Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

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: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again

I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
You passed the courses without actually understanding what you learned, it's fairly common, the condescending tone is justified.
Are you an omnipresent and omniscient God in claiming the above as true?

I agree in general as applicable to course like I mentioned, one [even a genius] can learn the principles but not able to grasp its essence not put them into practice.

I am aware of that limitation. This is why I reread the course material many times even after finishing the course and I supplement the course I took with additional extensive research and reading.

If you are skeptical you [or get some expert] to test me on the principles [not the full extent of biochemistry involving practical experiments] I have learned therein.
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:10 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
You passed the courses without actually understanding what you learned, it's fairly common, the condescending tone is justified.
Are you an omnipresent and omniscient God in claiming the above as true?

I agree in general as applicable to course like I mentioned, one [even a genius] can learn the principles but not able to grasp its essence not put them into practice.

I am aware of that limitation. This is why I reread the course material many times even after finishing the course and I supplement the course I took with additional extensive research and reading.

If you are skeptical you [or get some expert] to test me on the principles [not the full extent of biochemistry involving practical experiments] I have learned therein.
It's not just the biochemistry course, you can't properly process information on any topic. That's why you get your ass handed even on this backwater forum, except you don't realize it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:10 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:40 am
You passed the courses without actually understanding what you learned, it's fairly common, the condescending tone is justified.
Are you an omnipresent and omniscient God in claiming the above as true?

I agree in general as applicable to course like I mentioned, one [even a genius] can learn the principles but not able to grasp its essence not put them into practice.

I am aware of that limitation. This is why I reread the course material many times even after finishing the course and I supplement the course I took with additional extensive research and reading.

If you are skeptical you [or get some expert] to test me on the principles [not the full extent of biochemistry involving practical experiments] I have learned therein.
It's not just the biochemistry course, you can't properly process information on any topic. That's why you get your ass handed even on this backwater forum, except you don't realize it.
Changing the subject?
You are merely imposing your ignorance in this case.

Show me the specifics in relation to the list above?
Based on what you have posted I believe you don't have sufficient knowledge in relation to the list of topics I have posted above.
The best you can do is making noises.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
Agreed. The intelligence, qualifications, experience and character of someone making an argument have absolutely no bearing on the validity and soundness of the argument.

A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur and possibly question-begging fallacy. VA's argument for objective morality from actual or putative facts about human nature commits one or both of these fallacies.

The words ought and should have moral and non-moral (instrumental) uses that are completely different. To use them in both ways in an argument, without acknowledgement, is to commit an equivocation fallacy. VA's 'oughtness to do/not to do' argument from human nature to objective morality commits this fallacy.
Note William James version of truths [facts];
James offers an account of truth that, like Peirce’s, is grounded in the practical role played by the concept of truth. James, too, stresses that truth represents a kind of satisfaction: true beliefs are satisfying beliefs, in some sense.

True [factual] ideas, James suggests, are like tools: they make us more efficient by helping us do what needs to be done.
James adds to the previous quote by making the connection between truth and utility explicit:
  • Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth. (1907 [1975: 34])
While James, here, credits this view to John Dewey and F.C.S. Schiller, it is clearly a view he endorses as well. To understand truth, he argues, we must consider the pragmatic “cash-value” (1907 [1975: 97]) of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas. True beliefs, he suggests, are useful and dependable in ways that false beliefs are not:
  • you can say of it then either that “it is useful because it is true” or that “it is true because it is useful”. Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing. (1907 [1975: 98])
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... agTheoTrut
My definition of what is fact and what are moral facts are directed at what they can contribute to the well being of humanity in the future in the face of the impending threats to humanity.

As such when I direct my moral facts to real physical referent of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness in the brain, humanity can then direct attention to enable individual to self-develop their inherent moral potential without any external compulsion or threat to comply with any external rules or moral opinions.

Your definition of 'what is fact, i.e. because English speakers say so! is merely an empty thing without any possibility of positive utility which condone more squabbles with more conflicting moral relativism.

