incorrect, that in and of itself, it could lead to a false understanding. That actually, 'in the mind,' leaves less to be misunderstood, actually opening the doors to understanding human perception.

Personally I prefer an original version of a song rather than a cover of one. Why? Because it came first and defined the idea for me, while a younger person often prefers the cover, because they heard that one first, doing the same for them. This first experience initiates the idea, thus the first on which one depends, so to reiterate. One must have an open mind for improvement on an idea, sometimes the new being more correct, sometimes not, sometimes being peripheral data, sometimes being more inclusive, etc.

I understand that the way he presented it, should be called into question, as you made it sound like a scolding, not in truth, what it should have been, simply the information as such, to help refine, add too, make more clear, expand the mind so to include, not replace, the original poetry, thus even further solidifying it. I see it was a problem of delivery. For instance, I myself have said that I lack tact in delivery, when it comes to dealing with others. This lack of tact directly attributable to aspects of my childhood, an in-work reconstruction, if you will.
;-) :lol:

Thus a real philosopher knows not of condescension, through scolding, or otherwise! They understand the whys and hows of the differences between us, thus they simply observe, listen, and calculate the data. While often some deliver data in kind, the mirror approach, though more properly, the stronger philosopher delivers pure data, in much the same way as he observes it. Yet who's perfect? Only ever a perfectionist, can we actually be, never quite reaching that goal, most hopefully till the day we die.

Or so this is the way I truly understand it.
Post Reply