Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Ants and Aliens

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 71 posts ] 
Ants and Aliens
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I do not understand why one would so obviously act so dishonestly on a written forum. Dandan/Leroy did this right below Sparhafoc's post. Does dandan/leroy not realize that people can just scroll up to see how he is misrepresenting Sparhafoc?



To be honest, this is chicken feed compared to his Arguments for God's Existence bullshit.

In that thread he is now claiming I have taken a position diametrically opposite the position I've stated, and he keeps repeating it even when I tell him point blank it's not my position.

It's at junctures like that where I think a moderator is needed to maintain the integrity of discourse, or else people like LEROY turn this place into Youtube comments section.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:10 pm
leroyPosts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I do not understand why one would so obviously act so dishonestly on a written forum. Dandan/Leroy did this right below Sparhafoc's post. Does dandan/leroy not realize that people can just scroll up to see how he is misrepresenting Sparhafoc?





In that thread he is now claiming I have taken a position diametrically opposite the position I've stated, and he keeps repeating it even when I tell him point blank it's not my position.

.


that is becase you are making contradictory claims,


you did affirmed that you(or someone else) showed that there has always been something physical.

and you also affirmed "C"


these 2 are contradictory claims,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:34 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:In that thread he is now claiming I have taken a position diametrically opposite the position I've stated, and he keeps repeating it even when I tell him point blank it's not my position.

.


that is becase you are making contradictory claims,


you did affirmed that you(or someone else) showed that there has always been something physical.

and you also affirmed "C"


these 2 are contradictory claims,

[emphasis added]


Citation needed.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:58 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:that is becase you are making contradictory claims,


No.

I am rejecting your claim.

You have made up positions for me and demand I take them even though I keep telling you I won't. As such, yes, those positions you manufactured for me are contrary to my only stated position rejecting your claim, that is, there is no evidence available that would allow for certain modeling of the state in which the universe began to exist, so any of your assertions are automatically ridiculous and most likely wrong.

That's why people view you as lacking any degree of honesty or integrity, because you elide all the justification for their position, then take the simplified core, pervert it into something easier for you to manage, then sling shit at it to see what works.

My argument remains a perfectly valid contention to your argument (not yours) and regardless of the dramatic verbal ballet you engage in, is an honest rebuttal of the claim showing why the argument is not sound.



leroy wrote:you did affirmed that you(or someone else) showed that there has always been something physical.


No I didn't - you're a fucking liar. The only person who wrote that was you because it was, as I predicted 20+ pages before, the only argument you had prepared. And by prepared, I mean, you uncritically gobbled on the apologist cock.


leroy wrote:and you also affirmed "C"


Not only did I not 'affirm' C (cretin), I also spent 10 pages explaining to you how logic works, and that the ONLY affirmative position is the argument itself. When someone makes an argument, they intrinsically take the affirmative and the burden of proof is on them. All the negative position needs do is show that the argument is not justified to satisfy their role. The standard is to take the null position and question whether any statement connecting one quantity to another is justified. The onus thereby returns to the claimant - the affirmative position - to provide substantiation in the form of argument or evidence which justifies that contention.

Of course, if an idiot doesn't understand something, then their idiocy is all they grasp, and no matter how detailed explanations of reality are, the idiot still pretends their idiocy is the sum of human knowledge.

If you can't affirm your argument, then your argument has failed to convince even you! :lol:


leroy wrote:these 2 are contradictory claims,


And are strawmen manufactured by you so that you can keep up the illusion (delusion) of your argument not having been defeated. Your endless evasions and contortions are indeed contradictory - to reality. This is why you can't cite me saying X, you just keep vomiting out assertions that I said X. This is also why you have garnered a reputation for yourself here of lacking even the most elementary level of honesty or discursive integrity. If you think you're here representing your belief system, then all I can assure you is that you are representing it in the worst possible light.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:06 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

And now for the big shocker...

I've written about this:

Where is Everybody?
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:01 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
fc' = fraction of planets with intelligent life interested in having interstellar comunicación



the point that I made in my first post is that there is a missing variable (in red added by me above)


That's not actually a missing variable. Sparhafoc's recapitulation of the variable is slightly amiss, which makes it look like there's a missing variable. As Drake actually presented it, it's "the percentage of civilizations that develop a technology that can be detected", which means that your variable is actually included in fc.

The development of technology is a function of curiosity, which isn't something you can switch on and off. Moreover, whether they were actually interested in interstellar communication is irrelevant. Radio broadcasts are detectable, as are any artificial perturbations of the electromagnetic force.

So what you added there was some nonsense.
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:20 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:metaphysical curiosity> this type of curiosity wonders about things like, are we a lone in the universe?


