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?

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.

Of course he does. If any version of any idea solely exists inside the mind, then words and actions will have exactly the same efficacy in transmitting objective information as text does. You can't distinguish between the two under his model. And he agreed with that.

[pErvinalia]

"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.

It doesn't matter anyway. You asked him to tell you "his" idea. As soon as he does that and you read that it is no longer his idea, it is yours. Like the last few times you tried to talk about "ideas" you are getting yourself in all sorts of a twist.

[Exi5tentialist]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

Then why did you say this: " 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."?

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I don't see why you need to be quite so insulting about my views on life. I realise yours are not similar, but this constant sniping tone is really unnecessary on a discussion board that at least makes a passing claim to discussing things rationally.

[Forty Two]

It's differences of degree.

A writing from a dead person cannot be as effectively tested as writings from a person who can be interviewed about the writing. If Sam Harris writes something now, and Glen Greenwald says that it shows Harris is a racist and Islamyphobe, we can interview Harris and get more detail. However, we can never achieve perfection because perfection doesn't exist. But, of course, I'd much rather be able to talk to the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in order to find out more about what they wrote about -- so much more could be gleaned and clarified. That doesn't mean that those writers may not still have issues of memory, narration, and veracity, of course, and there will still be issues as to the meaning of a word in the mind of the reader as compared to the writer.

This isn't a "problem" as much as it is a reality of communication in any form. Despite these issues, we have a fairly reliable way to send messages through the generations.

[Exi5tentialist]

Despite these issues, we have a fairly reliable way to send messages through the generations.

We have a way of modelling what previous generations' meanings were. But the moment we buy into the idea that those are "messages" or that we are reading "their ideas" we commit an act of bad faith, through which we can drive a lot of prejudices of our own. That's exactly what happens with this "Evil Quran" propaganda so favoured by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and 99% of the "atheist community". They don't realise they are recycling their xenophobia as rational analysis.

[Forty Two]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

Then why did you say this: " 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."?

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I see where you're coming from, but I do not agree that the writings are rendered untrustworthy. Really what we're talking about degrees of reliability and never absolutes. So, some 1300 year old writings are more trustworthy than others. There will be disagreement among readers as to how much and why, but the reality is that there is a degree of value and truth to many past writings that render them reliable. Perfection is never attainable, so to "proceed as if we are sure of some things" is not really the way to go -- what should be done is to "proceed as if we are sure ENOUGH about some things," and keep our minds open to be changed through additional information. Lack of perfection or complete surety doesn't mean that every statement or writing is equal.

I don't see why you need to be quite so insulting about my views on life. I realise yours are not similar, but this constant sniping tone is really unnecessary on a discussion board that at least makes a passing claim to discussing things rationally.

That's rEvolutionist. His MO is to snipe. People he disagrees with are trolling, and he's always "explained it already," and if you haven't accepted his view yet you're just trolling and ignoring his irrefutable evidence.....

[pErvinalia]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

Then why did you say this: " 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."?

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I don't see why you need to be quite so insulting about my views on life. I realise yours are not similar, but this constant sniping tone is really unnecessary on a discussion board that at least makes a passing claim to discussing things rationally.

Oh piss off. You've got no problem calling us all paedophiles and rapists. You need to take a fucking look at yourself.

[pErvinalia]

It's differences of degree.

A writing from a dead person cannot be as effectively tested as writings from a person who can be interviewed about the writing. If Sam Harris writes something now, and Glen Greenwald says that it shows Harris is a racist and Islamyphobe, we can interview Harris and get more detail. However, we can never achieve perfection because perfection doesn't exist. But, of course, I'd much rather be able to talk to the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in order to find out more about what they wrote about -- so much more could be gleaned and clarified. That doesn't mean that those writers may not still have issues of memory, narration, and veracity, of course, and there will still be issues as to the meaning of a word in the mind of the reader as compared to the writer.

This isn't a "problem" as much as it is a reality of communication in any form. Despite these issues, we have a fairly reliable way to send messages through the generations.

You've totally missed what his point is. It's one of solipsism. It's got nothing to do with any nuance in various forms of communication.

[pErvinalia]

Bollocks. The same argument you use against meaning in text can be used against meaning in speech, emotion, and anything else you can think of.

Indeed

Then why did you say this: " 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."?

