Just give up, Todor. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. He's taken a stance that won't let him think he's wrong, even when he is. He'll re-interpret what you've said to something else so he can pick it apart. He'll change the subject when he can't come up with a good argument. He'll directly contradict the truth by denying you've done/said something you just did, or by relabeling it as something entirely different. He doesn't want to find the truth; he wants to convince you he's already found it. He doesn't realize that there's a trade-off between feeling right and being right -- that the humility to recognize your own failures and shortcomings as such is the very thing that makes you able to overcome them. It's more important to him to look right than to actually be it.
*"Never argue with an Idiot – he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."* * –Mark Twain* On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > > > *Todor: * > > What physics proves is that world *is* made of "blocks", and what biology > proves is that your sensory system is built of "blocks" - finite amount of > receptors, and a finite amount of muscles, with finite precision. > > Physics proves no such thing. You’re doing a Q.E.D. on the > “hammer-head”/”block-head” quote you set out to disprove. > > Science always makes mathematically simplified models of the world. What > you’re arguing is equivalent to saying Newton’s calculus proved that curves > are made of rectangles. They’re not – that’s a useful and brilliant formal > simplification – in fact, translation. > > Wherever you look in the natural world, you DON’T see uniform blocks – you > see groups of irregular, individual BLOBS – indeed PATCHWORKS of blobs – > rocks, earth, cells, tissues, living bodies, they’re all made of blobs, not > blocks.. > > Rational technology INVENTED uniform blocks – it was one of the greatest, > most imaginative inventions in history – and you “block-heads” think they > *discovered* them - bricks, for example, and perfect rectangles, you > think, *always* existed. Nonsense. > > The problem of AGI is always – if we’re talking formally, > quasi-mathematically – to deal with blobs and patchworks of blobs. > > But obviously, this kind of discussion is too high-falutin’ without > examples, and specific analyses. > > The general point is: you have not and will not show any uniform blocks to > underlie those chairs, or the concept of CHAIR – or **any concept > period**. If anyone wants to talk specifics and analyse forms as I did, > I’m delighted. Vague generalisations alone don’t cut it. > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