Like any theory of truth, the pragmatism/utility theory ignores the way we actually use the word truth, its cognates and related words, such as falsehood. And when we say a factual assertion is true or false, we don't mean that it does or doesn't work, or that it is or isn't useful - though that may be true.

The word truth isn't the name of a thing of some kind that can be explained, in the way we try to explain thermodynamics. A so-called theory of truth is nothing like a theory of evolution. And that's why competing so-called theories of truth - and other supposed abstract things, such as knowledge - can never be shown to be correct.

To dismiss what English speakers say or mean when use the word truth as 'empty' is to entertain a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:34 am

Agreed. The intelligence, qualifications, experience and character of someone making an argument have absolutely no bearing on the validity and soundness of the argument.

A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur and possibly question-begging fallacy. VA's argument for objective morality from actual or putative facts about human nature commits one or both of these fallacies.

The words ought and should have moral and non-moral (instrumental) uses that are completely different. To use them in both ways in an argument, without acknowledgement, is to commit an equivocation fallacy. VA's 'oughtness to do/not to do' argument from human nature to objective morality commits this fallacy.
Note William James version of truths [facts];
James offers an account of truth that, like Peirce’s, is grounded in the practical role played by the concept of truth. James, too, stresses that truth represents a kind of satisfaction: true beliefs are satisfying beliefs, in some sense.

True [factual] ideas, James suggests, are like tools: they make us more efficient by helping us do what needs to be done.
James adds to the previous quote by making the connection between truth and utility explicit:
  • Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth. (1907 [1975: 34])
While James, here, credits this view to John Dewey and F.C.S. Schiller, it is clearly a view he endorses as well. To understand truth, he argues, we must consider the pragmatic “cash-value” (1907 [1975: 97]) of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas. True beliefs, he suggests, are useful and dependable in ways that false beliefs are not:
  • you can say of it then either that “it is useful because it is true” or that “it is true because it is useful”. Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing. (1907 [1975: 98])
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... agTheoTrut
My definition of what is fact and what are moral facts are directed at what they can contribute to the well being of humanity in the future in the face of the impending threats to humanity.

As such when I direct my moral facts to real physical referent of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness in the brain, humanity can then direct attention to enable individual to self-develop their inherent moral potential without any external compulsion or threat to comply with any external rules or moral opinions.

Your definition of 'what is fact, i.e. because English speakers say so! is merely an empty thing without any possibility of positive utility which condone more squabbles with more conflicting moral relativism.

Like any theory of truth, the pragmatism/utility theory ignores the way we actually use the word truth, its cognates and related words, such as falsehood. And when we say a factual assertion is true or false, we don't mean that it does or doesn't work, or that it is or isn't useful - though that may be true.

The word truth isn't the name of a thing of some kind that can be explained, in the way we try to explain thermodynamics. A so-called theory of truth is nothing like a theory of evolution. And that's why competing so-called theories of truth - and other supposed abstract things, such as knowledge - can never be shown to be correct.

To dismiss what English speakers say or mean when use the word truth as 'empty' is to entertain a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.
I don't believe James and the pragmatists are that stupid in 'cognating' truth with falsehoods.
Theists also claimed their respective facts, i.e. God exists and it work very effectively for theists on a psychological basis, i.e. provided consonance else they would go berserk with cognitive dissonance. There are cases where there are so-claimed facts that are not credible but yet useful.

Note my basic definition of truth or fact is this [quoted a 000s times];
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Note this where astronomical fact can vary, but possible where conditioned upon the astronomical FSK.
After Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was declared the ninth planet from the Sun.
However, beginning in the 1990s, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, including the dwarf planet Eris, leading the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 to define the term planet formally—excluding Pluto and reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
Don't try to shift the above to an ontological [essence] basis because that would be illusory.

What can be inferred above [as highlighted] is what is fact is specific to a FSK.
You deny this? Surely you cannot, if so, give me your counter.

Therefore whatever is defined as moral fact is specific to a moral FSK subject to credible justifications they are real and objective.
This again is undeniable based on the above principle.