This isn't a metaphysical question, it's a physical one, with a scientific answer.

where do we come from? what happens after we die? why is there something rather than nothing?


Damn, you really need to brush up on the art of asking the right question.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... rt-of.html
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:24 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?


Because you can't effectively make a point without semantics.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ls-of.html
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

hackenslash wrote:That's not actually a missing variable. Sparhafoc's recapitulation of the variable is slightly amiss, which makes it look like there's a missing variable. As Drake actually presented it, it's "the percentage of civilizations that develop a technology that can be detected", which means that your variable is actually included in fc.


As far as I am aware, the origin of the equation is in the first or second meeting of SETI where Drake presented it as a way of generating discussion.

I may well be wrong, but I think I capitulated that first instance accurately comparative to the original formulation, but obviously to Drake and the others, the notion of there being interstellar communication necessitates the ability for it to be detectable - but in the interest of historical accuracy, I'd be interested to see if the term 'detect' was used anywhere. As far as I know it wasn't, but I completely agree that the notion LEROY forwarded is already included within that variable.



hackenslash wrote:The development of technology is a function of curiosity, which isn't something you can switch on and off. Moreover, whether they were actually interested in interstellar communication is irrelevant. Radio broadcasts are detectable, as are any artificial perturbations of the electromagnetic force.

So what you added there was some nonsense.



What LEROY did was play the 'it's possible' shell game where anything that can be thought intrinsically has some validity. As such, a species could possibly develop that could turn on and off curiosity. A species could possibly develop that had no curiosity whatsoever, but somehow alighted on technological and philosophical progress sheerly by happenstance. And so on.

In reality, such probabilities are 'not very likely at all', but can never be exhaustively ruled out, thereby making for a shell game.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:52 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Aye.

I could be wrong about Drake's initial formulation. Mine may be a later revision, but it's certainly the way it's treated now.
Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:19 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Yes, to be honest, it could be modified a lot further today and these variables need to always change according to what's known, what's been made evident, and what ramifications these have on our expectations.

Really, interstellar communications are not specifically necessary as a defined variable - this one could just be defined as civilizations that employ a technology which produces detectable emissions of any nature. Radio waves are just an ideal quantity thanks to traveling at the speed of light, but with advances in telescopes and spectroscopy and the like, we might yet find a far-flung civilization whose radio waves may not be detectable at the distance, at least to us, but another means of observing may prove more fruitful.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:39 pm
leroyPosts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Citation needed.



eroy wrote:
as I said before WLC (and I ) believe that there was a point where nothing physical existed, whether if we use the term nothing, literally nothing, or some other term is irrelevant.


his answer
Sparhafoc wrote:
You yap about all manner of things, but when people SHOW you wrong, that's when your yapping ceases to have any utility and you go on to your next strawman/red herring.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:51 pm
leroyPosts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

hackenslash wrote:The development of technology is a function of curiosity, which isn't something you can switch on and off. Moreover, whether they were actually interested in interstellar communication is irrelevant. Radio broadcasts are detectable, as are any artificial perturbations of the electromagnetic force.

So what you added there was some nonsense.



would you say that it is highly unlikely to find an intelligent civilization that is very good in innovating technology to solve practical problems (transportation, computers, drugs, etc.) but that is largely uninterested in finding intelligent life in other planets?


how can someone detect artificial perturbations ?


these are honest questions,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

I think there needs to be a clear law written describing the relationship between Creationism and forum users' ability to use internet quote functions.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:46 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:these are honest questions,



LEROY's acknowledging that because he always acts the conniving, mendacious scuzzy troll when he actually wants to engage in honest discourse, he has to assure you of his unusually good intentions.

Shame it can never last. Honesty cannot be varnish deep.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:would you say that it is highly unlikely to find an intelligent civilization that is very good in innovating technology to solve practical problems (transportation, computers, drugs, etc.) but that is largely uninterested in finding intelligent life in other planets?



Did you not read my post which began 'Did you not read my post'?

What a wonderful rabbit hole this is.

viewtopic.php?p=181073#p181073

I expect that's a contradiction in terms. Intelligence supposes they have curiosity. Space based civilizations suppose they have knowledge of the size of the universe and the potential for life in it. Intelligence then supposes that they would recognize the potential for either threat or profit from the existence of other intelligent life.


So let's go with the make-believe possibility of a civilization's curiosity (that is contradictorily defined to exclude necessary ramifications of curiosity) which somehow results in a complete disinterest in whether there are aliens out there. Still, they are not thick as shit and they understand the nature of depredation, death, exploitation, liberty and all the other component qualities of an intelligent species insofarasweknow, so why are we now to believe that they'd also do the equivalent of pulling the quilt over their heads and pretending that if they don't care about the universe, that the universe wouldn't come for them?

