a safe sanitized academic little exercise

[Kuznetzova]

So the constituency on this forum sees philosophy as little more than a silly word game in the back pages of a newspaper. They want to keep their philosophy nice and safe and sanitized and "family-friendly". Keep it safely roped into a corner where it can't leak out in to their "real lives". Keep it bottled up and completely irrelevant. Nothing said, thought, or concluded in their intellectual life will ever be allowed to have any effect on their provincial cultural views.

They sit down at their computers, do a few hours of "philosophizing" and then when they get up , they go right back into their local culture. Their intellectual life will have no effect on how they interact with their friends. Have no effect on how they interact with the opposite sex. It will have no effect on how they interact with their coworkers or bosses in the workplace. As far as they are concerned, this forum is "playtime" and when "playtime" is over, they go back to their "real lives" where the axioms of their local culture are never questioned. As far as I'm concerned, these people might as well be solving a sudoku puzzle in a magazine.

We have situations where accuracy of truth is sacrificed for social harmony. In a brutally true sense, this is what is being engaged in, but the participants are not allowed to admit this openly.

We get a more accurate picture of the cultural and societal delusions used by some of these people in their real lives. Particularly when these delusions of romance and harmony are questioned, poked, and prodded. Many of these could be listed, and many could be investigated in their particular complexities. But a simple example might suffice. They must lie and delude themselves into creating a harmonious relationship with the woman living in their houses, because in some strange way, they see a stable monogamous relationship as an end in itself, which in some way, proves their maturity as an adult. That it does no such thing at all -- this possibility will not even be entertained in their presence, because it is the entire basis upon which they operate in their local society; the very basis of the way they make sense of their culture and their role in their culture.

When these social aspects are questioned in a philosophical context, all vestiges of rationality are thrown out the window and replaced by the most colorful display of emotional fireworks, denial, personal attacks and self-aggrandizing posturing about what they feel is most sacred in the world. That is, to some deep level, a poster in a philosophy forum is not allowed to set the boundaries around which philosophy, science, biology, and evolution will be applicable to a person's real life. This is "not allowed" even when the applicability of these things is transparent. The emotional fireworks and personal attacks are exactly those places where a person has committed the foul of leaking philosophy out of its "safe zone" into the real lives of the participants.

They can't have that. So the anger and denial is a defense mechanism to cover up the fact that a portion of their rational mind sees the connection between philosophy and their real lives, but they have to get worked up into a foam enough so that they can maybe re-direct the discussion to the point where they will conveniently forget the conversation took place. Their angry displays are a means of sweeping inconvenient truths under the rug which they do not want to face, or are too weak to face up to. Even in the face of historical facts and statistics, if those facts and statistics do not jibe with their pre-cooked worldview, their accuracy will be questioned.

And none of the above would actually matter, because these people have decided, a priori, that this will be a safe, sanitized, little puzzle exercise, which they intend to forget about an hour after getting up from their chairs.

[tillingborn]

So the constituency on this forum sees philosophy as little more than a silly word game in the back pages of a newspaper.

You are ignoring those amongst the constituency who struggle to overlook the arguments you have put forward in support of paedophilia, only to discover that you are a supercilious twerp. This is typical of your scientific and philosophical ineptitude.

[Kuznetzova]

I temporarily forgot this the forum where half of the user don't even bother reading the post, let alone responding to any of its contents.

[tillingborn]

I temporarily forgot this the forum where half of the user don't even bother reading the post, let alone responding to any of its contents.

Actually, I did read the whole post and was responding to all of it's contents. I think it is probably true that (at least) half the users of this forum don't bother reading your posts, for a variety of reasons. Your defence of paedophilia is objectionable to most people; your insistence that anyone who happens to love their partner is a hick will be offensive to many; your claims of superior knowledge and understanding are unfounded and in many instances demonstrably false. VoiceOfTime made the point that there are other ways and places to promote yourself and your interests, where you might be appreciated more. Try reading some of your posts as though someone else were addressing them to you if you really don't get it. Seek help if you still don't get it after doing so.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



So the constituency on this thread sees philosophy as little more than a silly word game in the back pages of a newspaper.


Seek help if you still don't get it after reading the original post.





.

[Kuznetzova]

Actually, I did read the whole post and was responding to all of it's contents.

You did no such thing. What you have done is the same tactic used 100 times. Ignore all the contents of my posts and turn the conversation into Kuznetzova as the topic.

I think it is probably true that (at least) half the users of this forum don't bother reading your posts, for a variety of reasons. Your defence of paedophilia is objectionable to most people; your insistence that anyone who happens to love their partner is a hick will be offensive to many;

This is pointless, directionless vitriol, and a wild attempt to avoid the topic of this thread. You are shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. How convenient. This is tactic that goes --> "We will make this problem go away by simply shutting down and shutting up anyone who breaches it in conversation or writing."

your claims of superior knowledge and understanding are unfounded and in many instances demonstrably false.

This forum hosts a 25-page, seven-section article authored by me that is a survey of all the scientific evidence that is contrary to Biblical Creationism. I have also submitted cartoon captioned stuff created by me in ina graphics program regarding the old testament God as a "DNA Fairy". I wrote a expansive detailed article on the St. Thomas Aquinas and his proof for the existence of God as the first cause. Nobody responded to it until I rubbed the link in Godfree's face a few times.

You have never written nor submitted anything of this caliber or quality. The only thing you submit on this forum is some silly little epistemological observation. "The reason the universe maintains a persistent illusion that it is made up of stuff is because the universe is actually made of stuff." You reached this conclusion, apparently in complete isolation from any established writing on the topic. You then came strutting into a philosophy forum to spread and proselytize your little independent research. The problem is that you are shipwrecked on this silly conclusion. You don't at all seem interested (or even aware) that many other philosophers and physicists are discussing and wrangling with the ideas of whether the stuff is fields or particles. And the person on this forum that posted material and topics related to the ontology of particles and fields was me, Kuznetzova.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11202

That post, which is directly related to your own pet topic, contains zero replies. So your claim that my "writing style" or my "personality" is somehow related to the zero replies on most of my submissions here is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I have submitted juicy, relevant, philosophically interesting scientific and metaphysical posts on this forum. They get zero replies. I have written not one, but several complaints about this forum, on this forum.

These are facts. This forum is in a perpetual state of decay. Most of the users here want to have Jerry-Springer-inspired trailer park fights -- they are not interested in philosophy. And it is a demonstrable fact that my knowledge of science has exceeded the bulk of the posters. Their behavior is demonstrable of these facts. My behavior is demonstrable of these facts.

VoiceOfTime made the point that there are other ways and places to promote yourself and your interests, where you might be appreciated more.

What the fuck do you mean "yourself and your interests"? I was the guy here who brought Lee Smolin lectures on metaphysics to this forum. Not a single jackass on this forum spent even a second of his time to download the lecture and actually listen to it. Not a single one of you.

Try reading some of your posts as though someone else were addressing them to you if you really don't get it. Seek help if you still don't get it after doing so.

Spare me the lecture and try to actually respond to the content of what I post here.

[Kuznetzova]

Topic : Lee Smolin's metaphyics lecture on the ontology of time.
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11036

Topic: survey of theoretical physics
Replies: 2. They were incomprehensible and unrelated to the topic.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11237

Topic: 'Superdeterminism' described by John Bell
Replies: 1 short sentence from Ginkgo
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11034

Topic : Does GR commit to an ontology?
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11070


Topic : Filaments and voids
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11073
(ironic since Godfree dedicated at least three posts to this topic in another thread)

Topic: Aquinas's First Cause in formal notation.
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11088
(ironic considering the total amount of ink expended on this forum on debates about God.)

Topic : How super-human AI would defeat humanity
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11190

Topic: listing the failures of Self-replication
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11130

Topic: Macro and molecular self-assembly
Replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11160

Topic: glossary of natural and artificial self-replication
replies: zero
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11163

[Kuznetzova]

your claims of superior knowledge and understanding are unfounded and in many instances demonstrably false.

My knowledge in several scientific subjects has transcended the regular posting audience here. I'm not saying that to brag. Nor am I trying to sell myself. It's just an unfortunate fact.

This is not good news, this is shit news. On another forum dedicated to philosophy, I posted links to amazing lectures on quantum field theory, with Susskind as the lecturer. Everybody on that forum refused to watch them because they were (and I quote), "too boring". True story.

When it comes to the following topic, absolutely nobody here (and probably no one working for the magazine either) is qualified enough to speak on these issues. This is not the first time in my life I have had to hunt down a PH.d and contact him through email, because the questions I ask transcend the internet laity.

I was wondering if anyone knew a place on the internet where people discuss science and technology topics that are interdisciplinary. I would like a place where people actually read the books that are brought up and are capable of genuinely discussing the material inside those books. I'm currently working on material that is included within the following publications. I want to apply the material in them to actual simulations or chemical lab experiments (if necessary). I cannot simply sit alone in a room and just read books. I need to "bounce ideas" of those who understand what I am asking and what I am working on.

The materials I am currently working with are listed here:

• Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines , (Freitas Jr. R.A., Merkle R.C. ), (Landes Bioscience 2004), ISBN-10: 1570596905, ISBN-13: 978-1570596902
• Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems , ( McShea D.W. , Brandon R.N.), (University Of Chicago Press 2010), ISBN-10: 0226562263, ISBN-13: 978-0226562261
• Principles of Life , (Ganti, T), ( Oxford University Press USA 2003), ISBN-10: 0198507267, ISBN-13: 978-0198507260
• Protocells. Bridging Living and Non-living Matter , (Rasmussen S., Bedau M.A.), ( MIT Press, Nov.2008), ISBN: 9780262182683
• Signs Of Life. How Complexity Pervades Biology , (Sole R., Goodwin B. ), (Basic Books, Jan.2002), ISBN-10: 0465019285, ISBN-13: 978-0465019281
• Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life , (Rauchfuss H.) , (Springer, Dec.2008) ISBN-10: 3540788220, ISBN-13: 978-3540788225
• The Origin of Species , (Darwin, C.), (Barnes & Noble Classics, Dec.2003), ISBN-10: 1593080778, ISBN-13: 978-1593080778

Like to talk to someone who has read at least one of these and is ready to discuss. I would be tickled pink. Thanks.

[tillingborn]

So the constituency on this forum sees philosophy as little more than a silly word game in the back pages of a newspaper. They want to keep their philosophy nice and safe and sanitized and "family-friendly". Keep it safely roped into a corner where it can't leak out in to their "real lives". Keep it bottled up and completely irrelevant. Nothing said, thought, or concluded in their intellectual life will ever be allowed to have any effect on their provincial cultural views.

You really don't do irony, do you? Given the title of this thread, it is laughable that you fail to appreciate that by bracketing every user of this forum other than you as 'the constituency', it is you that is engaging in 'a safe sanitized academic little exercise'; one in which you can dismiss any dissent on the grounds that we are better suited to watching Jerry Springer in our trailer. In fact, you ignore challenges that you lack the intellectual capacity or integrity to respond to. That is worse than simply being inept, it is cowardly and dishonest.

[Kuznetzova]

one in which you can dismiss any dissent on the grounds that we are better suited to watching Jerry Springer in our trailer.

"...dismiss any dissent...."

What the bloody hell are you talking about? What "dissent" do you speak of? The majority of my scientific, historical, and metaphysical submissions to this forum have ZERO replies. Where is this "dissent" you speak of?

Perhaps you are referring to your peanut gallery troll brigade harrassing me all over this forum, chasing me down and derailing threads, attacking me, turning me into the topics of threads, and generally violating every OFF-TOPIC rule of the entire forum --- is this what you are calling "dissent"????!

"dissent"....???

Please. By all means, go to my threads and offer some "dissent" to them. I extend my invitation to you. As they stand, most of those threads have zero replies. Strap on your philosophy helmets and bring some "dissent". By all means.

[RickLewis]

(1) If any poster feels strongly that another poster should not be on this forum, they should please contact a mod explaining why this so, and providing whatever links they need to support their case, and we will exercise our best judgment. We might not follow your recommendation but we will at least consider it. However, please bear in mind that we are extremely unlikely to bar any forum user unless they have repeatedly broken the rather lenient rules of this forum.

(2) If you are unwilling or unable to follow the course of action described in (1), you should please treat each other with basic respect, even in the midst of heated disagreement.

(3) If for whatever reason you are unable to feel any respect for somebody and are unwilling to fake it, then PLEASE JUST IGNORE THEM.

This is a philosophy discussion forum, not an arena for engaging in personal combat or character assassination. We have parliaments for that kind of thing.

This thread is now closed. Have a nice day.