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I see where you're coming from, but I do not agree that the writings are rendered untrustworthy. Really what we're talking about degrees of reliability and never absolutes. So, some 1300 year old writings are more trustworthy than others. There will be disagreement among readers as to how much and why, but the reality is that there is a degree of value and truth to many past writings that render them reliable. Perfection is never attainable, so to "proceed as if we are sure of some things" is not really the way to go -- what should be done is to "proceed as if we are sure ENOUGH about some things," and keep our minds open to be changed through additional information. Lack of perfection or complete surety doesn't mean that every statement or writing is equal.

I don't see why you need to be quite so insulting about my views on life. I realise yours are not similar, but this constant sniping tone is really unnecessary on a discussion board that at least makes a passing claim to discussing things rationally.

That's rEvolutionist. His MO is to snipe. People he disagrees with are trolling, and he's always "explained it already," and if you haven't accepted his view yet you're just trolling and ignoring his irrefutable evidence.....

God you are a fucking whiney little bitch. There's no one I have disagreed more with almost permanently over the last 9 years or so than Seth. And I've defended him against accusations of trolling more times than I count.

[Exi5tentialist]

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I see where you're coming from, but I do not agree that the writings are rendered untrustworthy. Really what we're talking about degrees of reliability and never absolutes. So, some 1300 year old writings are more trustworthy than others. There will be disagreement among readers as to how much and why, but the reality is that there is a degree of value and truth to many past writings that render them reliable. Perfection is never attainable, so to "proceed as if we are sure of some things" is not really the way to go -- what should be done is to "proceed as if we are sure ENOUGH about some things," and keep our minds open to be changed through additional information. Lack of perfection or complete surety doesn't mean that every statement or writing is equal.

Yes. But I think the variable you are not taking into account is that human consciousness can only arise from the brain of a living human being. Since consciousness is itself defined by the ability to create meaning, you are at risk of saying that a particular meaning can outlive the death of the brain, albeit in degraded form. I completely oppose that interpretation - I think it is unscientific and is derived from popular ideas injected into present-day society by the ruling classes, their religion, and capitalism.

[Exi5tentialist]

God you are a fucking whiney little bitch.

rEv? Please.

[Exi5tentialist]

Oh piss off. You've got no problem calling us all paedophiles and rapists. You need to take a fucking look at yourself.

I have not called you or anyone a paedophile or a rapist.

[pErvinalia]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

[Forty Two]

Despite these issues, we have a fairly reliable way to send messages through the generations.

We have a way of modelling what previous generations' meanings were. But the moment we buy into the idea that those are "messages" or that we are reading "their ideas" we commit an act of bad faith, through which we can drive a lot of prejudices of our own. That's exactly what happens with this "Evil Quran" propaganda so favoured by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and 99% of the "atheist community". They don't realise they are recycling their xenophobia as rational analysis.

Here we part company, because a writing is not a one way communication involving only the biases and meanings of a reader. It's a two way communication between a writer and a reader. So, indeed, I am willing to acknowledge that the meaning we take from writing X may not be the meaning intended by the writer. However, this does not mean that we cannot understand what the writer meant. What it means is that there are degrees of reliability.

If a monk writing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle wrote that on X date the sun went dark during the daytime, and orb-shaped thing appeared in the sky with a tail on it - we can be pretty sure that he meant that he meant to describe an eclipse and a comet. We can be very sure he did not mean to say that King Aethelred invaded Northumbria. Your correct suggestion that the reader's understanding of words is not the same as the writer's intended meaning does not result in writings being valueless in conveying information.

The Devil is the details, and your correct suggestion that caution when reading passages is necessary is only of any value as we apply it to a given writing. It's not enough to say that Harris reads the Koran and applies his biases and xenophobia to make it mean what he wants it to mean. What is necessary is a discussion of passages in question, and an argument that they do not actually mean what they say they mean and why. The writer intended to write something that meant something. The words are evidence of that meaning, and word meanings from different generations and eras can be explored such that we can focus on reasonable parameters. If a law says, for example, that commission of crime X shall be punished by death, then we can be reasonably sure that it means what it says. If, however, the milieu, context or other evidence indicates that "punished by death" as used in the writing means something else - perhaps metaphorical or whatever, then we can adjust our understanding. We aren't necessarily just applying our own biases and phobias in coming up with meanings.

[pErvinalia]

Oh piss off. You've got no problem calling us all paedophiles and rapists. You need to take a fucking look at yourself.

I have not called you or anyone a paedophile or a rapist.

You've accused us all of apologetics of same. It's fucking offensive and when done in place of any counter argument
says more about you than us.