P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:11 am

Heavily, but pseudiferously. You are aping the look and feel of scientific method to the best of your abilities. But you are making up fake numbers for all of it, you are doing pseudoscience and magical thinking.
Whatever I am going to propose I will make sure it is soundly verified and justified.
As a gnat you are ignorant and assuming I am like you.

I intend to bring in verified knowledge from various fields of knowledge [as evidence from many scientific course I had taken and intend to take] to justify and support my thesis.
Please remind us that you are in no way indicating expertise in any scientific field in which you have done nothing but a 6 week intro course that offers no college credit.

You will fail to soundly verify or justify your numbers. none of the numbers you have routinely used to indicate how great you are and how insignifcant things you don't like are has ever been justified or even meaningful. What reason does anybody have to believe your new boast that some numbers you have et to share will be any better?
You are too ignorant.

I am not implying that I will do the necessary research.

With basic knowledge of the various scientific knowledge, I will have more confidence in reading scientific research papers [with complex extensive terms, formulas, theories, concepts, principle, etc.] and making the relevant references rather than being totally ignorant of them.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:24 am
Whatever I am going to propose I will make sure it is soundly verified and justified.
As a gnat you are ignorant and assuming I am like you.

I intend to bring in verified knowledge from various fields of knowledge [as evidence from many scientific course I had taken and intend to take] to justify and support my thesis.
Please remind us that you are in no way indicating expertise in any scientific field in which you have done nothing but a 6 week intro course that offers no college credit.

You will fail to soundly verify or justify your numbers. none of the numbers you have routinely used to indicate how great you are and how insignifcant things you don't like are has ever been justified or even meaningful. What reason does anybody have to believe your new boast that some numbers you have et to share will be any better?
You are too ignorant.

I am not implying that I will do the necessary research.

With basic knowledge of the various scientific knowledge, I will have more confidence in reading scientific research papers [with complex extensive terms, formulas, theories, concepts, principle, etc.] and making the relevant references rather than being totally ignorant of them.
So you can't do that stuff now. But you want to be treated as an expert anyway. An expert in shit you can't do.

You tried to pass off a 12 hour edX course as grounds for considering you an expert already today. This desire to pose as somebody who has already done the work is forming a pattern.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:45 am
Please remind us that you are in no way indicating expertise in any scientific field in which you have done nothing but a 6 week intro course that offers no college credit.

You will fail to soundly verify or justify your numbers. none of the numbers you have routinely used to indicate how great you are and how insignifcant things you don't like are has ever been justified or even meaningful. What reason does anybody have to believe your new boast that some numbers you have et to share will be any better?
You are too ignorant.

I am not implying that I will do the necessary research.

With basic knowledge of the various scientific knowledge, I will have more confidence in reading scientific research papers [with complex extensive terms, formulas, theories, concepts, principle, etc.] and making the relevant references rather than being totally ignorant of them.
So you can't do that stuff now. But you want to be treated as an expert anyway. An expert in shit you can't do.

You tried to pass off a 12 hour edX course as grounds for considering you an expert already today. This desire to pose as somebody who has already done the work is forming a pattern.
You are resorting to lies, 12 hours course??
At least I have the additional knowledge you don't have.

The only thing you can do is to make noises, there is something sick about you. You are the one who is always posing as someone superior in knowledge [actually shit] but have not posted any thing worthwhile.

Meanwhile I will always be mindful of my limitations.

If I were you I would do further research to enlighten my ignorance of what is necessarily relevant. That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

Instead of making so much noise, why don't you raise threads and posts that could contribute incremental knowledge for others? Don't forget whatever is the associated limitations.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:12 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:50 am
You are too ignorant.

I am not implying that I will do the necessary research.

With basic knowledge of the various scientific knowledge, I will have more confidence in reading scientific research papers [with complex extensive terms, formulas, theories, concepts, principle, etc.] and making the relevant references rather than being totally ignorant of them.
So you can't do that stuff now. But you want to be treated as an expert anyway. An expert in shit you can't do.

You tried to pass off a 12 hour edX course as grounds for considering you an expert already today. This desire to pose as somebody who has already done the work is forming a pattern.
You are resorting to lies, 12 hours course??
At least I have the additional knowledge you don't have.

