|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 01:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
Originally posted by bngbuck
Neither your nor my academic lacking really has much bearing on a discussion of epistemology. |
Comment by Dave
You mean "ontology." |
I may have misinterpreted Joshua's original statement, but I understood him to be concerned about his understanding of what he perceived:| Every thing looks like it is indirect, coming from the belief that our sensory experience should be trusted hole(sic) heartedly. |
From that and several other of his statements, I took it that his was basically a commentary about what he could or could not know. So, as the discussion turned to the nature of "reality", I felt that the emphasis had been on the questions of "what is knowledge?" and "does knowledge exist?"
My comments have been largely directed to my understanding of how human beings perceive reality and process that information. In engaging Zebra, I felt it necessary to respond directly to several concepts he expressed concerning the nature of "reality", admittedly a intellectual construct belonging in the fair province of ontology. But my orientation in these areas is strongly structured by the parameters and nature of perception; here, the perception of "reality". I, like you, feel that debate or discussion as to the existence, nature, or essence of "being" is largely worthless; but this is in direct contradiction to my evaluation of the value of thought or conversation about the perception of being - "reality" if you like.
I basically eschew the basic premises of a philosophy of ontology, fairly mocked by the famous "angels dancing on the head of pin" derogation, but I do feel that there may be useful results in studying and investigating the nature of knowledge; perhaps as a father discipline to the legitimate psychological arenas of learning theory and definition of intelligence.
I don't think your comment was mere semantic quibbling, but it might be more fairly put to note that the discussion had morphed from an epistemological structure to one of a more ontological nature.
|
 |
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2009 : 01:24:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Zebra.....
| I'll reply, with the caveat that I have exactly zero formal philosophical education. (Maybe that shows - !) |
Caveat accepted, Zebra, but I must confess that I have very little in the way of formal medical education. Neither your nor my academic lacking really has much bearing on a discussion of epistemology. I am as interested in your opinions as I would be in those of Bertrand Russell. |
But these questions have been around for centuries, and hashed over many times. Though it's interesting to think about these things, I see little sense in trying to re-invent the ontologic wheel.
[snip]
| As I suggested in reply to the OP on page 1: "Define reality." And, I'll add, where is the border between "philosophy" and "semantics"? |
The best I can do is to offer several of the serious attempts I have seen:
1. "Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist."Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, as well."
This, as you might guess, is the beginning of the wiki definition, and obviously has some drawbacks, namely it is pleonastic ("Reality denotes what is real"). However, it does go on to give a bit of definition of what the author means by "real" |
Thanks for introducing me to a new vocabulary word ("pleonastic") - always great to learn a new term.
However, I don't think that's the right word here, since it means "the use of more words than are necessary" or "a redundant word or expression". "Actual reality" would be pleonastic, but "Reality is what's real" is just circular. (Aren't most if not all definitions circular, eventually? Esp. once you consider the definition of the words used to define the word you're considering, and their definitions, etc.)
| 2. That which is studied by the discipline of phenomenology, specifically as defined by the philosophy of Edmund Husserl, Franz Brentano, and Carl Stumpf. Husserl focuses on conciousness having an intuitive grasp of knowledge and an awareness of something other than itself, challenging the "perception is the only reality" implications of the empiricists such as Locke, Hume, and John Stewart Mill that followed the rationalism of Descartes. |
So it's probably just as well that I didn't try to take philosophy classes. "Perception is the only reality" is a narcissistic view and can't possibly be true (she says, whacking with a scythe at centuries of philosophical thought). That, or the definition of "perception" would have to include everything that could be perceived, or that will be perceived, even if only indirectly, at some future time. Were genes real before Mendel? Was DNA real before Watson and Crick? Is the dark side of the moon real? Are galaxies too far off to observe with present technology real? Are subatomic particles real? Etc
Wiki nicely condenses the phenomenological view of reality thus:| The phenomenological method serves to momentarily erase the world of speculation by returning the subject to his or her primordial experience of the matter, whether the object of inquiry is a feeling, an idea, or a perception. |
I might add a favorite addition to the roster of reality definitions,
3. Wikiality, defined as the concept that "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on."
The premise of wikiality is that reality is what the wiki says it is.Stephen Colbert
That pretty well works for me. |
Ah, yes. Colbert manages to hit the nail on the head yet again.