Now when we introduced the pragmatist's definition of truth/fact we are only reinforcing with greater weightage of its truth or fact which is the main drive of philosophy, i.e. "teleologically" for the optimal utility of humanity.

The word truth isn't the name of a thing of some kind that can be explained, in the way we try to explain thermodynamics.
A so-called theory of truth is nothing like a theory of evolution. And that's why competing so-called theories of truth - and other supposed abstract things, such as knowledge - can never be shown to be correct.
You are way out on this.
Whatever the scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
But within scientific facts they come in various degrees of credibility in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

As such the theory of evolution, the Big Bang and other theories that cannot be tested and repeated has lower credibility than those that can be tested with repeated results by anyone, e.g. 'water is H2O', and the likes.
In addition there are many other factors within the scientific framework that affect the credibility [trust] of the scientific facts.
To dismiss what English speakers say or mean when use the word truth as 'empty' is to entertain a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.
How so?
As I had stated the most credible facts at present are scientific [& mathematical] facts. Thus if I leverage whatever facts as closed to the scientific basis, how can that be a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.

Your English [can be any language] speaker version of 'what is fact' is fundamentally based on the linguistic FSK which at most tantamount to armchair philosophy or mental masturbation.

You imagine you are on solid grounds but your version of linguistic fact is empty and is a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract thing.
If you claim it is really factual as credible and real you have no choice but to subject it to the credible scientific framework to be verified and justified as a fact, i.e. only as a scientific fact.
Your fact cannot stand by itself as really real and highly credible just because you said so linguistically.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.
You thought you could counter the fairly simple observation that uncountable, unquantifiable, abstract feel-things cannot be counted by just insisting that you need to count them anyway or else you can't apply "problem solving techniques"?

How is stupidity and self contradiction a valuable asset for problem solving?
Your problem solving techniques are instrumentally irrational if you insist on using a tool that requires quantification on a subject that defies meaningful numbers.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:54 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:04 am
Note William James version of truths [facts];



My definition of what is fact and what are moral facts are directed at what they can contribute to the well being of humanity in the future in the face of the impending threats to humanity.

As such when I direct my moral facts to real physical referent of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness in the brain, humanity can then direct attention to enable individual to self-develop their inherent moral potential without any external compulsion or threat to comply with any external rules or moral opinions.

Your definition of 'what is fact, i.e. because English speakers say so! is merely an empty thing without any possibility of positive utility which condone more squabbles with more conflicting moral relativism.

Like any theory of truth, the pragmatism/utility theory ignores the way we actually use the word truth, its cognates and related words, such as falsehood. And when we say a factual assertion is true or false, we don't mean that it does or doesn't work, or that it is or isn't useful - though that may be true.

The word truth isn't the name of a thing of some kind that can be explained, in the way we try to explain thermodynamics. A so-called theory of truth is nothing like a theory of evolution. And that's why competing so-called theories of truth - and other supposed abstract things, such as knowledge - can never be shown to be correct.

To dismiss what English speakers say or mean when use the word truth as 'empty' is to entertain a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.
I don't believe James and the pragmatists are that stupid in 'cognating' truth with falsehoods.
Theists also claimed their respective facts, i.e. God exists and it work very effectively for theists on a psychological basis, i.e. provided consonance else they would go berserk with cognitive dissonance. There are cases where there are so-claimed facts that are not credible but yet useful.

Note my basic definition of truth or fact is this [quoted a 000s times];
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Note this where astronomical fact can vary, but possible where conditioned upon the astronomical FSK.
After Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was declared the ninth planet from the Sun.
However, beginning in the 1990s, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, including the dwarf planet Eris, leading the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 to define the term planet formally—excluding Pluto and reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
Don't try to shift the above to an ontological [essence] basis because that would be illusory.

What can be inferred above [as highlighted] is what is fact is specific to a FSK.
You deny this? Surely you cannot, if so, give me your counter.

Therefore whatever is defined as moral fact is specific to a moral FSK subject to credible justifications they are real and objective.
This again is undeniable based on the above principle.

