Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Next topic.

Where the -feth- does the Hamster in the wheel think he is going?

I think he is trying to escape. Would you? Constantly being grabbed and squeezed by insolent children. I would escape, converse with my feral hamster brethren and march on the wretched day cares. Biting out the eyes and throat of every human and scream.

"VIVA LA HAMSTERS"

I suppose it's possible that it's actually trying to burn off excess energy.

Primal need for exercise, maybe?

That's something the human race could do with. >.>

^

Valid point.

so freaking valid.

Shadowbrand wrote:Next topic.

Where the -feth- does the Hamster in the wheel think he is going?

I think he is trying to escape. Would you? Constantly being grabbed and squeezed by insolent children. I would escape, converse with my feral hamster brethren and march on the wretched day cares. Biting out the eyes and throat of every human and scream.

"VIVA LA HAMSTERS"

Classic philosophy question.
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought. I therefore can disregard everything else that you say.
Seriously, please, please go read a book about science. It will enlighten you.

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

It'd be a philosophical answer, though. You'd ignore it.

Unless you have evidence that hamsters are capable of thought on the same level as humans, which is unlikely, then yes.
There are more important questions to be asked. Questions like "how do we make commerically viable nuclear fission?". But you need to be clever to answer those questions, so by all means continue to debate the motivations of a hamster.
It's just a middle-class version of debating who will win The X Factor (or America's Got Talent).

Joey wrote:Unless you have evidence that hamsters are capable of thought on the same level as humans, which is unlikely, then yes.

Who said they have to think at the level of a human to be considered capable of thought?

Moreso, how does one measure the ability of a human to think?

Also, the relative unimportance of a question doesn't render it unimportant.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Please do yourself a fething favor and stop speaking. If you dont like Philosophy, then do not plague us with your lack of intellectual prowess. You are not capable of seeing another side to your sideways thought process, and therefore have no business here. Go do something "scientific" and leave us philosophers to our philosophy.

Science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
Philosophy: "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods"

In short, you're logic is a fallacy.

Nerivant wrote:
Who said they have to think at the level of a human to be considered capable of thought?

Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Nerivant wrote:
Also, the relative unimportance of a question doesn't render it unimportant.

It does. Everything is relative to something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tlo1048 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Please do yourself a fething favor and stop speaking. If you dont like Philosophy, then do not plague us with your lack of intellectual prowess. You are not capable of seeing another side to your sideways thought process, and therefore have no business here. Go do something "scientific" and leave us philosophers to our philosophy.

Woah. You used the word "prowess" in a sentence. Then you use an unsourced definition to prove a point.
quod erat demonstrandum
Enjoy the warmth of your gak-smeared nappy.

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Evidence?

Really though, you demand scientific answers to philosophical questions. There's no middle ground where everyone will be satisfied.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Evidence?

Really though, you demand scientific answers to philosophical questions. There's no middle ground where everyone will be satisfied.

But "philosophical questions" are whimsies, they're as relevent as the questions of children or drunkards. My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

I'm done with you and your boyish malcontent.

There are good people here who deserve my time.

EDIT: And on a side note, if something that cannot be explained scientifically is pointless, then explain life? You daft little boy.

Joey wrote:
My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

Which in your mind, invalidates every answer to your questions.

You've created a situation where you'll walk away "knowing" you're right regardless of outside input.

The same result can be achieved much easier by talking to oneself.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

Which in your mind, invalidates every answer to your questions.

You've created a situation where you'll walk away "knowing" you're right regardless of outside input.

The same result can be achieved much easier by talking to oneself.

But how can i know that anything outside my mind exists?
My opinion is therefore simultaneously valid and invalid. I exist, while denying my own existence.
This makes me irresistible to weak-minded philosophy students.

Joey wrote:
What has philosophy given us? I'm being serious. Give me a single thing that is better as a result of philosophy.

Science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all.

Joey wrote:
But how can i know that anything outside my mind exists?
My opinion is therefore simultaneously valid and invalid. I exist, while denying my own existence.
This makes me irresistible to weak-minded philosophy students.

a=b ^ a=/=b

Fun stuff.

Joey wrote:
But "philosophical questions" are whimsies, they're as relevent as the questions of children or drunkards. My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

You know that scientific questions and philosophical questions are not mutually exclusive categories, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

Nerivant wrote:

a=b ^ a=/=b

Fun stuff.

Don't know what that means, but my education stopped at 16.

dogma wrote:
You know that scientific questions and philosophical questions are not mutually exclusive categories, right?

I don't know what "philosophy" is. As far as I can tell it's for people who want to sound clever without putting in any effort into scientific enquiry.
I tried reading Bertrand Russel at university but I stopped reading quite literally at page one. Boring, pointless questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

Fafnir wrote:Otherwise they're invalid. Anything you can't prove is just an opinion, and has no place in philosophy.

No place in analytic philosophy, the continentals generally see it differently, though.

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

Shadowbrand wrote:Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

I'd assume:

I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

I played Fallout. I always liked trekking around in open range worlds.

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Shadowbrand wrote:Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

"A brief history of time" is good fun.
Also "QED" by Richard Feynman. Quantum physics (or at least his discription of it) really isn't as difficult to understand as you'd think.
Both those books got me through some tough times.

Joey wrote:
I don't know what "philosophy" is.

That much is obvious.

Joey wrote:
As far as I can tell it's for people who want to sound clever without putting in any effort into scientific enquiry. I tried reading Bertrand Russel at university but I stopped reading quite literally at page one. Boring, pointless questions.

I'm guessing you didn't read one of his more serious works, because Russel was one of the founders of the analytic tradition that deals in formal logic; which rests on the scientific method (which was developed by philosophers).

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

No it isn't, there is a distinction between those factors which determine X and those factors which communicate X to an observer.

WARORK93 wrote:I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

Because poor people who're thick take Media Studies and are ridiculed for it.
Middle class people who're thick take philosophy and expect some kind of respect (though most people in technical fields are dismissive of their 'acheivments').
It irks me, is all.