Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 31 of 517 (159983)
11-15-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AdminNosy
11-15-2004 10:46 PM


Re: How about you opening the thread
AdminNosy,
I just wanted to let you know I thought you did a good job with your post on the topic. Something really helpful about this board is that it seems to want to build towards some kind of knowledge or agreement, rather than discussing over and over whenever, wherever, on whatever.
So, by asking new people to read, to get up to date, and to post within the current thread framework if possible, we actually build some referable (?word?) resources. And this, I think, is a really good thing.
Just noticing. Well... and commenting. Peace.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AdminNosy, posted 11-15-2004 10:46 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 11-15-2004 11:35 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 36 of 517 (167134)
12-11-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


I'm assuming this is the "right" place for suggestions / comments on topic promotion?
The Mind from Matter I think really needed to be fleshed out before promotion. There was just a set of loaded terms without explanation there, and that made it really hard to think and respond to the topic.
The OP was two sentences; the second was irrelevant. Here was the first:
I do not understand how mind can evolve from matter, how mentality can emerge from physicality.
Maybe it's because the topic is more unfamiliar to this board, so maybe that's why this was deemed sufficiently clear for discussion. Just, I think it wasn't at all, so I thought I'd leave a comment here.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 12-13-2004 10:21 PM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 38 of 517 (167888)
12-13-2004 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by robinrohan
12-13-2004 10:21 PM


Nono, that's fine. I was just making a suggestion to the admins; it makes it easier to discuss a topic when THEY make sure that people flesh out their ideas. And from what I've seen, the admins usually do that.
I just felt bad because I was asking you a bunch of questions, just so I could understand your ideas better, and without offering any thoughts in return. And I think you started thinking I was just "pulling your chain" .. it's easier (for me) if admins get the basic info out for the OP, that's all.
By the way, after Dec. 15th I'm going to finally respond to the info you posted
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 12-13-2004 10:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 12-13-2004 10:31 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 62 of 517 (195822)
03-31-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


In simple's proprosed new topic thread The split, dating, and God:
Something's been bothering me about this forum for a while, and it's the use of the word (and idea) "science." It seems everybody's gotten all wrapped up in the idea that science is really important, in fact necessary. Investigation seems not to matter unless it's "science."
Well, the fact is that science is simply one method for investigation. It can only ask questions where falsification and evidential support are available. Even then, the answers are certainly not at all infallible. Domains such as mathematics, philosophy, and even things like inspiration for scientific thoeory (such as the beginnings for relativity theory) are based simply off of assumptions and logic.
Why do I bring it up?
AdminJar (in the aforementioned thread) writes:
Personally I think the thread is nonsense. Unless simple is prepared to offer some evidence that there ever was a split or that conditions such as decay rates did vary in the past I think it is a waste of time promoting it; just another gold or diamond core of the earth fiction.
Evidence is not the only way to proceed. Simple wants to see if, given a set of premises, can we logically derive an answer. There's nothing wrong with this approach. It's not scientific. Does it suddenly have to be? Is non-scientific investigation disallowed at this board?
Checking the forum guidelines,
Discussion Guideline #4 writes:
Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.
Seems that this is open enough to allow such discussion.
It's not a science board. I really hope we don't turn it into one. Science is a way to argue inductively. That's it. Life contains many things outside of it.
I'm just afraid we're getting too wrapped up in "science." When I see this kind of comment in a moderator, then I get really worried about the direction of this board.
Thanks for listening!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by tsig, posted 09-11-2005 9:43 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 81 of 517 (202896)
04-27-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
04-27-2005 1:27 AM


Re: "Artificial intelligence, the decision way" "Proposed New Topic"
Syamsu,
Relax. I'm interested in artifical intelligence, so I was interested in your thread proposal. But surely, in order to go anywhere on your thread, "what is decision?" has to be discussed and agreed. So I went to your previous thread on decision.
I read pretty much the whole thread, and I didn't see anything constructive come out of it. Nobody (including myself) was convinced of the utility or reality of your use of the word "decision." Like I said above, without that, there's no grounds to discuss "decision and artificial intelligence."
My suggestion to you is, if you want to discuss artificial intelligence via decision, go back to your thread on decision and clear up the issues on decision. Focus less on the fact that you're having trouble convincing people and worries about politics, and focus more on the logic and usefulness of decision. Again, without consensus on decision, your "artificial intelligence and decision" thread will simply turn into ANOTHER decision thread. I think that's the point the admins are trying to make to you.
I hope you can appreciate this post, I don't have "political" ties like you keep accusing of others, but I really didn't agree with your explanations and conceptualization of "decision." If you have any questions about that, please put it in the "decision" thread, so I can respond to you appropriately there.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 04-27-2005 1:27 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 2:23 AM Ben! has not replied
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 04-27-2005 3:20 AM Ben! has not replied
 Message 85 by MangyTiger, posted 05-02-2005 12:36 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024