On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 , Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> I am sick of >> playing the game > > > Yes I know you said that before, but then why do you continue to play it?
Human nature. > >> >> what I mean by "this game" is the game of >> >> arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please spare me from your >> >> usual jokes where you go to wikipedia looking for meaning of the >> >> acronym. Yes yes it's super funny). > > > I'll tell you what I'm sick of, I'm not sick of arguing with you, that's > fun, but I'm sick of Bruno's acting as if his silly homemade acronyms should > be well known to every educated person when even Google doesn't know what > the hell he's talking about. I think this gets to the root of the problem, and it's all in your head. You pride yourself in your scientific culture so you feel personally insulted when someone uses some obscure acronym that you don't know about. That is irrational. I have never seen Bruno acting like anyone is uneducated or dumb for not knowing something, much less is acronyms. It is all in your head. What I have seen is you making fun of Bruno's ideas for years, even though he was always available to clear up the meaning of his acronyms to you. But you play the game of pretending you don't know what they mean, because you just want to sabotage the debate. People have been discussing Bruno's Universal Dovetailer Argument for many years on this mailing list. It is normal that, at some point, we start using abbreviations like UDA. This is not an exercise in self-importance, it's just how acronyms are born anywhere. Bruno's argument has not reached the mainstream, so it's fairly normal that wikipedia does contain an entry about it. This is surely true of millions of ambitious concepts that are being explored by niches of humanity all over. Nothing special about it. The Universal Dovetailer is a perfectly well defined (and quite interesting) concept in computer science. I do think this one is mentioned in wikipedia, by the way. The argument around the UD (see, it's annoying to keep writing the same thing over and over) captures the interest of a lot of people here, clearly including you -- you have been discussing it for years. What you are saying is what? That we should not give Bruno the satisfaction of creating acronyms for things that he thought and that we debate over and over? Don't you think that is terribly petty? I have witnessed Bruno give a lecture having in mind a general audience, and the did not assume people to know what a FUNCTION is. much less some obscure acronym. It's all a matter of context, a concept you seem to have a hard time grasping. Don't we have the right to have a niche place to discuss less known ideas that we find exciting? What the hell is the problem with that? How can you think that this is a personal insult to you? > I'm also sick of pretending that substituting > "1p" for "me" and "3p" for "you" is a great scientific achievement. Well that's not on Bruno, it's common in philosophical discussion everywhere. The way you phrase it tells me that you don't fully grasp the concepts, but that's not very surprising given the incorrect arguments you use against the UDA. In any case, I don't think anyone is under the impression that these are scientific advancements at all. 1p and 3p are just useful concepts to talk about certain things, surely useful when we are dealing with the mind-body problem. I don't get this "scientific advancement" obsession, where hard-to-grasp ideas are glorified. Hard-to-grasp ideas are a necessary evil at most. Science is about the search for truth, and if we could express all the truth at a basic school level that would be great. >> > >> This is your usual modus operandi and I am sick of it. > > > You already said that more than once, and I already asked why you continue > doing something you're sick of. Because I think Bruno has something interesting to tell the world, and not a lot of people know about it. So I am doing my small part to leave it on the record that not everyone thinks like you. > >> >> > >> you argue in bad faith. > > > I then to think all faith is bad You can check the definition of "Bad Faith" on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith Of course you know this, and you know that "faith" in this context has no relation whatsoever with the notion of "religious faith". So this turns out to be a good example of arguing in bad faith -- you ignore what you know is meant and run for a dictionary definition that you like. You do this a lot. > but perhaps I could figure out that you're > taking about if you gave a specific example rather than vague generalities. I do above and I did before, but you removed them when answering to me. You also do that a lot. >> >> > >> it is precisely >> what makes you a religious fundamentalist. Just because your religion >> has no name, doesn't mean that it does not exist.I'll spare you the >> trouble and paste you usual bromide. Here you go: >> >> "Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never >> heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12." > > > Thank you that was thoughtful because between you and Bruno my rubber stamp > is getting a bit worn so I'll make you a deal, stop using your rubber stamp > insult stamp and I'll stop using my rubber stamp response stamp. > >> > >> This is precisely the sort of manipulative bullshit that religious >> people use. > > > Oh dear, I've got to use my rubber stamp yet again:: > > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never > heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > >> >> > >> You argue in bad faith > > > You already said that and I already requested a specific example. > > >> >> > >> you destroy honest discussion to score >> i >> nternet points you bully people that were nothing but nice to >> >> you. > > > If somebody is talking nonsense it makes no difference if they are nice to > me or not, it's still nonsense. And pointing out logical inconsistencies is > not bullying, it's critical thinking. It is bullying if you even refuse to read what you propose to criticize, and if you refuse to accept what is meant by some term so that debate can progress. Another bad sign is that you never ever concede a point. You just ignore and then come back with the same thing months later. Telmo. > John K Clark > > >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