With respect to:| where is the border between "philosophy" and "semantics"? |
Well, if you intend "semantics" to be understood in it's literal sense as a study or investigation of the meaning of language; and "philosophy" to be the classic "pursuit of wisdom: a search for the underlying causes and principles of reality"; I guess your question is, "at what point do we move from talking about the meaning of words, to talking about the meaning of what the words describe?" To me, that is a line in shifting sands I cannot demarcate. |
Actually, lacking any subtlety or much education outside of science, I meant the more prosaic meaning - "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc." But I do agree that your interpretation of my question seems like a good question to me, and another unanswerable one.
| This sounds circular to me. We must describe reality without direct reference to our senses, but by repeatedly observing via our senses then creating a theory about it. |
I fail to see the circularity. We describe reality, at least different aspects of it, by using our senses. If there is not or cannot be repetition of what we observe, it well may be hallucination or sensory illusion. With repetition, the reality may be accurately described, and the description is the theory as to what that particular level or aspect of the "reality" we have observed is.| No matter how many times you see the sun come up in the morning, it still looks like the sun "comes up" in the morning. Does that make sunrise a theory of reality that we should believe? |
There is of course a perfectly acceptable reality theory that explains the apparent "rise" of the sun from the horizon in the morning. There is also an enlargement of that theory incorporating planetary rotation and optical angles of sight that further defines another aspect of the sunrise theory, that the sun appears on the horizon every morning and appears to move throughout the day--this, writ large, would be Copernican heliocentrism. We probably should believe that one. |
(Boldface added by me, above, to your quote.)
There is now an acceptable reality theory that explains the apparent "rise" of the sun completely consistently with the rotation of the earth and heliocentrism. But you didn't specify how far beyond the perception of individual humans the observations had to go, and how one might know. The theory that "the sun rises" also fits perfectly with what people have observed for millions of years, and which children and people who don't happen to be thinking about heliocentrism observe at the horizon every morning. If you require that all potential human knowledge be included in the conclusion about what reality is, then I would feel safest in assuming that we do not know the "reality" about anything.
Many optical illusions cause the same visual experience the same every time a person looks at them (while others, particularly those in which recognizable shapes are hidden then found, are experienced differently before and after the "aha" moment of seeing the shape). Does the repeated, unchanging experience mean that the illusion is "real"?
There are people who have "fixed" hallucinations - they see or hear the same thing each time the hallucination occurs. (I had an elderly patient with dementia some years ago who had what I later found out was Bonnet syndrome - she was certain there were children all around her, but only when she was in her home - nowhere else. It was freaky.) Fixed hallucinations reflect the 'reality' that the person's brain keeps experiencing some abnormal activity interpreted as sensory input, but does that mean the person's experience reflects in any way anything that someone outside of that particular skull would consider to be "reality"l?
The only information we have about quarks is indirect. Hypotheses about their behavior have been demonstrated to be correct repeatedly in experiments. Does this put them in the realm of "objective reality" but leave a chair, an elephant, and a teaspoon out because we observe those directly?
|
Of course not. In the context you have described, the chair, elephant, and teaspoon are simply perceptions (observations) of another aspect of these object's reality. The reality does not change, only the methodology by which you perceive it, (or intuit it from what you can perceive using instrumentation and observation of it's behavior.| I take the more prosaic view that if it looks like a chair & you can sit in it, it's a chair. But maybe that's just me. |
Not just you, but the vast majority of humankind. Few of us have access to an electron microscope. Nor did Aristotle. |
Right. See above. And we don't have access to a subatomic microscope, or whatever future new technology will open up a whole new level of "reality". And no matter how advanced intelligent life becomes, there will/would presumably be aspects of "reality" that they could reach but haven't yet, and won't ever. Again...tested & judged using senses? Looking awfully circular here...in my perception, informed by my senses.
|
Zebra you would certainly become dizzy watching David Copperfield vanish an elephant in front of your eyes. The circularity of your senses telling you that the damn elephant vanished then the rationality of your cognition stating that the elephant could not have vanished; yes, but I saw it vanish; no, it could not vanish until you think of the hydraulic lift, trapdoor, lighting tricks, and other mechanism that probably transported the elephant off the stage. If David is kind enough to take you backstage after the performance, you can complete your theory. Your senses conveyed an aspect of the reality of the elephant's disappearance to you to your seat in the theater, you experienced another aspect of the "reality"of the event when you went backstage. |
Hmm, let's try this again using a generic person rather than me. I was actually at a "sleight of hand show" (aka "magic show") last weekend. The guy was good; no elephant disappeared, but he performed some tricks the secret to which were not at all obvious. But I am such a dyed in the wool skeptic that none of it made me dizzy, nor think that what I was seeing seem to happen was actually happening. Although, of course, getting that thrill from the disconnect between "eyes saw it happen" and "experience says it can't happen" is the purpose of "magic".
I think you are attempting to say that because I repeatedly state that one always cannot trust the raw reality of one's perceptions, that that reality is not the "true" reality. It is one of many views or aspects or dimensions of the complete reality. But much as we can only see a portion of a scene through a peephole, only a portion of the complete reality of anything is revealed by our senses. There are not many discrete realities, one replacing the other; rather there are many distinct entities that comprise the gestalt of a given reality. Admittedly, it is simplistic, but again consider the parable of the blind men examining the elephant. Each perceives a different aspect or part of the same reality. And, if not further informed, each will carry a different impression of the reality that is the elephant. But the actual reality of the elephant does not change!
|
I don't disagree, that we never see the full manifestation of the 'reality' of something. But I do find the blind men/elephant analogy too simplistic (actually, too forced).
Let me try one. What direction is "up"? (Every little kid knows that one, right?)
If you point "up", and people all over the world point "up", and someone stationed "up" in space looked "down" & reported his observation, he'd say that people all around the earth were all pointing "out", right? So what is the reality?
To a first approximation, "up" is "up" ("that way" a kid would say, pointing). Very slightly more sophisticated: it's "towards the sky". But of course that's only true when a person's in their usual earth-bound frame of reference; from another frame of reference it's literally very different directions all over the earth, at any one time, and constantly changing. (But we don't think about that; why should we?)
More sophisticated, I propose, is that "up" means "opposite direction from perceivable gravitational force". This captures (1) the absence of any "up" outside of any significant gravitational field (e.g. on current spacecraft) and (2) the difficulty we have in determining which way is "up" when the senses we use to determine gravitational force are not operating normally (e.g. inner ear & proprioceptive senses, for example during/after an underwater somersault - at least that's what I experience then). And it's not a different conception of reality, it's a bigger-picture one which incorporates the more basic "up" reality-conception.
In closing, I'm not quite sure what I'm arguing other than we [humans] do the best we can, trying to confirm our sensory experiences to be sure we're not getting fooled, but not always having an outside frame of reference, or the know-how, to do so.
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 01:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
In engaging Zebra, I felt it necessary to respond directly to several concepts he expressed... |
I believe "she" to be a more accurate representation of reality, within the limits of my or anyone's ability to make that determination.
Originally posted by bngbuck
...concerning the nature of "reality", admittedly a intellectual construct belonging in the fair province of ontology. But my orientation in these areas is strongly structured by the parameters and nature of perception; here, the perception of "reality". I, like you, feel that debate or discussion as to the existence, nature, or essence of "being" is largely worthless; but this is in direct contradiction to my evaluation of the value of thought or conversation about the perception of being - "reality" if you like.
I basically eschew the basic premises of a philosophy of ontology, fairly mocked by the famous "angels dancing on the head of pin" derogation, but I do feel that there may be useful results in studying and investigating the nature of knowledge; perhaps as a father discipline to the legitimate psychological arenas of learning theory and definition of intelligence.
I don't think your comment was mere semantic quibbling, but it might be more fairly put to note that the discussion had morphed from an epistemological structure to one of a more ontological nature. |
It began ontologic and has come back around full circle. We could follow the example of the German language and call this an ontophenomenoepistemontologic argument.
Edited to correct a late-night typo
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 11/15/2009 01:44:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 10:08:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
From that and several other of his statements, I took it that his was basically a commentary about what he could or could not know. So, as the discussion turned to the nature of "reality", I felt that the emphasis had been on the questions of "what is knowledge?" and "does knowledge exist?"
My comments have been largely directed to my understanding of how human beings perceive reality and process that information. In engaging Zebra, I felt it necessary to respond directly to several concepts he expressed concerning the nature of "reality", admittedly a intellectual construct belonging in the fair province of ontology. But my orientation in these areas is strongly structured by the parameters and nature of perception; here, the perception of "reality". I, like you, feel that debate or discussion as to the existence, nature, or essence of "being" is largely worthless; but this is in direct contradiction to my evaluation of the value of thought or conversation about the perception of being - "reality" if you like.
I basically eschew the basic premises of a philosophy of ontology, fairly mocked by the famous "angels dancing on the head of pin" derogation, but I do feel that there may be useful results in studying and investigating the nature of knowledge; perhaps as a father discipline to the legitimate psychological arenas of learning theory and definition of intelligence.
I don't think your comment was mere semantic quibbling, but it might be more fairly put to note that the discussion had morphed from an epistemological structure to one of a more ontological nature. |
Knowledge is, and must be, independent of perception. As we both understand, there are lots of things we perceive which are just wrong. And science is an epistemic method that functions just fine without any reliance on any particular perceptive tool(s). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 16:13:05 [Permalink]
|
Computer failure. Will try to return.
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/15/2009 16:14:51 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2009 : 17:43:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Computer failure. Will try to return.
|
"God works in mysterious ways"? [/kidding] |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 02:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Zebra, m'am.......
| I believe "she" to be a more accurate representation of reality, within the limits of my or anyone's ability to make that determination. |
Zebra, my sincere apology for the implied chauvinism in my use of the masculine pronoun. Obviously it was outside of the limits of my ability to consider the options. Your surgical training is evident! Ouch!
To the best of my limited knowledge of zoology, both Hippotigris and Dolichohippus come in two genders, but naturally I didn't bother to think of that!| It began ontologic and has come back around full circle. We could follow the example of the German language and call this an ontophenomenoepistemontologic argument. |
Eine großartige Sprachneuschöpfung!| But these questions have been around for centuries, and hashed over many times. Though it's interesting to think about these things, I see little sense in trying to re-invent the ontologic wheel. |
The fact that they have been considered seriously for centuries by a historical panoply of fine minds, have not yet been defined completely, and still attract the attention of thoughtful people is what fascinates me about these concepts!
As to reinvention of the wheel; Consider, for a minute, the person that first thought of using a sphere as a wheel, invented the ball caster, and opened an entirely new area of mechanics!| However, I don't think that's the right word here, since it means "the use of more words than are necessary" or "a redundant word or expression". "Actual reality" would be pleonastic, but "Reality is what's real" is just circular. |
You don't think that "Reality denotes what is real" is redundant? How about " déjà vu all over again"? But, as you say:| Aren't most if not all definitions circular, eventually? Esp. once you consider the definition of the words used to define the word you're considering, and their definitions, etc. |
I think this really starts to resemble semantic quibbling, although the difference in concept between ontology and epistemology may deserve recognition (if you really think there is any merit at all in an ontological discussion!) Actually, the value in definitive synonyms is in offering alternative meaning descriptions, hopefully to enhance understanding of the meaning of the word. And to make people blink!
Actually, I delight in freely using unusual words simply to con the innocent into believing that I have a vast vocabulary. The truth is I have a wonderful one-stroke thesaurus on my toolbar standing at attention at all times!| So it's probably just as well that I didn't try to take philosophy classes. "Perception is the only reality" is a narcissistic view and can't possibly be true (she {Aha!} says, whacking with a scythe at centuries of philosophical thought). |
Well, my personal bias abhors the word "impossible", but after some academic exposure to probability theory, I can reluctantly accept "extremely unlikely". It is extremely difficult to prove that the statement is not true, unless one accepts common sense as arbiter of truth. (Dave's philosophical thinking inclines in this direction, as does Kil's.) It is extremely difficult to prove that the statement is true, also! Common sense is no help!| That, or the definition of "perception" would have to include everything that could be perceived, or that will be perceived, even if only indirectly, at some future time. Were genes real before Mendel? Was DNA real before Watson and Crick? Is the dark side of the moon real? Are galaxies too far off to observe with present technology real? Are subatomic particles real? Etc. |
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. However, consider the problem of that that may, or must (mathematically), exist but is incapable of perception. A few years back, the planet Pluto fell into that category. We, of course, now know that the rock exists, not necessarily as a planet however. Later this very month, we may learn of the proof of existence of the Higgs boson. Much more "reality" will likely come into scrutiny if the answer is "yes". As of today, I think we can fairly speak of the 'conditional reality' of HB. It is a useful concept.| Actually, lacking any subtlety or much education outside of science, I meant the more prosaic meaning - "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc." But I do agree that your interpretation of my question seems like a good question to me, and another unanswerable one. |
I cannot agree that you lack subtlety, I appreciate your not twisting the scalpel, insertion was sufficient!! But, to me, the distinction between "mere semantics" and a true philosophical discussion or dissertation is that the latter does communicate some new information, a novel viewpoint, an alternative explanation, or perhaps just an obscure word!| The theory that "the sun rises" also fits perfectly with what people have observed for millions of years, and which children and people who don't happen to be thinking about heliocentrism observe at the horizon every morning. If you require that all potential human knowledge be included in the conclusion about what reality is, then I would feel safest in assuming that we do not know the "reality" about anything. |
My sense is that you would be very safe in assuming that we do not know a fraction of the full or complete reality of anything; with the possible exception of some topics of the discipline of mathematics. I seriously doubt that the human race will exist long enough to even begin to understand what it would mean, what the context would be, to really understand "reality"! I do optimistically believe that mankind is accruing knowledge, information, and even sapience as time passes; the first two at an astonishing rate, the latter at a snail's pace!| Many optical illusions cause the same visual experience the same every time a person looks at them (while others, particularly those in which recognizable shapes are hidden then found, are experienced differently before and after the "aha" moment of seeing the shape). Does the repeated, unchanging experience mean that the illusion is "real"? |
My view is that all illusions are reality. The illusion is the reality of one phenomenon -- an illusory event; the "real" event or object which the illusion images is the reality of another phenomenon -- an "actual" event or object. I do not feel that an illusion has to be repeated to be "real". Neither do I mean that the sense in which I am using the word 'reality' here is to say there is no difference between an illusion and the thing of which it is an illusion. Two perceptions, one illusory, one not, both "reality"
Another way of putting this is: If anything can be perceived, it is properly described as reality. This is not to say that perception is reality, only that perception can define reality. The two terms are not mutually inclusive.| Fixed hallucinations reflect the 'reality' that the person's brain keeps experiencing some abnormal activity interpreted as sensory input, but does that mean the person's experience reflects in any way anything that someone outside of that particular skull would consider to be "reality"? |
Lacking both credentials and training, I would not presume to offer a definition of the nature of clinical hypnogogia/hypnopompia (or any other of the medically defined hallucnatory states) as any but a philosophic speculation. This, to me, is actually the most difficult and intriguing area of the theory of knowledge -- perception without stimulus (as commonly understood from the sensory organs). It is pretty well understood that hallucination differs from dreaming in that dreamers are asleep, hallucination occurs in a wakeful mode, presumably with the sensory modalities functioning normally.
As with illusion, my sense is that hallucination should be included in the universe of that which is reality. The fact that vivid imagery, olfactory and tactile sensation, etc. can be experienced without actual source referents or involvement of the sense receptors puts this unusual mental condition in a class by itself as far as the relationship between perception and reality is concerned.
Can there be perception without involvement of the sensory organs? Obviously, the answer is yes. We have previously considered the possibility of reality without perception and concluded that, very probably, reality does not require perception; although perception very frequently is a prelude to the ideation of reality. That being the case, there does not appear to me to be any reason that the same thought processes that originate in the reception of stimuli by sensory organs could not be created completely within the brain itself.
Are those thought processes -- the experiencing of images, odors, sounds, etc., reality? I say yes. But, as before, discrete from their counterparts that are generated by the functioning sense organs. I see no way to logically demonstrate that one experience is reality, and the other is not, other than to simply categorically state that one is reality and the other not, and then emphasize my omniscience by declarations of "bullshit" or "hogwash" or the like, in characterizing any other view. We are exploring an area of inquiry as-yet-undetermined by scientific methodology; consequently all that can be offered by anyone is opinion, but I have encountered dogmatic declaration in these matters. I do not arrogate to myself that degree of understanding of questions not yet answered. | And we don't have access to a subatomic microscope, or whatever future new technology will open up a whole new level of "reality". And no matter how advanced intelligent life becomes, there will/would presumably be aspects of "reality" that they could reach but haven't yet, and won't ever |
Well, we certainly agree heartily here. I am basically optimistic that the acquisition of knowledge and information will continue at an ever-increasing asymptotic rate. I dearly wish that I could be as optimistic as to humankind's accumulation and retention of wisdom as the years and eons pass. A look around the world today is not reassuring!| I was actually at a "sleight of hand show" (aka "magic show") last weekend. The guy was good; no elephant disappeared, but he performed some tricks the secret to which were not at all obvious. |
Well, now comes the dénouement Did you consider the experience of seeing the apparently impossible trick "reality"? If not, why? If you point "up", and people all over the world point "up", and someone stationed "up" in space looked "down" & reported his observation, he'd say that people all around the earth were all pointing "out", right? So what is the reality?
|
| To a first approximation, "up" is "up" ("that way" a kid would say, pointing). Very slightly more sophisticated: it's "towards the sky". |
| And it's not a different conception of reality, it's a bigger-picture one which incorporates the more basic "up" reality-conception. |
Now that is what I'm saying. We are definitely on the same frequency at this juncture Zebra. I have a new favorite zoo animal!| In closing, I'm not quite sure what I'm arguing other than we [humans] do the best we can, trying to confirm our sensory experiences to be sure we're not getting fooled, but not always having an outside frame of reference, or the know-how, to do so. |
It appears to me that you are on pretty solid ground as to what you are "arguing". And as you appear to basically agree with several of my exploratory opinions, I have to applaud your astuteness. I doubt that you will be frequently fooled in your life's journey.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 12:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Zebress......
| "God works in mysterious ways"? [/kidding] |
I hope you're kidding. I have been battling the Great God Gates and his infernal organization, Macroshaft, for about the last week and, of course, I'm losing. Turns out I need at least 512x2 more gags of CRAM! (I think that's what he said) I went to the store, only it was a grocery store and I came home with Spam. Well, that stuff makes me gag, alright, and I already have a ton of it, so I trashed the whole fucking machine and bought a new one. Hope to learn how to use it by Christmas! 2012! Just in time for a happy forevermore with Windows seven come eleven. Hope you find time to read it!
This is all just a thinly veiled bump, of course, because I finally got the mf'r to run long enough to get off a response post in poor, long-lost Joshua's thread about lack of self-image, or whatever it was. Hope you find time to read it!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 18:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have been battling the Great God Gates and his infernal organization, Macroshaft, for about the last week and, of course, I'm losing. Turns out I need at least 512x2 more gags of CRAM! (I think that's what he said) I went to the store, only it was a grocery store and I came home with Spam. Well, that stuff makes me gag, alright, and I already have a ton of it, so I trashed the whole fucking machine and bought a new one. Hope to learn how to use it by Christmas! 2012! Just in time for a happy forevermore with Windows seven come eleven. Hope you find time to read it! |
It's all about the Pentiums, baby!"I'm down with Bill Gates
I call him 'Money' for short
I phone him up at home
And make him do my tech support" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 18:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have been battling the Great God Gates and his infernal organization, Macroshaft, for about the last week and, of course, I'm losing. Turns out I need at least 512x2 more gags of CRAM! (I think that's what he said) I went to the store, only it was a grocery store and I came home with Spam. Well, that stuff makes me gag, alright, and I already have a ton of it, so I trashed the whole fucking machine and bought a new one. Hope to learn how to use it by Christmas! 2012! Just in time for a happy forevermore with Windows seven come eleven. Hope you find time to read it! |
It's all about the Pentiums, baby!"I'm down with Bill Gates
I call him 'Money' for short
I phone him up at home
And make him do my tech support"
|
Ha! And that's why I use a, well, never mind... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 23:52:56 [Permalink]
|
Zebra.....
One more bump and I'm a chump!
Hope you haven't retired to the savannah, exhausted by the pincushions bursting with angelic terpsichore that have been on display here for the past week or so!
Damn, I felt I had just about hit full stride when It That Must Be Obeyed decided to take a massive crap and I completely lost the momentum (and about 5 pages of text)! I finally got a 21st century machine and everything's running pretty well now.
Anyway, all I was still really curious about was the answer to this one:| Did you consider the experience of seeing the apparently impossible trick "reality"? If not, why? |
I have James Randi's answer to this apparently innocent question, and I was interested in how you would see it. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 00:15:52 [Permalink]
|
Bill said:
| I felt I had just about hit full stride when It That Must Be Obeyed decided to take a massive crap and I completely lost the momentum |
Eat some bran muffins or something.
Your colon will thank you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 11:51:59 [Permalink]
|
Dude.......
Acting on your advice, I ate a dozen bran muffins.
Didn't improve my computer's performance a bit, but if what my colon is doing is gratitude, I'm through taking your tips, you maroramom!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 18:19:10 [Permalink]
|
I only told you to eat one! 
Any consequences for your lack of moderation are entirely your own fault.
As for your computer.... If you feed it bran muffins, I doubt it will work better.
 |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2009 : 22:20:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I only told you to eat one! |
No, you specifically told him to eat "some," and used "muffinS," plural. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reality
