Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[pErvinalia]

The problem is you contradict yourself from post to post. What are we supposed to make of that?

[Svartalf]

that he's a self contradicting sort

[Hermit]

Everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own.

Yes. I've done that myself. Honest. I understood Newton's law of universal gravitation, then invented my own. Here it is:



You can plainly see that it is my own invention. Newton's version was written on a whitish background.

[Exi5tentialist]

The problem is you contradict yourself from post to post. What are we supposed to make of that?

Could you give me any examples? I mean rather than just throwing out a generalised accusation.

[Exi5tentialist]

that he's a self contradicting sort

Could you give me any examples, rather than just throwing out a generalised accusation?

Sorry - was that a contradiction because I put the question mark in a different place?

[Exi5tentialist]

Everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own.

Yes. I've done that myself. Honest. I understood Newton's law of universal gravitation, then invented my own. Here it is:



You can plainly see that it is my own invention. Newton's version was written on a whitish background.

With respect, I think that is just an HTML link to a University of Tennessee gif.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us in your own words what your theory of gravity is, and we can compare whether your invention feels similar to ours.

[Hermit]

Everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own.

Yes. I've done that myself. Honest. I understood Newton's law of universal gravitation, then invented my own. Here it is:



You can plainly see that it is my own invention. Newton's version was written on a whitish background.

With respect, I think that is just an HTML link to a University of Tennessee gif.

Respect? Man, I am the inventor of that gif, and gave the University of Tennessee permission to use it. I hope you're not casting aspersions on my honesty. That is not what I'd call 'respect'.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us in your own words what your theory of gravity is, and we can compare whether your invention feels similar to ours.

In my own words the law of gravity means that bodies attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses, and this force is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Now, given your assertion that "everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own", you have two options: You can claim that I have not understood the meaning of the theory of gravity, or you can claim that I have invented my own. You'll be wrong either way.

[Svartalf]

[]In my own words the law of gravity means that bodies attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses, and this force is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

LOL, I'll use that formulation next time I try to pick up a girl and I'll tell her how it's Newton's fault if my body is attracted to hers

[pErvinalia]

The problem is you contradict yourself from post to post. What are we supposed to make of that?

Could you give me any examples? I mean rather than just throwing out a generalised accusation.

Ffs, it's on the same fucking page.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1655444

That's the last link I'm providing for you of stuff that's happened in the last couple of pages.

[pErvinalia]

Everybody who understands the meaning of a theory of gravity has to invent their own.

Yes. I've done that myself. Honest. I understood Newton's law of universal gravitation, then invented my own. Here it is:



You can plainly see that it is my own invention. Newton's version was written on a whitish background.

With respect, I think that is just an HTML link to a University of Tennessee gif.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us in your own words what your theory of gravity is, and we can compare whether your invention feels similar to ours.

"Ours"? A group can't share the same idea as an idea is unique to the brain that contains it. Yet another contradiction.

[Exi5tentialist]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

[Forty Two]

To be honest, I've never understood how they decoded them. There must have been some initial knowledge to function as premises to allow deduction.

Basically, there were keys, like the Rosetta stone or the Behistun inscriptions that allowed to force entry, and then they used standard cryptography methods to keep cracking the code.
Linear B was a simple use of the Frequency method, once somebody got the bright idea that it might be greek in spite of appearances.

"Cracking the code" is an example of the operator using prior knowledge to create a new meaning in their own mind. This enables a consistent model of meaning to be attached to the Cuneiform. But just because it is consistent does not mean that the original writers would agree it is an accurate reproduction of their conscious meaning. Sadly, we can never ask them, because they are dead. If they were alive, we could interact with them on all channels of human communication, including emotionally, and therefore be more confident in the consistency of our model.

Even if they were alive, and we asked them, we still could never be absolutely certain of their meaning, because there are issues of veracity, memory and narration to deal with, together with the differences in meaning and connotation applied to given words by different people.

So, indeed, when we see hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone next to Greek writing, we have to surmise that the writings themselves are translations. Then we have to figure out the consistencies within the hieroglyphics based on what we think we know the Greek writing to say.

The reliability of this process, however, comes out of the fact that it appears highly unlikely, in the extreme, that there is another internally consistent meaning to be gleaned from such a large number of words. The possibility of two internally consistent meanings making sense without significant anomalies and discrepancies is astronomically small.

So, we figure the words have the meaning we figured out because it makes sense internally, and is consistent with the verbiage in the other language. Is that "absolute" certainty? No, but absolute certainty doesn't exist in the universe.

And, so, when you're looking at an ancient writing -- granted, there will be differences in meaning from what was intended by the writer and what is understood by the reader. That is always the case. But, that's in the nature of writing. You have a thought in the head of Epictetus when he was alive. He writes it down. Only, he is imperfect in his ability to convey his meaning and narrate his intended story. The words themselves admit to subtle variations in meaning, too, so he may use all the right words, but a reader from a different milieu or culture will glean a subtly or not so subtly different meaning than what Epictetus intended. And, both Epictetus and the readers will have memory issues, veracity issues, bias issues, and the like. Nothing is ever perfect. However, being imperfect doesn't mean worthless -- they are still a window into the mind of a person who lived in a different time. Even if the window is foggy and dirty, it's still better than no window. And, some windows are clearer than others.

[Forty Two]

The problem is you contradict yourself from post to post. What are we supposed to make of that?

Could you give me any examples? I mean rather than just throwing out a generalised accusation.

Ffs, it's on the same fucking page.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1655444

That's the last link I'm providing for you of stuff that's happened in the last couple of pages.

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

[Exi5tentialist]

"Ours"? A group can't share the same idea as an idea is unique to the brain that contains it. Yet another contradiction.

Consider the two sentences:-

"This one idea is ours"

"These separate and different ideas are ours"

My statement "ours" fits either. Why do you assume I was using it in the former sense and not the latter?

Stop pretending to have found holes to pick, for the sake of it. There is no contradiction.

[Exi5tentialist]

The problem is you contradict yourself from post to post. What are we supposed to make of that?

Could you give me any examples? I mean rather than just throwing out a generalised accusation.

Ffs, it's on the same fucking page.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1655444

That's the last link I'm providing for you of stuff that's happened in the last couple of pages.

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

Quite. So the difference between us all is one of degree. If we take it as absolute, communication would be a psychic nightmare. We all have to compromise. My compromise is considerably less loosely-drawn than those who want to assert that "the Quran is a source of evil ideas" or something similar to that.