The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Post by Greta » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:33 pm
Greta wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:24 am
commonsense wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:18 am


Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?
Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means :)
I know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.
Actually there was no point and I meant what I said. I'm increasingly focusing on writing at home rather than online interactions. I find I receive far more agreement that way :)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:38 pm

Greta wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:33 pm
Greta wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:24 am


Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means :)
I know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.
Actually there was no point and I meant what I said. I'm increasingly focusing on writing at home rather than online interactions. I find I receive far more agreement that way :)
I just do both...writing at home has not been common as of late due to a variety of factors, but I am looking at getting back to it.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:43 pm

How do you address tackle the symbol-grounding problem and problems of reduction when it comes to asserting the truthfulness of your pre-suppositions?

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:43 pm

So, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used - and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'

On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of made-up lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligible-sounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said - it just doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek - but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Post by TimeSeeker » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:26 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:43 pm
So, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used - and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'

On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of made-up lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligible-sounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said - it just doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek - but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.
Have you considered that your own expectations are flawed? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests