littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The paragraph you quoted is, in my opinion, having read it a couple of times, full of lots of clever-sounding words like potentialities but actually fairly meaningless.
"Paradoxism"
- Thread starter neon_mask
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I shall endeavour to devote equal time to showing how you are wrong.
If someone posts what you think is nonsense on a philosophy thread, what are you expected to do except explain why you think it is nonsense?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's not a paradox, even. It is simply an untrue statement.
Take Levinthal's paradox...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal_paradox
This states that a given protein molecule can assume several million billion trillion zillion (a lot) possible conformations, thus to sample all of these when being made (to find the most stable conformation) would take longer than the age of the universe.
It's not a bleedin' paradox! Seen as proteins obviously get correctely folded on time scales shorter then the age of the universe then they obviously don't sample all the possible bleedin' conformations!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal_paradox
This states that a given protein molecule can assume several million billion trillion zillion (a lot) possible conformations, thus to sample all of these when being made (to find the most stable conformation) would take longer than the age of the universe.
It's not a bleedin' paradox! Seen as proteins obviously get correctely folded on time scales shorter then the age of the universe then they obviously don't sample all the possible bleedin' conformations!
I shall endeavour to devote equal time to showing how you are wrong.
If someone posts what you think is nonsense on a philosophy thread, what are you expected to do except explain why you think it is nonsense?
There is a difference between intelligent debate, and two people bouncing back and forth the idea that the other is wrong...i.e. the HPPD thread (not so much this)
I was never saying that the what other posters said was nonsensical, but when a poster is being a philosophical smart ass, I just return with a smart ass remark as well.
But thank you, I'm glad I'm considered to be as the same caliber as max.
Well yes, a word without meaning attached to it is meaningless. Just an idea without a use behind it is useless. As to you, it appears useless, because you have no use for it. But what I was stating when I talked about self-actualizing and how the brain operates on a paradox... I guess think of it as being 'self-aware' of who or what you are, once you've realized the limits of your own brain, you can begin to try and push those limits.
rogue_lettuce
Well-Known Member
Plato's rıdedle of nonexıstence
nothıng doesnt exıst
I don't know what riddle you're referring to but Plato was a cunt. And wrong. About practically everything.
I don't know what riddle you're referring to but Plato was a cunt. And wrong. About practically everything.
Now you're just being condescending.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
I don't know what riddle you're referring to but Plato was a cunt. And wrong. About practically everything.
Plato was wrong about nothıng
he was also rıght about nothıng
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I do not doubt that this is what you think you are doing. I do doubt that this is what you are actually doing.
Looking at things from our end of the telescope - realising that there is the perception and there is that which perceives, Schopenhauer's representation and will respectively - we are left in silence when we wish to consider the nature of that which perceives.
I cannot explain this more clearly without writing a big long essay other than by using an analogy:
The knower cannot know itself in the same way that an eye cannot see itself.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's the paradox! There is no thinking outside of the box, for the box is being perceived by the brain. As long as we are operate with our brains, there's no way that our understanding of the universe can be anything but neurological. Humans are both limited by and guided by the brain. It is an observational platform....
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
Substitute "unicorn" for "paradox" and you'll find you're wrong
are you saying the unicorn doesn't exist?
i went to a pub called the unicorn once.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No paradox, just a limit to knowledge. You can approach it from the other direction - from the outside in, looking at the chemistry of thoughts, memory, etc - and you will reach exactly the same point.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
nicely put
i think both inner and outer views are both wrong.
its not a circle, its not a line.
both are models of the world, rather than the world itself.
holding any belief about which is the most true model becomes ridiculous. you have nothing to compare it to, but another model within your mind.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What does that mean?
nicely put
i think both inner and outer views are both wrong.
its not a circle, its not a line.
both are models of the world, rather than the world itself.
holding any belief about which is the most true model becomes ridiculous. you have nothing to compare it to, but another model within your mind.
I like that.....alot. And agree....everything I've been stating (and probably ever will state) are just my viewpoints at the moment, and will always be changing cause there is no point in dwelling in one particular world for too long...or coarse some views live longer than others, but we learn something from all of them.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
the trick is, to enjoy the worlds but stay flexible. if you get stuck in a iscolated world, finding your way home can become difficult.
the children in narnia, make sure they mark which world is home, before jumping into another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_between_the_Worlds
the place between worlds is a seductively sleepy, forgetful place, so its best not to stay there for too long either.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
*leaves thread muttering to self*
Let me rephrase what I said earlier....you think like an accountant, we think like nut cases.
Similar threads