The only thing you can do is to make noises, there is something sick about you. You are the one who is always posing as someone superior in knowledge [actually shit] but have not posted any thing worthwhile.

Meanwhile I will always be mindful of my limitations.

If I were you I would do further research to enlighten my ignorance of what is necessarily relevant. That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

You said 8 - 12 hours so I rounded up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]
Spending 3 years full time on Kant was a dumb move. That's enough effort to get a philosopphy degree and learn the subject properly including those basics of arfgument construction that continue to elude you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:12 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:00 am
So you can't do that stuff now. But you want to be treated as an expert anyway. An expert in shit you can't do.

You tried to pass off a 12 hour edX course as grounds for considering you an expert already today. This desire to pose as somebody who has already done the work is forming a pattern.
You are resorting to lies, 12 hours course??
At least I have the additional knowledge you don't have.

The only thing you can do is to make noises, there is something sick about you. You are the one who is always posing as someone superior in knowledge [actually shit] but have not posted any thing worthwhile.

Meanwhile I will always be mindful of my limitations.

If I were you I would do further research to enlighten my ignorance of what is necessarily relevant. That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

You said 8 - 12 hours so I rounded up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]
Spending 3 years full time on Kant was a dumb move. That's enough effort to get a philosopphy degree and learn the subject properly including those basics of arfgument construction that continue to elude you.
OK I missed mentioning per day. I spent up on average 8 hours and up to 12 hours each day, every day for > 4 weeks to finish the course that involved more than 500 questions [some easy some very tough computations] to answer.

Re Kant, unfortunately that is the necessary amount of time to plough through and grasp Kant's view fully and thoroughly, and it is acknowledged by those who have studied Kant. It will take 5 years if one were to do part-time.
Even the experts on Kant who had spent more than 40 years specializing on Kant did not grasp Kant's view fully, Allison and Gruyer come to mind.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:12 am
You are resorting to lies, 12 hours course??
At least I have the additional knowledge you don't have.

The only thing you can do is to make noises, there is something sick about you. You are the one who is always posing as someone superior in knowledge [actually shit] but have not posted any thing worthwhile.

Meanwhile I will always be mindful of my limitations.

If I were you I would do further research to enlighten my ignorance of what is necessarily relevant. That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

You said 8 - 12 hours so I rounded up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]
Spending 3 years full time on Kant was a dumb move. That's enough effort to get a philosopphy degree and learn the subject properly including those basics of arfgument construction that continue to elude you.
OK I missed mentioning per day. I spent up on average 8 hours and up to 12 hours each day, every day for > 4 weeks to finish the course that involved more than 500 questions [some easy some very tough computations] to answer.
Ooof, you must be a real slow learner

https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry
Estimated 15 weeks
4–6 hours per week

You should have finished that on one week if you were 12 hour days.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:20 am [/i]
You said 8 - 12 hours so I rounded up.


Spending 3 years full time on Kant was a dumb move. That's enough effort to get a philosopphy degree and learn the subject properly including those basics of arfgument construction that continue to elude you.
OK I missed mentioning per day. I spent up on average 8 hours and up to 12 hours each day, every day for > 4 weeks to finish the course that involved more than 500 questions [some easy some very tough computations] to answer.
Ooof, you must be a real slow learner

https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry
Estimated 15 weeks
4–6 hours per week

You should have finished that on one week if you were 12 hour days.
Why don't you try and prove it to me you can do it in one-week. Btw, it warns you the course is going to be tough.

Note the requirement for the course is for someone who had college level in chemistry or biology.
I only have high school chemistry and physics, so I have to brush and catch up on chemistry [graduate level] and physics [basic] from Youtube not from the course which assume one already is familiar with chemistry, biology, mathematics and physics.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:36 am
OK I missed mentioning per day. I spent up on average 8 hours and up to 12 hours each day, every day for > 4 weeks to finish the course that involved more than 500 questions [some easy some very tough computations] to answer.
Ooof, you must be a real slow learner

https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry
Estimated 15 weeks
4–6 hours per week

You should have finished that on one week if you were 12 hour days.
Why don't you try and prove it to me you can do it in one-week. Btw, it warns you the course is going to be tough.

Note the requirement for the course is for someone who had college level in chemistry or biology.
I only have high school chemistry and physics, so I have to brush and catch up on chemistry [graduate level] and physics [basic] from Youtube not from the course which assume one already is familiar with chemistry, biology, mathematics and physics.
Cool. So which programming languages have you learned in order to do the Computational Neuroscience?
I mean obviously the intro level stuff will python with scikit-learn and some Pandas.
But after that you'll need, what? R perhaps, or you gonna get with the cool kids and do everything in Go?

Or will you watch a video to find out what dataframe means and then start a thread about what a great data scientist you are now?

So you have a shigh school education, then you spent how many years teaching yourself Arabic and converting the Quran into an Excel sheet (all full time, 12 hours a day and whatnot). Then you also spent 3 years studying Kant full time. But you talk of having a career. You don't actually have a career do you?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:06 am
Ooof, you must be a real slow learner

https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry
Estimated 15 weeks
4–6 hours per week

You should have finished that on one week if you were 12 hour days.
Why don't you try and prove it to me you can do it in one-week. Btw, it warns you the course is going to be tough.

Note the requirement for the course is for someone who had college level in chemistry or biology.
I only have high school chemistry and physics, so I have to brush and catch up on chemistry [graduate level] and physics [basic] from Youtube not from the course which assume one already is familiar with chemistry, biology, mathematics and physics.
Cool. So which programming languages have you learned in order to do the Computational Neuroscience?
I mean obviously the intro level stuff will python with scikit-learn and some Pandas.
But after that you'll need, what? R perhaps, or you gonna get with the cool kids and do everything in Go?

Or will you watch a video to find out what dataframe means and then start a thread about what a great data scientist you are now?
As I had stated it is waste of time justifying whatever to you as a gnat in terms of knowledge.
I will do whatever it takes to do the course for my own personal interests, python whatever which is none of your business.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:20 am
Why don't you try and prove it to me you can do it in one-week. Btw, it warns you the course is going to be tough.

Note the requirement for the course is for someone who had college level in chemistry or biology.
I only have high school chemistry and physics, so I have to brush and catch up on chemistry [graduate level] and physics [basic] from Youtube not from the course which assume one already is familiar with chemistry, biology, mathematics and physics.
Cool. So which programming languages have you learned in order to do the Computational Neuroscience?
I mean obviously the intro level stuff will python with scikit-learn and some Pandas.
But after that you'll need, what? R perhaps, or you gonna get with the cool kids and do everything in Go?

Or will you watch a video to find out what dataframe means and then start a thread about what a great data scientist you are now?
As I had stated it is waste of time justifying whatever to you as a gnat in terms of knowledge.
I will do whatever it takes to do the course for my own personal interests, python whatever which is none of your business.
Well you can pose as the Computational Neuroscience guy after you have learned some Computational Neuroscience. Until then, yes, it is pretentious and you are a bullshit artist.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:30 am
Cool. So which programming languages have you learned in order to do the Computational Neuroscience?
I mean obviously the intro level stuff will python with scikit-learn and some Pandas.
But after that you'll need, what? R perhaps, or you gonna get with the cool kids and do everything in Go?

Or will you watch a video to find out what dataframe means and then start a thread about what a great data scientist you are now?
As I had stated it is waste of time justifying whatever to you as a gnat in terms of knowledge.
I will do whatever it takes to do the course for my own personal interests, python whatever which is none of your business.
Until then, yes, it is pretentious and you are a bullshit artist.
Absolute lies as usual.

I have never claimed to be an expert, good or knowledgeable in computational neuroscience since I have not even enrolled for such a course yet.
As I had stated I merely want to highlight that such knowledge as computational psychiatry exists to ignoramus gnat-in-knowledge of your likes.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:45 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:36 am
As I had stated it is waste of time justifying whatever to you as a gnat in terms of knowledge.
I will do whatever it takes to do the course for my own personal interests, python whatever which is none of your business.
Until then, yes, it is pretentious and you are a bullshit artist.
Absolute lies as usual.

