Materialism and Consciousness.

[Sidhe]

I spent the last hour looking at New Scientist and searching for NASA, DNA and quantum articles and came up empty. Do you know the year?

It came out last year I know that much and it is the cover story and it is something like DNA and something about quantum principles. It exists either that or our office subscription get's in a magazine that is some quantum duality of another magazine?

 

[Birdjaguar]

You posted two definitions, and said they were mutally exclusive. I bolded the relevant parts and provided an answer to your question. Perhaps your question was poorly stated. I thought philosophy was all about precision.

 

[Sidhe]

You're allowed to criticise, just don't let that be your only criticism. Birdjaguar correctly shows that even if there is free will there is limits on it that can be construed as fate, and you seem to keep yelling at me that you can't have fate and free will when I argue for neither.

Frankly you're the one who is coming off a tad illogical...

well you can argue that we're predetermined to do certain things that I have no problem with but even then the decision process itself is indeterminate. I really see no reason to keep arguing about what the definition is and how the two are mutually exclusive I sugest you either accept that the definition of each makes one mutually exclusive or that you go live in a twee world where your definition is important but differs from the definition of the philosophical world. Hoinestly you'd make a really bad philosopher if you had an argument about two mutually exclusive points and then kept saying but I don't define them that way and I was only saying that, you are starting use sophistry as far as I can see. The argument is black and white it's rather like does god exist, if you prove he doesn't exist you can't turn round and say he might exist sometimes though because then he exists I'm not trying to come across as condescending here or anything I just don't like arguing about things that are claimed in the name of spurious logic and sophistry, you're talking wordpoo and I really fail to see why I need to reclarify definitions to make the same point I've made again and again so I think I'll bow out, this has ceased to be fun for me, some intransigient nonsense is not what I call reasoned argument it's pig headedness it's gone beyond what I'd call reasoned argument into I don't care wether the two are mutually exclusive?

 

[Perfection]

You keep making the same logical flaw over and over:

Mutually exlcusive does not rule out niether

 

[CartesianFart]

You posted two definitions, and said they were mutally exclusive. I bolded the relevant parts and provided an answer to your question.

Than why mislead us with this

I will grow old and die, regardless of what I choose to do today, unless those choices kill me quicker.

instead you can do this

You posted two definitions, and said they were mutally exclusive. I am boldening the relevant parts and provideding an answer to your question:

I will grow old and die, regardless of what I choose to do today, unless those choices kill me quicker

Perhaps your question was poorly stated. I thought philosophy was all about precision.

Look like an irony right there.For example.Read quote 2 and watch how quote 1 verified it on this post.

 

[punkbass2000]

Mutually exlcusive does not rule out niether

I already said that

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perf & PB, thank you for your support.

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm glad you've chosen to feel supported

 

[Sidhe]

You keep making the same logical flaw over and over:

Mutually exlcusive does not rule out niether

Oh god the return of the pedant, you know what I mean, please I'm out if you have to resort to being pedantic rather than admit your talking **** then frankly I'm not even going to bother?

how many times do I have to say one cannot exist with the other before someone starts resorting to pedantry I wonder?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Look like an irony right there.For example.Read quote 2 and watch how quote 1 verified it on this post.

Yes, I almost went back to edit things, and decided I didn't care. I am not a word mathematician and this discussion had gone way past trying to actually discuss stuff.

 

[Perfection]

Oh god the return of the pedant, you know what I mean, please I'm out if you have to resort to being pedantic rather than admit your talking **** then frankly I'm not even going to bother?

You're the one who is being pedantic with all the "" every time we make an arguement. People who do that tend to come off as jerks.

I've been arguing the whole time that fate and free will are both incorrect. If you can't accept it then please leave!

 

[Sidhe]

It's a classic example of how egos get in the way, you can't admit your wrong so you try and play with words to say that that is not what you meant or the defenitions are flawed or that you stated something that was wrong even though they know precisely what you said earlier. It's like they say, never argue with a fool, most people wont be able to tell the difference

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Sidhe: I attribute my opposition to your position on my inability and unwillingness to operate within the rules of philosphical discussion and nothing more.

 

[punkbass2000]

I guess we're nothing more than a group of pathetic philosphers.

 

[El_Machinae]

edit: not me!

Perfection ... what's your belief in this area?

 

[CartesianFart]

Yes, I almost went back to edit things, and decided I didn't care. I am not a word mathematician and this discussion had gone way past trying to actually discuss stuff.

Don't you know that true philosophers are more linguistic driven mathematicians.You can be surprised what have been developed in linguistics in the past 50 years.Alot of language theraphy to try to be more less ambiguous in the already changing language games of any different area of knowledge.

 

[Sidhe]

You're the one who is being pedantic with all the "" every time we make an arguement. People who do that tend to come off as jerks.

I've been arguing the whole time that fate and free will are both incorrect. If you can't accept it then please leave!

I don't worry I am leaving since you have no ability to admit that your talking utter crap, and can't even grasp basic philosophical principles, I see no reason to argue with someone who's intransigient and insists on being ignorant.

Why are they incorrect, what the hell are you banging on a about and why are you saying one can exist with the other and ah why even bother?

I suggest you go read a book on philosophy, you can't change the paramaters of the discussion whenevr you see fit without backing that statement up, just saying they are both wrong with nothing but your opinion as the basis is some pretty lame philosophy?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I guess we're nothing more than a group of pathetic philosphers.

Speak for yourself PB; Hell I'm a mystic.

 

[punkbass2000]

edit: not me!

I was referring to the axis of ignorance; myself, BJ and Perf

 

[punkbass2000]

Speak for yourself PB; Hell I'm a mystic.

Those are mutually inclusive! You have to be both. Quit playing with definitions.