What layers of 'possibility' are you asking us to engage in? Are you just going to keep defining curiosity to mean what you want it to mean regardless of the actual meaning? Why would you think others would want to engage in that, LEROY? Do you not consider the fact that words have meanings to people independently of your existence? That you don't get to be the Grand Poobah Prescriber?

Why don't you get a blog? You never did answer that.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:53 pm
leroyPosts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

Sparhafoc wrote:Did you not read my post which began 'Did you not read my post'?

What a wonderful rabbit hole this is.

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopi ... 73#p181073


I would disagree, what I call scientific curiosity doesn't necessarily imply what I call Metaphysical curiosity.


a society might be interested in creating better cars, and better computers, and be largely uninterested in finding life in other planets, or discovering their origins, or discovering who the king was in an ancient culture.




What layers of 'possibility' are you asking us to engage in? Are you just going to keep defining curiosity to mean what you want it to mean regardless of the actual meaning? Why would you think others would want to engage in that,



I told you what I meant by those terms, I clarify that I am inventing my own terms, and I don't think there are extent words that would represent what I call scientific curiosity and metaphysical curiosity. ..............what other option did I have, rather than simply inventing words.




Why don't you get a blog? You never did answer that.


I will
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:57 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2323Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:would you say that it is highly unlikely to find an intelligent civilization that is very good in innovating technology to solve practical problems (transportation, computers, drugs, etc.) but that is largely uninterested in finding intelligent life in other planets?


I'd say the question is loaded. Whether or not such a species was interested in finding life on other planets, it would be transmitting, and those transmissions would be detectable (with all due caveats covered in the blog post I linked upthread).

how can someone detect artificial perturbations ?


Seriously? How can I even reasonably frame an answer to any of your queries if you don't even grasp this? Perturbations in the electromagnetic force are detectable. Ever watch TV or listen to the radio?


these are honest questions,


Doubtful.
Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:30 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Citation needed.



eroy wrote:
as I said before WLC (and I ) believe that there was a point where nothing physical existed, whether if we use the term nothing, literally nothing, or some other term is irrelevant.


his answer
Sparhafoc wrote:
You yap about all manner of things, but when people SHOW you wrong, that's when your yapping ceases to have any utility and you go on to your next strawman/red herring.


:lol: / :facepalm:

As if we needed more evidence of your terrible reading comprehension. This is just sad.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:24 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Ants and Aliens

leroy wrote:I would disagree, what I call scientific curiosity doesn't necessarily imply what I call Metaphysical curiosity.


Yes, of course you would disagree by assertion, you just can't disagree with logic, argument, or reason.

They're the same thing. Metaphysics is the bit without evidence.



leroy wrote:a society might be interested in creating better cars, and better computers, and be largely uninterested in finding life in other planets, or discovering their origins, or discovering who the king was in an ancient culture.


Cars? You mean they defined the notion of traveling between places separated by great distance - and how did they alight on this concept without possessing any curiosity?

Computers? You mean the notion of calculating variables at incredibly high speed to make the biologicals life easier - and how did they alight on this concept without possessing any curiosity?

As for the rest, if they have no interest in the past, how do they make a different future?

Your arguments are empty of logic. You have a sentence you constructed and now think it has validity, but the way we'd inquire as to whether a statement has validity is by a) how well supported it is with logical statements and b) how well it stands up to scrutiny. At present, your idea is doing poorly with both.

The point, which you've ignored because you don't engage honestly with other people, is that curiosity necessitates curiosity. If you need to redefine curiosity to mean something that is not curiosity, then it's probably just your argument that's shit - not the universally accepted definition of curiosity.



leroy wrote:I told you what I meant by those terms, I clarify that I am inventing my own terms, and I don't think there are extent words that would represent what I call scientific curiosity and metaphysical curiosity. ..............what other option did I have, rather than simply inventing words.


Your equivocation has been addressed. There's no way in which curiosity can mean X but not Y. You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your argument. Curiosity doesn't have any way of being about one thing but not about being about another thing - curiosity, by definition, encapsulates all it can.

Similarly, a person cannot know they are ignorant or naive. To know that one is ignorant or naive is to not be ignorant or naive.

As such, I think you are using words to mean the opposite of what they mean, and I have no interest in joining your redefinition of my language. Feel free to insert a new word if you like, or perhaps one from your own language, but you aren't redefining English to suit your argument.


leroy wrote:I will


Hallefuckinglujah.

The only problem is, LEROY, there is no WILL - do it now, or you'll never do it.

Run along!
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:00 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 71 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests