What if John does not want to engage with the argument? Shouldn't it be his right to say "no"?
I'm arriving at the conclusion that his constant replies, negative + insulting as they are, are actually on par with the weird impatient expectation by you guys "that he should just answer in the fucking way we want him to" - a posture that is just as hostile, even in the politeness trappings you love to waltz around with linguistically. It takes two to tango and continue with the small, eternal bickering orgy that you've sucked this list into. Have your UDA threads by all means, but the automatic assumption that every list member "must go through UDA" before they've even consented to such a private theological exercise is plain rude. The arguments of what was debunked, referring to some huge audience of "we", who have all swallowed comp hook, line, and sinker is also curious. Why not address that audience with this burning ambition, or Bruno's peers, or publications on foundations of science, theology, modal logic etc.? People are here for ensemble TOE discussion and the platform seems to have developed into Bruno's advertising/propaganda corner. And whoever says "no" is an enemy of science. Whoever does not want to engage with UDA the way we want is being strange/egoistic. Such assumptions make Bruno's side seem arrogant and guilty of blaspheme. Besides being incredibly rude socially, tearing people into "Helsinki, Moscow" without seeking explicit consent WITH the disclaimer that this thought experiment supports a worldview where science and theology loose the usual boundary, that physics reverses into machine psychology, that we are all assumed to be universal machines... not stating these things clearly at the start, but then exposing people's personal belief systems to this list "John is a fundamentalist" -via their replies- is perhaps beyond rude and already odious, depending on your psychological health. Because people's inner theological stances are a private matter which comp adherents (meaning Telmo and Bruno) feel they have a right to trample over by fast-tracking them into the future of science via the thought experiment too quickly. But no, we couldn't have the kind of politeness that respects personal boundaries; just the kind that uses all kinds of politeness markers to trample on the exact right that the argument proposes to champion: saying "no" to the comp doctor and any form of his marketing, including UDA. Your sense for manners and good argumentative form, posture, and patience is most weird, and it is understandable that some people would feel coerced by the rushed, selectively packaged aspect of presenting the argument. I prefer laughing and fart jokes in my discussions on ontology. They ensure absence of seriousness. Nirvana is already here but it is obviously your choice to split hairs, so consider being more measured in your responses for "opening the eyes of the world". Respect people's basic theological boundaries and control that tendency for the kind of discourse, where when people have a beer with you, you'l be the types obsessively returning to your subject even when group discussion moves on with "one more thing about comp though is that..." Because of this attitude, the absence of informal discussion (this place was also used to share jokes in non obsequious fashion), I won't even get into the theological problems I see with comp. Without the laughter and all the force you guys enforce via emails with you too, I have come to the conclusion that you're already at the point where you mistake comp for reality much too often. And that's further than any scientist should go, regardless of subject. Especially preaching ignorance and modesty the way you guys do. This leaves me with little interest to even bring up such problems here because you are forever decided on these issues. Indeed, these are the beginning trappings of false religions and no longer the kind of inquiring open science that interests me. I decline on the infinite bickering contest. Thank goodness for Brent's and John Mike's post. They are what hold this whole kindergarten together. PGC On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 , Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > >> I am sick of > >> playing the game > > > > > > Yes I know you said that before, but then why do you continue to play it? > > Human nature. > > > > >> > >> what I mean by "this game" is the game of > >> > >> arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please spare me from your > >> > >> usual jokes where you go to wikipedia looking for meaning of the > >> > >> acronym. Yes yes it's super funny). > > > > > > I'll tell you what I'm sick of, I'm not sick of arguing with you, that's > > fun, but I'm sick of Bruno's acting as if his silly homemade acronyms > should > > be well known to every educated person when even Google doesn't know what > > the hell he's talking about. > > I think this gets to the root of the problem, and it's all in your > head. You pride yourself in your scientific culture so you feel > personally insulted when someone uses some obscure acronym that you > don't know about. That is irrational. > > I have never seen Bruno acting like anyone is uneducated or dumb for > not knowing something, much less is acronyms. It is all in your head. > What I have seen is you making fun of Bruno's ideas for years, even > though he was always available to clear up the meaning of his acronyms > to you. But you play the game of pretending you don't know what they > mean, because you just want to sabotage the debate. > > People have been discussing Bruno's Universal Dovetailer Argument for > many years on this mailing list. It is normal that, at some point, we > start using abbreviations like UDA. This is not an exercise in > self-importance, it's just how acronyms are born anywhere. Bruno's > argument has not reached the mainstream, so it's fairly normal that > wikipedia does contain an entry about it. This is surely true of > millions of ambitious concepts that are being explored by niches of > humanity all over. Nothing special about it. > > The Universal Dovetailer is a perfectly well defined (and quite > interesting) concept in computer science. I do think this one is > mentioned in wikipedia, by the way. The argument around the UD (see, > it's annoying to keep writing the same thing over and over) captures > the interest of a lot of people here, clearly including you -- you > have been discussing it for years. What you are saying is what? That > we should not give Bruno the satisfaction of creating acronyms for > things that he thought and that we debate over and over? Don't you > think that is terribly petty? > > I have witnessed Bruno give a lecture having in mind a general > audience, and the did not assume people to know what a FUNCTION is. > much less some obscure acronym. It's all a matter of context, a > concept you seem to have a hard time grasping. Don't we have the right > to have a niche place to discuss less known ideas that we find > exciting? What the hell is the problem with that? How can you think > that this is a personal insult to you? > > > I'm also sick of pretending that substituting > > "1p" for "me" and "3p" for "you" is a great scientific achievement. > > Well that's not on Bruno, it's common in philosophical discussion > everywhere. The way you phrase it tells me that you don't fully grasp > the concepts, but that's not very surprising given the incorrect > arguments you use against the UDA. In any case, I don't think anyone > is under the impression that these are scientific advancements at all. > 1p and 3p are just useful concepts to talk about certain things, > surely useful when we are dealing with the mind-body problem. > > I don't get this "scientific advancement" obsession, where > hard-to-grasp ideas are glorified. Hard-to-grasp ideas are a necessary > evil at most. Science is about the search for truth, and if we could > express all the truth at a basic school level that would be great. > > >> > > >> This is your usual modus operandi and I am sick of it. > > > > > > You already said that more than once, and I already asked why you > continue > > doing something you're sick of. > > Because I think Bruno has something interesting to tell the world, and > not a lot of people know about it. So I am doing my small part to > leave it on the record that not everyone thinks like you. > > > > >> > >> > > >> you argue in bad faith. > > > > > > I then to think all faith is bad > > You can check the definition of "Bad Faith" on Wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith > > Of course you know this, and you know that "faith" in this context has > no relation whatsoever with the notion of "religious faith". So this > turns out to be a good example of arguing in bad faith -- you ignore > what you know is meant and run for a dictionary definition that you > like. You do this a lot. > > > but perhaps I could figure out that you're > > taking about if you gave a specific example rather than vague > generalities. > > I do above and I did before, but you removed them when answering to > me. You also do that a lot. > > >> > >> > > >> it is precisely > >> what makes you a religious fundamentalist. Just because your religion > >> has no name, doesn't mean that it does not exist.I'll spare you the > >> trouble and paste you usual bromide. Here you go: > >> > >> "Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never > >> heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12." > > > > > > Thank you that was thoughtful because between you and Bruno my rubber > stamp > > is getting a bit worn so I'll make you a deal, stop using your rubber > stamp > > insult stamp and I'll stop using my rubber stamp response stamp. > > > >> > > >> This is precisely the sort of manipulative bullshit that religious > >> people use. > > > > > > Oh dear, I've got to use my rubber stamp yet again:: > > > > > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never > > heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > >> > >> > > >> You argue in bad faith > > > > > > You already said that and I already requested a specific example. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> you destroy honest discussion to score > >> i > >> nternet points you bully people that were nothing but nice to > >> > >> you. > > > > > > If somebody is talking nonsense it makes no difference if they are nice > to > > me or not, it's still nonsense. And pointing out logical inconsistencies > is > > not bullying, it's critical thinking. > > It is bullying if you even refuse to read what you propose to > criticize, and if you refuse to accept what is meant by some term so > that debate can progress. Another bad sign is that you never ever > concede a point. You just ignore and then come back with the same > thing months later. > > Telmo. > > > John K Clark > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/haloUTgJfiQ/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
