More "you are not your brain"

Ilion

Bob Emmett wrote:

Well, you've grasped that much, well done.

When are you going to grasp it?

soap brain

By the way, I would strongly advise you to not ignore the papers I linked to.

Oakman

so much for "try," eh, grasshopper?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

There are other people that would be interested in them.

Oakman

do or not do, there is no try - and no explanation.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Of course there is a 'try'. What kind of argument is that? In fact, trying invariably leads to doing or not doing. And there is always an explanation. It just depends on whether you want to hear it, and whether I want to tell you. Which I don't.

Oakman

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

What kind of argument is that?

Take it up with Yoda.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

And there is always an explanation

No, I am afraid that you'll find out when you grow up, that there isn't - and even when there is, no-one wants to hear it.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Oakman wrote:

Take it up with Yoda.

Maybe I will.

Oakman wrote:

No, I am afraid that you'll find out when you grow up, that there isn't - and even when there is, no-one wants to hear it.

There is always a reason that things happen, it's just that sometimes you have yet to find out what it is. And it depends what it is, as to whether no-one wants to hear it. I'm still trying to figure it out, but I know that I have to never tell anybody anything about me.

Rob Graham

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

There is always a reason that things happen

Quantum mechanics suggests that your view of causality may be vastly oversimplified. ;P

soap brain

Particles? Bah! They do whatever I tell them to do, exactly as fast as I want.

Rob Graham

Last time I checked, sometimes "shit happens" no "because" required...

soap brain

Well, you should check again. There's always a 'because', you can thank the conservation laws and thermodynamics for that.

73Zeppelin

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

There is always a reason that things happen, it's just that sometimes you have yet to find out what it is.

I have to say that Jon is right - sometimes there isn't an explanation for why things happen, as I'm sure you'll discover as you get older. It happens to be one of the more maddening aspects of the human condition. By the way - your summation function, while not continuous as written, can be made continuous.

fred_

Ilíon wrote:

And you appear to not have a mind. But since the point is your head, I suppose it's OK that you are determined to be mindless.

Again my roomates 10 year old call that insult lame .. get out of grade school

fred_

2nd the motion :thumbsup:

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

When are you going to grasp it?

:rolleyes: Miss the point much?

Bob Emmett wrote:

Well, you've grasped that much, well done.

Which, in the context of:

Ilíon wrote:

this "science" thingie you worship isn't even about truth in the first place

is an agreement that science has never been about truth. Toodle-loo, old bean.

Bob Emmett

Synaptrik

So says the 14 year old master on all things physical. So you are saying that you can prove Quantum Mechanics wrong and validate your assertion? AND can prove there's always a because? Did it come to you in a dream? Lookup some material on Carl Jung and falling frogs.

This statement is false

Ilion

You're a fool, and likely intellectually dishonest.

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

You're a fool

Turing Test failure #1

Ilíon wrote:

intellectually dishonest

Turing Test failure #2

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

73Zeppelin wrote:

I have to say that Jon is right - sometimes there isn't an explanation for why things happen, as I'm sure you'll discover as you get older. It happens to be one of the more maddening aspects of the human condition.

*grumble grumble* I maintain that a completely bad reason is still a reason...

73Zeppelin wrote:

By the way - your summation function, while not continuous as written, can be made continuous.

Is that if you say S(x) = { x(1-xn)/(1-x), x != 1; n, x = 1 } ? :confused: