LONGECITY

1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

I just thought of this and thought I'd post it right here where it belongs. Thoughts?












........If the conclusion is correct, then the premise is incorrect. The syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. :D If all are false and a double negative produces a true statement, then this could be simplified in the form A ≠ ¬A

Oh my god, that was fun!

Now that I have read most of what is written on this thread (not really), though I do not have anything new to add, I would like to quote myself from a post I made on another thread where I had quoted a conversation between Malaclypse the Younger and GP.

Greater Poop: Is Eris true?

Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.

GP: Even false things?

M2: Even false things are true.

GP: How can that be?

M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

I blogged this a little bit ago. I'm trying to decide if the joke at the end's actually funny (I'm in a strange mood, so I'm not sure if I can assess this accurately.).

I was driving down the street today when, for no apparent reason, I happened to recall a dispute I had with a friend when I was only about seven years old. The dispute was motivated by a drawing contest which culminated with the me being accused of being unable to draw "everything in the world" (Remember, I was only seven.). Although at the time I chose not to respond, this entry is based on the response I was prepared to offer—the same solution, albeit more sophisticated.

In simple terms, I was prepared to exploit some definitions and persuade my opponent to accept only half of the world instead. How exactly? I decided that I’d exploit the parameters used to define a drawing, which are basically anything that portrays the subject matter, and because there isn’t any established minimum level of detail, I thought that I would argue that everything not explicitly drawn would be implied from the subject. So what was I prepared to offer? Nothing more than a simple dot—Earth as seen from a great distance.

I thought it was clever at the time; however, I should mention that with only one vantage point it's technically impossible to see any side completely. When you consider that the view range of any circular object (a plane crossing the center point of a sphere in this case) in the same plane is limited to the angle formed by the converging ends of right angles formed with the circle’s radii (*deep breath*), it’s clear that although you may always see more by increasing your distance, you’ll never quite see half. This relationship could be formalized through the use of a limit based on a trigonometric function relating the vantage point to the double-angle that forms from the two converging lines. In simplified form it would look something like this (omitting the actual function):

lim (trig-based function with distance, x, as the input and percentage of 1/2 the planet Earth as the output) = 100
x→∞

...But I digress. The point is a dot would have done just fine, and there would have been no objective counterargument that could have been used against this, at least none likely to be offered by a seven-year-old.

As an aside, I decided to name the function Alfred, and yes, he behaves like an asymptote at times.

My piano's dying. The funeral will be held at my house this Saturday at 4:00 for anybody who'd like to come.



The arpeggio in the middle didn't stand a chance *sniff sniff*.

OFF TOPIC from is there evidence for christianity???

sthira:
A few questions. First, do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

A few more questions. Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?

ShadowHawk:
1. I read responses.
2. I understand what I read.
3. No, I do not have trouble with comprehension.
4. Can you read what I write?
5. Most of my ideas come from learning them from others as do yours.
6. I am communicating to people who wish to also understand.

Ad hominem but typical.

johnross47
I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up. He raised Plato but apparently we are not allowed to comment on Plato. SH: The topic is, “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.” The questions asked by sthira may have been really addressed to you. Why don’t you start a Plato topic if you want to discuss it further.

ShadowHawk: " So you are arguing with Plato! Your arguments are not real, because they are ideas made by your brain. Your brain is real but what it does isn’t!. Your points are not real because the only real things are physical. Hmmm, sounds ^%(@$% to me. Well back to evolution and we may discuss "consciousness," as an argument for the existence of God later. Just an idea Happy triangle!"

This passage is a perfect example of the incoherent rage and misrepresentation that he resorts too. Yes of course I'm arguing with Plato; Aristotle was the first in a long line of people to do so when he became an Impiricist; does that make Aristotle a criminal? Plato's words are not holy writ. All of these ancient philosophers were attempting to answer questions about the world and our experience of it, but without the benefit of modern scientific discoveries.

SH: See, you are off topic. This topic is not about Plato. All you want to do is derail the thread with nonsense. And no use pointing out a number of logical fallacies here because you seem to major in them. http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

Then he says my ideas are not real because they are made by my brain. I think this is meant to be some sort of sarcastic satire of what I said, but it shows that either he doesn't understand the point or is happy to misrepresent it; I suspect a bit of both.

SH: You said, “Concepts are made by people; they have no real existence outside of brains.”
http://www.longecity...120#entry625207
Now you say:

To make it quite clear; a brain is real but in a state of constant change; thoughts are real transient states of the brain and may represent real objects or imagined ones. An example of a real object is a stone; an imagined object might be a construct made of bits of real objects and abilities, like a fairy; an imagined unreal object might conceivably be a god but in fact most of them apart from their supernatural powers are just constructs taken to the extremes, and the supernatural powers are extreme extensions of real powers. Can we imagine something that doesn't have a least some relation to known real things? Ghosts and spirits? Perhaps, but they probably arose from wrong interpretation of real events. A modern version of Plato's questions might be, how do the transient Planck-time states of the brain create our experience of a continuous world full of things "out there"

SH: Obviously clear. Shall I comment? NO.

Evolution is a fascinating topic but has no bearing on god or no-god as far as I can see. There is a tricky task for some traditional religions to incorporate it but except for the biblical literalists and their ilk in other religions it's not insurmountable. SH: More nonsense. I have already made the case but I am going to show why atheistic naturalism, not God is destroyed by evolution.

Remember how I used trig identities to divide an angle into an arbitrary number of subangles? Well it occurred to me today that I could apply a similar structure to the chain rule for derivatives to find the derivative of grouped composite functions. A quick search, however, showed that it's already been done (I'm not really surprised). Here it is right out of Wiki: (f of g of h)'(a) = f'((g of h)(a)) · (g of h)'(a) = f'((g of h)(a)) · g'(h(a)) · h'(a)

As it turns out, I've had very few original thoughts. :(

katimaya; Well, this reality is based on scientific research into what was believed to be a fairly accurate simuation of the conditions put in place that allowed humans to evolve in the first place on the original planet, from which our ancestors evolved.

Shadowhawk, SH. Exactly, but what original planet are you talking about? We are now discussing the fine tuning of the constants of the cosmos. ???

katimaya: However this place is distinctly different from the place where our ancestors involved in two very key places. First, this place is run and managed by post-humans, who put themselves into a "god" role. Second, the AI software here that was designed to emulate human behavior as closely as possible, in order to attempt to determine who the creators may have been on the original reality, have somehow become self-aware.

SH “Post,” humans who are playing “God?” Sorry, we are talking about the universe (cosmos)which seems to be fine tuned for life. We did not design AI software to discover who the creatures may have been “on the original reality.”

katimaya: So originally this place was designed to help us post-humans discover our history. Then it was turned into some kind of MMORPG type recreational game. Then the avatars that were just good photocopies of the original post-human visionary hosts started waking up and passing the turing test and becoming their own lifeforms in their own right.

SH: And what is your evidence? Off topic.

katimaya: This is where the confusion comes in. Because some of the AI humans here are just as "real" as the post-humans were before they decided to leave physical form and only simulate human form.

So I think that's all what religion and non-religion is all about. If you are an atheist then you likely have become aware that religion is all post-human made and that you're post-human, so you don't care, or else you're just an AI avatar who was never actually intended to be used as an avatar, but was born here and given a soul that shouldn't exist, according to how the rules of the simulation was designed.

When you see people who just seem so lost and robotic and acting like cattle, well, in a sense think of them like test tube babies from "brave new world". Maybe they don't have a "soul" in the same sense that we do. Because they were just meant to be copies or clones of whatever. But then the avatars with original souls in them, from the outside post-human civiliation that is playing a MMO, started doing various experiments on the new lifeforms.

SH: OK. Off topic.

from, "is there evidence for Christianity?"

i'm just the messenger, what you do with the message is up to you. you wanted evidence, so i provided some.

http://www.longecity...180#entry629409

alright, enough gloating, we won this hand, your bitc01n is on a hard drive on a table at the apartment complex of the avatar. there is nothing else to find here, so you could focus your asic's on recovering that data, if that's what's really important to you. if you can't figure out my encryption algorithm well maybe you should learn to code.

http://codeday.org/

Just had the revelation that I could restrict the domain of the function of a bell curve, find its inverse, take the integral of the closed interval, then calculate the mean output by finding the height needed for a rectangle that would produce the same area as the integral. I'll spare you the conversation that prompted this, but I think it's an interesting idea.

I haven't seen this before, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere. I'm still waiting for the day when I come up with an idea that nobody else has. So far it seems I've been born too late to contribute anything new. lol
Edited by N.T.M., 14 December 2013 - 02:48 AM.

I have never called in the moderators on anyone but I find it creepily disturbing that Shadowhawk has pasted in his mutilations of my posts from elsewhere and tried to treat them as undeclared subject matter. This suggests a seriously disturbed and obsessed person to me. It is also underhand and childish. Can you perhaps suggest any reason why I should not treat this as unacceptable.

Summary of Christianity...

Ill bet the bigots will also love this.

I have never called in the moderators on anyone but I find it creepily disturbing that Shadowhawk has pasted in his mutilations of my posts from elsewhere and tried to treat them as undeclared subject matter. This suggests a seriously disturbed and obsessed person to me. It is also underhand and childish. Can you perhaps suggest any reason why I should not treat this as unacceptable.

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.

I just came up with a very interesting mathematical paradox! I'm really hoping it hasn't been published before. I'd like to present it with diagrams, and I haven't prepared them yet. Basically it shows how the Pythagorean theorem can be manipulated to produce the equation a + b = c, which is clearly false. The theorem, of course, is correct, but this is a very interesting spin.

Anyway, that's all. I'll have to type it out later when I get some time.

I have never called in the moderators on anyone but I find it creepily disturbing that Shadowhawk has pasted in his mutilations of my posts from elsewhere and tried to treat them as undeclared subject matter. This suggests a seriously disturbed and obsessed person to me. It is also underhand and childish. Can you perhaps suggest any reason why I should not treat this as unacceptable.

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.

I don't expect a rational or honest response from Shadowhawk, he is just a religiously bigoted troll, but I would point out for the others here that I have not taken any part in this topic and his behaviour in attacking me in this way goes beyond anything I would have imagined that even he might do.

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.

GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.

GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

'
What posts Shadowhawk? I posted nothing here. Do you find my corrections to your beginner's logic so hard to deal with that you have to sneak around behind my back to get revenge? Is your ego really that fragile? Do you really want to be known for the infantile dishonest underhand attacks you make on people? You do appear to imagine you are massively more intelligent than anyone else here so I'm guessing the answer is probably another deluded "Yes".

Came across some interesting figures the other day, in the context of the "French Paradox".

http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy

Whilst people go on at great length about the French, they are actually only in the fourth rank, with an overall life expectancy of 82; 78 for men, and 85 for women. The surprise that gives rise to the paradox is of course, that they survive their diet and life style. They are enthusiastic carnivores, but also eat fairly good amounts of fruit and veg. On the other hand they don't really understand vegitarians and they regard vegans as people from Vega. They drink far too much and have high levels of liver disease. They drive quite badly, though not nearly as badly as Americans, but their awful overtaking habits probably account for some of their male rank of only 24th . Where we lived for a while, in the Languedoc, they ate a lot more than their fair share of the world's ducks and mountains of foi gras and cheese. What they do have in their favour is a lower level of inequality and a very good socialised health service which means that all them can have their abused bodies patched up, and this may explain why the equally imprudent USA is only 33rd overall.

There is no French paradox. The so-named "French paradox" is that the French eat so much saturated fat, but have far less heart disease than what the medical community assume they should.

Again, there's no paradox.

Only a gross misunderstanding, that a diet high in saturated fat leads to heart disease.

Good article on this:

http://wholehealthso...ch-paradox.html

There is no French paradox. The so-named "French paradox" is that the French eat so much saturated fat, but have far less heart disease than what the medical community assume they should.

Again, there's no paradox.

Only a gross misunderstanding, that a diet high in saturated fat leads to heart disease.

Good article on this:

http://wholehealthso...ch-paradox.html

As usual, very good. I have always enjoyed your outstanding grasp of health.

They do appear to consume less sugar.....but this is only true of the older age groups...many of the younger people in France, as in much of the rest of Europe, are eating an Americanised fast industrial junk food diet.....this may not improve their health. While we were there we made sure we had a good dose of duck, foi gras, cheese and raw shellfish. Mmmmmmm! I'm sure we were better for it. It certaiinly felt good.

I have seen an article somewhere (can't quite recall) that said that some of the so-called paradox effect was down to different ways of reporting causes of death.

this is really life enhancing
http://www.google.co...ed=0CKYBEPwdMAo
Edited by johnross47, 18 December 2013 - 08:26 PM.

Yes if you followed the forum guidelines and rules you would not try to derail the discussion by off topic nonsense and endless logical fallacies. . The proof is in the pudding. Just look at his posts.

GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

'
What posts Shadowhawk? I posted nothing here. Do you find my corrections to your beginner's logic so hard to deal with that you have to sneak around behind my back to get revenge? Is your ego really that fragile? Do you really want to be known for the infantile dishonest underhand attacks you make on people? You do appear to imagine you are massively more intelligent than anyone else here so I'm guessing the answer is probably another deluded "Yes".

Just more name calling. HO Hummm

POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK FALLACY
This fallacy can take several forms:
1. A, who is black faults B for being black while ignoring As own color. Hypocrisy.
2. A, who is black, calls B, who is not black, “black.” Projection of ones own faults.

Funny video of incoherent theist failing to prove the Kalam valid.



Very life enhancing.

I could watch this over and over

Here's some more life enhancing stuff.

http://www.hockneypi...aintings_00.php

Funny video of incoherent theist failing to prove the Kalam valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9ZIQ33a8c

Very life enhancing.

I ENJOYED.HERE IS ANOTHER

They do appear to consume less sugar.....but this is only true of the older age groups...many of the younger people in France, as in much of the rest of Europe, are eating an Americanised fast industrial junk food diet.....this may not improve their health. While we were there we made sure we had a good dose of duck, foi gras, cheese and raw shellfish. Mmmmmmm! I'm sure we were better for it. It certaiinly felt good.

Undoubtedly, and the same in Italy.

I read very recently an article about Italian people, a great percentage of which is really cutting back on pasta, realizing it is a leading cause of their weight gain.

Mammals, though really have a seriously hard time getting fat on a high fat diet (assuming very little of that fat is vegetable oil). However, practically all mammals fatten up quite easily on a high-grain diet, like the one recommended by the USDA. Cattle are fed grains for this very reason. In fact, when studies were down feeding cattle a high fat diet, they lost weight, in the same way that humans do, cats do, dogs do, on and on.

They do appear to consume less sugar.....but this is only true of the older age groups...many of the younger people in France, as in much of the rest of Europe, are eating an Americanised fast industrial junk food diet.....this may not improve their health. While we were there we made sure we had a good dose of duck, foi gras, cheese and raw shellfish. Mmmmmmm! I'm sure we were better for it. It certaiinly felt good.

Undoubtedly, and the same in Italy.

I read very recently an article about Italian people, a great percentage of which is really cutting back on pasta, realizing it is a leading cause of their weight gain.

Mammals, though really have a seriously hard time getting fat on a high fat diet (assuming very little of that fat is vegetable oil). However, practically all mammals fatten up quite easily on a high-grain diet, like the one recommended by the USDA. Cattle are fed grains for this very reason. In fact, when studies were down feeding cattle a high fat diet, they lost weight, in the same way that humans do, cats do, dogs do, on and on.

Saw this recently
http://www.newscient...ml#.UrMM_PRdWSo

The problem for many people is that the rich in the west keep grabbing more and more of the national pie, and the international pie. Around here, rural Scotland, we can get some of the best meat in the world and all free range on good pasture all year round. We can also get great game in season. But, if you're poor this stuff is too expensive. We also have organic fruit and veg but at 150% of the price of the chemically-pumped-up and processed stuff. Same with bread and other bakery goods. I make my own using organic flour but most people are eating non organic white bread full of additives. Same with potatoes. We can get organic easily, or grow our own, but a women, who writes in my newspaper about feeding her kids on a very low budget, recommends using canned potatoes because they are cheaper. The mediterranean diet or anything vaguely like it is completely out of the question.