I don't really understand what is going on here. You lost me at "pound sand". Maybe I'm not bright enough, but I can't think why you would want to do this. What do you mean "pound"?
On Jun 26, 6:37 am, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.security.misc/bEjfZsynWZE > > Let's suppose that you wanted to see if somebody was bright enough to pound > sand on the seashore before building a sand castle. Let's suppose that you > had an intimate knowledge of that guy's computer equipment. Let's suppose > that you wanted to toy around with him and screw with his head. Suppose that > you composed a computer virus to infect his machine, bundled it into an > email with attachment that was self opening as soon as he opened up his > email utility. Let's suppose that he gave you the high sign that he knew you > were on his machine and didn't give a damn. So you provoke him a little bit > more with each session until he annoys *you*. Then you (having forced him > into a corner) cut off his Google access through the skin which is between > him and the real Google. He obliges you by logging into his master account > so that you can replace his operating system, itunes, and get *this* - his > Airport Utility so that his computer is accessible without his knowledge > even when the internet cable is unplugged. He deletes the parental controls > account he has been using to access the internet and makes a new one, which > of course now has *your* version of Safari etc in it, so that his machine is > now totally and utterly under *your* control. When he logs on to the > internet again, there is one and only one new post during the past eight > hours on his groups to which he is subscribed, and its is somebody > blithering about reality in response to his post about people not being > permitted dissent or disruption. > > Guess what? I *still* don't give a damn. You can cut me off so totally from > everyone that I can only lie in bed and sleep. I will *still* make waves > through various means which I decline to specify. Furthermore, the longer I > am cut off, the more you are going to be wondering what *I* might say if I > could interact with other people. Eventually a tension will arise in *your* > own mind that will be unbearable to *you* and you will let me back into > contact with others. The reason is simple. I just can't resist the > opportunity to screw around with other people's heads by blabbering and > blithering about things that they are *not* supposed to know, including > various things that *you* did not know until I told you. > > The ball is in *your* court, whoever you may be. I extend my apologies to > members of this group for ranting so much. Possibly I am self deceived and > this is all just a Google problem which everyone is experiencing, rather > than my machine being hacked. > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:41:50 PM UTC-7, archytas wrote: > > > Hi Chaz, > > > Non-realism can take many forms, depending on whether or not it is the > > existence or independence dimension of realism that is questioned or > > rejected. The forms of non-realism can vary dramatically from subject- > > matter to subject-matter, but error-theories, non-cognitivism, > > instrumentalism, nominalism, certain styles of reductionism, and > > eliminativism typically reject realism by rejecting the existence > > dimension, while idealism, subjectivism, and anti-realism typically > > concede the existence dimension but reject the independence dimension. > > > It just gets harder and harder after this - so I settle down with > > 'tropical fish realism' admitting my knowledge doesn't have > > philosophic under-pinnings that can't be 'got at'. You and I both > > think science has better stories than creationist turkeys. The > > questions turn to why we think this. I will give up to some guy who > > has raised tropical fish against my scant knowledge of this, though > > not to the double-glazing salesman telling me his product will slash > > my heating bills by massive amounts etc. > > > I also find turkeys telling me the objective point of view is the one > > without emotional colour - clear piss. Hume is now backed by a lot of > > science done on human nature and the small role of rational > > consciousness in it and what we know. Realism is not a system without > > doubt - one notion of its necessity was to find an argument that > > science is not a miracle - which it would have to be unless it was > > describing actual reality. I know of at least two neo-Kantian > > arguments against structural realism in science. > > > Structural Realism comes from John Worrall (1989 ish) and he says he > > found his structural realism in Henri Poincaré (1905, 1906) whose > > structuralism was combined with neo-Kantian views about the nature of > > arithmetic and group theory, and with conventionalism about the > > geometry of space and time. According to Worrall, we should not accept > > standard scientific realism, which asserts that the nature of the > > unobservable objects that cause the phenomena we observe is correctly > > described by our best theories. However, neither should we be > > antirealists about science. Rather, we should adopt structural realism > > and epistemically commit ourselves only to the mathematical or > > structural content of our theories. One can distinguish epistemic and > > ontic forms of these types of realism. Kant can be used in support of > > this and against it. > > > Carlos' piece above is fine, though what are we addressing concerning > > the time before any 'I's' could do the addressing? I suppose the guy > > who shouts 'blerddefuckbognorregis' may be on to something rather than > > Lene Hau as we 'see' a photon trapped in a Bose-Einstein condensate > > and a matter wave emerge, but I'm not going with him unless pissed on > > Bulgarian Raki. It does seem we can't separate observational and > > theoretical language and be sensible enough to beware the guy carrying > > a wet fish with form for slapping people in the face with such. And > > 'see' the difference between the realist hypothesis on a blue book and > > those of it as an illusion, appearance and so on. > > > Much has been written on realism and space-time so I won't bother. > > The problem Chaz puts forward is too simple. > > > On Jun 26, 12:26 am, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > The society in which *I* live will *not* tolerate dissent or disruption. > > I > > > have *personal* experience of that. See Wikipedia article "consensus > > > reality". Mental health professional enforce the rules. > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:36:48 PM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:55 am, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > I'll take a stab at it. If you deny consensus reality, then you > > *will* > > > > > probably be declared insane. > > > > > Whose consensus? Surely every Protestant denied the Catholic > > > > consensus; the muslim denies the Christian; the Hindu the Buddhist ad > > > > infinitem. > > > > > There is no "consensus" reality. Surely that is simply the false claim > > > > of the objectivist. > > > > Given what Kant has shown, should we not treat with utter suspicion > > > > any one who tries to claim that their position is objective? Is that > > > > not the howl of the totalitarian? > > > > > > So you must at least give lip service to the > > > > > claim that Solipsism is a flawed philosophical view. Is that a good > > > > enough > > > > > response? It shows by implication nothing regarding my viewpoint > > since I > > > > > have been declared insane... > > > > > The moment I agree with your position we then share a consensus. But > > > > it might be just us two that shares this point of view. If 10 others > > > > disagree, does that make us mad and them sane? > > > > And if society tells us that x,y, and z simply is the truth ought we > > > > not to challenge that? > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:41:34 AM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > > > > > In what way is Kant justifiably called a Subjectivist or Idealist? > > > > > > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within > > > > > > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only > > my > > > > > > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the > > > > > > existence of a real object outside me can never be given > > immediately > > > > > > and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the > > > > > > > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus > > > > > > > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, > > > > > > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only > > infer > > > > > > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the > > > > > > perception as an effect of something external that must be the > > > > > > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an > > > > > > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of > > > > > > > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate > > > > > > > and direct perception … . > > > > > > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > > > > > Given this statement, how is any position which asserts a Realist > > > > > > position ever justifiable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
