Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[uwot]

It's not me Skepdick, it's you. The problem is your rotten comprehension.

I promise you it's not me!

Skepdick you buffoon, you are proud of it:

Skepdick me old china, I don't even have any objective criteria for what "to understand" means because you, being so batshit, think that's entirely up to you:

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

I subscribe to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension.

How very liberating. Skepdick, you are free to believe that because you know where the CAPS LOCK is you are communicating successfully.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, actual messy human morality allowed that, I don't own it, I just noticed it. My morality doesn't allow me to kill or enslave.

Yours allows you to have sex with your own dead grandma just as soon as she's dead though and then to make her dog lick your genitals clean afterwards, becasue you have no ceiling for that. So your point isn't looking impressive.

Nope!
As I had stated morality is confined to the human species, but there must be moral consideration where it has a interests to human beings.
You fucking your dead grandma and allowing her dog to lick your genitals is potential deadly with diseases. Thus has a negative effect on human beings and the human species.

I would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.

As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.

"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.
These perverted acts are wrong in the psychiatric sense and not in the moral sense.
In this case, these perverted people need to be cured within the Framework and System of Psychiatry and Psychology.

Note, schizophrenics and the mentally ills expressed all sorts of perverted behaviors which can be deem to be immoral but knowing they are mentally sick, society do not accuse them of being immoral, e.g. if they run around naked on the street, killed someone, swearing everywhere, committed other violent acts, etc.

It is essential not to associate the above perversions with morality-proper, so that morality-proper is confined to the human species only, to resolve the various issues, dilemmas, drawing of lines where there is a necessity in killing living non-humans for various positive reasons.

[Skepdick]

It's not me Skepdick, it's you. The problem is your rotten comprehension.

I promise you it's not me!

Skepdick you buffoon, you are proud of it:

Skepdick me old china, I don't even have any objective criteria for what "to understand" means because you, being so batshit, think that's entirely up to you:

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

I subscribe to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension.

How very liberating. Skepdick, you are free to believe that because you know where the CAPS LOCK is you are communicating successfully.

Holy! Fucking! Shit! Are you acting dumber than you are, or am I giving you too much credit again?

You are aware that communication is a two-way process. yes? Transmit/receive. Is called full duplex

Of course I can make words mean whatever the hell I intend them to mean when I express myself. That's on the transmit-path.

Do you comprehend that comprehension is on the receive path?

[uwot]

You are aware that communication is a two-way process. yes?

As I said, what you are barking about isn't new or difficult.

Transmit/receive. Is called full duplex

See, here's what I perceive to be your problem. Well, one of them. You apparently believe that unless I use the same language that you do, I don't understand.

Of course I can make words mean whatever the hell I intend them to mean when I express myself. That's on the transmit-path.

Talking.

Do you comprehend that comprehension is on the receive path?

Listening. Yes Skepdick, I understand.

[Skepdick]

See, here's what I perceive to be your problem. Well, one of them. You apparently believe that unless I use the same language that you do, I don't understand.

Using the same language is not the problem - you are adapting to mine. I am adapting to yours. That's all normal.

Here's what I perceive to be your problem. It hasn't even occurred to you that you and I have different epistemic criteria for "understanding" grounded in the fact that we have different logical foundations.

It's obvious to me that you don't care much for the trust-but-verify principle. You are happy to assume that you have parsed my words correctly.

Which leaves both of us with epistemic problems.

How do you know that you have correctly understood me?
How do I know that you have correctly understood me?

Neither of us have a path to verification OR falsification. This was L.E.J Brouwer's frustration - Classical logicians see closed logical formulas as complete communications, intuitionists see them as incomplete communications.

This problem doesn't arise when people discuss what needs DOING. Because we get to verify OR falsify successful communication if we said one thing but ended up doing another. We can SEE that we understood OR misunderstood each other. There is no such feedback loop in language.

It's very Wittgensteinian, you see. A word is not a definition nor does it really encapsulate a meaning. It's a move in a language game, the point of which is to produce behavior in others that is as if they understood you.

Listening. Yes Skepdick, I understand.

Do you? I have evidence against your self-hypothesis.

IF you understand, how is it then that you conflated my speaking (ability to make words mean what I want them to mean) with my listening (comprehension)?

What am I to make of your claim that you "understand me" in light of the contrary evidence?

[FlashDangerpants]

Nope!
As I had stated morality is confined to the human species, but there must be moral consideration where it has a interests to human beings.
You fucking your dead grandma and allowing her dog to lick your genitals is potential deadly with diseases. Thus has a negative effect on human beings and the human species.

I would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.

As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.

"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.
These perverted acts are wrong in the psychiatric sense and not in the moral sense.
In this case, these perverted people need to be cured within the Framework and System of Psychiatry and Psychology.

Note, schizophrenics and the mentally ills expressed all sorts of perverted behaviors which can be deem to be immoral but knowing they are mentally sick, society do not accuse them of being immoral, e.g. if they run around naked on the street, killed someone, swearing everywhere, committed other violent acts, etc.

It is essential not to associate the above perversions with morality-proper, so that morality-proper is confined to the human species only, to resolve the various issues, dilemmas, drawing of lines where there is a necessity in killing living non-humans for various positive reasons.

I can't be bothered going round this with you in 50 fucking stupid threads where you just make all the same mistakes over and over again.
Here's a generic thread that explians why your morality-proper thing is failing now, and doomed to always fail.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.

As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.

"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.
These perverted acts are wrong in the psychiatric sense and not in the moral sense.
In this case, these perverted people need to be cured within the Framework and System of Psychiatry and Psychology.

Note, schizophrenics and the mentally ills expressed all sorts of perverted behaviors which can be deem to be immoral but knowing they are mentally sick, society do not accuse them of being immoral, e.g. if they run around naked on the street, killed someone, swearing everywhere, committed other violent acts, etc.

It is essential not to associate the above perversions with morality-proper, so that morality-proper is confined to the human species only, to resolve the various issues, dilemmas, drawing of lines where there is a necessity in killing living non-humans for various positive reasons.

I can't be bothered going round this with you in 50 fucking stupid threads where you just make all the same mistakes over and over again.
Here's a generic thread that explians why your morality-proper thing is failing now, and doomed to always fail.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755

You are making noises again with any solid counters to my points.

Your new thread merely exposes your ignorance and hidden and subliminal evil impulses.

[uwot]

How do you know that you have correctly understood me?
How do I know that you have correctly understood me?

Neither of us have a path to verification OR falsification.

You scream:

Holy! Fucking! Shit!

And I call you a twat. We both elicit exactly the response we expect; ergo we understand each other perfectly.

This problem doesn't arise when people discuss what needs DOING. Because we get to verify OR falsify successful communication if we said one thing but ended up doing another. We can SEE that we understood OR misunderstood each other. There is no such feedback loop in language.

Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.

It's very Wittgensteinian, you see.

Personally, I'd call it behaviourist.

A word is not a definition nor does it really encapsulate a meaning.

Yeah; how many times have I said so?

It's a move in a language game, the point of which is to produce behavior in others that is as if they understood you.

I understand you. Twat.

[Skepdick]

And I call you a twat. We both elicit exactly the response we expect; ergo we understand each other perfectly.

That sounds counter-productive, but I don't expect anything less from a Philosopher.

Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.

Well you sound pretty confused. The distinction is right in the name ACTOR and NETWORK.

Empathy comes in understanding the interaction. You can't understand anything about the individual separate from the environment because you are the environment - you have yourself an actor-network-actor configuration. That sure sounds like Shannon's model.

Personally, I'd call it behaviourist.

I'd call it scientific.

Yeah; how many times have I said so?

Not enough. Especially since I am trying to understand what you mean by "understanding".

I understand you. Twat.

I don't. Twat.

What do you mean by "understand" ?

[Skepdick]

And I call you a twat. We both elicit exactly the response we expect; ergo we understand each other perfectly.

That sounds counter-productive, but I don't expect anything less from a Philosopher.

Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.

Well you sound pretty confused. The distinction is right in the name ACTOR and NETWORK.

Empathy comes in understanding the interaction. You can't understand anything about the individual in isolation because you are the environment - you have yourself an actor-network-actor configuration. That sure sounds like Shannon's model.

And you have yourself a Hawthorne effect.

Personally, I'd call it behaviourist.

I'd call it scientific.

Yeah; how many times have I said so?

Not enough. Especially since I am empathically trying to understand what you mean by "understanding".

I understand you. Twat.

I don't. Twat.

If you are the actor in the actor-network model what does "understanding the network" mean to you holistically?

[uwot]

And I call you a twat. We both elicit exactly the response we expect; ergo we understand each other perfectly.

That sounds counter-productive...

Double standards: Check.
It's the same criterion you claim is productive.

...but I don't expect anything less from a Philosopher.

Snarkiness: Check.

Well you sound pretty confused.

Skepdick, you've already done snarkiness.

The distinction is right in the name ACTOR and NETWORK.

Hypocrisy: Check.
Lack of irony: Check.
Two for one. The wiki sprayer doesn't bother to research ANT before deciding you understand it based on your understanding of the words in the title. Which is

A word is not a definition nor does it really encapsulate a meaning

ironic.

You can't understand anything about the individual in isolation because you are the environment - you have yourself an actor-network-actor configuration.

Woozle effect: Check.
You are now following your own ANT footprints.

If you are the actor in the actor-network model what does "understanding the network" mean to you holistically?

Confirmation bias: Check.
Having misunderstood ANT twice already, you now believe you must be right.

Empathy comes in understanding the interaction.

Psychopathy: Check.
Empathy comes in understanding the feeling. You see, I can understand your petty, bloody-minded snarkiness, not because I can observe it, but because I can feel it too. If that is the only common ground you wish to establish, that's fine by me, and fuck you too.

[Skepdick]

Double standards: Check.
It's the same criterion you claim is productive.

It's not the same. You are using it differently to me.

Skepdick, you've already done snarkiness.

It wasn't snark. I was stating a fact.

Hypocrisy: Check.

Why did you have to check? I keep telling you that I am a hypocrite and it still surprises you.

Lack of irony: Check.

The irony in accusing an ironist for lacking irony is ironic.

Two for one. The wiki sprayer doesn't bother to research ANT before deciding you understand it based on your understanding of the words in the title.

The psychopath (faux empath) assumes lack of understanding even though the very article says....

Broadly speaking, ANT is a constructivist approach in that it avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (i.e. ANT explains a successful theory by understanding the combinations and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than saying it is true and the others are false).

My understanding of the word in the title is based on the concept of an ACTOR and NETWORKS. Which is grounded in computer science... which is grounded in constructive mathematics. Which is the synthesis of distributed systems... which is my area of expertise.

Guess you don't "understand" me as well as you claim.

Which is

A word is not a definition nor does it really encapsulate a meaning

ironic.

And why does that surprise you given that you know I am a constructivist/ironist?

Woozle effect: Check.
You are now following your own ANT footprints.

Of course I am doing all of that! But I am doing more than that also!

Confirmation bias: Check.
Having misunderstood ANT twice already, you now believe you must be right.

Empathy comes in understanding the interaction.

Psychopathy: Check.
Empathy comes in understanding the feeling. You see, I can understand your petty, bloody-minded snarkiness, not because I can observe it, but because I can feel it too. If that is the only common ground you wish to establish, that's fine by me, and fuck you too.

No you fucking psychopath.

I keep telling you it's you and you don't fucking believe me....

You apparently believe that unless I use the same language that you do, I don't understand.

You got the above accusation EXACTLY backwards! I am a linguist. Speak to me in whatever language - I'll synchronise my language to yours (ala Hawthorne effect!)

The problem is that if I don't speak YOUR language then YOU don't fucking understand any of my questions. I know this because you aren't answering me - you aren't behaving AS IF you understood my question.

So let me spell it out for you in a language that you (apparently) understand.

WHAT DOES UNDERSTANDING FEEL LIKE?

I don't even have any objective criteria for what "to understand" means

Then how the fuck do you know you that you understand me, anybody or anything? What signals "understanding" to you if not a feeling, or an intuition?

[uwot]

Meh. Fuck you it is then.

[Skepdick]

Meh. Fuck you it is then.

See!!! It's you - it's not me!

I told you I have a higher standard for "understanding" than you do!

It seems to me that YOU are content with ANT/behaviourism. I am not, but when I ask you what it FEELS like to understand, when I try to "understand the individual" then you swear at me. Ironic much?

Do you actually understand empathy or are you just virtue-signaling? Or does philosophy not allow you to say factual things about your feelings? I don't know!

[uwot]

You are using it differently to me.

Not at all. I say x fully expecting you to respond y. Whaddya know? You get the message and respond y. Works nearly every time. Granted you surprise me sometimes; not much though.
Anyway, I'm wondering about all these that you season your posts with. They're not something I use or care about, but clearly they are something you think will act as a trigger. Perhaps they'll work on you; I'm just waiting for the right moment. Hm. This might be the time:

The irony in accusing an ironist for lacking irony is ironic.

Someone who doesn't get irony calling themselves an "ironist". Priceless

Guess you don't "understand" me as well as you claim.

Well, the important thing is you are a twat.