Now when we introduced the pragmatist's definition of truth/fact we are only reinforcing with greater weightage of its truth or fact which is the main drive of philosophy, i.e. "teleologically" for the optimal utility of humanity.

The word truth isn't the name of a thing of some kind that can be explained, in the way we try to explain thermodynamics.
A so-called theory of truth is nothing like a theory of evolution. And that's why competing so-called theories of truth - and other supposed abstract things, such as knowledge - can never be shown to be correct.
You are way out on this.
Whatever the scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
But within scientific facts they come in various degrees of credibility in compliance with the requirements of the scientific FSK.

As such the theory of evolution, the Big Bang and other theories that cannot be tested and repeated has lower credibility than those that can be tested with repeated results by anyone, e.g. 'water is H2O', and the likes.
In addition there are many other factors within the scientific framework that affect the credibility [trust] of the scientific facts.
To dismiss what English speakers say or mean when use the word truth as 'empty' is to entertain a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.
How so?
As I had stated the most credible facts at present are scientific [& mathematical] facts. Thus if I leverage whatever facts as closed to the scientific basis, how can that be a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract things.

Your English [can be any language] speaker version of 'what is fact' is fundamentally based on the linguistic FSK which at most tantamount to armchair philosophy or mental masturbation.

You imagine you are on solid grounds but your version of linguistic fact is empty and is a metaphysical delusion about the existence of abstract thing.
If you claim it is really factual as credible and real you have no choice but to subject it to the credible scientific framework to be verified and justified as a fact, i.e. only as a scientific fact.
Your fact cannot stand by itself as really real and highly credible just because you said so linguistically.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the following description of what we call a fact, which you cite above, confirms what I've been saying all along. I've emboldened the crucial sentence.

'A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact'
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:33 am
Atla wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:10 am
Are you an omnipresent and omniscient God in claiming the above as true?

I agree in general as applicable to course like I mentioned, one [even a genius] can learn the principles but not able to grasp its essence not put them into practice.

I am aware of that limitation. This is why I reread the course material many times even after finishing the course and I supplement the course I took with additional extensive research and reading.

If you are skeptical you [or get some expert] to test me on the principles [not the full extent of biochemistry involving practical experiments] I have learned therein.
It's not just the biochemistry course, you can't properly process information on any topic. That's why you get your ass handed even on this backwater forum, except you don't realize it.
Changing the subject?
You are merely imposing your ignorance in this case.

Show me the specifics in relation to the list above?
Based on what you have posted I believe you don't have sufficient knowledge in relation to the list of topics I have posted above.
The best you can do is making noises.
Doesn't much matter what you think, for the same reason :)
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by seeds »

Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
I just now came across this post.

I'm sure I have missed several, however, V.A.'s (partial) list of self-aggrandizing statements about his achievements and abilities has now been updated (it's difficult for one person to keep track of them all)...

  • 1. Note I have martial arts background.

    2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

    3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.

    4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

    5. I am an expert on Islam.

    6. I am an expert on Buddhism.

    7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

    8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."

    10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.

    11. (🎈new): One of my specialties is problem solving techniques.

    12. Soon to be announced...

Perhaps we're reaching a point where some sort of shrine or statue is in order?
_______
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

seeds wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:02 pm
Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
I just now came across this post.

I'm sure I have missed several, however, V.A.'s (partial) list of self-aggrandizing statements about his achievements and abilities has now been updated (it's difficult for one person to keep track of them all)...

  • 1. Note I have martial arts background.

    2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

    3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.

    4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

    5. I am an expert on Islam.

    6. I am an expert on Buddhism.

    7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

    8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."

    10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.

    11. (🎈new): One of my specialties is problem solving techniques.

    12. Soon to be announced...

Perhaps we're reaching a point where some sort of shrine or statue is in order?
_______
I hate to nitpick I really do ... but that is actually " Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques". We don't want to relegate him to some home-schooled amateur problem solver.

Did you know he is a Harvard educated biochemist now?
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by seeds »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:24 pm I hate to nitpick I really do ... but that is actually " Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques". We don't want to relegate him to some home-schooled amateur problem solver.

Did you know he is a Harvard educated biochemist now?
No, I did not know that. I guess I should have read a little further into the thread.

So, after reading the following quote from V.A.,...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from...Hardvard-X with very good grades.
...I have come to the conclusion that, aside from not placing any emphasis on spelling or grammar, I'm sure that "Hardvard-X" is top notch.

That being said, I did notice yet another addition to the list...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.
Alas, a list-maker's job is unending...

  • 1. Note I have martial arts background.

    2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

    3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.

    4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

    5. I am an expert on Islam.

    6. I am an expert on Buddhism.

    7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

    8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."

    10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.

    11. (🎈new): One of my specialties is problem solving techniques.

    12. (🎈new): I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

    13. Soon to be announced...

_______
Last edited by seeds on Wed May 18, 2022 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.
You thought you could counter the fairly simple observation that uncountable, unquantifiable, abstract feel-things cannot be counted by just insisting that you need to count them anyway or else you can't apply "problem solving techniques"?

How is stupidity and self contradiction a valuable asset for problem solving?
Your problem solving techniques are instrumentally irrational if you insist on using a tool that requires quantification on a subject that defies meaningful numbers.
Could you see if you can find out what university he got that degree from. I can't find one with the program. I think he has me on foe (ignore)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:42 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.
You thought you could counter the fairly simple observation that uncountable, unquantifiable, abstract feel-things cannot be counted by just insisting that you need to count them anyway or else you can't apply "problem solving techniques"?

How is stupidity and self contradiction a valuable asset for problem solving?
Your problem solving techniques are instrumentally irrational if you insist on using a tool that requires quantification on a subject that defies meaningful numbers.
Could you see if you can find out what university he got that degree from. I can't find one with the program. I think he has me on foe (ignore)
He stuck me on that list ages ago when I mentioned that he's autistic. Which is odd, because that event came a while after he had done an epic thread where he accused all of his doubters on this forum of having a "cognitive deficit", and he genuinely believed he had read a paper published by a reputable philosopher arguing that exact case. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29659. So you would be forgiven for thinking he wasn't very thin skinned about that sort of thing.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:33 pm He stuck me on that list ages ago when I mentioned that he's autistic. Which is odd, because that event came a while after he had done an epic thread where he accused all of his doubters on this forum of having a "cognitive deficit", and he genuinely believed he had read a paper published by a reputable philosopher arguing that exact case. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29659. So you would be forgiven for thinking he wasn't very thin skinned about that sort of thing.
He makes a lot of grammar mistakes and also uses some words oddly. I don't mean important words that are in contention, say with yourself or Peter Holmes, but a wide variety of words. So, I've wondered if he is not a native speaker, but also can't imagine that his ability with the language might be causing problems. I sometimes read paragraphs of his and just feel like there are so many confusing phrases, that to try to even clarify, let alone criticize is just too complicated and time consuming.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:40 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:33 pm He stuck me on that list ages ago when I mentioned that he's autistic. Which is odd, because that event came a while after he had done an epic thread where he accused all of his doubters on this forum of having a "cognitive deficit", and he genuinely believed he had read a paper published by a reputable philosopher arguing that exact case. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29659. So you would be forgiven for thinking he wasn't very thin skinned about that sort of thing.
He makes a lot of grammar mistakes and also uses some words oddly. I don't mean important words that are in contention, say with yourself or Peter Holmes, but a wide variety of words. So, I've wondered if he is not a native speaker, but also can't imagine that his ability with the language might be causing problems. I sometimes read paragraphs of his and just feel like there are so many confusing phrases, that to try to even clarify, let alone criticize is just too complicated and time consuming.
I think he's from somewhere in Eastern Europe and English definitely isn't his native language. So his English seems pretty good all things considered compared to the one word I know of Hungarian (two if you take into account that it also means goodbye). His stuff becomes largely unintelligible when he is frustrated and trying to put 3 ideas on the page at once without any semplance of a logic - which isn't the sort of thing he's good at even when calm. He's better off doing one idea at a time.
Post Reply