I have never claimed to be an expert, good or knowledgeable in computational neuroscience since I have not even enrolled for such a course yet.
As I had stated I merely want to highlight that such knowledge as computational psychiatry exists to ignoramus gnat-in-knowledge of your likes.
Well what you wrote was...
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.


Do you now admit that you have no basis of expertise regarding the computational stuff that you obviously don't understand, let alone what it will or will not do over time?

Why did you mention computational psychiatry at all? You don't know anything about it, you have no expertise and apparently you weren't telling us that oyu knew anything or that you have expertise. So what was it even doing getting a mention there?

You did want to be seen as an expert of some sort in biochem. That's why you brought Harvard into it, to boast about attending Harvard. You didn't make it clear that you are even less expert in the other things than that one though. You had have this information dragged out of you.

Why do you need this dishonest streak VA?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=571117 time=1651910645 user_id=7896]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=571110 time=1651909557 user_id=15099]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=571102 time=1651908168 user_id=7896]
Note my point;

[b]Logic is based on Half-Truths[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34777
[/quote]

A logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses and practices deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. (But any use of language requires the rules of one logic or another.)

Logical rules deal with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. And this isn't a 'limitation', pace Kant. It doesn't involve an abstraction from the objects of knowledge, any more than language does.

And the claim that language is itself an abstraction (with limitations) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works - based on mentalist fantasies such as 'the objects of knowledge' (with supposedly no limitations).
[/quote]
The point is regardless whether it is language or logic, both are based on abstractions, thus based on half-truths.
How can you deny this truth?

Nah, note Wittgenstein critique of language with his language games.

It is the same with your definition of what is fact which is purely based on language games. As such you cannot be that arrogant with your definition of what is fact in trying to override my more realistic definition of what is fact.

I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
[/quote]

A low resolution half-truth is still truth. The satisfying ultimate answers a lot of philosophers can't seem to live without will never be available. That things are a product of differentiation in a mind, that knowledge is justified belief; these are "half-truth" in a lot of people's opinions, but they're still as good as it gets.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:45 am A logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses and practices deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. (But any use of language requires the rules of one logic or another.)

Logical rules deal with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. And this isn't a 'limitation', pace Kant. It doesn't involve an abstraction from the objects of knowledge, any more than language does.

And the claim that language is itself an abstraction (with limitations) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works - based on mentalist fantasies such as 'the objects of knowledge' (with supposedly no limitations).
The point is regardless whether it is language or logic, both are based on abstractions, thus based on half-truths.
How can you deny this truth?

Nah, note Wittgenstein critique of language with his language games.

It is the same with your definition of what is fact which is purely based on language games. As such you cannot be that arrogant with your definition of what is fact in trying to override my more realistic definition of what is fact.

I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
A low resolution half-truth is still truth. The satisfying ultimate answers a lot of philosophers can't seem to live without will never be available. That things are a product of differentiation in a mind, that knowledge is justified belief; these are "half-truth" in a lot of people's opinions, but they're still as good as it gets.
That is my point.

If I state there is 50% evil is something, that is a valid proposition.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 3:49 am
Advocate wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:04 am
The point is regardless whether it is language or logic, both are based on abstractions, thus based on half-truths.
How can you deny this truth?

Nah, note Wittgenstein critique of language with his language games.

It is the same with your definition of what is fact which is purely based on language games. As such you cannot be that arrogant with your definition of what is fact in trying to override my more realistic definition of what is fact.

I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
A low resolution half-truth is still truth. The satisfying ultimate answers a lot of philosophers can't seem to live without will never be available. That things are a product of differentiation in a mind, that knowledge is justified belief; these are "half-truth" in a lot of people's opinions, but they're still as good as it gets.
That is my point.

If I state there is 50% evil is something, that is a valid proposition.
That's a misleading half truth.
You are treating that as an actual measurement but you have no quantity of evil to measure.
You cannot have an evil content that is > 49% but < 51%.
So saying "50% evil" works as a colloquialism only.
But you want to claim it as a scientific statement, and that's just stupid.
Post Reply